Thoughts to Consider when Viewing

[Guest fountainhall]

The King's Speech is an extremely well-made film with a seductive human-interest plot, very prettily calculated to appeal to the smarter filmgoer. But it perpetrates a gross falsification of history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/31/the-kings-speech-gross-falsification

 

So begins a perceptive and what seems a largely accurate account by Christopher Hitchens of the historical inaccuracies contained in the movie. I have not seen it yet, but it is one of those on my must-see list, however faithful a record it might or might not be. But as I watch it, I will bear in mind the deeply serious but hidden sub-plots, for these are what really should form the basis of a film of this period.

 

The reason for Hitchens comments lies primarily in the Royal Family’s attitude at that time to Hitler and the rise of the Nazi party. We know that the King who abdicated, Edward VIII (because he lost his heart and his reason to the manipulating and pathetic divorcee, Wallace Simpson), was very pro-Hitler, to the extent that he made a formal visit to him in Germany soon after the marriage in 1937. At that time he even gave full Nazi salutes, and these contacts with Hitler were to continue until the outbreak of war. Even Winston Churchill was then an admirer of the Nazis, as his own history of the period makes clear.

 

Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments and War Production, said the Fuhrer was despondent when Edward abdicated. Quoting Hitler directly, he said “"I am certain, through him, permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us."

 

A second reason is the Royal Family’s attitude to then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. When Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938 waving his piece of paper and talking about securing “peace in our time . . . peace with honour,” he had been conniving with Hitler by accepting without any conditions the Nazi takeover of the majority of Czechoslovakia. As Hitchens points out, the returning ‘hero’ -

 

was greeted by a royal escort in full uniform and invited to drive straight to Buckingham Palace. A written message from King George VI urged his attendance, "so that I can express to you personally my most heartfelt congratulations. . . . (T)his letter brings the warmest of welcomes to one who, by his patience and determination, has earned the lasting gratitude of his fellow countrymen throughout the Empire."

 

Chamberlain was then paraded on the palace balcony, saluted by royalty in front of cheering crowds. Thus the Munich sell-out had received the royal assent before the prime minister was obliged to go to parliament and justify what he had done.

In Britain, the Royal Family has no formal power. In that instance, both Houses of Parliament should have given formal approval to Chamberlain’s actions before the Royals ever became involved. As one historian, Andrew Roberts, claimed in 1994, the new King and Queen "committed the most unconstitutional act by a British Sovereign in the present century".

 

Many forget the British Royal Family is not British at all. They are of German stock. King George I spoke only German. The present Royals are a branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, the name of Queen Victoria’s German husband. The name was conveniently changed to Windsor only in 1917.

 

Four of Victoria’s five daughters married into the German aristocracy. Kaiser Wilhelm, the villain of the First World War, was her grandchild. So intermarried were the European Royals that Tsar Nicholas II was King George V’s cousin (the photo below shows the startling resemblance between the two cousins). So there was no love lost between the British Royals and the Bolsheviks who had murdered one branch of their family. Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence that the British Royals secretly backed Germany and Hitler in the hope the two countries would jointly start a war against Soviet Russia.

 

Enough material there for a good John Le Carre novel and film - without the need for any speech impediments.

[TotallyOz]

This was one of the most enjoyable movies that I saw this year. Colin Firth stars as the monarch and gives an outstanding performance. Helen Bonham Carter, the future queen mother, also does an outstanding job. One of my favorite actors in any movie is Geoffrey Rush. I can't get enough of Geoffrey Rush. And in this movie he gives another outstanding performance.

 

The movie was simply a joy to watch. The acting was superb and the entire movie was enjoyable from the very beginning to the very end. For me, it reminded me that the Royals are simply people too. They have their flaws and their weaknesses. And while they may not have the same problems that many of us have on a day-to-day basis they do have their own set of problems.

 

If I looked really hard, I'm sure that I will be able to find some fault in this film. I didn't look at it as a history lesson but more as a work of art. I did not look for the inaccuracies in the telling of the story. I only looked at the movie as a joy to watch.

[Guest fountainhall]

At the BAFTA Awards last night (Britain's answer to the Oscars), The King's Speech won in seven categories, including best film, best actor, best supporting actor, best supporting actress and best original screenplay. Not quite a record – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid received nine and The Killing Fields eight – but equal to Slumdog Millionaire's seven. And not quite a clean sweep, as director Tom Hooper lost out to David Fincher, who won best director for The Social Network.