Saturday 02.19.2011 | 3:23 PM EST
Drifting Off at The King’s Speech
Prior to last night’s showing, in 30 years I’ve fallen asleep in a theater exactly two times:
1.1995, GoldenEye, because Pierce Brosnan is a bloody boring 007. Hey Brosnan, the 80′s called.
It wants Timothy Dalton Back
2. 1998, Elizabeth, with mom, who loves period pieces. Love me some Cate Blachet, but sorry, the walls were breathin’ after 48 consecutive hours without sleep.
Now, The King’s English. Why the bloody hell is everybody standing at attention for this movie? I’ve seen neither a negative nod nor an ironic wink from those in the cinema Circle of Trust (or outside of it for that matter). I don’t get it. So there’s a few moments of droll British humor. Who doesn’t like that. And the camera work is interesting (if not a bit overwroght, like Tom Ford’s A Single Man). And sure, the acting is superb. Duh.
But it’s soooo boring! Now, I’m a fan of the deliberately paced film (McCabe & Ms. Miller, The Assassination of Jesse James, , Marie Antoinette, Paris Texas). But this film is billed as “Makes your spirit soar?” and “Crowd Pleaser?” Puh-puh-puh-please, but this puh-puh-puh-plodding story left me neither soaring nor pleased. Just sleepy. Woulda made a great short film. There, I said it.
Bugger off , Your Majesty. Hope Black Swan pecks your eyes out.
Tuesday 02.22.2011 | 11:03 EST
Rockpants says:
And Mau, uh, in case you fell asleep for this one, let me assure you that Black Swan totally sucked! I can’t keep to protocol here. That was the worst ever.
Tuesday 02.22.2011 | 10:58 EST
chairmanmau says:
sorry deeka, saw it twice at the theater in one week. i LOVED it. can’t believe you didn’t like it. actually, i totally can.
Tuesday 02.22.2011 | 10:03 EST
Luke Hughett says:
When I got to the end of this review, I read what I thought was the first response to your review. “Be nice,” it began. And then I realized that was your commenting protocol. Perhaps that should be the review protocol as well, hm? ; )
Fair enough if you fell asleep. It’s not exactly a Michael Bay action film. (btw, I loved reading about the films that put you to sleep in the theater. I’m fond of saying that I didn’t FALL asleep at Tim Burton’s “Planet of the Apes”; I WENT to sleep. It was a conscious decision.)
But is that it? “This movie was boring. It put me to sleep.” The end. Be constructive! What would you have done differently? What would have made it more interesting?
Tuesday 02.22.2011 | 10:59 EST
chairmanmau says:
well Luke, if you read further in the protocol, it also reads “Vigorous debate, strongly opinionated dialogue and mild expletives are tolerated, if not encouraged. ”
So thanks for being one of the first to post a comment that challenges the prevailing (i.e. my) opinion.
So you’d like some supporting arguments as to why this film was a complete snoozer? Here we go:
1. Expectations: true, hype and positive reviews can influence the viewer’s ultimate reaction to a film. Based on professional and colleague reviews, I was prepared for something really special. My expectations did not meet the reality. Maybe that’s a personal reaction, but hey – this is my party and i can cry if i want to ;)
2. Narrative: There simply wasn’t enough story here to support a 1:50 film. Yes, the relationship between the King and his teacher was interesting, challenging, tender, etc… (Jeffrey Rush was in fact fantastic, probably the best part of the film) but his role is not enough to carry the film.
The story presents only one conflict (man vs himself). The challenges and consternation the King faced in overcoming his speech impediment and fear of public speaking were presented realistically, sympathetically – yet there was no other real conflict to make the film dig out of the morass of the King’s own stutter. The wife was supportive to the point of saccharine, his colleagues the same. There was really nothing in his way except his own impediment. Hardly makes for high drama, especially in high court, where one would expect some. Yes, there was the looming conflict with Germany, but that historical fact is so deeply ingrained in the public mind that its presence is diluted and feels like an aside, a matter of consequence that any person of power would have to contend with. Suck it up, man, you’re a King for chrissakes.
3. Art Direction as distraction: the film looked beautiful, with all its fancy haze, short depth of field and pastel palette. But did this AD contribute anything to represent the character’s inner or outer struggle? Maybe I was asleep on this one, but it seems not
Take a film like Oh Brother Where Art Thou? or Requiem for a Dream. Regardless of how you feel about the merits of either of these two films, the Art Direction contributed directly to the film’s themes. Color, sound and camera actually become characters themselves. In the case of RFAD, a frenetic camera, green and blues hues and hyper-real sound effects spoke to the sickly, degenerate spiral of the films drug-addled fallen angels. In the case of OBWAT, the consistent use of saturated yellows and browns presented a silent character whose job it was to communicate a sense of place, time and psychological state (yellow being a color given to associations of enlightenment). The typically excellent camera work by Roger Deakins uses wide shots to communicate the expansiveness of the hero’s quest and close shots to highlight the charm and connivery of the protagonists’ personalities. The soundtrack speaks for itself, so don’t even start!
The AD for The King’s Speech does none of these things. The camera work, like the plot, lacked movement and energy. Sound editing was nothing special, save for the clean representation of the King’s st-st-ststammer. The simply wasn’t much on the technical side that enhanced the film or elevated it to anything more than a good episode of Masterpiece Theater.
As I said earlier, the acting is of course unassailable. But we’ve seen time and time again that great acting alone cannot save a flawed script or lack of narrative arc.
So, Sir Luke, with all the due respect to those that loved this ,movie, I’m truly glad you did. I still think Black Swan actually presented something special and alive and deserves the higher recognition.
cheers
mau
Tuesday 02.22.2011 | 11:39 EST
Luke says:
That’s the Mauricio I remember! Well done.
For the record, i wasn’t blown away by the film. I did think the acting was superb, but you’re right: that’s not enough to carry it to the heights. And you’re also right that it was too long.
However, I wasn’t bothered by the marginalization of World War II’s escalation and I thought the art direction was appropriate given the script’s subject matter and nonfiction category. It felt real. The colors were dull and aged in places; in others they were regal and spectacular. But it felt like a very real period piece.
I loved Requiem for a Dream (it still haunts me) but it was waaaay over the top; stylized to the point that one wonders if the story would have stood on its own without all the eye candy and musical button-pushing.
I didn’t care much for O Brother Where Art Thou, but i get what you’re saying: the art direction took the viewer to the Coen brothers’ imagined historical-slash-fantastical place. The King’s Speech could have benefitted from some of this but I wonder if it would have been out of place given the subject matter.
If The King’s Speech were shorter and more concise could it garner the Best Picture nod? Based solely on the voyeuristic look at England’s class structure being folded over itself to strengthen the royalty in a time of great national need? I don’t know what the official definition of “Short” is to the Academy.