2011: The Year in Film: "The King's Speech" Review

So here we are in 2011. One week down, one movie seen. While technically this one was released in 2010, I saw it in 2011, so I'm counting it as movie #1 of 2011, and it was a good one to start with. Colin Firth has become one of the best actors working today after popping out of relative obscurity just a few years ago, if it wasn't for Jeff Bridges' brilliance last year, he'd have won best actor last year. We here in America have an odd obsession with the British royal family. They certainly can be fascinating, and serve as an odd juxtaposition of how different our world is today than it was a hundred years ago... as royals feel like an anachronistic relic. Queen Elizabeth II is now the longest reigning sovereign in the history of Great Britain, but before she became Queen Britain was ruled by her father, King George VI. King George VI inherited by a quirk of history, as his brother, Edward VII abdicated the throne so that he may marry an American divorcee. The story behind this film is really a fascinating story in British royal history and in world history in general. As royals found their practical function all but eroded, they discovered they were in demand for another purpose, as popular inspirational figures expected to make speeches and public appearances. So people were born into positions that now demanded that they be able speakers and handsome faces. George VI had a speech impediment that made him nearly unable to communicate, and due to his brother's scandalous affair, ascended to the throne of Great Britain. This film tells his story.

This film is first and foremost a story about a remarkable friendship. Colin Firth shines as Prince Albert who would become King George VI, displaying the fears, anxiety and sheer terror that can accompany having to speak in individuals afflicted with a stammer. Geoffrery Rush plays his speech therapist, an Australian named Lionel Logue, who worked with Prince Albert for a number of years to help him overcome his difficulty speaking. Helena Bonham Carter plays Queen Elizabeth, mother to the current queen and wife to "Berty". Having exhausted more traditional means of treating the problem, the Dutchess and Duke of York find themselves in a London basement seeking the help of a forward-thinking and eccentric Australian by the name of Lionel Logue who insists on crossing just about every social barrier that the Prince has ever known. His unorthodox techniques get through, and the Prince and commoner strike off an interesting and unorthodox friendship. When George VI takes the throne, the outbreak of war with Germany is upon us, bringing new obligations to his position. The king is now looked to by the people to inspire and lead, something that could be tremendously difficult for a stutterer.

This is a remarkable film. Part period piece, part historical study, part buddy flick, it does exactly what it sets out to do, tell the story of how this friendship came to define these men in a critical time and place in British history. A historical odd couple.



This film is small in scope and yet sweeping at times. It ranges from taking place in a single room to sweeping palaces and Wembley Stadium and Westminster Abbey. It is at its strongest when Firth and Rush are together, bantering back and forth. In the hands of these two capable performers, you believe the friendship and depth of feeling between these men. Firth's performance cannot be understated. In his hands George VI has all the anxieties and vulnerabilities (and yet potential) of a man beaten down by years of criticism and beratement who continues to persevere. The cast is tremendous, led by Firth and Rush obviously, who will both be nominated for academy awards, but Bonham Carter is strong as well (and I was concerned about her going in) and a slightly miscast Guy Pearce does pretty well with the material he's given as Edward VII. Michael Gambon as George V is great as well.

I have criticisms. First, the film is overly sentimental at times, feeling like a feel-good hit when it's far too good for that. Second, it's almost like there are little historical Easter eggs thrown in, that can distract from the film. Look! She'll be Queen Elizabeth! (as the camera lingers a bit too long on Firth's daughter in the film) Ditto for Neville Chamerlain and Winston Churchill. Also, Guy Pearce is supposed to be playing Firth's older brother, and it is not for one minute believable that the 50 year old Firth is younger than the 43 year old Pearce. Just poor casting. Also, the film could have benefited from more characterization of Logue. The king becomes a fully developed character while the motivations for his therapist aren't as clear.

But these are small critiques from a film that is often funny, inspiring, tremendously well acted, and tells a story that certainly is worth telling.

8.3/10. If you need a flick to see with your parents, this is the one.

2010: The Year in Film: Black Swan review.

This is the last entry in the "2010: The Year in Film" series, with which I documented my personal journey through what ultimately proved to be a rather strong year in movies. Never fear though loyal readers, as I've decided to continue the trend of reviewing every flick I see in theaters into 2011. Secondly, let me apologize for taking forever to post this review. I originally saw "Black Swan" on Thursday, December 30th and was delayed by epic NYE revelry and subsequent illness from posting this review. Without further ado, let us begin. Darren Aronofsky is a true auteur/madman. He is one of the most rewarding directors working today, in my opinion. Every one of his films (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler) is an achievement, and an Aronofsky film is a "must-see" for me in a way that only a select few other directors' works are. And it never-fails, his films bring something unique to the table. This particular film has a lot in common with Aronofsky's last film, "The Wrestler", which similarly dealt with an individual making sacrifices for the sake of their craft.

"Black Swan" is, at the surface, a film about a ballerina who, through an obsessive dedication to her craft, sees her life and psyche begin to unravel. Our protagonist, Nina (Natalie Portman) is a dancer with a prestigious New York City ballet company whose entire life has been a single minded dedication to ballet. Nina, presumably in her mid-20's (she's at least 21, and comments are made about how she's been at the company for several years), shares a small apartment with her overbearing mother, an ex-dancer herself. Her life, from morning to night, consists of attempting to become a perfect dancer. When the longtime prima ballerina at the company is forced into retirement (Winona Rider), Nina sees an opportunity for her profile at the company to expand, and the company holds open auditions for the role of the Swan Queen in the next season's performance of "Swan Lake". Nina wins the role, but the skeezy choreographer Thomas cautions her that she must embrace a darker, more sexual side of herself to become the Black Swan in the ballet's second act. The girlish Nina struggles with pleasing her mother, Thomas and herself, and finds the pressures of the role begin to drive her to a mental breakdown. The arrival of a new dancer, Lily, from San Francisco, who is everything that Nina is not, hastens Nina's paranoia and breakdown.

The Wrestler focused on the destructive physical effects single minded dedication to a demanding craft could have, and while there is some of that here (Nina's feet are grotesque), this is the other side of the coin, the psychological side. In pursuing perfection, the obsessive Nina finds herself losing her grip on reality. As the film crescendos to its conclusion, Nina and we, the audience, are unable to discern what is real from what is psychological, and the film reaches Hitchcock-ian levels of surreal hallucination.

This film looks great, with close shots and angles adding to the feeling that Nina is becoming trapped. What ultimately makes this film are the performances. Portman gives the performance of her lifetime, and her sincerity in the role grounds what could be absurd as something visceral and serious. Kunis, as the sensual and eccentric Lily, is a revelation. Rider does a great job of conveying the damage that a lifetime of pressure and mindgames can do, and Vincent Cassel is convincing as a choreographer who doesn't hesitate to take advantage of his position relative the dancers. But make no mistake, this is Portman's show. She is prominently featured in just about every shot and without her bringing her "A" game, this movie simply doesn't work.



But work it does. This is a film about showbiz, about the dangers of obsessive behavior, about how the pursuit for perfection and beauty warps those pursuing it, and ultimately, about creation. On a meta level, as an allegory about creating films, is probably where it feels the most personal. The farther away I get from this film and the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is a work of art from a director and a performer at the top of their games. Portman clearly dedicated herself to the role, she is convincing as an elite ballerina, even if it's sometimes clear that she's not always dancing, she does a good enough job all things considered. My criticisms are few, but there are some, mainly that the psychological trippiness of the last act can devolve to almost horror-esque shocks, and it is impossible to discern what's real from what's not. While that's fine as a psychological thriller, as a narrative, it's a questionable move. But that in no way detracts from the impact of the film's conclusion or the value of this film.

As a psychological thriller among other things, this film stands tall among the year's best. This one will be heard from at award's season and stands proudly among Aronofsky's strongest efforts.

8.5/10.