REVIEW: The King's Speech

The King's Speech (2010): Dir. Tom Hooper. Written by: David Seidler. Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce. Rated R (some language). Running time: 111 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

Prince Albert of York (played by Colin Firth) has a problem. As the second son to King George V, he is called upon to make the occasional public speech, but a crippling stammer leaves him silent behind the microphone, struggling to get his words out. The recent invention of radio allows his public speaking failures to be broadcast to an entire nation. At one point in The King’s Speech, George V remarks how earlier kings had it easy. All they had to do was stand still and look good for their portrait. In 1925 (when the film begins), however, radio was a revolutionary modern invention that forced politicians and royalty alike into a new realm of public attention.

The King’s Speech captures a society that is still adjusting to its newfound modernity. Coming into the 20^th Century, the British monarchy had more symbolic power than it did political. Britain’s kings were expected to simply give voice to the nation’s people, leaving the actual politicking to the Prime Minister. Such expectations are understandably daunting for Prince Albert considering his speech impediment. The film dramatizes Albert’s ascension to King (when he becomes known as George VI) and focuses on his struggle to overcome his stammer.

King George V (Michael Gambon) has no patience for his son’s disability and though he knows Albert is the more capable of his two sons, he fails to understand what holds him back. The rightful heir is David (Guy Pearce), but the firstborn’s cavalier attitude and infamous womanizing make him a less than ideal candidate for the throne. This puts pressure on Albert to be ready should his brother step down from the responsibility.

A king with a stammer, however, is no king at all and so Albert’s wife (Helena Bonham Carter) takes him to a number of correctional doctors, all of who are unable to help. Then she discovers the Australian speech specialist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who takes a more Freudian approach to Albert’s condition by treating it as a mental impediment. Logue’s unconventional treatment is met at first with resistance, but a friendship and an understanding soon forms between the two men.
In some ways, the film is reminiscent of the excellent 2006 film The Queen, which also examined a brief period in the life of a British monarch. Both films touch on larger themes of leadership and British nationalism by focusing on a ruler’s struggle with their public persona.

As in The Queen (whose star Helen Mirren won a deserved Oscar), at the center of The King’s Speech is an excellent peformance. Two, actually. Colin Firth gives a superb performance as the soon-to-be King by humanizing him. His recreation of the stammer is entirely convincing, but his performance goes deeper than this. The stammer is a key to the character’s emotional life. Watch how he not only shuts down in public speeches, but in private conversations with his father and older brother too. We see how he is a good man at heart capable of great leadership if only he can overcome his anxieties.

Geoffrey Rush is wonderful as well and his playful take on Lionel gives the film much of its lighthearted tone. The scenes between Albert and Lionel are a joy to watch and director Tom Hooper wisely gives the two actors the time and space to stretch out and develop their characters’ relationship. In one scene, Lionel pushes Albert and asks him to vent his anger. The slew of profanities that fly out of Albert's mouth make for one of the film’s funniest and surprisingly touching moments.

Also good is Helena Bonham Carter, whose performance may get overshadowed by those of her co-stars. In the role of Albert’s supportive wife, she lends a tender, warm-hearted performance to the film and while her scenes with Firth are not as noteworthy as those between him and Rush, they give the film an emotional core.

Shot largely on location, The King’s Speech is also beautiful to look at. The spacious, luxurious halls of castles and cathedrals fill the screen and cinematographer Danny Cohen shoots the film’s regal locales with their awe-inspiring size and grandeur in mind. Hooper uses these settings to heighten the pressures put on Albert, who is more at home in smaller, cozier rooms. We can understand how the pressure put on him must feel when he’s positioned at the bottom of a frame that captures a vast and expansive ballroom.

The King’s Speech questions what it means to be a leader and brings up historical themes of British nationalism but never pushes these larger ideas too hard. This is an enjoyable, often humorous character-driven film that, like all good biographical films, transcends the facts and tells a human story, an exceedingly charming one at that.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/02/11

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Dir. David Yates. Written by: Steve Kloves. Based on the novel by: J.K. Rowling. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Sir Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham Carter. Rated PG (scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality). Running time: 153 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

"No time for dancing, or lovey dovey. I ain't got time for that now."

So sings David Byrne of “Life During Wartime.” Screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates however find considerable room for lovey dovey in the The Half-Blood Prince, an often lighthearted adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s sixth novel. The war between the Dark Lord and his resistors is just kicking into gear, but try telling that to the burgeoning hormones of a bunch of sixteen-year-olds.

The film opens darkly with the naysayers of the last film conceding that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has indeed returned and, along with his entourage, the Death Eaters, is wreaking havoc on both the wizarding and Muggle world. Life continues though and Harry, Ron and Hermione (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, respectively) return to Hogwarts to find an increase in security and a decrease in smiles. Meanwhile Dumbledore (Sir Michael Gambon) has been taking mysterious leaves of absence and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) may or may not be serving the Dark Lord. There’s also a new professor inclined towards favoritism, Horace Slughorn, played with great humor by Jim Broadbent. As with most of the supporting roles in the Potter series, Broadbent’s performance is one of the film’s strengths, adding several laughs and bringing to life the easily excitable Potions teacher with something to hide. But all mysteries aside, the biggest changes going on in the lives of our heroes are the internal ones, and the romantic subplots often upstage the main storyline, remaining true to the snogfest of the book.

Like each of the Potter films after the first two, The Half-Blood Prince features heavy editing of its source material. The politics of the wizarding world, which were prominent in the last film, are gone, and many characters’ roles have been reduced or removed entirely (most regrettably, the begrudging house elf Kreacher who I understand is to return again in the next installment). All but two of the Voldemort flashbacks, which made up the dominant thread in the novel, have been cut and the climactic ending has been altered to include less action. There is however a new scene involving a thrilling chase through tall grass that punches up the film’s midsection.

Despite these deviations, The Half-Blood Prince is an improvement on Order of the Phoenix, which excised so many storylines from Rowling’s sprawling novel it felt far removed from the magic of the beloved castle. Each Potter film thus far has struggled, to varying degrees of success, to capture onscreen what makes the books so enjoyable, but always lacks Rowling’s sense of limitless invention. They remain, as blockbusters must, plot-oriented, and while they retain the overall outline of the books, they cut Rowling’s doodles in the margins, her embellishments that bring this fictional world to life.

This remains an entertaining film however, and remains true to the tone of the sixth novel, balancing the darkness of an impending war with adolescent angst. More so than other films of the series, The Half-Blood Prince strives to recreate at least some of Rowling’s magic on the page with visual flourishes and some truly funny moments. This ain’t no party, and this ain’t no disco, but we’ve got time to fool around a little before the two-part Deathly Hallows sobers things up.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/28/09