The King's Speech

The King's Speech was very interesting to watch. It is a very touching, and quite inspiring story about a man who is scarred and trapped in a situation from which he can't really escape and is facing it with great courage. The film showed a powerful opening scene which showed the enormity of what was required of him. The film was also very funny and the characters showed how caring and giving they were. I gained insight into a significant period of history. It was very fascinating and enjoyable look into the 20th century British Monarchy from behind-the-scenes. King George VI suffered from a severe speech impediment that initially kept him from being King but being his brother pursued a "scandalous" relationship with an American woman, George was forced to take over for his brother as King. As King, George was forced to give speeches both in person and over the radio in order to keep his country's citizens united and strengthened. George's lack of emotional confidence was the root of his speech impediment. George ultimately found the right guy to help him with the extreme assistance of his wife. The best scenes in the film were between Rush and Firth. Their onscreen chemistry was just perfect. I'm not sure that one could have done it without the other. “Smoke Screen - The movie is full of nuances that the viewer dare not ignore: Notice how Queen Mary can’t embrace her children; how David can taunt Bertie into stuttering; how Wallis can emasculate David (who likes it). The movie also makes several references to the king’s habit of smoking cigarettes. Smoking, he says at one point, was suggested to him by earlier, discredited advisers because it “relaxes the muscles in your throat”. Logue campaigns to get the king to stop smoking. It becomes a bit of a running gag. But the filmmakers were trying in a low-key way to touch upon a serious and sensitive topic: Smoking was ultimately what killed the king.” (http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/ten-secrets-behind-the-making-of-the-kings-speech/) Interview with the Director: “A lot of period movies feel like you could be watching them on the Lifetime channel. They have no cinematic depth. But your movie has a lot of cinematic depth and it belongs on a movie screen. Can you talk about what you did as a director to prepare so that it would be cinematic and not something that you would want to watch on Lifetime? Hooper: That’s interesting. I think one of the things I worked on early was the close-up because of the amount of dialogue and the nature of the emotions that Helena was going to go through. The film’s language was going to be the close-up. There’s no point fighting that because the cinematic close-up was going to be key. So therefore, I thought a lot about how to make the close-up cinematic. Because it can be frustrating shot to frame because in composition terms, it’s the face. If you look at classic Hollywood films, they tend to shoot close-ups on quite long lenses and the background it out of focus. You know, it’s just a mush. So I decided early on that I would consider shooting the close-ups on wider lenses in all. What that does is that, even in the close-up, it draws the art direction and set location into the frame. And the face still remains in communication with the space, which I think is more cinematic. There was particularly a French film I saw years ago called Man Against the World where there were these wonderful simple frame close-ups against wallpaper in a room, which were incredibly powerful. I think of Wong-kar Wai in 2046, who does simple compositions of people. It’s a futuristic movie, but he can shoot someone in mid-shot in a hallway, and the texture of that always fascinates me. It feels very cinematic. More than that, I also began to think, “What is the visual analog? It’s stammering. How do I find a way to shoot Colin that will underline his predicament?” I began to think that if you’re a stutterer, it’s about inhabiting silence, emptiness, and nothingness. Therefore, is there a way visually of talking about that? So I wanted to put Colin’s face in these close shots in constant relation to negative space. So I used these big empty walls in the consulting room in Logue’s apartment and framed Colin against these big empty walls. Sometimes, he’s small against in the corner with the wall above and overpowering him. Sometimes, there’s just a lot of head room. I like that the idea of the conversation and communication behind nothingness is blasted all in the therapy room. Then, if you look at what I’m doing on Geoffrey’s side, Geoffrey is against in the therapy room…it’s sort of a room like a fireplace. It’s all of his pictures, wall, and papers. It’s domestic and it’s cozy. I watched them make that kind of division in the close-up language between these two men and the worlds they came from. Can you talk about the editing process? How long was it for you in the editing room and did you do test screenings or friends and family screenings? Hooper: We finished shooting the film in late January of this year. Tariq Anwar is a superb editor. I mean, he cut American Beauty and The Madness of King George. He’s hugely experienced. I think the rhythm of his editing is astonishingly good. We had a pretty good cut probably 7 or 8 weeks out from the shoot. We tested a cut in New York in April with Harvey Weinstein and we actually got a 93 percent on our New York test, which is very rare I’m told. So I then said to Harvey, “Maybe this is a New York sophisticated thing? I want to know if this plays in somewhere unlike New York” So he set up a test screening in Kansas City and extraordinarily the same result came back with 93 percent in terms of audience response. But I found that test very useful because there were definitely things about the history that people didn’t know. For example, the audience didn’t even know that Wallis Simpson was American unless if you pointed it out. So I definitely had to deal with the work to make sure that the history side was clear because I think I was assuming more knowledge that people had. So the testing process was both very encouraging because of our scores, but also helpful in terms of the clarity of the storytelling. I think we locked up our edit in early May. So it was a good rhythm. It was okay. (http://collider.com/tom-hooper-interview-the-kings-speech/62111/) The production design was perfect. It gave the movie a realistic feel to that time period. Their was great attention to detail from the view of set, location, costume, and prop design. I noticed the use of the wallpaper design, style of clothing and furniture, old radio microphones and technology. I found it ironic and interesting to find out that Lionel wasn't a doctor. Lionel then defending himself by claiming he never said he was a doctor as he kept insisting not to be called doctor, and his office had him listed solely as "Lionel Logue" and not doctor. (Referenced in the text, Irony of Character) The relationship between Lionel and Bertie is the core of this movie, and the best parts of it. We get to see into the personal lives of both men. We see Lionel having conversations with his family trying to obtain their approval and respect. Also, Bertie dealing with the awkwardness of his speech problem while being the heir to the throne. The best moments of the movie involve Bertie and Lionel, preparing and presenting the King's war-time speech, with Lionel in the booth with him directing him, which was so well performed! The King's Speech title symbolizes two meanings (referenced in the text). It references both the speech he gave launching England into war with Germany and his personal voice in dealing with his speech impediment. Firth was a unique character. He played an uptight Englishman with charm. He played opposite of Lionel, who has funny and charming. Lionel was a very caring man. He seemed confused to find out who 'The Johnsons' were, which was comical. He eventually brings Bertie back down to earth and seems to connect Royalty to the every day person. It was interesting to note how frightening it could be to face a microphone with the blinking red light and the instrument itself strung inside a metal frame with springs. The announcer, at the beginning of the film, preparing himself by gargling, spraying his throat and measuring his distance from the microphone makes it all seem like a chore just to say a few words. The director was able to obtain so much drama out of someone's speech impediment, and make such a brilliant movie.