Worthwhile exploration of British history... or cynical Oscar fodder?

Just uttering that sentence makes me fear for my life, as it’s practically illegal to not love this historical drama that’s not just taken old farts (aka critics) but the whole world by storm. Yes, Colin Firth is brilliant. Yes, it’s enjoyable, tender and often moving. The film’s good, and I do like it, but... like, not love. And that’s the problem with The King’s Speech, I just don’t seem to get all the fuss as much as anyone else. Did I miss something extraordinary that makes it the instant classic it supposedly is?

Because while Speech is a beautiful story handled with elegance by Tom Hooper and screenwriter David Seidler, it doesn’t strike me as anything more impressive than other British history pictures. The Queen for instance, it’s just as good as The King’s Speech, yet it only received large recognition for Helen Mirren’s performance. Is that fair when The King’s Speech won just about everything at the BAFTAs, even for Helena Bonham Carter? (As much as I love her, this really wasn’t the role she should’ve won her first BAFTA for.) I walked out of the film also feeling rather odd at the fact that this was being hailed as a masterpiece, yet I can’t really find a standout scene or anything completely terrific, like Black Swan’s deliriously vivid final act, the heartbreaking dinner scene in The Kids Are All Right, Aaron Ralston’s sort-of- breakdown in 127 Hours and the Mark vs. Eduardo confrontation in The Social Network. There are striking scenes in Speech such as Bertie telling his story to his little girls and the final radio talk, but I can’t see myself listing this as one of the definitive classic scenes in cinema (recent or old) like I would with some of the above mentioned pictures.

The film has been credited with getting children and teenagers interested in factual, adult movies, but that’s something of an overstatement; films like The Dark Knight and heck, even Toy Story are dealing with adult issues, but aren’t presented in the middle class-ish way that The King’s Speech is. Plus, the only thing the younger generation are talking about is “the funny swearing bit”. Could it be that children are interested because they know they can get away with some rude language because their parents have told them this film is something to take note of, or just to laugh at old people spouting obscenities?

I can understand why Oscar voters would like it: "well made history lesson" = "classic" to them. But why is everyone else falling to their knees and hailing this as the best thing since forever? Is it just jumping on the bandwagon, like Shakespeare in Love back in 1998 (another film I don’t hop out of my seat over)?

The King's Speech feels manufactured to please Academy voters; the recent complaints over Rabbit Hole’s Oscar-friendliness have not been aimed at The King’s Speech, which as a marketed and targeted movie, is really just as cynical. Everyone knows the film wants the gold; Harvey Weinstein is distributing after all. Maybe this could be another example of Oscar picking the “safe” choice, choosing fine fare instead of groundbreaking epics - like Crash over Brokeback Mountain, Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and probably, The King’s Speech over The Social Network. The Academy may preach that they choose innovative films, especially in recent years, but I wouldn’t say The Departed, No Country for Old Men and The Hurt Locker, as good as they are, aren’t Oscar bait-ers; the talent behind them are Oscar royalty. 127 Hours or Black Swan are innovative choices, daring, exciting, memorable experiences that deserve the recognition that The King’s Speech has received.

This film also prevented other top notch (and some better) British productions and performances from scooping prizes they deserved. How could Lesley Manville not have won Best Supporting Actress for Another Year? It’s one of the very best performances (and best films) of the year and was unjustly overlooked. When this is one of Mike Leigh’s best ever films, you know something’s wrong with the world. And Andrew Garfield for The Social Network? To stand out as a future classic must surely signal awards - but no, he was blanked, like co-stars Armie Hammer and Justin Timberlake, both deserving of a bit more credit. Not forgetting the women of Made in Dagenham - it’s not a great film, but Sally Hawkins and Miranda Richardson were typically brilliant. And poor old Gemma Arterton, who after proving Clash of the Titans and Prince of Persia were just for the money with spectacular turns in Tamara Drewe and particularly The Disappearance of Alice Creed, was ousted; The King’s Speech steamrollered over the lot of them, and it infuriates me.

With over £35 million in box office receipts, Speech is a huge hit, bigger even than Slumdog Millionaire (I do love that film) and it’s good for British Independent films that people see small-budget affairs like this; but films like Another Year, Monsters and Never Let Me Go have been completely ignored when they deserve wider audiences too for their rich, layered, textured stories that will resonate with audiences just as much, if only they had the advantages The King’s Speech has.

A stammerer's appreciation of The King's Speech

The top ten most undeserved Oscars of the last 20 years

IF YOU ENJOYED THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR SITE, AT NO COST WITH ONE CLICK ON THE FACEBOOK 'LIKE' BUTTON BELOW: