Friday, September 24, 2010 at 12:23PM A Few Reasons to Pay Attention to 'The King's Speech'
Oh yes, there's already Oscar buzz (I hate the term "Oscar Buzz") for Tom Hooper (Longford, The Damned United) and The King's Speech. The film's written David Seidler, a 73-year-old who, until recently, has been mostly known for his television work. But the new trailer, out today, shows that both his and Hooper's talents are quite at home on the big screen.
He really makes military formal wear and an uncomfortable expression look good.
But let's please forget about the Oscars for a minute. They infuriate me 90% of the time, and I want to hear what people think about a film, and not watch a group of wealthy peers pat each other on the back. So while I'll say it's lovely that King's Speech is being short-listed for "Best Picture" already, I'm more interested in the reaction it received at the Toronto International Film Festival, where the audience fawned over it. So let's say that's Reason One to go see it.
Reason Two's easy: casting. Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, and Michael Gambon round out a deeply-talented group that's led by Geoffrey Rush and the always-engaging Colin Firth as our King with his speech issue.
Which can bring me to Reason Three, and for that we'll want to watch the trailer below, but the story Seidler's telling here seems to be a rather perfect combination of simplicity and complexity. It's a story of a man who must be King, following his brother abdication; and it's also the story of a man who's just a man, crippled by a nervous stutter. I can very much appreciate this kind of realistic approach to a difficult historical period.
As for Hooper's contribution, from the trailer at the very least, the film just looks elegant. It doesn't fall into the trap of looking like a costume-drama; the shots are crisp and well-plotted, and I personally can't wait to see the completed project.
So, that's just a few of my reasons to see The King's Speech. But do see it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Who knows, maybe The Academy will get it right again this year and give the "Best" film the "Best Picture" statue. But I'll be honest, "Oscar Buzz" stopped having any real clout in my camp a long time ago.
Do you think King's Speech has what it takes to bring some real class to The Oscars? Check out the trailer:
Reader Comments (9)
That looks great.
I would see anything with Helena Bonham Carter.
Sadly my limited screen time with Geoffrey Rush means all I hear and see is Captain Barbossa
Who cares about Cristen Brikenhoff's feelings about the Oscars (which takes up over half this article and, rather ironocally, then refers back to them in the last sentence)? Talk about padding with personal waffle. Bring back Colin!
Giveitup, I encourage my writers to offer personal insights into the articles they produce. Thank you for your readership but unfortunately, this will not change. I hope you continue to choose us as your main source of movie news and understand you have a choice to choose a site that fits your tastes.
Apologies for the negativity GTBP. Let's put it down to an appreciation of the good work Colin did and a slight jones-ing for those standards. Please understand, now and then I used to rag on him too! His responses were more engaging and far less defensive than yours. This website is not my "main source of movie news" but I enjoy it, especially the interactive ability to agree and disagree. I hope that doesn't change because it's one of the strongest elements of the site. I understand that this is a transition period for the new crew and I sincerely hope you make a good website even better. However, your response leaves me somewhat confused..... Are the new writers allowed to stick up for themselves? Or are you the new shield of any criticism? And why insinuate that loyal readers like myself (who possibly may have a point to their criticism) go find alternative sites?
Hey Giveitup, thanks for the constructive feedback (vs. the last comment)! The writers will stick up for themselves but I just couldn't find a way to argue with your comments either. As you figured out, this is a news commentary site which means the writers have full control over bringing in their experiences and personality into the articles. I definitely encourage disagreements AND agreements over the writer's POV, but in your comments it just sounded like, "nobody cares about what Cristen thinks, and bring back Colin!" How do you expect the writer to respond to that? Clearly it just seems like you don't care what she has to say and you hate the site. But yeah, feel free to disagree on points my writers make all you want. They love that.
Hey hey,
I'm more than happy to stick up for myself, here! The way I personally read your comment was that yes, you did imply no one ought to care what I've got to say, and you're completely entitled to that opinion. Then again, I too am entitled to my opinion. The piece was meant to praise the film's potential whilst negating the importance of the heaps of people insisting it's worth seeing merely because it's likely to win an Oscar. I simply was trying to remark that I feel award potential shouldn't be the benchmark for a film's credibility. If you think that aspect of my writing style is unimportant, I appreciate the feedback. Overall, though, I'm just trying to use my personal perspective to make for a more engaging read for those who visit the site. I took no great offense, but I did find it a bit dismissive; and as such I'm happy to defend myself. I love a good discourse, positive or otherwise, and I honestly do appreciate your commentary. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing, anytime. I'm here to make the site the best it can be, as are the rest of the new team. Your comments only assist us all in that venture.
Cheers!
re: 'nobody cares about what Cristen thinks, and bring back Colin.'
Was this article really worth a derogatory, unexamined slam-analysis? For all practical purposes - probably not. Brinkerhoff's writing has something called flow and she speaks, not on behalf of herself, but purposefully for the public end. Not only that...the girl has depth and a sustained sense of range in her review technique - something rare in today's market of solipsistic, nonsensical idiot-journalism. If you examine her writing style, you can see the rhetorical proof. But, I suppose - that is an ancillary matter at this juncture - considering that the author of the deleteriously imprudent comment at the beginning spelled 'ironically' with such accuracy - and applied it - (functionally speaking) in such a rhetorically sound fashion as well. We should all start capitulating to these awe-inspiringly informed trolls over Brinkerhoff's truth-bearing foresight.
- eye roll -
PEACE!
And apologies for my grouchiness and bad spelling. You're right Matt and thanks for your reply Cristen. I hope you all have a great weekend and an even better week ahead.