Compelling tale of King George VI's transformation despite historical inaccuracies

Rating: 8/10 (25 February 2011)

On one level, 'The King's Speech' hits a home run in its moving depiction of how speech therapist Lionel Logue corrects the stammering speech of an arrogant Duke of York and transforms him into now confident monarch (and well-rounded good guy), King George VI. On a much different level, 'The Kings Speech' has a harder time in accurately depicting the true historical circumstances of the king's transformation and the complexity of the political machinations surrounding his ascent to the throne.
The creators of the film admittedly took liberties as to the accuracy of the time it took Logue to correct Albert's (The Duke of York, aka 'Bertie's') speech. The film informs that Albert met Logue in 1934, when they actually met earlier in 1926. And within seven months, in 1927, under Logue's tutelage, Albert already showed marked improvement in a speech given to the Australian parliament in Canberra. The film, of course, would like us to believe that it wasn't until 1939, when the WW II had just broken out, that the King finally found his mettle. But it's also possible that the King had improved but then regressed at a certain point, requiring additional instruction on Logue's part. I recently heard Colin Firth remark that he listened to a public speech given by King George as late as 1938, and it was not at all impressive (actually downright embarrassing!).
Fiddling with the time line as to how long it took Logue to truly shape the King's speech, is not such a big deal in comparison to the film's distortion of history regarding the political sympathies surrounding the Abdication and the Royal family's attitude toward Hitler. The film hardly calls attention to the fact that Albert's brother, King Edward VIII (later known as the Duke of Windsor following his abdication), was a great admirer of the Nazis (even after the war broke out). What's more, Churchill (played by a completely miscast Timothy Spall), despite having arranged a coalition against the Nazis, inexplicably supported King Edward during the Abdication crisis. Not only wasn't King George a friend of Churchill during the time of the Abdication (for the obvious reason of Churchill's support of his brother) but soon afterward sided with Churchill's political opponent, Neville Chamberlain, who advocated a policy of appeasement toward Hitler. 'The King's Speech' would like us to believe that King George was always against the Nazis, but such an attitude did not emerge, until the war broke out.
Despite the historical inaccuracies, 'The King's Speech' pulls us in through the story of a unique and engaging relationship between student and teacher. The opening scene, where Albert must speak publicly for the first time at Wembley Stadium in 1925, establishes the extent of his malady—a stuttering problem that proves to be the source of profound embarrassment for both the Royal Family themselves and the public at large.
When the Duke of York meets his therapist, Lionel Logue, the contrast between the two could not be more profound. While Logue exudes a child-like spontaneity, 'Bertie' is uptight and arrogant (Logue's grandson maintains that his grandfather never swore in front of the King nor did he call him 'Bertie'). As their relationship develops, Logue tries to get Albert to see the connection between his stuttering and repressed upbringing. Albert opens up enough to reveal how he had to cope with his strict father and had to endure the family's insistence that he suppress his natural left-handedness and correct a knock-knee condition through the use of painful splints.
It's the Abdication and its consequences that causes the 'dark moment' of the Second Act of the narrative. After David (King Edward) accuses Albert of trying to take over the throne by attempting to make himself more competent (via the speech lessons), Albert becomes completely tongue-tied and is unable to reply to his brother's humiliating taunts, which he endured so many times during his childhood. Then when Logue suggests that Albert can be king, the Duke of York ironically takes his brother's side by accusing Logue of offering up a suggestion that could be construed as being treasonous. The Duke belittles Logue for his failed acting career as well as his lower middle class upbringing.
Facing the prospect of making the most important speech of his life, the King eventually realizes that he needs Logue's help and seeks him out again. When the King apologizes, we realize that the king has had an epiphany. The act of 'eating humble pie' brings the King back down to earth; he now finally realizes that he's no better than his subjects despite his royal standing and can now relate to Logue as an equal and not a superior. And Logue must eat a little 'humble pie' of his own when the King reproaches him for likening 'The Stone of Scone' to an outdated relic. Logue comes to respect the institution of the Monarchy as it is now ably represented by King George, who exudes a new found confidence in his position as regent.
Geoffrey Rush steals the show in his wonderful depiction of the empathetic and iconoclastic speech therapist. Although he bears no resemblance to the real King George, Colin Firth does an excellent job in conveying the King's inner turmoil, as he vacillates between arrogance and self-knowledge. I wonder if the film's producers might have considered Guy Pearce for the part of the King himself as Pearce bears a striking resemblance to both the Duke of Windsor and King George VI. I actually wanted to see more of him in the film. Helena Bonham Carter doesn't have much to do as the King's wife and I can't understand why she was nominated for best supporting actress.
'The King's Speech' ironically is a tale about the oppressed becoming the oppressor. King George was oppressed as a child but became an 'oppressor', as an arrogant and distant monarch. Thanks to a warm and kindly mentor, the King 'turned out alright'.