The King's Speech

On Friday we went to see The King's Speech (2010), which (if you didn't know by now) is the Oscar-winning tale of King George VI's 1939 radio address to the nation -how he managed to overcome his speech impediment to do so, and his relationship with his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Our reactions were generally positive -it was technically very good, very funny, and well acted all round.

In the back of my mind while watching it, however, was the scolding dismissal of the film offered by our other monarch, Peter Hitchens (image below, Guardian). In his January 10th blog post 'The Real King's Story, versus 'The King's Speech'' he attacked:

• the promotion around the film ('propagandist's art')
  
• the swearing in the film ('unnecessary and false')
• the woman to his left in the cinema ('who had a laugh like a wombat being electrocuted')
• the actors ('Colin Firth is badly miscast')
• the portrayal of the Archbishop of Canterbury ('childish and incredible')
• historical accuracy ('smiley and largely false')
• King George VI ('I regard this behaviour [this appearance with Chamberlain after Munich]...an unconstitutional and partisan action')
• ad infinitum

The fascinating thing about his article is his utter lack of humour, borne clearly out of a distrust over the 'hype' surrounding the film (which made me sceptical also). His ire falls first upon the 'left-wing and conservative' audience against which he feels superior -the laughter of the audience is either republican in nature or down to some kind of 'pack' mentality. He insinuates, amazingly, that it is 'nasty'.

His historical criticisms aside (I study the past and had no serious objection to anything in it), Hitchens loaths the treatment the oath suffers at the hands of Logue, objecting in particular to the character referring to it as 'rubbish', and the treatment of the archbishop and the CofE as fusty and cantankerous. Partly this is down to Hitchen's own traditionalist politics and religious views, but probably it is because he misses the point; the filmmakers wish to show the contrast between Logue's irreverent, egalitarian outlook and George VI's social position and privilege. Hitchens, a fusty and cantankerous institution himself, feels personally insulted where others just feel amused.

Last Thursday he summarised the plot thus:

'cheeky, hard-up, informal and classless Aussie jackaroo saves stuck-up repressed royal snob from stammer probably caused by snobbish repression, largely by making him swear and by mocking the grandeur of his position’

-which is a falsehood: even a glance at the title would indicate that Logue saves the King by teaching him how to deliver his speech -and thus preserve the 'grandeur of his position'.

But enough of fools, it's Sunday:

As a relative newcomer to The Beatles, I have so far stuck to the more accessible songs in their discography. The very first thing that stuck me about this particular song was the lyrics, which seem incredibly tame to modern ears, but which give it a sort of innocent charm. It's very catchy and uplifting, especially the Love album version, and used to make perfect listening on cold, slow, tiring workdays. I Want To Hold Your Hand pipped Drive My Car and Back In the USSR to the Sunday Song title this week.