For a historical drama it is always a fine line to walk between the repetition of historic facts and the refreshment with new creative parts. Sad thing about The King's Speech is, that it walks this line well from a script perspective, but it is rather unentertaining when it comes down to the historic facts. Every scene that is outside the room of Lionel Logue is a bit of a letdown, because you get the feeling that it is only there to provide a bit of additional drama. It sure tells the historic background a bit and the urgency of a strong and stammer-free King, but it feels short sometimes.
The entertainment in this movie is provided by the great chemistry of Firth and Rush. Their scenes, that they have together are strong in the dramatic department and they are giving this film the award spark. Firth, as the stammer Duke of York, who later becomes George VI, the King of the Kingdom of Britain, and Rush, as his therapist are doing a great job of playing their characters in an entertaining and interesting way. The thing between this two is, that the power is reversed, which makes for an interesting look at a Prince, that is working out of his comfort-zone. Logue as an authority works with the King with very unconventional methods. The King can argue about the way these methods are working, or about the way his therapist is treating him, but he cant argue with the results.
This look at a odd couple is great, not only because of the therapy but also because of the character development. George is opening himself to his therapist and those stories are really a strong dramatic act in the film. Colin Firth is getting a lot of attention because of his performance, but it might be for the wrong motives. He surely delivers a great acting performance with his stammer, the way his face is doing the stammer, how he keeps it up and only slightly improves his speech throughout the film, when his therapist is not available. That is a great performance, but he also delivers a human Highness, he is able to walk the thin line between a Royal Highness, that should demand respect out of every person, and a human being that really needs the help of a therapist.
Logue as the counterpart is a demanding and autherity thriven person, who is the only "doctor" around, who can treat the King because of the lack of respect for his social position. That is a social image that is hard to deliver, but those two are working as a cohisive unit that brings across this fact perfectly.
At the end of the movie, where the therapist has to leave his safe castle, to really help his patient out of the house in the real world, the relationship between those two is great and as an audience you really get the equal level of these two. The only thing that makes underlines the social difference between the two right there is the great camera work. The speech George delivers, The King's speech, is done in a small room, and Logue and George are treated as equals, only the fact that the camera is looking upwards to George and down to Logue manifests the difference between the two at the end. With these small things Tom Hooper was able to get the equal relationship that should exist between a therapist and his patient, but still showing the different social levels.
Other than that The King's Speech is a good film, that deserves the award spotlight, but is not entertaining all the way through. What still remains is a great performance by Firth, Rush and also Helena Bonham Carter, she plays the "first lady" the proper attitude and also is performing the equal relationship at the end of the movie. It´s a well-rounded cast with a good story and great performances, that are elevating this movie to a hot candidate for any award!
Rating : 9 out of 10
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen