The King's Gift

I have a quick question about the bromance at the heart of The King's Speech.  Why did the King not ever grant Lionel Logue the Knighthood within his power to give?  It is true he made Logue a Commander (CVO) - however, the top two rankings include a knighthood of the order.  Perhaps rewarding a friend in this way would have been unseemly - but given that all the failed speech-doctors were knighted (according to the screenplay itself) the dramatic outcome should have been, surely, such public recognition / redemption.  Nor was Logue as poor as in the film (he lived in a large villa with dozens of rooms).  I also have a few continuity questions, particularly relating to chairs/ thrones in the Cathedral scene - at times there is one, at others two, within a few shots.  Finally, is it at all likely that the King would have really kept, for years, the recording of his voice, that finally, in the film, triggers his return to Logue?  And, if he could read perfectly while listening to loud music - why was this method never employed during the famous broadcasts?  I think Hooper's film is very good, but found it very much a play for voices (the radio play of 2008 is actually more moving), and, while Rush is magnificent, think a lot of it mannered, old-hat and slow-moving.  That being said, Logue's central sympathy, compassion and humour is admirable and I am glad he is receiving posthumous recognition on a wider scale for his good works.  The Social Network should win the Oscar tonight for best film, though - it is the Citizen Kane of our time.

Comments

Mark Granier said…
'The Social Network should win the Oscar tonight for best film, though - it is the Citizen Kane of our time.'

I had an interesting chat about this movie with a cousin of mine who's an experienced film editor with very strong opinions on practically any film you can name. She disliked TSN and considered it misplaced stage play. While I respect her opinion, I didn't agree, or not quite. I enjoyed TSN, but thought it a moderately entertaining drama that really (if the wider public were more discerning) should have gone straight to DVD. The film is visually pretty bland, and though the cast and script are good, the characters' relentless vapidity (true to life perhaps but who cares?) is ultimately wearisome. The film is pretty much devoid of anything truly interesting or surprising, anything that makes 'cinema' cinematic, apart from the fact that it's VERY topical. Compare to the Coen Brothers' True Grit, which isn't their best film but has some unforgettable visual (and other) delights, the kind of nourishing stuff I go to the cinema for.
According to Wikipedia, Albert,Duke of York, was sufficiently cured by Lionel Logue to give an address at the opening of the Australian Parliament in Canberra, in 1927! Hardly enough drama to compete with the film's 'King's Speech' to the nation at the start of WWII.

Popular posts from this blog

My small press ethos

Review of the new Simple Minds album - Walk Between Worlds

TEN TOP REASONS TO VOTE FOR TODD SWIFT FOR OXFORD PROFESSOR OF POETRY