Skip to main content

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.
Labels:

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.
Fri Mar 04, 03:01:00 pm 2011
Norbert Hirschhorn said…
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.
Sat Mar 05, 09:57:00 am 2011
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more