The King's Speech reviews
(Damien @Jan. 31 2011,12:40)
You've never seen stuffed animals before?
Edited By Sabin on 1296477555
The characters in The King's Speech were much more textured than the cliches that populated The Social Network so yes I saw original elements of human nature in the Hooper film. I'd never been exposed to royals quite like those created by Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter.
You've never seen stuffed animals before?
Edited By Sabin on 1296477555
"How's the despair?"
Sonic Youth wrote:Damien wrote:Sonic Youth wrote:
Sure it was. In its telling of the creation of Facebook, it was also a sharp allegory of Big Business's worst and most hedonistic excesses - the backstabbing, the disloyalty, the unallegiance, the disregard for law and rules and proper process; also the elaborate parties, the orgies, the trophy females, the celebrity status etc... only practiced/celebrated by energy drink besotted 20 year olds. Remember the Enron toga parties? It would appear that college cultre would be the basis for such a way of life.
Then there's also the generational divide among the wealthy class, the older code-of-honor bound and the freewheeling youth; the differences between the entrenched Establishment and how the young upstarts (start-ups?) try to break through; the abundance of leisure and how it's the designated holy grail for personal and financial success, etc. Other than "Exit Through the Gift Shop", there was no other film I saw this year that was so thematically rich.
If only it was a little, well... better, but you can't have everything.
Well, let me put it another way: It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It lacks illumination.
Very few movies tell me something I didn't already know, unless they're documentaries dealing out factual information. When you get to a certain age, you're probably pretty familiar with all of the question's that have plagued mankind. I'm more interested in how a movie approaches these issues and if it has a point of view, which TSN certainly does. Was there anything illuminating about The King's Speech?
The characters in The King's Speech were much more textured than the cliches that populated The Social Network so yes I saw original elements of human nature in the Hooper film. I'd never been exposed to royals quite like those created by Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter.
Is there anything in The Social Network that wasn't in Oliver Stone's Wall Street (1987)?
Edited By Damien on 1296461249
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Very few movies tell me something I didn't already know, unless they're documentaries dealing out factual information. When you get to a certain age, you're probably pretty familiar with all of the question's that have plagued mankind. I'm more interested in how a movie approaches these issues and if it has a point of view, which TSN certainly does. Was there anything illuminating about The King's Speech?Damien wrote:Well, let me put it another way: It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It lacks illumination.Sonic Youth wrote:Sure it was. In its telling of the creation of Facebook, it was also a sharp allegory of Big Business's worst and most hedonistic excesses - the backstabbing, the disloyalty, the unallegiance, the disregard for law and rules and proper process; also the elaborate parties, the orgies, the trophy females, the celebrity status etc... only practiced/celebrated by energy drink besotted 20 year olds. Remember the Enron toga parties? It would appear that college cultre would be the basis for such a way of life.Damien wrote:I don't think The Social Network is about anything. Other than the creation of Facebook.
Then there's also the generational divide among the wealthy class, the older code-of-honor bound and the freewheeling youth; the differences between the entrenched Establishment and how the young upstarts (start-ups?) try to break through; the abundance of leisure and how it's the designated holy grail for personal and financial success, etc. Other than "Exit Through the Gift Shop", there was no other film I saw this year that was so thematically rich.
If only it was a little, well... better, but you can't have everything.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
As it happened, I saw The King's Speech yesterday evening, before the DGA awards. I was already 75% convinced this would be 2010's Best Picture winner, and I felt I should give it another shot. Plus, my wife looooves the movie so it's not like I had options. Ultimately, the things about the movie I enjoyed in the first place I ended up enjoying even more. And the things I didn't like I still don't like. Not much has changed. (Also, the theater was packed and everyone loved it. That hasn't changed either.) But I have two huge pet peeves about the movie, one of which I've already mentioned. They are extremely petty, or so I can gather from the responses I get from other people when I mention them: "Oh, Sonic!" (wince). Okay, they're petty. But they bug me to no end.
First, what was with the Beethoven on the soundtrack? Bertie's finally making his titular speech to the entire country over the wireless, and it's the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th symphony. Here's the newly annointed King of England essentially declaring war on Germany... accompanied by Germany's greatest composer. It's stirring, it's effective, it's of absolutely no historical context whatsover. But for a movie that condences 13 years of history down to 3 or 4 for the purposes of an effective film, I suppose it's not surprising. Granted, it's not "Flight of the Valkyries" but was there no patriotic British music they could have used instead? What next? Hitler's Danzig speech set to Chopin's "Polonaise in A"? Stalin's Red Square speech accompanied by Aaron Copland's "Appalachian Spring"?
That they used any soaring musical accompaniment gets a deduction of points from me anyway. The audience should have heard the speech the same way the people of Great Britain heard it: in silence. The point of the speech's significance is not only how he said it, but what he said. Now they're just words blanketed by music. Still, if you have to use music you may as well go for the tried-and-true. The movie is wise to eschew Desplat's theme-less, lugubrious melancholy for the most important scenes and use Mozart and Beethoven instead. Those stirring final fifteen minutes? Beethoven's 7th symphony, followed by the achingly beautiful Adagio from his Piano Concerto no. 5, and then the opening passages of Mozart's Clarinet concerto, IMO one of the ten greatest compositions ever written. If Desplat wins the Oscar, he has those two to thank. (In fact, hang around during the closing credits, and Desplat's music is - intentionally, I'm sure - a slightly altered replication of Beethoven's Adagio. Aren't there eligibility rules against this sort of thing?)
The second pet peeve: that hideous wall. Seriously, what was that about? This was the room Louge trained his clients, a huge hideous backdrop totally unconducive for learning. Is this meant to be an accurate replication of Louge's back office? I guess there's nothing to be done about it, if it's true, although Hopper seems way to eager to feature it as a supporting player. If it was created by scratch for the film, it may well be the most miguided production design I've ever seen. This is pushing the issue to the extreme: See? Logue isn't wealthy. He's struggling. But he's also a non-conformist, an individualist, even an artist. He has no concerns about what other's think of him. And the hideous wall is evidence of this. Why else would he have no shame in bringing his clients to such a nausea-inducing room?
Whenever these pedigreed British histories are released, the joke is always "Of course the film wasn't created in order to win Oscars. It's clear that it was made in order to win Baftas!" More likely, it was made in order to inspire British audiences. It's a piece of cinematic patriotism. Fair enough. The Brits are entitled to celebrate their country as much as anyone else is. But unwavering fealty and devotion to the status quo can result in a film that's rather - not to put too find a point on it - damned BORING to non-Brits like me. All the scenes between Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are what make the movie, two great actors who don't just play their roles on a line-by-line or scene-by-scene basis, but look as if they've studied these characters and worked out the entire dramatic arc before filming. Watching two character's relationships with each other gradually develop during the course of a film can be among the most bracing movie-going experiences, and they do quite well here, even when they're forced to recite some icky psycho-babble midway through the film. (As far as I'm concerned, the film is really a love story between the two... but I'll get into that another time.) But when the film focuses on other members of the Royal Family, particularly in the first half - the death of King George V, Prince Edward's dalliances with the American socialite - the film is just downright dull. The beautifully sustained narrative between King and teacher is nowhere to be found once the focus shifts from them. And this is one of the major flaws of The King's Speech. The film isn't epic, thankfully, but it's not intimate, either. It's as insular as the Royal Family itself. The horribly lit scenes and constricting sets (again, mostly in the first half) are part of the problem. But it's also because the film doesn't have any interest in showing us world opinion of the Royal Family, or the potential consequences their action have, outside of nervous discussions within the Family. Much is made of Edward's affair and the jeapordizing of his ascension to the throne. Would it have hurt the film to have stepped outside the inner circle and show us the scope of the scandal, show us how the rest of England reacted to what was going on? Maybe it isn't necessary for British audiences. But this isn't a stage play and demonstrating the huge national implications only through brow-furrowed conversations may not be the weightiest approach to the material. In fact, it exacerbates the overall claustrophobic feeling.
Saying Hooper's approach is just "point and shoot" isn't really fair. Here and there, I noticed some inventiveness and modest little touches that show a filmmaker who is at least putting real thought into his material. But there's a difference between thought and judgement. I also saw visual cliches (the good ol' overhead staircase shot, here with a fish-eye lens). And while there are some interesting framing decisions during the speech therapy sessions, there are also lots and lots of misguided ones. The SAG broadcast showed the clip of Elizabeth and Logue having their first meeting. She's framed on the right side of the screen with the entryway to her right taking up most of the shot. Cut to Logue on the left side with his entryway dominating. I see no reason for this. There's nothing evocative about it. The camera feels misplaced. It doesn't even look nice. It just feels off. It's as if Hooper thought he'd try a little bit of everything and hope something will cohere. Half of it felt dim and sufocating. (Were the shots in the halls and stairways in Logue's building so dimly lit to show how bland a lower-middle class existence in England was back then?) On the other hand, images of a park on a foggy day were some of the most beautiful I've seen all year. And the "long walk" to the isolated studio where he makes his big speech is as well shot and edited as anyone could wish for. And here, the claustrophbia worked.
Crap, I'm exhausted. I'll get to the acting tomorrow. Or never. Good night.
First, what was with the Beethoven on the soundtrack? Bertie's finally making his titular speech to the entire country over the wireless, and it's the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th symphony. Here's the newly annointed King of England essentially declaring war on Germany... accompanied by Germany's greatest composer. It's stirring, it's effective, it's of absolutely no historical context whatsover. But for a movie that condences 13 years of history down to 3 or 4 for the purposes of an effective film, I suppose it's not surprising. Granted, it's not "Flight of the Valkyries" but was there no patriotic British music they could have used instead? What next? Hitler's Danzig speech set to Chopin's "Polonaise in A"? Stalin's Red Square speech accompanied by Aaron Copland's "Appalachian Spring"?
That they used any soaring musical accompaniment gets a deduction of points from me anyway. The audience should have heard the speech the same way the people of Great Britain heard it: in silence. The point of the speech's significance is not only how he said it, but what he said. Now they're just words blanketed by music. Still, if you have to use music you may as well go for the tried-and-true. The movie is wise to eschew Desplat's theme-less, lugubrious melancholy for the most important scenes and use Mozart and Beethoven instead. Those stirring final fifteen minutes? Beethoven's 7th symphony, followed by the achingly beautiful Adagio from his Piano Concerto no. 5, and then the opening passages of Mozart's Clarinet concerto, IMO one of the ten greatest compositions ever written. If Desplat wins the Oscar, he has those two to thank. (In fact, hang around during the closing credits, and Desplat's music is - intentionally, I'm sure - a slightly altered replication of Beethoven's Adagio. Aren't there eligibility rules against this sort of thing?)
The second pet peeve: that hideous wall. Seriously, what was that about? This was the room Louge trained his clients, a huge hideous backdrop totally unconducive for learning. Is this meant to be an accurate replication of Louge's back office? I guess there's nothing to be done about it, if it's true, although Hopper seems way to eager to feature it as a supporting player. If it was created by scratch for the film, it may well be the most miguided production design I've ever seen. This is pushing the issue to the extreme: See? Logue isn't wealthy. He's struggling. But he's also a non-conformist, an individualist, even an artist. He has no concerns about what other's think of him. And the hideous wall is evidence of this. Why else would he have no shame in bringing his clients to such a nausea-inducing room?
Whenever these pedigreed British histories are released, the joke is always "Of course the film wasn't created in order to win Oscars. It's clear that it was made in order to win Baftas!" More likely, it was made in order to inspire British audiences. It's a piece of cinematic patriotism. Fair enough. The Brits are entitled to celebrate their country as much as anyone else is. But unwavering fealty and devotion to the status quo can result in a film that's rather - not to put too find a point on it - damned BORING to non-Brits like me. All the scenes between Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are what make the movie, two great actors who don't just play their roles on a line-by-line or scene-by-scene basis, but look as if they've studied these characters and worked out the entire dramatic arc before filming. Watching two character's relationships with each other gradually develop during the course of a film can be among the most bracing movie-going experiences, and they do quite well here, even when they're forced to recite some icky psycho-babble midway through the film. (As far as I'm concerned, the film is really a love story between the two... but I'll get into that another time.) But when the film focuses on other members of the Royal Family, particularly in the first half - the death of King George V, Prince Edward's dalliances with the American socialite - the film is just downright dull. The beautifully sustained narrative between King and teacher is nowhere to be found once the focus shifts from them. And this is one of the major flaws of The King's Speech. The film isn't epic, thankfully, but it's not intimate, either. It's as insular as the Royal Family itself. The horribly lit scenes and constricting sets (again, mostly in the first half) are part of the problem. But it's also because the film doesn't have any interest in showing us world opinion of the Royal Family, or the potential consequences their action have, outside of nervous discussions within the Family. Much is made of Edward's affair and the jeapordizing of his ascension to the throne. Would it have hurt the film to have stepped outside the inner circle and show us the scope of the scandal, show us how the rest of England reacted to what was going on? Maybe it isn't necessary for British audiences. But this isn't a stage play and demonstrating the huge national implications only through brow-furrowed conversations may not be the weightiest approach to the material. In fact, it exacerbates the overall claustrophobic feeling.
Saying Hooper's approach is just "point and shoot" isn't really fair. Here and there, I noticed some inventiveness and modest little touches that show a filmmaker who is at least putting real thought into his material. But there's a difference between thought and judgement. I also saw visual cliches (the good ol' overhead staircase shot, here with a fish-eye lens). And while there are some interesting framing decisions during the speech therapy sessions, there are also lots and lots of misguided ones. The SAG broadcast showed the clip of Elizabeth and Logue having their first meeting. She's framed on the right side of the screen with the entryway to her right taking up most of the shot. Cut to Logue on the left side with his entryway dominating. I see no reason for this. There's nothing evocative about it. The camera feels misplaced. It doesn't even look nice. It just feels off. It's as if Hooper thought he'd try a little bit of everything and hope something will cohere. Half of it felt dim and sufocating. (Were the shots in the halls and stairways in Logue's building so dimly lit to show how bland a lower-middle class existence in England was back then?) On the other hand, images of a park on a foggy day were some of the most beautiful I've seen all year. And the "long walk" to the isolated studio where he makes his big speech is as well shot and edited as anyone could wish for. And here, the claustrophbia worked.
Crap, I'm exhausted. I'll get to the acting tomorrow. Or never. Good night.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Yep. That's Aaron Sorkin in a nutshell.Damien wrote:Well, let me put it another way: It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It lacks illumination.Sonic Youth wrote:Sure it was. In its telling of the creation of Facebook, it was also a sharp allegory of Big Business's worst and most hedonistic excesses - the backstabbing, the disloyalty, the unallegiance, the disregard for law and rules and proper process; also the elaborate parties, the orgies, the trophy females, the celebrity status etc... only practiced/celebrated by energy drink besotted 20 year olds. Remember the Enron toga parties? It would appear that college cultre would be the basis for such a way of life.Damien wrote:I don't think The Social Network is about anything. Other than the creation of Facebook.
Then there's also the generational divide among the wealthy class, the older code-of-honor bound and the freewheeling youth; the differences between the entrenched Establishment and how the young upstarts (start-ups?) try to break through; the abundance of leisure and how it's the designated holy grail for personal and financial success, etc. Other than "Exit Through the Gift Shop", there was no other film I saw this year that was so thematically rich.
If only it was a little, well... better, but you can't have everything.
Well, let me put it another way: It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It lacks illumination.Sonic Youth wrote:Sure it was. In its telling of the creation of Facebook, it was also a sharp allegory of Big Business's worst and most hedonistic excesses - the backstabbing, the disloyalty, the unallegiance, the disregard for law and rules and proper process; also the elaborate parties, the orgies, the trophy females, the celebrity status etc... only practiced/celebrated by energy drink besotted 20 year olds. Remember the Enron toga parties? It would appear that college cultre would be the basis for such a way of life.Damien wrote:I don't think The Social Network is about anything. Other than the creation of Facebook.
Then there's also the generational divide among the wealthy class, the older code-of-honor bound and the freewheeling youth; the differences between the entrenched Establishment and how the young upstarts (start-ups?) try to break through; the abundance of leisure and how it's the designated holy grail for personal and financial success, etc. Other than "Exit Through the Gift Shop", there was no other film I saw this year that was so thematically rich.
If only it was a little, well... better, but you can't have everything.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Sure it was. In its telling of the creation of Facebook, it was also a sharp allegory of Big Business's worst and most hedonistic excesses - the backstabbing, the disloyalty, the unallegiance, the disregard for law and rules and proper process; also the elaborate parties, the orgies, the trophy females, the celebrity status etc... only practiced/celebrated by energy drink besotted 20 year olds. Remember the Enron toga parties? It would appear that college cultre would be the basis for such a way of life.Damien wrote:I don't think The Social Network is about anything. Other than the creation of Facebook.
Then there's also the generational divide among the wealthy class, the older code-of-honor bound and the freewheeling youth; the differences between the entrenched Establishment and how the young upstarts (start-ups?) try to break through; the abundance of leisure and how it's the designated holy grail for personal and financial success, etc. Other than "Exit Through the Gift Shop", there was no other film I saw this year that was so thematically rich.
If only it was a little, well... better, but you can't have everything.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
I don't think The Social Network is about anything. Other than the creation of Facebook. Just like 1938's Suez was not about anything but the creation of the Suez Canal.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
What does it have to say? It's right up there on the screen! That's commentary enough, yes?Sabin wrote:Wow. The Social Network is kinda about that too. I think The Social Network might be about that more so than The King's Speech. What does The King's Speech have to say about reverse-emasculation, self-discovery and most importantly maintaining the wealthy, aristocratic, God-given status quo through media domination?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Wow. The Social Network is kinda about that too. I think The Social Network might be about that more so than The King's Speech. What does The King's Speech have to say about reverse-emasculation, self-discovery and most importantly maintaining the wealthy, aristocratic, God-given status quo through media domination?
"How's the despair?"