The King’s Speech: salient points

Film Appreciation with K S Sivakumaran

I must confess that I couldn’t understand a greater part of the film The King’s Speech for several reasons. First - the film fails to establish the context in such a way that the 21st century viewers could comprehend it in an intelligible manner. Although the film attempts to show the love – hate relationship between a monarch and a speech-therapist during the early decades of the past century and a success story of a stammered person (of German origin mastering the English language) overcoming his physical inability.

Colin Firth in The King’s Speech

It is yet an imaginative interpretation of a historical event. It is true that the focus is on King George VI who by circumstances assumes power as the King of England; and yet the details regarding King George V and Edward who should have been the successor could have been given a little more expansively through visuals.

Second – I failed to understand the speech patterns of the protagonist – babbling, muffled, murky and voiceless. His figure, manners, stern face and lack of clarity in speech when he doesn’t stammer at once create an ‘anti’ feeling towards him. On the other hand, as if it to contrast Queen Elizabeth’s speech is clear to anyone who would listen to her voice.

I must hasten to say however that the playing these two roles both Colin Firth as a stuttering future king of England and Helena Bonham Carter as Queen Elizabeth in her younger days almost justifiably proved their very understanding actors. Particularly Helena Bonham acts with her eyes and natural expressions in showing her concern and love to her husband who had some kind of insanity traits. And Firth plays his role as desired by the director Tom Hooper on lines suggested by storywriter David Seidler.

They both have done a remarkable job and they deserve commendation.

But my grudge is not about acting but against the poor understanding of translating a poorly written script into the cinema medium. The film has no universal appeal but a hodgepodge of juvenile exercise in filmmaking. But understandably, a British critic by name Christopher Hitchens writing to the Guardian UK, has more favourable reaction to the film.

Although he agrees that the film ‘is riddled with gross falsification of history’, he jubilantly declares that film is “an extremely well-made film with cute and seductive human interest plot, very prettily calculated to appeal to the smarter filmgoer and the latent Anglophile”

It may be that I am not ‘ a smarter filmgoer and Anglophile’, but certainly some Asian, African and Latin American films have shown the world that they are better film makers than the contemporary filmmakers of Europe who are commissioned to do any type of stupid films with the European Union Grants.

So, I as an Asian filmgoer I negate the exuberance expressed by such critics, the primary reason being that they do not have human appeal. Even beyond the Atlantic, they depend on Greek and Indian mythologies to re-interpret ‘meta-realistic’ stories with manipulation derived from modern technology. The European Humanism is no more evident in films made in the west these days.

All in all I tried to appreciate The King’s Speech to the best of my ability, but the clumsy way the film had been made me to inform readers that not all the films made are really good cinema.

But you can have your own choice in determining what really ‘good cinema’ is and of course tastes differ. But if the fundamentals lack poor execution, then any discerning filmgoer can feel the inadequacy.

sivakumaran.ks @gmail.com

..................................

<< Artscope Main Page