The King's Speech, Review

680 Words3 Pages
The King’s Speech Umair Khan History can be interpreted in two ways. The first viewpoint stresses upon the importance of individuals in the historical process and the way they shape history through their crucial decisions. While the other viewpoint focuses upon the peculiar circumstances arising in this complex world and the pressures they impose upon some key individuals sitting in the critical positions to face these unfathomable challenges. The King’s Speech explores the second viewpoint with the example of King John VI of Britain who had to overcome his personal inabilities to face the gigantic task of leading the nation during a time of crisis, the World War II. This richly pleasurable and instantly fascinating true life drama revolves around two characters mainly. At the one side there is the royal Albert (future King George VI played by Colin Firth) who is formal, emotional, temperamental, overburdened with inherited responsibilities; and to make it all even more complicated, he is a stutterer. While on the other side there is the commoner Lionel Logue (played by Geoffery Rush) who is informal, rational, middle-class, bohemian, carefree, failed actor; who incidentally became an eccentric speech therapist. The story unfolds as Logue is selected to be the speech therapist for Albert by his wife Elizabeth. The interplay between them is essentially anti-Pygmalion in its nature. In Pygmalion, Professor Higgins demands Eliza to be more formal and trains her to be an upper class socialite. However, Logue tries to convince Albert that his inability has psychological roots in a repressed and overly pedantic childhood; and to overcome it, he has to let go those formalities and become less posh. The strength of the movie lies in the performances of twinkly eyed Geoffery Rush and stubborn Colin Firth and the dynamics between the two would-be friends.

More about The King's Speech, Review

Open Document