The last film that both my Gran and I wanted to see was The Full Monty. I, because at the age of 12 was interested in the plight of the steel workers in Thatcherite Sheffield and my Gran, well let’s just say she is a horny old bird. This time the film was the King’s Speech. I, because I was interested in hearing a seldom told story from our nations’ history and my Gran because Colin Firth is a bit of crumpet and as I said before she is a horny old bird. Unfortunately our timetables couldn’t be matched to facilitate us both seeing the film so I watched the film on my own (Which I have to say after hearing reports regarding the behaviour of pensioners in cinemas on the Mayo vs. Kermode podcast I was a little bit relieved about).
With the hype of my friends and all the world’s film critics ringing in my ears I positioned my-self with a continental beer and prepared to be underwhelmed.
Plot wise the film follows the life of George the VI through the abdication crisis up until the out-break of war. During which he receives treatment for a stutter that threatens to affect his acceptance as the nation’s king and the voice of the empire.
Underwhelmed I was not. To be honest I was expecting something of a costume drama with big set pieces around the archaic traditions of the royal family. What I got was a film that was so visually understated that I can’t even recall seeing a crown. What I also got was a film that was funny. Laugh out loud genuinely funny. The bizarre methods employed as therapy, great flippant one liners (Do you know any jokes/Timing isn’t my strong point) as well as the repressed tone and politics of the time all lifted the spirits in a film that tells the story of a personal accomplishment on the eve of international catastrophe.
One point that passed me by but was raised quite brilliantly by the long suffering girlfriends long suffering mother was the casting of Ramona Marquez (the precocious cheeky little girl from outnumbered) as the royal wild child in waiting princess Margaret.
Lots of the praise for the Kings Speech has been focused on the central acting performance of Colin Firth and rightly so. He is brilliant, so brilliant that for the foreseeable future I will now see George the VI as Mr Firth. With this in mind let me raise a tentative point about the acting in Hollywood ‘Blockbuster’ cinema and more ‘serious’ cinema. Hollywood ‘Blockbuster’ actors don’t play a variety of roles in the same way as those actors that keep one finger in the artistic pie whilst dipping a toe in their LA rooftop pool. Those routed to the top of the Hollywood ‘A’ list play such a narrow spectrum of characters that one could easily imagine them to leave the set of one film as one character and return as another without the audience noticing any difference in their performance beyond a costume change. Could George VI walk in and play the role of Darcy in either Pride or Prejudice or Bridget Jones? No! Because when a good actor plies his trade you are invested not in the actor but in the character that they play. The actor as a person and even as an artist is removed from the character and only once the film has ended can this feat be appreciated. How about Rachel from Friends turning up as Jim Carrey’s wife in Bruce Almighty, Polly Prince in Along Came Polly, Brooke in the break up, Jennifer in Marley and me or Nicole in The Bounty Hunter. This is a woman who is one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars and like most on the list she appears to do little in the way of acting to have achieved this accolade.
*Cough* Rant over.
Anyway the film is great. You should go and see it. Actually you probably already have.
No comments:
Post a Comment