Good to see that, for some reason, the beeb has, yet again, made the film review internationally accessible.



Thanks for the tip to watch Trauma. That's probably what I most value about Mark's film reviews - the leads to little known films that I know I'm sure to enjoy.



My own suggestion would be to hunt out Apartment Zero, a psychological suspense that will be to the taste of those with the darkest of sensibilities. Extraordinary performance from Firth and ably supported by his costar Hart Bochner whom I would have expected to go on to bigger things. One of my cult faves.

This role to Firth is what Idi Amin was to Forest Whittaker - although in this case the role came only a year after the performance of his life (A Single Man) as opposed to around two decades in the case of Whittaker(Bird). Firth is one of the finest actors this country has ever produced and it is only in the last ten years that he has begun to star in films that offer him an opportunity to reveal this; if he doesn't win this year it shall be a shame greater than Resse Witheredspoon's win for Walk the Line!

Spot on as usual Mark! I would add that I think Geoffrey Rush was every bit as good as Colin Firth. Their scenes together in Lionel Logue's abode were impeccably timed, comic gold. Also special mention must go to all the supporting cameos, particularly Guy Perace who does a fine job of portraying the playboy Prince Edward!

Here's what I thought in more detail.



https://rogueshark.tumblr.com/

An interesting idea you have there about the Americans and how they receive British films, Dr. Kermode. I think you're partially right, but I also think you can extend that to just about any of that proper RP, Merchant and Ivory type-ish material. As far as I can tell, it's more of an association made with the accents than with the monarchy directly. Or maybe we just associate the accent with the monarchy and that warms us up to it. Either way we apparently like it. I've noticed it before now and it's honestly a weirdly common phenomena.



King's Speech itself... I just thought it was okay? Not bad, but kind of standard. I don't know if I would have missed anything not seeing it. The acting being excellent, to be sure.



I second Alina's recommendation for Apartment Zero. Interesting movie, great acting. Great choice.

There's some 1200 dummies in the background of the eponymous speech scene. Really.

"...manages to successfully announce that we're going to be at war for the next six years."



Not only has he conquered his speech impediment, but gained powers of prognostication in the process. Forget Bletchley Park and the enigma machine, the King is Britain's secret weapon (I sense a sequel in this).



Great film, and a speech therapist cousin of mine in the states loved it as well (I assume she doesn't use the glass marbles).

Love the good Dr's review of The King's Speech. I've seen it only the once (had to travel over 60kms to my nearest showing). Loved it and want to see it again.



Interesting to note that Colin Firth had difficulties regaining his natural speech pattern afterwards. Derek Jacobi spoke to him about as he had problems after playing Claudius. It also brought back the memories of the stammer I had as a child (for a few years only thankfully).



Wonderful performances all round. Loved the humility of the piece. It is a movie about two men who meet under extraordinary circumstances. Not only Firth but Rush should receive every accolade for his performance.



A true GEM!

Sorry this is completely off topic but I've just finished watching Possession. Absolutely astonishing! I'm completely baffled, yet thought it was superb.



However, just out of curiosity, did anyone else detect a bit of The Godfather in the soundtrack?

Dr Kermode. I love you. Spot on as usual.

The Emperor is naked - or rather, not as amazing as painted. I thought Kings Speech was a good film. In moments, such as the therapy sessions, very good. But it was also uneven, slow in places, predictable and lacking in momentum to the end. As such, it is never better than "very good". I tought that James Franco's performance in 127 hours showed more variety and commitment to a role, personally, than Firth, who was better in a Single Man. That said, Oscar tends to love "pretty good" over excellence, so I'm sure it will haul loads. *grumble*

Holy hand stitched fabric nap, Batman, er... MargeGunderson - judging by the photo on your blog all of the Oscars for King's Speech are going to go to costume design and best clothes horsing. Nice review. Any way you can facebook it or make it more generally accessible to the teeming masses?

This was a brilliant movie, a fully-fledged drama which I feel I haven’t seen in a long time. It had wonderful humours touches and some truly effecting emotion. One scene that stands out for me is when the King sings about his childhood horrors.



Everyone involved pulled off a brilliant movie and the entire cast were fantastic. Although Colin Firth played superbly it was Geoffrey Rush who stood out for me but then he is one of my favourite actors. I do hope he is not overlooked with regards to his performance.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No doubt well acted but ultimately cookie-cutter cinema geared towards the american market. I have heard on the grape-vine that this film has reieved standing ovations in the new world. Madness of King George has pretty much the same formula... I think we need a big 3D version of Diana's life and her relationship with her Astrologer. Or perhaps, prince Williams hair loss; we could call that "The Kings Hair" and let's get an Eskimo to sort it out etc. etc..

I agree with Mark that there are certain films almost pre-destined for accolades, particularly in the American market. However, unlike many movies that appear to be almost constructed in a committee room these days, this is a lavish, living, quality piece of cinema that stirs emotions and a sense of historical perspective, whether one is a republic or a monarchist.



Irrespective of Mark's 'Oscar-bait' hypothesis, Firth's performance is gigantic, and is supported brilliantly by Rush. If both men walk away with statues I'd like to believe that it is because of the quality of their work in this movie rather than some redundant doey-eyed transatlantic consumption of royalty and heritage.

Just got back from seeing this, and still buzzing. Had a strange feeling inside that I get occasionally that I'm watching something special. Don't usually like Colin Firth, but he was superb, as was Rush, and the rest. A brilliantly scripted film, where all the actors played a blinder.

I did wonder whether the subject matter might induce a cynical reaction in some, I hope it isn't destined to become a victim of its own popularity and success (although I don't think this will be the case). Often when a work of art is loved by the masses, it is deemed to be low-brow or superficial . This is definitely not true in the case of The King's Speech.



@Alina Thank you so much for your nice comment on my thoughts on this wonderful movie. I'm afraid I don't have a Facebook account, bit scared of it really :D

Average 7/10



I thought Guy Pearce was dreadful. Maybe it was the recent dramatisation of Any Human Heart with Tom Hollander and Gillian Anderson in those roles adding prejudice but I thought he was poorly cast.



There were some undoubtedly great performances but it struck me as being more of a TV drama than a film, and quite stagey. There was one conversation that reminded me of the Stephen Poliakoff BBC drama The Lost Prince. If you added an hour or so to flesh out the back story a bit The Kings Speech could well have been a decent two part drama.



I'm glad it's doing well though. I've always liked Firth.

The story illustrated so beautifully that the positive outcome of therapy was achieved by the development of a therapeutic relationship between the Duke of York and Lionel Logue. It was relevent that that relationship was built on mutual respect, trust and equality. It would not work if the therapist had been the expert (as many of the Doctor's in the film tried to be) thus diminishing the clients own knowledge of their own difficulty and participation in their own treatment. Nor would it have worked if the Royalty/Commoner divide had prevailed.



SLT was a very new profession in the UK in the 1930's when the film was set and it had grown out of actors working with World War 1 veterans as was the case with Lionel Logue. Very few had any formal qualifications but some were more successful than others and were able to set themselves up in private practice or work in hospitals. Education was not compulsory for all children until 1944 and the NHS did not exist until after the second world war. Therefore all therapy available at this time would have been paid for privately. Training courses were being established and therapists were joining together for support and to share information and knowledge. One such society was formed by Lionel Logue himself in 1935 greatly encouraged by The King. The College of Speech Therapists (CST) arose from the amalgamation of the Association of Speech Therapists and British Society of Speech Therapists Society, in 1944. King George VI became the College's first Royal Patron in 1948.



I am proud to be a speech and language therapist. I am proud to be part of a profession that has grown from the passion and vision of therapists such as Lionel Logue. I continue to believe today that it is the development of the therapeutic relationship with the client that makes the difference. This relationship can only develop if the therapist and the client have regular contact and sessions together so that they can get to know eachother, trust eachother and then the therapy activities and programnme of practice in between sessions can be truly tailored to the individual to maximise thier progress. Improving, enabling and enhancing communication skills makes a difference to that individual forever - and in the case of the King - it made a difference to the whole Country at its time of greatest need."

The People’s Speech



By now, innumerable people from many countries will have seen the film “The King’s Speech” and over the next months many more will do so.



Millions who had never given a thought to how voice is produced have suddenly been made aware of the physical exertion and mental focus we all must use when articulating joined up thoughts and expressing them as joined up words.



People seek vocal help for a variety of reasons.



They may - as in the film - have a serious impediment to overcome. They may want to ‘soften’ their native accent or become proficient in the use of accents other than their own. They may want their voice to sound louder or have a different tone. Some want help with a specific presentation. Many will be lecturers, teachers, actors, barristers whose livelihoods depend on a healthy voice.



No matter what the stated reason however, as every voice coach knows - and as was made so obvious in the Oscar nominated film - a universal reason for seeking help is to find ways of taking the terror out of talking.



By improving bodily and facial muscularity and discovering the patterns that produce efficient breath flow through the voice box; by working on stance and the expansion and contraction the ribcage; by controlling the flow of outward breath so that it impinges on the relevant resonant spaces behind the face and expresses joined up words and appropriate pauses, a voice coach can assist any client to achieve a clear, healthy voice.

But to make an appreciable difference to vocal delivery a voice coach has to find ways to get into a person’s head. S/he must, literally, get under the skin and on the nerves of clients and with coaxing, cajoling, coercing, suggesting, stroking, shaking, balancing, bending and bouncing vocal nuance from the core of the body to the tip of the tongue enable speakers to send well rounded information out of their mouths and into the ears of expectant listeners.



And with that last phrase, we have hit on the most crucial item in all voice work.



The main focus of voice work should be its effect on those who listen rather than on those who speak.



If, as in the film referred to above, the discomfort of the speaker is extreme, their internal squirming of embarrassment will be mirrored by the internal squirming of every audience member.



The amplification of that distress, especially as no one is able to go to the aid of the sufferer, causes everyone to tighten the chest and grimace and feel intense discomfort: paradoxically, only the initiator of the audience’s distress could possibly alleviate it.



Who am I doing this for? - should be first question anyone preparing any presentation should ask themselves. And the right answer is always going to be: Not for you, but for them.



Once speakers allow listeners’ needs to supersede their own, concern for that audience’s comfort immediately alleviates much of the stress the speaker is under. And once they have found out what listeners’ anxieties and concerns are likely to be, presenters automatically find themselves in a better state of mind to concentrate on the physical attributes of the job.



It was no accident that the King’s delivery was suddenly effective when addressing people at the outbreak war. Though the work with his voice coach was definitely of major consequence, his own realisation of the crucial effect this particular speech was to have on his listeners must have called forth extra stoicism.



That the nation, whose leadership he had so recently and unwillingly been forced to assume, now deserved to be thought of as individuals with exactly the same fears and foreboding as his own - must have impinged on his thinking.



The question Who am I doing this for? must have evoked the realisation that the people were now under his paternal care and so he could speak to them with the ease with which he addressed his own family.