Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings
Tax the Rich
Movie Monday
When I see blogs not updated for years, I feel less guilty but only slightly. Sorry to be absent for a week plus but it started with absolutely no movie worth reviewing on a Monday and then Miss L arrived. (Pictures have been taken but still reside in the camera.) It turns out she's only 6 weeks old which I think is too young for separation from siblings and mom. (Are dog papas absent dads?)
She is a lab/golden mix; so tiny and fluffy; all black with streaks of gold and tiny white dots over her eyes. (You can tell I really don't like this dog!) Smart as a whip. I know, every dog mom says that. But she is. She doesn't just back off when reprimanded sternly (remember these dogs are all in training); she backs off and tries to get out of her collar to run away. Right now, she's housebroken, unless angered (that is, you leave the room with the royal bowing) when she gets pissed and pisses. She sleeps a good portion of the night and takes about 3 separate naps in the daytime. And she is so hungry.
More on Miss L in a later blog. On to the movies. In keeping with the mood of the royal bow I just mentioned, I saw The King's Speech last night. A quick summary: we watch the stutterer and future George VI of England get help for his speech problem, culminating in his important speech to the English public on the eve of WWII.
Among the principals, Colin Firth did an admirable job as a stutterer-duke/king (of course, this appraisal comes from a non-stutterer), Geoffrey Rush did his usual theatrical turn in a quirky role of speech therapist, Helena Bonham-Carter played a "normal" person well but probably not the queen mum, and Guy Pearce exuded nastiness in a historically comprised portrayal of Edward VIII.
That said: why all the fuss about this movie when it was released? It was a competent drama about a "fluff" in history. As someone said after the hoopla: Did you think England was not going to go to war if George VI hadn't made that speech?
There was a human interest story to be told here, but it wasn't. They only touched briefly on the family life of the Windsors. Both Edward and George were raised by cold parents (to be honest, coldness between parent and child was the norm for the time) and one reacted with a stutter, the other with behavior which changed the line of succession. However, Edward was not the rake as portrayed here. There are photos of him visiting the poor and accounts of his caring about their plight. For a sake a a neat Hollywood (I use the word generically) package, only George is shown here stammering through speeches to the working man and Edward is shown as besotted by Wallis Simpson.
In many ways, The King's Speech finds its roots in the god-awful historical dramas (the dreadful The Robe is now playing on my movie package) Hollywood churned out in the 1950s and early 1960s. They too played fast and loose with history, honing in on only one POV and ignoring accuracy for pomp and splendor. Even the music of TKS harkens us back to them, when important scenes were heralded by important music.
Reading reviews in IMDb, I discovered that other viewers had disliked this movie also, although official movie critics (Rotten Tomatoes) approved it by 95%. I had to search hard on that site for a negative review. Hollywood Bitchin' probably says it best with: the film never shakes the impression that it was made only to win awards.
(Note: Having nothing to back this up, I think perhaps Michael Gambon (who plays George V) may have auditioned for the speech therapist role which Rush plays. If not, he should have. I think he may have been a better choice since Rush, like Johnny Depp, unfortunately carries his Pirates of the Caribbean persona into every role he plays.)
Next week: also a small, family movie but done as it should be.
She is a lab/golden mix; so tiny and fluffy; all black with streaks of gold and tiny white dots over her eyes. (You can tell I really don't like this dog!) Smart as a whip. I know, every dog mom says that. But she is. She doesn't just back off when reprimanded sternly (remember these dogs are all in training); she backs off and tries to get out of her collar to run away. Right now, she's housebroken, unless angered (that is, you leave the room with the royal bowing) when she gets pissed and pisses. She sleeps a good portion of the night and takes about 3 separate naps in the daytime. And she is so hungry.
More on Miss L in a later blog. On to the movies. In keeping with the mood of the royal bow I just mentioned, I saw The King's Speech last night. A quick summary: we watch the stutterer and future George VI of England get help for his speech problem, culminating in his important speech to the English public on the eve of WWII.
Among the principals, Colin Firth did an admirable job as a stutterer-duke/king (of course, this appraisal comes from a non-stutterer), Geoffrey Rush did his usual theatrical turn in a quirky role of speech therapist, Helena Bonham-Carter played a "normal" person well but probably not the queen mum, and Guy Pearce exuded nastiness in a historically comprised portrayal of Edward VIII.
That said: why all the fuss about this movie when it was released? It was a competent drama about a "fluff" in history. As someone said after the hoopla: Did you think England was not going to go to war if George VI hadn't made that speech?
There was a human interest story to be told here, but it wasn't. They only touched briefly on the family life of the Windsors. Both Edward and George were raised by cold parents (to be honest, coldness between parent and child was the norm for the time) and one reacted with a stutter, the other with behavior which changed the line of succession. However, Edward was not the rake as portrayed here. There are photos of him visiting the poor and accounts of his caring about their plight. For a sake a a neat Hollywood (I use the word generically) package, only George is shown here stammering through speeches to the working man and Edward is shown as besotted by Wallis Simpson.
In many ways, The King's Speech finds its roots in the god-awful historical dramas (the dreadful The Robe is now playing on my movie package) Hollywood churned out in the 1950s and early 1960s. They too played fast and loose with history, honing in on only one POV and ignoring accuracy for pomp and splendor. Even the music of TKS harkens us back to them, when important scenes were heralded by important music.
Reading reviews in IMDb, I discovered that other viewers had disliked this movie also, although official movie critics (Rotten Tomatoes) approved it by 95%. I had to search hard on that site for a negative review. Hollywood Bitchin' probably says it best with: the film never shakes the impression that it was made only to win awards.
(Note: Having nothing to back this up, I think perhaps Michael Gambon (who plays George V) may have auditioned for the speech therapist role which Rush plays. If not, he should have. I think he may have been a better choice since Rush, like Johnny Depp, unfortunately carries his Pirates of the Caribbean persona into every role he plays.)
Next week: also a small, family movie but done as it should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment