The King's Speech

The King's Speech is perhaps an example that should be used to help one differentiate between writing and directing. The King's Speech as written is a delightful, witty, while still emotional realization of the story of George VI through his relationship with Lionel Logue who helps him find his voice and his confidence through the tumultuous time of the abdication of his brother, and World War II. The script shows one who to fashion a classical inspirational historical tale, and do it right. It finds the emotional truth in the matter while finding both the grand and personal scale within the story. I also have to give it special accommodation for having the intelligence to have the sort of the potential "liar revealed" scene dealt in an honest satisfying way. Sadly Tom Hooper's direction does everything in its power to interfere with the terrific tale that has been granted to him. Are porno sets okay? Of course, says Hooper. Bizarre angles for the sake of it? Of course Hooper says. Outdoor scenes so foggy as to be a gothic horror film? Of course, Hooper says. Overdone lingering shots of Colin Firth's face to make his performance a bit awkward at times? Of course, Hooper says. The choices are there for the sake of it never making a lick of sense for the film's story. The biggest obstacle the film has is its own director who detracts rather amplifies his film, the exact opposite of what David Fincher did in The Social Network, the film's main competition at the Oscars. Hooper's ill informed decisions make the film far less than it should have been, however they can't quite ruin the film. It's still a good film however with a better director it could have been a great one.
3.5/5