Random Musings

I had heard so much about this movie that I just had to give it a go.

British movies tend to be more of my cup of tea, to be honest.

I don’t know why that is either.

First things first – does “The King’s Speech” deserve an Oscar?

I don’t see why it shouldn’t, especially in the Best Picture and Best Actor (Colin Firth) categories.

It certainly is a work of art.

Is it the greatest film I’ve ever watched?

Not exactly.

I noticed that the audience in the cinema was especially ticklish, in that they laughed at almost any line that felt like it was supposed to be funny.

I call that the “blind hero worship” syndrome.

It states that people tend to be more indiscriminate in their laughs and praises when they are viewing something which is already highly-acclaimed worldwide…and in this case, they don’t any more highly-acclaimed than “The King’s Speech”.

Anyhow, I thought the strongest point of the film was the brilliant performance put in, most notably, by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.

The scenes were beautiful, and the cinematography was a sight to behold, especially when they shot in the cathedral.

The story was engaging, but if  you really think about it there was hardly much suspense, not to mention the fact that the main antagonist to Colin Firth in the story was Colin Firth himself, and no one else.

I say there was hardly much suspense because the entire story builds up to the climax whereby Colin Firth (now the King of England) would have to give his historic King’s speech to rally the entire nation in a time of impending war, and at no point in time did we think that he would actually come up short in his grand moment of truth.

I certainly enjoyed that bit when the King and Queen visited Logue’s apartment, and when Logue’s wife returned home unexpectedly, Logue suddenly became such a nervous wreck and the King himself had to be the one to egg him on to go out and face his wife.

It was a small moment, but I really liked the brief reversal of roles and how the dynamics between the two had completely changed for just that instant.

I felt that the story of Logue being a failed actor could have been developed a bit more.

The film seemed to introduce that bit of the story about Logue aspiring to be a stage actor, then just left it at that and never came back to it.

It would have been nice if we could see Logue himself forcing himself to face his inner demons and achieve his ambitions, in parallel to Colin Firth.

…

Essentially, the film is about expectations.

It’s about living up to expectations that have been placed on you by family, society, and most importantly, yourself.

It’s about fighting the demons that exist only in your mind, and tells us that a lot of the obstacles that we face in life are actually all in our own head.

I really enjoyed the bit at the beginning where Colin Firth proved he could read well if he were listening to loud classical music through headphones such that he couldn’t hear himself speak, and thus was not cognizant of what he was saying.

In conclusion, I just want to point out some small things that had come to my mind.

Colin Firth certainly didn’t look younger than the brother (Guy Pearce) who was supposed to be older than him, did he?

Why did Logue’s accent sound more British than Australian, or were my ears just playing tricks on me?

How in the world did they film those scenes from the inside of Buckingham Palace?

If the “putting on headphones with loud classical music” trick worked so well at the beginning, why not use that same trick for the King’s speech at the end?

(I had half-expected that Logue, in the final scene, would suddenly pull out that special headphone device and ask Colin Firth to put the headphones on before commencing his crucial speech.)