I just wished the scriptwriter had realised he was writing a script, not rewriting history

Rating: 8/10 (14 February 2011)

In the British constitution, the King's (or Queen's) Speech is the annual address given by the monarch to Parliament, setting out the Government's legislative programme for the coming parliamentary session. This film, however, uses the word "speech" in a different sense; it tells the story of the efforts of King George VI, the father of our current Queen, to overcome his stammer.
The film opens in 1925, when the future monarch was still known as HRH The Prince Albert, Duke of York. He was a younger son whom few expected ever to accede to the throne; the heir apparent was his elder brother, Edward Price of Wales. The two brothers are utterly unlike in character. Edward is handsome, charismatic and eloquent. Albert, shy and lacking in self-confidence, is widely regarded as dull, even by members of his own family, especially his overbearing father King George V. He is due to give the closing speech at the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, but because of his stammer is unable to get his words out. In desperation he turns to Lionel Logue, an unorthodox Australian-born speech therapist. Although Logue, a failed actor, has no formal qualifications, he gained a high reputation with his work teaching shell-shocked troops after World War I, and believes that he can help the Duke. As the two work together they gradually become friends, although Logue initially shocks the Duke with his informality, addressing him not (as etiquette demands) as "Your Royal Highness", or even by his full Christian name Albert, but by the diminutive "Bertie", otherwise only used by his family.
At one time it might not have mattered very much, except to the individual concerned, whether a junior member of the Royal Family suffered from a speech defect. In the twenties and thirties, however, things were changing. The invention of radio and cinema newsreels meant that ordinary people could now hear the voices of their rulers in their own homes; George V had become an accomplished radio performer and broadcast a message to his subjects every Christmas. Dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, both fluent orators, seized upon the new medium to spread their propaganda. Moreover, Bertie was not fated to remain a junior member of the Royal Family; the Abdication Crisis of 1936 meant that he was compelled, reluctantly, to ascent the throne which his brother had vacated to marry Mrs Simpson. The new King was forced to rely on Logue's assistance to help him perform his royal duties, especially after the outbreak of war, less than three years after his accession, meant that he had to act as spokesman for the nation.
"The King's Speech" is in many ways a good film, but its main fault is the way in which it tries to rewrite the historical record to bring it into line with standard received ideas. According to the standard received interpretation, Edward VIII was a Bad King, not only because he was vain and selfish but also because he was pro-Nazi, or at any rate pro-appeasement. Appeasement, of course, was a thoroughly Bad Thing, as were politicians like Baldwin and Chamberlain who supported it. The abdication was therefore a Good Thing in the long run because it got rid of Bad King Edward and replaced him with Good King George who was anti-Nazi and anti-appeasement and supported Churchill who of course was a very Good Thing and helped us win the war.
There is some truth in this interpretation of history, but it involves some massive oversimplification of a much more complex reality, and this film does not just oversimplify that reality; it also distorts it, in three significant ways. Firstly, it shows Churchill as supporting the abdication, whereas in fact he, almost alone among Britain's political establishment, opposed it and supported Edward. (His only ally was the Fascist leader Oswald Mosley). Secondly, it implies that Baldwin came to regret his earlier support for appeasement and shows him apologising for this policy to the King on leaving office, whereas Baldwin's policy was continued after his retirement by his successor Chamberlain, with Baldwin's full support. Thirdly, it ignores altogether George VI's support for Chamberlain, with whom he appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after the Munich Conference.
And yet in many ways the film is a very good one. The acting is of a very high standard, and the three nominations for acting Oscars are well deserved. Helena Bonham Carter bears little physical resemblance to the late Queen Mother, but is nevertheless well able to give a convincing impression of her formidable personality. As for Colin Firth as Bertie and Geoffrey Rush as Logue, in an ideal world they would be nominated for a joint Oscar for best combined acting performance, as I felt that theirs was a partnership where the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. The film tells the story of how these two very different men learned to work together, with a certain initial distrust giving way to respect and eventually friendship, and the obvious rapport between Firth and Rush helps to convey the sense of a similar rapport between their characters. Of the other cast members, I would single out Guy Pearce's contribution as the arrogant, self-centred Edward.
Overall, Tom Hooper's film tells a story of warmth and humanity and tells it well, often with the aid of humour. (The scene where Logue persuades Bertie to repeat a string of profanities went down well in the cinema). The story of how George VI overcame his problems to become one of Britain's best-loved monarchs is an inspiring one; like Stephen Frears' "The Queen" from a few years ago, this film gives a surprisingly positive picture of the British monarchy in a supposedly republican world. I just wished that the scriptwriter had realised that he was writing a script, not rewriting history. 8/10