THE STORY – England’s Prince Albert (Colin Firth) must ascend the throne as King George VI, but he has a speech impediment. Knowing that the country needs her husband to be able to communicate effectively, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) hires Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian actor and speech therapist, to help him overcome his stammer. An extraordinary friendship develops between the two men, as Logue uses unconventional means to teach the monarch how to speak with confidence.
THE CAST – Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce & Timothy Spall
THE TEAM – Tom Hooper (Director) & David Seidler (Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 119 Minutes
Time has been kind to the reputation of “The King’s Speech.” The film was a critical and commercial success upon its release in 2010, but it committed the cardinal sin of triumphing over more beloved films at the Oscars. “The King’s Speech” took home four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actor. The implication that Tom Hooper’s period drama was somehow better than cultural touchstones like “Inception,” “Black Swan,” or “The Social Network” has effectively turned it into an awards season villain.
The reputation of “The King’s Speech” does not indicate the film’s quality. A decade and a half removed, the film is still very much a compelling viewing experience punctuated by a stellar lead performance. Is it better than the aforementioned titles? Well, no. But it succeeds when taken on its own merits and looked at within the framework of what it’s trying to achieve.
“The King’s Speech” chronicles the friendship between the future King George VI (Colin Firth) and Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). The former struggles mightily with a speech impediment, and he enlists the help of the latter, an Australian language therapist, to help him as he prepares to announce Britain’s declaration of war against Germany in 1939. The film deals with significant historical stakes and depicts major historical figures, yet it manages to instill a sense of specificity. “The King’s Speech” spans several years in the life of King George VI, and the decision to focus on his ascent to the throne rather than his subsequent rule gives him an underdog appeal that the character would have otherwise lacked.
Colin Firth masterfully communicated this underdog appeal. The actor has always proven adept at pinpointing the insecurity of characters who hide behind their pomposity, and King George VI may very well be his magnum opus in this regard. He’s able to slip in and out of the character’s stutter without devolving into caricature and foregoing the emotional groundedness of a given scene, which is more complex than it seems/sounds. In lesser hands, the stutter would have become an actorly flourish to lean on. Firth resists the temptation to overplay his hand, which allows the few emotional outbursts that do occur to hit with three times the impact. It also helps that Firth’s interior performance is balanced out by Geoffrey Rush’s sophisticated turn as Logue. Rush is a king actor in the classical sense, and his witticisms give “The King’s Speech” a different verbal and tonal energy.
Structurally, “The King’s Speech” follows the traditional biopic structure. It doesn’t succumb to the weaknesses of the life-to-death model, but it does span multiple years in chronological order. The runtime is surprisingly brisk at 119 minutes, and in rewatching the film, you may be struck by the fact that it feels even shorter. The culprit behind this narrative momentum is the film’s stellar ensemble. Firth and Rush are anchors in the lead roles, but the actors who come and go as King George VI inches closer to his speech are turning in excellent work here. Helena Bonham Carter is the unsung hero of “The King’s Speech,” bringing a spirited energy to a role (Queen consort Elizabeth) that could have otherwise been stuffy. Guy Pearce and Timothy Spall manage the same crucial distinction as King Edward VIII and Winston Churchill, respectively. Both men are tasked with playing such iconic historical figures, yet they avoid the broad strokes that so many other historical dramas slip into by default.
Let’s talk about direction. Tom Hooper has become something of a punchline in recent years due to the box office disaster that was “Cats.” He’s obviously more talented than that albatross would suggest, but his serviceable direction is what ultimately holds “The King’s Speech” back from transcending its genre parameters. Hooper mounts the film handsomely, staging most of the action in large, vacant interiors, but there’s nothing particularly remarkable about his approach. He gets excellent performances out of his actors, as he would go on to do with “Les Miserables” (2012) and “The Danish Girl” (2015). As is the case with those two films, however, Hooper’s inability to add directorial flourishes leaves “The King’s Speech” feeling stylistically rote. The mounting of the titular speech in the climax is one of the best stretches of Hooper’s career. Yet, the credit feels more deserving of the actors and David Seidler’s Oscar-winning screenplay than the director’s presentation.
The biggest misconception about “The King’s Speech” is that it’s a stuffy period drama. This is true to an extent. It does have the pomp and circumstance of a proper, old-school Oscar darling (Oscar voters obviously thought so). However, once the Best Picture bias is removed, it becomes clear that the film is much sharper and more entertaining than it appears on the surface. It’s a competently directed film with excellent performances and a premise that one can’t help but be swept up in. “The King’s Speech” is no classic, but it deserves more credit than it’s been given.
