Oscar winning

The King's Speech (dir. Tom Hooper)

One expects a film like this to sentimentalise the monarchy. That's part of the point, to provide a comfortable picture of an episode of the past. Why it got made. And on that basis I found it largely enjoyable. The moment where Berty shouts out "I have a voice!" was one I found particularly moving, with Geoffrey Rush's tender reply "Yes, you do." It's such a slight narrative, with larger historical events going on in the background, and that moment for me generalises the King's own particular dilema. We all have a right to our own voice.

Well, I never said it wasn't sentimental.

What I hadn't realised though, until I read Christopher Hitchens piece on Slate was just how historically dishonest the film is. Not inaccurate, but dishonest. I'm not especially knowledgeable about the politics and events of the 1930s, but I know enough to bring some of that knowledge to my viewing of the film. I knew that Edward VII and Wallis Simpson were at the very least broadly sympathetic to Hitler and his beliefs, if not closet Nazis. So, watching the film I think inserted that knowledge into my viewing, giving ot a background that film largely avoids, apart from a brief allusion to Wallis Simpson's fault of having previously had an affair with the German ambassador. And that's framed more in terms that scapegoat Mrs. Simpson as sexually louche, careless with the boundaries of both the British nation and the aristocratic class into which she is attempting to marry. The fact that the ambassador is presumably a Nazi is overlooked, which might of course have been how the Royal Family at the time would have viewed such an affair, but surely an intelligent film made in 2011 ought to be able to find a way to present such information to it's audience.

Even knowing as little as I do, the appearance of Winston Churchill at Balmoral still seemed out of place.I suppose the historical Churchill could have been there, but he just seemed to suddenly pop up out of nowhere, a comfortable figure from the British past who can act as a safe historical marker for the period (we all know he hated the Nazis!), and offer wise advice to poor old Berty. By this point, besides Elizabeth I, Churchill is probably one of the most well known personages from British history. It also probably didn't help that, amidst all the great performaces the film is littered with, there's something not quite right about Timothy Spall's Churchill. To be fair, he's not exactly given a lot to do, and by this point surely labours under the weight of everybody else's Churchill, but it still feels less like a performance and more like an impersonation. So to learn that, contrary to the film's depiction, Churchill was a supporter of Edward VIII right up to the abdication was rather disheartening. I assume that for the historical Churchill this was a question of supporting the principal of the monarchy. It's just depressing to see the past misrepresented like this. And it elevates, yet again, a Prime Minister who was far from perfect.

The film also conveniently overlooks the fact that George VI was actually an appeaser. Now, personally I can actually feel some degree of sympathy for those who argued for appeasement in the 1930s. Obviously, History has proven them wrong, but I feel it's too easy to condemn people who were living in the aftermath of World War I. We shouldn't underestimate the way in which that conflict has been remembered. Even today, the Great War still casts a shadow over how war is represented. As Geoff Dyer and Paul Fussell have shown, it was a conflict which was as significant for the ways in which it was remembered as for the actual events, terrible as they were. So, even they were obviously wrong, I can find some sympathy for those men who argued for appeasement. To the film's credit, it does give Stanley Baldwin a very dignified resignation. Although this too might be a distortion, it's one I can forgive because it stands as representative of something many people at the time must have felt. It feels honest somehow, despite it being factually wrong. As well, in a time with a political culture where it's almost impossible to imagine such a thing happening, it aids the film nostalgia in depicting a politican resigning, in a dignified manner, on a point of principal. But the film still avoids tainting the character at it's centre with that failed policy. War is coming and Berty must simply step up and do his duty.

So what we're left with is yet another fable of Our Finest Hour, even if it's a fable seen aslant. The real story, as ever, is both more complex and more interesting. And what's good about the film is a complexity. The history it misrepresents is mostly kept in the background. What's in the foreground is a complexity of human relationships, family relationships, and the friendship between these two very different men, which is rendered so well by two marvelous actors. And what I loved almost more than the acting and the characters, was the film's tangible rendering of the shabby fabric of 1930s Britain. The tatty walls of Logue's office and the sagging armchair are almost too perfect. In a manner similar to the way that the famous London fog could envelop the city at the time - which the film also gives us at one point! - the exquisite depiction of a faded bedraggled 1930s England almost overpowers the drama at the film's heart. There's still much I want to admire about the film, because whilst it might sentimentalise the monarchy and be historically dishonest, the story at the forefront is still very moving.