An impeccable British film for audiences across the pond, too.

Rating: Null/10 (30 January 2011)

The King's Speech is the type of film that wins awards, despite what mass audiences may think of it. It is beautifully made, almost without any blemish at all. The acting is beyond superb; Colin Firth must and will win the Best Actor Oscar in a brilliantly ironic performance where he succeeds at being unable to talk. This performance goes beyond simply getting down the patterns of King George's stammer; it is detailed and calculated for every scene to create a stunning portrayal of a man afraid of his duty to his country but brave enough to attempt it, unlike his brother. Helena Bonham Carter also deserves great recognition for her small but important role as George's wife, a pleasant woman who fiercely loves her husband and is willing to do anything to help him. Yet, perhaps the best and most overlooked performance is that of Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue, a rather unorthodox speech therapist whose unequivocal mannerisms and treatment of George as simply another patient stir up in the nervous monarch the courage and determination to defeat his setbacks.
All accolades aside, this is an interesting film to approach. It is being hailed by many as one of the best films of 2010 along with The Social Network. In many ways, they share similar themes and ideas. Both are about the power of communication and language. Each focuses on one individual attempting to change their methods of connecting with others, though for very different reasons. The most interesting difference between the two films is how they are made and the style and substance each possesses. The King's Speech is a glorious British period piece, focusing on the commoner's favorite topic: royalty, methodically paced and wonderfully made with excellent acting, stunning sets, minimalistic direction and a tasteful and witty script. By contrast, The Social Network hurdles at a pace rarely seen by films today that don't include an action sequence. The speech is biting, cunning, cynical and is thrown at the audience so quickly it bears a second viewing just to understand all the great lines.
So, the question everyone will ask on February 27 is which film will walk away with the most Oscars? In thinking about that question, having seen and greatly admired both films, perhaps it is best to not care what the Academy thinks and appreciate each film on its own merit. Each has a different story, style and audience in mind and for those goals they pass with flying colors. In a way, this is the kind of film that destroys the rigid thinking of such awards and presentations. I am sure that the actors, writers, director and other cast and crew on each film did not make their respective works in hopes of winning the little golden statue. They did so because they believed in the material and were willing to do their best to ensure it was the best viewing experience possible.
With these thoughts in mind, I will watch the Oscars ceremony, not worried about which film will win the coveted Best Picture. Rather, I will attempt to appreciate each work for what it is: a crowning achievement for all involved and a depiction of the power and influence speech and communication can have. Whether you're a WWII-era Brit or a modern-day American with a Facebook account, it's easy to see that these films are great examples of how to make an organic, exciting and moving story.