After my first viewing tonight, I can see why The King’s Speech is such a celebrated film. It is a compelling story of trust, courage, and friendship. However, I find that I am dissatisfied with the information missing. Some of my concerns are below:
- Lionel Logue
- We never get to see any interaction between Lionel and his son about going to war. Shouldn’t Lionel have something to say to his son, having treated veterans in the past?
- Did Lionel himself ever have any trouble speaking? That was my first thought after the audition scene. The insecurities we see in that scene also apparently disappear afterwards.
- David (Edward VIII)
- David’s behavior strongly suggests that his relationships with his family was strained long before the marriage fiasco, but we only see him interact with Bertie and, with a stretch, his mother.
- We are clearly not supposed to like his character, since he mocks Bertie’s speech impediment. Why are we told that he and Bertie are close?
- Other brothers
- “Bertie has more guts than all his brothers combined” suggests that he has more brothers than David and Johnny. Where are they during all of this?
A quick Google search tells me that Bertie’s speech problems were largely resolved before he ever ascended to the throne. To what extent is this movie a dramatization/fictionalization of events? Does that detract from the film’s messages?
I would disagree. The movie was centered around the King’s speech deficit and the bond shared between he and his speech therapist. From the view of the central story line, all the other characters merely offer extraneous support to advance the storyline. We ought not to share about the others, and neither should we.
The movie does a good job with that focus, yes, though it takes some liberties with the plot. However, I feel that our response as viewers is limited by how little we know of the characters. I felt that some scenes were a little drawn out and the extra time would have been better used to give us a better understanding of the people whose lives we are watching play out.
I’m interested in the question about the film’s misrepresentation of historical events. I’m not sure how/why it would detract from the film’s messages; however, in general, people use historical inaccuracy as a criticism of the film. Why is this the case? Can a film be bad by virtue of the fact that it does a disservice to the history it claims to portray?
Part of the intent of historical films is to let us understand and relate to figures from the past. When a film is inaccurate in its telling of history, it loses credibility and raises questions about the accuracy of other aspects of the story. Characters become clearly fictional rather than true representations of the people they supposedly are. Such a film can still be a good story, but it becomes just entertainment instead of a way to better understand our history.