You go to a nice restaurant with a friend. You've never been there before. It's perhaps a little pricey, and you notice something strange and out of place on the menu: a comfort food like mom never made and at a price that she never would have charged. Something like a $25 piece of meatloaf.
Picture the scene in "Pulp Fiction" where John Travolta talks to Uma Thurman about the $5 milkshake, but multiply that scene by whatever factor that makes it ridiculous.
Now. Hold that thought but push it ever so gently to the side.
Cleanse the palate and clear the mind. Think of a waterfall. Now, read on...
I finally made it to see "The K
ing's Speech". I realize that I'm incredibly late to the party on this one. It wasn't that I didn't want to see it, but it was just not that high on my "Gotta see this film" list. "True Grit", "Black Swan", heck even "Tron" were all higher on my list.I have heard nothing but wonderful things about the movie, from Colin Firth's terrific performance through to the powerful and emotional script. Truly, I have only heard good things. There was no reason not to see it when everyone is saying how good it is.
But I didn't feel the need to see it. Because I honestly feel that I've seen it before.
"The Queen", "The Madness of King George", "Elizabeth" and "Shakespeare in Love". Stir them all together and then mix with "Awakenings", "Rain Man" and "A Beautiful Mind". Add just a hint of "My Left Foot". Stir well. Bake for half an hour. And out comes "The King's Speech".
None of this is to take away from the
film's performances. Colin Firth is equal parts regal and sympathetic as the Man Who Does Not Want to Be King. Guy Pearce is terrific as the regal and somewhat bullying brother who abdicates. Helena Bonham Carter is strong as the regal and yet sympathetic and loving wife. And Geoffrey Rush is captivating as the common man who must assist the king to become more king-ly.All are regal and common and very, very human in the correct measures.
But as good as they are, the film itself feels like it's a made for tv, paint by numbers production. Everything in the film seems to be shot in close-up with the actors filling up half the screen. Nothing ever occurs in the background, everything happens right up front.
There is also no sense of suspense, uncertainty or risk in the movie -- everything runs its course, the king will become regal but won't forget the commoner who helped him, everyone is basically good and everything will turn out okay at the end.
But the thing is this: while it's almost impossible to dislike the film, at the same time I found it difficult to admire or even come close to loving.
All of this indifference tow
ards a film that has been nominated for 12 Academy Awards and has more nominations than any other film this year.I love "Inception". I adore and am dazzled by "The Social Network". "Let Me In" and "Never Let Me Go" are two of my favorite movies from last year. Heck, I even enjoyed "No Strings Attached". So it's not that I'm bitter, burned out, tired or jaded. A great film can still wrap me in its arms and transport me to a place of wonder.
But "The King's Speech" is like very expensive mac and cheese on a high class menu: it has all the ingredients, it's carefully prepared, but in the end it's just comfort food posing as a high class meal. Nothing surprising, nothing daring, and all very cozy in its presentation.
And while there's nothing wrong with that, it is certainly not a film that deserves to be recognized as the Best Picture of the year.
Come Now, Mr. Pasquino. The Social Network had very little emotion to it. Whilst being entertaining, you hardly left the cinema with any type of feeling for Mr. Zuckerberg or the haughty twins who only wanted to become billionaires. Ooooh. How sympathetic. Inception was a great movie - an example of how summer blockbusters don't need a lobotomy or whooping teenage audiences. But the King's Speech was the only movie with that obvious Oscar feature: a wonderful sun like glowing soul. Like the King himself, you were lost for words at the end. Less Big Mac than an entree at North 44...
ReplyDeleteYes, NumberSyx, The King's Speech was perfect for the Academy: completely unthreatening, it takes us back to a fairy tale golden age when a trusted and sympathetic man ruled the land. And while it can be argued that one can't sympathize for Mr. Zuckerberg, I instead sympathized for all of us: living in a world where we search for acquaintances, both old and new, with a hopeful "Will you be my friend?" click of a button. The Social Network is a sad, poignant comment on how we are losing the ability to interact with one another as we move to a computer-driven interactive future; while The King's Speech is a Pleasantville-like view of the past that, as a film, is as comforting and creative as a hotel room at a Holiday Inn.
ReplyDeleteThe Social Network was not really a comment on anything other than how two arrogant ego bursting twins were mad at another arrogant ego bursting geek swindled them out of a load of money. And how that very same geek just turned on his friend for reasons that were never really explained. The concept of Facebook and its implications were never discussed or debated in any meaningful shape or form. Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining but it isn't a movie that stays with you as you exit the cinema back into the real world. The King's Speech was exactly that. And it was hardly Pleasantville like - the abdication of a spoiled brat for a shameless good time girl, the threat of impending global war, a would be monarch who, himself is a very flawed personality. And you're very much in the minority in thinking its the Holiday Inn - the Ritz or the Savoy for the rest of us.
ReplyDelete