The Social Network speaks coded horrors about the birth of facebook-snark mirroring Zuckerberg but The King's Speech isn't about anything, which I think might be even more unforgivable because it's such a gimme!
That's not true. It's about reverse-emasculation, self-discovery and most importantly maintaining the wealthy, aristocratic, God-given status quo through media domination.
Absolutely. I was referring to what it had to say about Facebook specifically. I don't think it really attempts to delve into what Facebook means as a generational portrait.
The Social Network speaks coded horrors about the birth of facebook-snark mirroring Zuckerberg but The King's Speech isn't about anything, which I think might be even more unforgivable because it's such a gimme!
That's not true. It's about reverse-emasculation, self-discovery and most importantly maintaining the wealthy, aristocratic, God-given status quo through media domination.
Absolutely. I was referring to what it had to say about Facebook specifically. I don't think it really attempts to delve into what Facebook means as a generational portrait.
Sabin wrote:The Social Network speaks coded horrors about the birth of facebook-snark mirroring Zuckerberg but The King's Speech isn't about anything, which I think might be even more unforgivable because it's such a gimme!
That's not true. It's about reverse-emasculation, self-discovery and most importantly maintaining the wealthy, aristocratic, God-given status quo through media domination.
The audience I was with ate up The King's Speech too.
Although I live in Hollywood, I don't claim to have any kind of insider's look at the race. I only know the people I'm around who are also in film and know other people who do. I keep hearing people feeling bullied into loving The Social Network, saying things like "It's okay, but is it Best Picture?" I hear "great filmmaking but not a great film." Now last year was different. The Hurt Locker was something that a lot of people I knew could get into for a few reasons: 1) It was/felt like great filmmaking, 2) had a hip credibility that directly flew in the face of something that felt like "The Enemy" (in this case, contrasting my previous statement, Avatar), and 3) it was an underdog you could root for. The Social Network has some great filmmaking and it is pretty hip, but a lot of people I know really, really love Black Swan, which has just as much innovative filmmaking in it and to some feels like a more complete story. I will say this: Black Swan will cut into The Social Network in a pretty big way. I don't want to get into vote-splitting again but I truly feel this.
Sonic is right on another thread that The King's Speech is only now gaining traction whereas The Social Network has been "The Social Network" for a while. As far as I'm concerned, there is no question between the two. For all the guff, The Social Network gets for "not being about facebook", The King's Speech is even less about the contrast between a man who can speak (Hitler) and a man who can't (George). The Social Network speaks coded horrors about the birth of facebook-snark mirroring Zuckerberg but The King's Speech isn't about anything, which I think might be even more unforgivable because it's such a gimme!
(Cool story I heard about The Social Network: they didn't have a ton of permits when making this film, and Fincher was being forced to shoot on a barren, ugly street that needed lighting. But they couldn't set any of them up. So Fincher dressed a grip up like a mime and gave him a light. The grip did a mime act where they wanted the light to be and then stopped and held up the light in the direction it needed to be during the shot, and then returned to his mime act. No permit needed.)
Yes, as FilmFan says I was referring to REAL duels, which are admittedly more rare than one might think. It also depends on the way one individually perceives the race, and for example I was so sure that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan would have won in their respective years that I didn't even consider a possible alternative. For me, even The Color Purple didn't really have a chance against Out of Africa. And then of course there are years when the dilemma is about a plurality of movies, but true two-way contests like this one don't happen often. Of course by Oscar night the few remaining precursors may give us a clear idea about the final outcome, but right now I'd say that yes, it's still The King's Speech vs The Social Network. (I forgot to say that the audience I saw the movie with yesterday absolutely loved it, which I certainly didn't feel with Fincher's movie. But I know, this is Italy, and we are sentimental...).
Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan was a real enough face-off, but most of us thought by Oscar night that the Spielberg film had staved off the competition. The shock was that we'd calculated incorrectly.
Alot of historic face-offs are also apparent mainly in retrospect. I was a devoted Cabaret fan, but going into prize night I thought The Godfather had things nailed down. The progression of the evening -- Cabaret winning sound and editing, then, most shockingly, Fosse winning best director -- was beyond what I'd dared dream.
If you take the premise that the DGA winner is always the favorite, it's hard to say there's more than occasionally a true mano a mano, but a few that I'd say I've seen over the years were Dr. Zhivago vs. The Sound of Music, The Sting vs. The Exorcist, Godfather II vs. Chinatown, Out of Africa vs. The Color Purple.
More interesting in general have been the plurality winners that, as Sabin correctly says, have dominated recent years. Other examples from the past: the '67 mash-up from which In the Heat of the Night emerged victorious; the Rocky/Network/All the President's Men three-way battle; the '77 free-for-all that miraculously made Woody Allen an Oscar winner; the '81 train wreck about which much has already been written.
The Social Network vs. The King's Speech seems to be a real showdown. I don't think Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker was that real of a showdown, nor Slumdog vs. anything, No Country vs. anything, The Departed vs. anything...I don't even think that Brokeback vs. Crash was that big of a "Showdown". This year it does seem to come down to two pictures and neither one of them is that great. We're seeing a lot of plurality winners, where it basically comes down to a popular favorite (Gladiator, Million Dollar Baby, The Departed) against two or three well-liked-but-not-enough contenders. Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare in Love was real enough, but I think most predictions were down the line for Saving Private Ryan with a few notable exceptions.
I think he is talking about an all out and out duel, as this year is looking to be. Did anyone really doubt that Schindler's List was going to lose? And I don't think Shakespeare in Love was considered too serious of a contender until it was all over!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
ITALIANO wrote:And was I born too late? Others had How Green Was My Valley vs Citizen Kane or All About Eve vs Sunset Boulevard or The Godfather vs Cabaret - I (we) have got The Social Network vs The King's Speech (still slightly better than last year's The Hurt Locker vs Avatar, I know).
When I was your age the choice was between Amadeus and A Passage to India. The biopic won.
Oh, I am old enough to remember that. And it was still a better duel than the one we've got this year.
ITALIANO wrote:And was I born too late? Others had How Green Was My Valley vs Citizen Kane or All About Eve vs Sunset Boulevard or The Godfather vs Cabaret - I (we) have got The Social Network vs The King's Speech (still slightly better than last year's The Hurt Locker vs Avatar, I know).
When I was your age the choice was between Amadeus and A Passage to India. The biopic won.
From a movie which got 12 nominations I honestly expected more. And from a movie which is considered (when it comes to the Oscars) the anti-Social Network I certainly hoped for more. And I actually did enjoy it more than The Social Network - I found it less boring - but is it a better movie? Unfortunately, and objectively, I can't say so.
And was I born too late? Others had How Green Was My Valley vs Citizen Kane or All About Eve vs Sunset Boulevard or The Godfather vs Cabaret - I (we) have got The Social Network vs The King's Speech (still slightly better than last year's The Hurt Locker vs Avatar, I know).
Of course it's predictably well acted. The British are great in this kind of things, and it's true that Colin Firth has a very natural, un-Method like approach both to his character and to his character's stammer. It's a good, even subtle performance - if it's not very profound it's just because the movie itself isn't and doesn't want to be. He was better in A Single Man but I wont complain if he wins for this one - after all, it doesnt happen often that an actor wins for his/her best turn. And he will win, of course - not only for his acting but, I guess, also because he's known as a nice person and because, while his career hasn't always been orthodox, it's been a long one and, in the last few years especially, successful and respected. But most importantly - again - he's a nice person.
Geoffrey Rush has rarely been better - he's very good in this movie - and Helena Bonham Carter does well what she has to do, which isn't much. The movie is pleasant, but it's also rather forgettable; it's simply not very deep, but at least, unlike The Social Network, it doesn't pretend to be deep - and this is why, I believe, it will lost to Fincher's movie.
Visually, it's not interesting nor, I'd say, very attractive. There are moments - the close ups especially - when the way it was directed and shot made me cringe. Best Cinematography is probably its most puzzling nomination - but frankly even its Art Direction and its Costumes probably wouldnt have been nominated (let alone win) if they belonged to a less popular movie. But it's possible that the movie won't just get Best Actor and (very possibly) Best Original Screenplay.
It's not going to open here for another 2 weeks, so I made the effort and went to a preview screening. Unfortunately, this is not a particularly good film. As someone who grew up watching a lot of British drama, I saw plenty of stuff about the Royal family. This looks just like another piece of that tradition, only with a far, far worse script. And it's the writing which is the Achilles heal of this other wise pleasently made film. It looks like it was based on a research made solely by going on Wikipedia, gathering all the seemingly relevant bits of information connected to the story, which then were presented in a rather clumsy, almost primitive way on screen: "Mr. Baldwin, as the Prime Minister, what do you think I, the Duke of York, the second son of King George V, therefore have no power whatsoever, should do?" Everything is spelled out as if it was pasted and copied from some reference book. (And an American one, that is off course – there is no way George VI would have referred to his ancestor as KING George III as if he were an American film distributer). And though I'm aware of the fact that the Yorks were probably the closest a royal nuclear family unit ever came to resemble a "normal" family, having their story being told as if it was something out of Eastenders just doesn't seem right. Contrary to the way the end credits suggest, this was not a warm hearted fable of Lionel and Bertie and the beautiful friendship they formed against all odds. And whether one is a royalist or a republican at heart, there is no way to deny that it's about a person who becomes a king in a very particular time, yet there is no real sense of the urgency of the era and the circumstances. The way the climax is made to be seen as if the anxiety of everyone listening to the speech is about the king's ability to manage to successfully conclude it without stammering and not about the fact that, you know, this might be the end of the world as they knew it was rather unintentionally comical.
But yes, as a piece of entertainment it goes along rather pleasantly. And it's very user friendly at it. Not only it shows us that Royals are just like us (!), it goes a long way throwing in all kind of bonuses – here's Derek Jacobi! (There is no way a movie about stuttering won't have him). And then there's that oh so amusing build up to the big onscreen reunion of Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet. And since P&P started the rejuvenation of Firth's career, and certainly its admirers are bound to see this film too, the homage doesn't stop with Jennifer Ehle – there's also David Bomber, as pompous here as he was as Mr. Collins, and let's not forget that Bingley was played by a Bonham Carter – o.k. not Helena but her cousin Crispin, but that's close enough.
But I really didn't suffer – the acting was fine. Firth was well within his comfort zone, playing another well bread guy not that comfortable in his own skin coming out of his shell. It's nowhere near his performance in A Single Man, but his win won't be a disgrace. But surprisingly the MVP here is Rush, who gives a very nicely modulated performance, and Bonham Carter is quite effective as this supportive spouse with a twist. The rest of the cast is usually dependable, but although I'm a big Mike Leigh fan and I loved Timothy Spall in quite a few occasions in the past, I'll have to agree with Damien that his Churchill is the stuff Razies are made of.
Along with THE TOWN, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, and THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, THE KING'S SPEECH is a great piece of entertainment. However, like those films, it is definitely not a great work of cinematic art, and certainly does not seem all that concerned with exploring the language of cinema. It uses a typical point-and-shoot style of filmmaking which allows the screenplay and acting to shine.
In terms of Oscars, 9 nominations seem very likely. I think Actor and Screenplay are a safe bet for wins. If they really like it, they may also give it wins for score, costume, and set.
I still think Best Picture is a very real possibility. It would be no more outrageous than THE SOCIAL NETWORK, another film with a witty screenplay and a few good performances, winning.
I had a similar experience as Sabin. I live in DC, and the film is showing on two screens at our local art house theatre, but it was also at the multiplex (which is odd for this type of film). That is where I went to see it on New Year's Day at 3:00 pm. I expected there to be a few senior citizens and myself. I am not exaggerating when I tell you the theatre was fucking packed. It was ten minutes before the show was to start and I had to go all the way to the back where the projector was to find a seat. This was in the biggest theatre they have which can probably fit several hundred people.
The diversity of the crowd was also surprising, with a good mix of people from 20 to 80 years old.
While there is no way to know exactly how much everyone enjoyed it, I would say the crowd was overall impressed. Quite a bit of laughter at the funnier parts. What shocked me was the amount of people crying during the final speech. While I enjoyed the film, I felt absolutely no emotions during his big speech except dread that he would not be able to do it. I am not talking about just one old lady crying. I mean at least 1/3 of the audience sniffling and letting out soft sobs. At the end, at least half the audience applauded. That might happen on occasion at the art house theatre, but I have never experienced it at a multiplex.
While I have no interest in seeing this film win Best Picture, the crowd’s reaction at my viewing convinced me this movie will play well to the same demographic of Academy voters that seriously thought SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, CRASH, and A BEAUTIFUL MIND were the best films of their respective year.
I knew the film was going to be funny and uplifting, but I had no idea people would cry at the end. Never underestimate the power of tears. We were all shocked when PRECIOUS beat UP IN THE AIR for Adapted Screenplay, but a movie that touches people’s hearts and makes them cry is tough to beat.
I would love a more cinematically interesting movie to win, but I am pretty sure THE KING’S SPEECH has what it takes to go all the way. After all, the Weinsteins are still a force to be reckoned with. I think Harvey wants this win more than anything else. He needs to reclaim his old Miramax glory, and this is just the movie to do it. Dismiss the film if you like, but if I were a betting man I would put my money on THE KING’S SPEECH going all the way.
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1294248528
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
David Seidler, 'The King's Speech' writer, and his commoner cause
A stutterer in his youth, David Seidler finally gets to see his long-delayed work.
December 09, 2010
David Seidler may have struggled with a profound stutter as a child, but he's recovered with a vengeance. Discussing his script for "The King's Speech," a pet project he pursued over decades and through a cancer bout (he's now in remission), he talks in long, uninterrupted paragraphs, with nary a hiccup to betray his former difficulties.
Born in England and raised in the U.S. — he maintains dual citizenship — Seidler gravitated to the story of George VI (played by Colin Firth), known to his family as Bertie, whose paralyzing stutter was minimized with the help of Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), because it dramatized the conflict between the crown and its erstwhile colonies. After generating ferocious buzz at Telluride, "The King's Speech" became an awards frontrunner, giving Seidler his highest-profile project since Francis Ford Coppola filmed his script for "Tucker" in the mid-1980s.
What piqued your interest in the story of George VI?
It began, obviously, by the fact that I was a stutterer as a kid — truly a profound stutterer. I grew up always having a great soft spot in my heart [for him], because I knew he was a stutterer, who had, if not been totally cured, at least improved to the point where he could give these very eloquent, moving, stirring wartime speeches.
It wasn't public knowledge that he worked with a speech therapist. How did you find that out?
I started researching Bertie, and every once in a while, there was this blip on the radar screen called Lionel Logue. The royal family doesn't like talking about the royal stutter. It's an embarrassment, and it's swept under the carpet — even today, but much, much more then. So I asked a friend in London to do a little detective work for me, which I think consisted of looking in the telephone directory, and they came up with a surviving son, Valentine Logue. He said, "Yes, yes, yes, come to London. I'll talk to you and I have all the notebooks that my father kept while treating the king." This was the mother lode. But there was a little caveat. He said, "I'll do this, but you must get written permission from the Queen Mum." So I wrote to the Queen Mum, and she wrote back, "Please, not in my lifetime. The memory of those events is still too painful." And when the Queen Mum says to an Englishman, "Wait," an Englishman waits. I didn't figure I'd have to wait this long.
