The King's Speech (2010) - 7/10

I probably resent this movie too much to give it a truly fair rating. It still blows my mind that this is the film that won the Academy Award when The Social Network and Inception were right there. And that's just using my personal bias. There were also plenty of other great movies that measured up to The King's Speech. Yet I think time always wins out, and this admittedly strong film has not enjoyed the same lasting impact that many of its contemporaries have.

Time, I guess, to put the rubric to the test and see if we can figure out where this film actually sits.

1. Acting

By far the greatest strength this film has is its exceptional cast. While the supporting cast features a number of great actors, their roles are so minimized that there is little to dig into outside of our main three players: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter.

Carter gets the least amount to do within the script, but she absolutely shines in her smaller moments. Much like her real-life character, Carter seems to be the glue that holds the entire endeavor together. She oozes regality in almost everything she does, and the simultaneously calculated and casual way she delivers every line is pitch-perfect.

Her emotionality may never be explicit, but Carter fills Queen Elizabeth with an enormous amount of depth through very little expression. Similarly, she effortlessly imbues many moments with a deft touch of comedy that is expertly delivered. I really have nothing but praise for her here.

As for Rush and Firth, their performances and relationship are the core of the movie and, like Carter, they absolutely nail it. The sometimes contentious but deeply affectionate friendship that develops over the course of the film is both fun to watch and genuinely emotional.

Separately, they also seem to have a strong sense of character. Rush, in particular, gets to have a bit of fun in a meta-esque role where Lionel dreams of being a revered actor. But in the end, it is Firth who shines.

When it comes to British royalty, it can be hard to separate truth from projection. The film takes some reported liberties with both the timeline and extent of King George's stammer, but Firth and the filmmakers seem more interested in the complexities of George himself anyway. While it's difficult to judge how accurate his portrayal may have been, there is little doubt that they crafted a fully realized person. Every choice, every stammer, and every emotion put on display feels authentic. More importantly, it makes a movie that is essentially just two hours of speech therapy feel far more compelling than it has any right to be.

2. Cinematography

For a film that is largely conversational in nature, I really enjoyed the manner in which it was shot.

Starting with its overall look, it may not be the most dynamic film in terms of lighting or color. Luckily, that seems to have been the point. It may not be an overly original aesthetic, but the muted and often grayish—almost overcast—visual palette is fitting for both the period and this type of story. The focus is not the look but the proceedings, and I think the somewhat drab vibe helps focus the audience's attention.

More importantly, though, I think the shooting style is one of the film's finest attributes. There are a few different techniques happening throughout the movie that I found myself subconsciously engaging with, and they demonstrate a level of thoughtfulness that many conventionally shot films tend to overlook. For instance, the film frequently jumps back and forth between wide-angle shots and close-ups.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I just love a good wide-angle shot. When done right, it makes the entire scene feel fuller and more engrossing. It's as though you're not just watching Lionel and Bertie go back and forth in conversation, the frame is open enough to invite you into the room with them.

I also like how these wide shots are not always centered on the characters. For instance, in the scene where George and Lionel first meet, the characters are often positioned to one side of the frame while the rest remains largely empty. These types of unbalanced or asymmetric compositions are excellent at communicating imbalance within a story. In this particular example, the social imbalance and unease between the characters are reinforced by the that framing.

On the other hand, the film also leans heavily into close-ups, especially on King George. Whether he is in the middle of therapy or painfully stammering through a speech, getting right up in his face forces the audience to engage fully with how he is feeling in the moment. In the early stages of the film, such as the opening speech at Wembley, this technique highlights the excruciating discomfort George feels when he is unable to overcome his stammer in public. The sequence is full of tension and makes it nearly impossible to look away from the discomfort. However, in a wonderful moment of symmetry, the same type of close-up is used during the film's finale when King George delivers his rousing speech. His triumph is highlighted through that intimate framing, and the audience's exhilaration is amplified by sharing the moment so directly with him.

3. Production/Costume Design

As this is a period piece, the production design obviously needs to be of a high quality in order to transport the audience into the setting. I can't necessarily speak to the historical accuracy of every detail, but it certainly feels immersive. The sets, costumes, and props all feel period-appropriate and look fantastic.

Perhaps my favorite aspect, though, is how many of the spaces feel lived in. Lionel's office, in particular, not only feels real but also possesses a warmth and personality that mirror the character himself. Similarly, many of the royal settings feel hollow or even intimidating. The church scene, for example, isn't designed to highlight the beauty of the space (though it probably is beautiful in person). Instead, it feels cold, shadowy, and empty. It's almost intimidating in nature and mirrors some of the internal struggles and trepidation George experiences leading up to his coronation.

4. Writing

Two things can be true: this is a very engaging and warm story of friendship and overcoming adversity, but it is also an overly dramatized retelling of a guy making speeches.

From a pure plot perspective, nothing here is particularly compelling at face value. George has a stammer. Through circumstance, he is forced into making increasingly public speeches. Eventually, he learns to manage his stammer, and the story concludes with him delivering a rousing address. If that sounds boring, it's because it kind of is.

Obviously, the plot itself is incidental. The real story being told is that of an unlikely friendship between George and Lionel, as well as George confronting long-unacknowledged trauma. The strongest writing comes when the two characters are dealing directly with that trauma, such as before George's coronation or when George finally opens up about his childhood and his complicated relationship with his father.

The film also flirts with some interesting peripheral ideas. For example, we spend at least some time discussing the class system that separates George and Lionel and are offered at least some contention regarding its existence. Similarly, the film makes minor allusions to the fragility of monarchies and democracies during the rise of fascism. It even draws a connection between the power of speech and the way Hitler wielded populism for evil while others attempted to wield it for good.

In the end, however, these ideas mostly amount to tertiary references within the story's broader context. Maybe the film would have been more compelling if it branched further into those areas, but I think maintaining a narrower focus ultimately worked a little better.

5. Sound Design

From the very beginning, Alexandre Desplat's score makes an indelible impression. His music perfectly captures the warmth of the film's tone while also imbuing it with a sense of regality and slight uptightness. It fits the film's vibe beautifully and is lovely to listen to on its own.

Apart from the score, the sound design itself is also excellent. I especially appreciated the lengths they went to in recreating the sound of early radio broadcasts. Every bit of microphone reverb and every crackle of the then-new technology feels immersive and helps sell both the period and the importance of the events taking place.

6. Editing

Just like with the cinematography, part of the challenge in making a drama like this compelling is overcoming some of its inherent limitations. Through the editing, the filmmakers seem intent on injecting the movie with a sense of urgency and momentum. Many times, a more conventional film would have remained in a particular shot type and simply cut back and forth through its coverage. Here, it feels as though every scene was captured from multiple angles and framings in order to maximize variety in the edit.

The end result is that every cut feels like it's taking us somewhere new, creating a pace that films like this often lack. It turns what is roughly a two-hour movie into something that frequently feels closer to a brisk ninety-minute experience.

7. Visual Effects

I imagine there is actually a surprising amount of VFX hidden throughout this movie. It's certainly no Marvel film, but I think the filmmakers smartly picked their moments and largely used CGI to expand sets and crowds, making the production feel larger than it actually was. 

It also appears to have been used to create visual consistency, as the outdoor environments often match the somewhat drab and grayish tone that defines the rest of the film.

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation

Is this movie a fairly typical example of Oscar bait? I'd argue yes. As I mentioned earlier, the plot is mostly an excuse to explore a fairly well-trodden hero's journey. Nevertheless, I think this adaptation of a real-world friendship and its broader impact on history is a worthwhile endeavor.

9. Stunt Coordination

Nothing to note.

10. Direction

Tom Hooper is a talented director with some less-than-great entries in his filmography.

I haven't gotten to The Danish Girl yet on the watchlist, but I think it's safe to say that The King's Speech remains the best example of the level of work he is capable of producing. Now we just need to see whether he can ever fully wash the stink of Cats off himself and return to making films like this.

Legacy / Final Thoughts

At the beginning, I mentioned that I am oddly bitter about the praise this movie received upon release given the stronger films that came out that same year. Luckily, I think the rubric helped me appreciate the film more once that context was stripped away.

Still, in the end, I think this is a very well-made movie that manages to be both broadly appealing and specific enough to understand why it was in contention for so many awards. The problem is that while the individual parts are great, I am still not convinced that the whole truly measures up to its accolades. I don't think it's unfair to point out that this is ultimately a breezy drama about a man overcoming a relatively minor adversity. And while many of its contemporaries pushed the boundaries of imagination and filmmaking form, this film is content to remain within conventional lines, saying little that feels particularly new or ambitious.

It's a good movie. I'm just not convinced it's the best movie of 2010.