Lucas
Versantvoort / 26 September 2014
Several years
have passed since The King’s Speech
was released to critical acclaim and it’s become clear how even winning Oscars can damage a film’s
reputation. Like Ordinary People which
became known as ‘the film that robbed Scorsese of his Oscar for Raging Bull’, The King’s Speech has generally become known as the undeserving
winner that robbed The Social Network of
more Oscar glory. I don’t mean to make this review all about the Oscars, but
it’s interesting to see how they automatically fan the flames in the audience
when comparing films. A fan of film X might feel compelled to dislike film Y if
it wins the Oscar over film X and that’s what happened with The King’s Speech. Though generally a
well-liked film, many felt it didn’t deserve so much Oscar glory and it damaged
the film’s reputation as many emphasized how it wasn’t good enough to deserve all that Oscar glory. That’s my opinion in a
nutshell: a basic, well-worn idea for a film that was executed with some
aplomb.
Prince Albert is one of King George V’s sons. There’s
only one problem: he stammers which might not appear to be a big deal, until
you realize he’s living in the Twenties and the primary medium used for
communication is radio, not to mention the trouble he faces every time the
public eye is trained on him. He’s also ridiculed within his family for his stammer, by his brother Edward.
Eventually his wife suggests he see Logue, a speech therapist. This starts off
an intriguing relationship between Albert and Logue, the latter of which is a
genuine help to Albert despite the differences in opinions and personalities. The
film then alternates between the events that led to Albert’s eventual ascending
of the throne and how the relationship between Albert and Logue led to Albert
being cured of his stammer, culminating in his radio address in 1939 when war was
declared with Nazi Germany.
The main problem with the film is
that, like I said earlier, it’s just not that
good. All the elements for success are here: the acting is formidable, the
scenes featuring just George and Logan are easily the most engaging parts of
the film and the issue of Albert’s stammer is handled very well (linking it to
childhood trauma), with sympathy and empathy. But it all feels a bit too
clichéd and predictable at times. There’s a moment where George has a falling
out with Logue, simply because he has no formal qualifications. I know this is
a big deal in terms of public appearance, but it feels shoehorned into the plot
to inject some drama into the film lest things proceed too smoothly. Crucially,
it feels like a twist out of a typical rom-com where the lovers, who we know
will eventually be together, first have to discover how the other is not who
he/she thought he/she was (like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days or
something). You know your drama is bad, when your plot is caught within the
familiar trappings of rom coms. Also, the subplot regarding Logue’s theatre
antics feel forced and uninteresting.
Something else I didn’t understand was the amount of
hype the film received. Like Toy Story 3
(the review for which I wrote very recently), it felt like people were tripping
over themselves, ranting about how it made them cry buckets and, just like Toy Story 3, The King’s Speech left me a bit unfulfilled on that front as well. While
scenes like George telling about his childhood traumas (which in turn inflicted
him with his stammer) are nicely understated and the eponymous speech itself is
pretty effectively coupled with the 2nd movement from Beethoven’s 7th,
I’d be lying if I said handkerchiefs were required… In the end, it’s just a good film (though there’s nothing
inherently wrong with that) with a reputation as ‘overrated’ that ironically
stems primarily from its Oscar glory.
Stray
Observations a.k.a. pointless discussions on the Oscars:
All right, let’s
return for a moment to the Oscars, specifically to those for Best Picture and
Best Director. Best Picture unexpectedly went to The King’s Speech, so no surprises there, but it does reveal what
makes the Academy tick as has been noted by several articles: a disease or
disability of some kind (the stammer), a story about royalty, an optimistic
story about someone overcoming some (personal) obstacle (public speaking) and
so on. The King’s Speech ticked all
the boxes, so it was unsurprising it won.
Best Director however, is another
story. It was one of those cases where The
Social Network lost despite winning the DGA which ensures a 90% probability
of winning the Best Director Oscar. What makes this astounding is not just a
matter of statistics. It’s the fact that The
King’s Speech director Tom Hooper had little experience directing films,
having primarily worked in television. Not that there’s anything wrong with
that and by definition it shouldn’t influence your chance of winning, but with
the Academy this factor does make a
difference. A theory about the Oscars states that many famous directors only
win Best Director once they’ve established themselves enough. Scorsese’s peak
came with films like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas, but he only won his Oscar for The Departed, a film that doesn’t come close to the lasting
artistic success of his earlier output. All this makes Hooper’s surprise
victory even more baffling. There’s no doubt in my mind that Fincher should
have won for The Social Network for
several reasons: one, his type of story was harder to film as its about
Facebook, a literally ‘untouchable’ phenomenon; two, he led a pretty young cast
to stellar performances, while The King’s
Speech actors (Firth, Rush and Carter) could basically direct themselves. One
can tell the Academy realized their mistake when they gave Hooper’s next
Oscar-bait film, Les Misérables, only
three ‘technical’ Oscars.
No comments:
Post a Comment