Film about the British Monarchy of the 1920's through WWII

There is a major new film called The King's Speech about the monarchy of the 20's to the 40's. Queen Elizabeth's father had a major problem with stuttering and at the age of 30 he was newly married and hired a speech therapist to teach him to speak.

A fine cast of actos including Geoffrey Rush as the speech therapist.

The two men became very close, and the therapist died only one year after the king.

George VI, and Queen Elizabeth (the queen mother) have never been portrayed very well in a film before this time. Elizabeth, the Duchess of York, was the Princess Diana of the 1920's. The glamorous funny one that put new life into the royal family. She was only a 13th cousin to her husband, which broke a record that went back to Henry VIII where all consorts were either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd cousin to the British monarch.

Helena Bonham Carter ... Queen Elizabeth
Colin Firth ... King George VI
Guy Pearce ... Edward VIII
Michael Gambon ... King George V
Geoffrey Rush ... Lionel Logue
Jennifer Ehle ... Myrtle Logue
Timothy Spall ... Winston Churchill
Derek Jacobi ... Dr. Cosmo Lang
Eve Best ... Wallis Simpson
Anthony Andrews ... Stanley Baldwin
Freya Wilson ... Lilibet (future queen Elizabeth II)
Max Callum ... Royal Footman
Tim Downie ... Duke of Gloucester
Filippo Delaunay ... Undercook (as Philip Dehany)
Dominic Applewhite ... Valentine Logue

I would imagine a large part of the reason that BRITISH cinema has never dealt with this period in depth is that the story of Walls Simpson and Edward VIII was and remains more than a little embarrassing to them.

Does the film deal with that in any way?

Quote: mkl654321

I would imagine a large part of the reason that BRITISH cinema has never dealt with this period in depth is that the story of Walls Simpson and Edward VIII was and remains more than a little embarrassing to them.

I would argue with the fact that it remains embarrasing. A survey a few years ago showed that around 60% of people either had no opinion on the monarchy, or thought that the monarchy should be removed. With nearly 2/3 (admittedly only of those surveyed, cannot speak for the whole population, but using the survey to extrapolate from) having either apathy or dislike of the monarchy as it stands, I cannot imagine people being embarrased by something that happened 70 years ago.

British Television has approached the subject, with the BBC making a well thought drama on the subject.

Although on a similar note, would Americans consider Bill Clinton's escapades an embarrasment?

Quote: Croupier

I would argue with the fact that it remains embarrasing. A survey a few years ago showed that around 60% of people either had no opinion on the monarchy, or thought that the monarchy should be removed. With nearly 2/3 (admittedly only of those surveyed, cannot speak for the whole population, but using the survey to extrapolate from) having either apathy or dislike of the monarchy as it stands, I cannot imagine people being embarrased by something that happened 70 years ago.

British Television has approached the subject, with the BBC making a well thought drama on the subject.

Although on a similar note, would Americans consider Bill Clinton's escapades an embarrasment?

Re the Brits: sure, but the fact remains that the monarchy is a national institution, and the Britsh do believe in tradition. The tabloids in Britain--which make US tabloids like the National Enquirer seem like levelheaded paragons of reason--lovingly massage scandals, but the mainstream media is still fairly calm and sedate. I don't think they like to pick apart their national leaders (past and present) quite as much as we do here.

I think most Americans would consider Bill Clinton's EXISTENCE an embarrassment; certainly, more Republicans than Democrats would say so. The man has largely been given a free pass since the Plump Little Intern episode, though, because the man IS charming. In American politics, that pretty much trumps all.

I think if he were wanted to get a liitle nookie on the side, he could have done a LOT better. Hell, JFK got Marilyn Monroe. Clinton also sold US missile secrets to the Chinese for a lousy half a million dollars. The man clearly has no sense of VALUE.

It seems as if "The Windsor Household" has been the subject of news stories, and TV movies. I think the finest of the lot was "The Lost Prince" about Prince John and the period of WWI.


"The Queen" about the events around the death of Princess Diana seemed to change that. They sort of set the stage for a quality film about George V, George VI, and that period.. Of course, anything with Helen Mirren is terrific.


I can't imagine that there is anyone who could be embaressed by something that happened in 1936.

an aside, if you havent seen the movie "Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown ", which was just called "Mrs. Brown " when I saw it, it is quite good

Quote: mkl654321

I would imagine a large part of the reason that BRITISH cinema has never dealt with this period in depth is that the story of Walls Simpson and Edward VIII was and remains more than a little embarrassing to them.

Does the film deal with that in any way?

I can safely say I have never been embarassed about Ed VIII and Mrs Simpson. I have often been embarassed by the system of monarchy as a whole in the UK, and many of it's members (including the Duke of Windsor's infatuation with Mr Hitler), but on the other hand the monarchy and the history of it is part of what makes the British, British.

Quote: pacomartin

I can't imagine that there is anyone who could be embaressed by something that happened in 1936.

Depends on what's the scandal. If it is marrying a divorced woman, I agree. Especially with Prince Dumbo waiting to be crowned now.

If it is the meeting of the would-have-been-king with Hitler, then they should still be embarassed about it, but less so than having had Chamberlain as prime minister.

Quote: Nareed

Depends on what's the scandal. If it is marrying a divorced woman, I agree. Especially with Prince Dumbo waiting to be crowned now.

If it is the meeting of the would-have-been-king with Hitler, then they should still be embarassed about it, but less so than having had Chamberlain as prime minister.

I assume the Americans are therefore still embarassed about turning up late for the last two major world wars? :)

To be honest, British National pride (at least) shows little sense of embarrassment about multiple points of shame and considerable pride about the positives. For example the UK leading the abolishment of the slave trade is far more revered than the British founding an mercantile empire over the slave triangle.

I somehow suspect most national pride and sense of culture is based on the good not the bad. The bad only comes up as an explanation on why not to do something ever again.

Quote: thecesspit

I assume the Americans are therefore still embarassed about turning up late for the last two major world wars? :)

The reason why we showed up late is we never were issued an invitation. Brits, with their finely honed sense of etiquette, would understand that. It's terribly gauche to crash a war.

Quote: thecesspit

I assume the Americans are therefore still embarassed about turning up late for the last two major world wars? :)

You'd have to ask the Americans.

There's plenty of blame to throw around for WWII, BTW. The Brits and French failed to do anything about Germany while it was raping the terms of the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles. The French relied on WWI defenses agasint WWII weapons. The Soviets helped Hitler along, first to build up and then to launch the war.

But WWI was such a major case of stupidity, that perhaps the US should have left the Triple Entente to its own devices.

Quote: Nareed

You'd have to ask the Americans.

There's plenty of blame to throw around for WWII, BTW. The Brits and French failed to do anything about Germany while it was raping the terms of the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles. The French relied on WWI defenses agasint WWII weapons. The Soviets helped Hitler along, first to build up and then to launch the war.

But WWI was such a major case of stupidity, that perhaps the US should have left the Triple Entente to its own devices.

I completely agree... I was meaning to derail it, just go for the old British jingo-ism to the Yanks when WW2 is mentioned. :)

Possibly the biggest point about American education is how (in general) our participation in all wars (except the civil war) involved far less pain and suffering than most countries.

Our revolution was almost a skirmish compared to the wars in latin america. Mexico lost a million people in their war of independence.
25,000 American Revolutionaries died during active military service. About 8,000 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 deaths were from disease, including about 8,000 – 12,000 who died while prisoners of war.

Other than the civil war, most of the wars of the 19th century (Mexican-American, Spanish-American, even the war of 1812) were pretty minor.

Our involvement in WWI was very short. The Canadians suffered far worse than USA.
According to Wikipedia USA lost 117.5K people out of a population of 92 million.
UK lost a million civilians and military out of a population of 45 million.
Canada lost 67K out of total population of 7.2 million (a per capita rate almost 8 times that of the USA).

And we are taught a somewhat exagerrated storyline about our role in WWII.

With regard to the monarchy, the visit of King George VI in May and June 1939 (the first of a reigning British monarch) was very carefully orchestrated by FDR to build good feelings toward the British. FDR felt strongly that USA would be in the war eventually, and he wanted to build a stronger relationship. The American public was fascinated with the king.

The Queen Mother has never been depicted very well on film. I am looking forward to Helena Bonham Carter 's interpretation.

Quote: pacomartin

With regard to the monarchy, the visit of King George VI in May and June 1939 (the first of a reigning British monarch) was very carefully orchestrated by FDR to build good feelings toward the British. FDR felt strongly that USA would be in the war eventually, and he wanted to build a stronger relationship. The American public was fascinated with the king.

The King and Queen also visited Canada on that trip. A reporter asked the Queen if she considered herself Scottish or English. (She was born in Scotland). She replied, "Neither. I'm Canadian!"

Canadians love to tell that story. Not sure if it is apocryphal or not.

Quote: pacomartin

Our involvement in WWI was very short. The Canadians suffered far worse than USA.
According to Wikipedia USA lost 117.5K people out of a population of 92 million.
UK lost a million civilians and military out of a population of 45 million.
Canada lost 67K out of total population of 7.2 million (a per capita rate almost 8 times that of the USA).

The Canadians suffered worse in WWI because they were in it for its entire duration. This, in turn, was caused by their misplaced loyalty to Britain; they followed England over the cliff even though they had no legal obligation to do so. America stayed out of it for three years, and entered only reluctantly; Canada jumped in with both feet. They could easily have stayed neutral throughout the entire war; their involvement was their own fault. Given that they had only separated from England 47 years before the war started, it is perhaps understandable that they were still a subordinate nation; after all, their independence in 1867 had been FORCED on them.

The Canadian Army in WWI was under British command. Canadian armies were concentrated at killing points in battles such as Ypres, The Somme, and Vimy Ridge (and the fact that Canadian armies took the brunt of the attacks in those battles may have had something to do with the fact that they were commanded by the British). It is not surprising, therefore, that Canadian casualty rates were so high compared with the US; American armies fought under their own command and had better equipment, as well.

I don't get what you mean about that "exaggerated storyline". American armies were involved in every combat theater in the war except the German-Russian front. No other country fought in the Pacific AND Europe AND Asia AND the Mediterranean AND the Atlantic Ocean. Sure, we took less casualties than the other major combatants. But that was due to our geographical isolation (as far as civilian casualties went), and most importantly, our battlefield philosophy. We always focused on losing machines rather than men, because we could always make more machines. Also, we valued the lives of our soldiers more than other nations did. The American way to clear a minefield was to drive a minesweeping tank over it. The Russian way was to march a brigade through it.

Quote: mkl654321

The Canadians suffered worse in WWI because they were in it for its entire duration. This, in turn, was caused by their misplaced loyalty to Britain; they followed England over the cliff even though they had no legal obligation to do so. America stayed out of it for three years, and entered only reluctantly; Canada jumped in with both feet. They could easily have stayed neutral throughout the entire war; their involvement was their own fault. Given that they had only separated from England 47 years before the war started, it is perhaps understandable that they were still a subordinate nation; after all, their independence in 1867 had been FORCED on them.

Not correct. Canada was not by 1914 totally independent of the UK. Under the Act of Confederation, Canada's foriegn policy was run by the British, and the Brits declaration of war also meant Canada declared war automatically. No choice (*) in the matter at all.

Quote:

The Canadian Army in WWI was under British command. Canadian armies were concentrated at killing points in battles such as Ypres, The Somme, and Vimy Ridge (and the fact that Canadian armies took the brunt of the attacks in those battles may have had something to do with the fact that they were commanded by the British). It is not surprising, therefore, that Canadian casualty rates were so high compared with the US; American armies fought under their own command and had better equipment, as well.

During WW1 the Prime Minister Borden told Lloyd George if there was another use of the Canadians as fodder like there was at Ypres (were they were the only division to hold the line) that not one single more Canadian would cross the Atlantic. They were used as shock troops at the Somme and under a school teacher from Ontario (Sir Arthur Currie) captured Vimy Ridge. The saying goes that Canada went up the hill a colony and came down a nation. They got a reputation among the Germans as a fierce opponent. This usage probably led to a large casualty figure. Vimy and the Somme were Allied attacks, not defensive manuevers, by the way.

Canada was an independent signature to the League of Nations in 1919, and the statute of Westminster gave Canada more independence in 1931. There were various further indepence laws, including the Charter of Rights, and it wasn't until the Canada Act in 1982 that the British parliament removed the last residue of law on their books that could of (in theory) effected Canada's independence.

(*) Canada declared war on Germany on 10th September 1939, 9 days after the German attack on Poland. War was declared by the Governor General of Canada at the time, Lord Tweedsmuir aka John Buchan, author of the 39 steps and Green Mantle, which while are war stories have certain dislike of the whole business throughout them.

Quote: thecesspit

Not correct. Canada was not by 1914 totally independent of the UK. Under the Act of Confederation, Canada's foriegn policy was run by the British, and the Brits declaration of war also meant Canada declared war automatically. No choice (*) in the matter at all.

Your point is a very good one. As I understand it there was also a lot of conflict at the time between the English and French regions of Canada.

Canada also suffered 2000 civilian death in the Halifax Explosion.
The Halifax Explosion occurred on Thursday, December 6, 1917, when the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, was devastated by the huge detonation of the SS Mont-Blanc, a French cargo ship, fully loaded with wartime explosives, which accidentally collided with the Norwegian SS Imo in "The Narrows" section of the Halifax Harbour.

I don't know if the movie will start this early in history. George VI was age 22 during WWI. He married at age 28. The marriage was very popular in Britain, and the new Duchess was a big hit. Also around that time their was growing discontent with the Prince of Wales who was still consistently having affairs with married women. I don't think it was as much the ethics of a Prince having affairs, but they were creepy since the women were usually the dominant one in the affair. Wallis Simpson was simply the last of them. The question of him marrying was pushed into the spotlight by his younger brothers marriage.

Quote: thecesspit

Not correct. Canada was not by 1914 totally independent of the UK. Under the Act of Confederation, Canada's foriegn policy was run by the British, and the Brits declaration of war also meant Canada declared war automatically. No choice (*) in the matter at all.

As a practical matter, they could easily have refused to send any soldiers to Europe. The British didn't even have any leverage in the matter; Canadian foodstuffs and raw materials were a significant contributor to the British war effort. All the British had to deploy was propaganda and an appeal to Canadians' loyalty to Mother Britain. Not that it didn't work.

In matters of foreign policy, most obviously in relations with the US, Canada enjoyed de facto autonomy. Their ties with Britain were more cultural and commercial than political and military. Even then, they were beginning to realize that they were North Americans first and members of the Commonwealth second. Britain did manage to yank their chain one last time--but the bloody fiasco that was the Western Front 1914-1917 convinced Canadians that they should, in the future, act as an independent country, not a dependency of Britain.

One last time being?

Quote: thecesspit

One last time being?

1914.

Key Canadian Events

4 August 1914: Canada at War
When Britain went to war on 4 August, all colonies and dominions of the British Empire, like Canada and Newfoundland, were automatically at war.

22 August 1914: War Measures Act
Canada passed the War Measures Act in order to provide the government with new and intrusive powers to prosecute the war. These powers included censorship, the right to detain and arrest Canadians, and the right to take control over any property.

22 April 1915: Battle of Second Ypres
In Canada's first major battle, the outnumbered Canadian Division faced the first use of chlorine gas as a battlefield agent. A third of the force, or 6,000 soldiers, were killed, wounded, or captured, but the Canadians kept the Germans from breaking through.

1 July 1916: Beaumont Hamel
The Newfoundland Regiment went into battle at Beaumont Hamel as part of a general British offensive on 1 July 1916. Due to error and miscalculation, the Regiment attacked through uncut barbed wire against heavy machine-gun fire. Within 30 minutes, 324 of its 801 soldiers were dead or missing, and another 386 were wounded.

9 to 12 April 1917: Battle of Vimy Ridge
Canadians successfully attacked the German-held strongpoint of Vimy Ridge. The thoroughly planned and executed victory has become a post-war symbol for Canadian identity and independence.

20 September 1917: Wartime Elections Act
In preparation for an election mainly on the issue of conscription (mandatory military service) the government changed the election rules. Some Canadian women were able to vote for the first time, while other Canadians were lost their right to vote in sweeping changes to enfranchisement.

26 October to 10 November 1917: Battle of Passchendaele
This battle is remembered for its brutal fighting and horrible weather conditions. Canadian forces, serving under a Canadian commander, captured their objective, but suffered 16,000 killed or wounded.

17 December 1917: Federal Election
The 1917 debate on conscription, mandatory military service for men, was one of the fiercest and most divisive in Canadian political history. French-Canadians, as well as many farmers, unionized workers, non-British immigrants, and other Canadians, generally opposed the measure. English-speaking Canadians, as well as British immigrants, the families of soldiers, and older Canadians generally supported it. The pro-conscription side won the election. Conscription polarized provinces, ethnic and linguistic groups, communities, and families, and had lasting political effects on the country as a whole.

8 August to 11 November 1918: The Hundred Days
Canadians played a key role in the series of battles that formed the Hundred Days campaign. With the infantry and artillery working in a combined arms system, along with tactical airpower, machine-guns, mortars, chemical weapons, and armoured vehicles, the German armies were driven back and defeated.

11 November 1918: Armistice
The war ended at 11 a.m. on this day. More than nine million service personnel and an estimated 20 million civilians were killed in the war.

Quote: mkl654321

As a practical matter, they could easily have refused to send any soldiers to Europe. The British didn't even have any leverage in the matter; Canadian foodstuffs and raw materials were a significant contributor to the British war effort. All the British had to deploy was propaganda and an appeal to Canadians' loyalty to Mother Britain. Not that it didn't work.

In matters of foreign policy, most obviously in relations with the US, Canada enjoyed de facto autonomy. Their ties with Britain were more cultural and commercial than political and military. Even then, they were beginning to realize that they were North Americans first and members of the Commonwealth second. Britain did manage to yank their chain one last time--but the bloody fiasco that was the Western Front 1914-1917 convinced Canadians that they should, in the future, act as an independent country, not a dependency of Britain.

I think you oversell the ability or willingness of the Dominion of Canada to act that independently of Britain. Few of the colonies were in a position to be as independent as you suggest, and the outbreak of the war wasn't the time to try and break those chains.

Certainly WW1 resulted in those chains breaking though.

Quote: thecesspit

I think you oversell the ability or willingness of the Dominion of Canada to act that independently of Britain. Few of the colonies were in a position to be as independent as you suggest, and the outbreak of the war wasn't the time to try and break those chains.

Certainly WW1 resulted in those chains breaking though.

Well, that was kind of my point--the war provided an opportunity for greater Canadian political autonomy. Where you and I perhaps disagree is I view that opportunity as having come at the OUTBREAK of the war. What would or could Britain have done if Canada had refused to send soldiers to the conflict? They could easily have filled a role very similar to that which the US did in the first few years of WWI and WWII, that of being neutral trading partners that favored Britain but did not militarily support it (and I realize that role itself became blurred as time went on).

Whether or not "Canada" was, as a whole, willing to get involved is a matter of conjecture. Certainly, Quebec wasn't as thrilled with the idea as, say, Ontario or the Maritmes, and B.C. pretty much functioned as an independent country back then, being physically separated and distant from the centers of power, as well as being 6000 miles from the European conflict. (The Trans-Canadian Railway was pretty much a bribe to get B.C. to join the Dominion; it actually would have made more geographic sense for B.C., and eventually the Yukon, to join the U.S.) I think that if the Canadian people had any idea of what they were being dragged into, they would have collectively said, "Hell, no."

I think if any of the participating nations had realized they all should have said hell no.

It was a bribe (and actually a very effective bribe and result for all of Canada and the rest of the empire), but at the time I don't see BC and the Yukon drifting towards the US. It's much more likely there would have been a Northern Cascadia. Victoria is very British (even to this day), and the HBC still had a lot of influence. I see it unlikely that Western Canada becomes part of the US of A. I claim it was a huge error on the British part not to buy Russian Canada, but hindsight and all that.

There was pretty solid support across Canada to support WW1 in some limited form at it's outbreak. Both the anglophone and francophone communities supported it in 1914. The francophones less so as the British Empire rattled it's leash more. Canada treated those associated with the enemy incredibly poorly (Ukranians were lumped in with the Germans), something Canada repeated in WW2 (*) and should not have been a surprise after it's treatment of the Coastal Salish and Haida Gwai'i in the preceding years.

The rift it seems was partly that the Quebecois (or at least the French speaking parts of Canada...(**)) had decided to ignore Europe long before Canada as a whole did.

(*) The handling of the Japanese-Canadians in WW2 was a disgrace, a lot of it driven by greed of the Caucausian BCers wanting the goods and resources the Japanese Canadians had.

(**) Quebec is not a francophone Canada... New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have sizeable French speaking populations, while a lot of Quebec is either empty, anglophone or Inuit. This is one reason independence for Quebec is a meaningless cause as it stands... the province is not the culture.

Quote: thecesspit

(**) Quebec is not a francophone Canada... New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have sizeable French speaking populations, while a lot of Quebec is either empty, anglophone or Inuit. This is one reason independence for Quebec is a meaningless cause as it stands... the province is not the culture.

That is an interesting point. When I went to Montreal, I surprised at how much of an English city it was. I expected it to be like Paris whereas it turned out to be more like Toronto. Most of the business was conducted in English, and I don't think I met anybody who didn't speak English.

Contrast that with when I rode my bike through southern Nova Scotia there were some towns that were pure francophone, and it seemed like every mailbox had a French name on it.

Quote: teddys

That is an interesting point. When I went to Montreal, I surprised at how much of an English city it was. I expected it to be like Paris whereas it turned out to be more like Toronto. Most of the business was conducted in English, and I don't think I met anybody who didn't speak English.

Contrast that with when I rode my bike through southern Nova Scotia there were some towns that were pure francophone, and it seemed like every mailbox had a French name on it.

NS and NB are full of Acadians... the Acadians didn't like the French much, but they were rather poo-ed upon by the British as well (actually add this another example of the British attitude to the ones on the Japanese-Canadians, first Nations, Ukranians, etc from early posts).

Quote: thecesspit

I think if any of the participating nations had realized they all should have said hell no.

It was a bribe (and actually a very effective bribe and result for all of Canada and the rest of the empire), but at the time I don't see BC and the Yukon drifting towards the US. It's much more likely there would have been a Northern Cascadia. Victoria is very British (even to this day), and the HBC still had a lot of influence. I see it unlikely that Western Canada becomes part of the US of A. I claim it was a huge error on the British part not to buy Russian Canada, but hindsight and all that..

I was just saying that a union of US--Yukon--B.C.--lower 48 states would have (and, would) make excellent GEOGRAPHIC sense. It would also create an economic powerhouse---goods could be transshipped from Alaska through mainland Canada, a huge supply of fresh water could be diverted to the lower 48, etc. etc. There would also be the possibility of accessible Arctic ocean ports in the summer. I've driven through the area on my way to Alaska four times, and I've been struck by how freakin huge and how freakin EMPTY B.C. and the Yukon are. Take away Vancouver and Victoria and you've got a few medium-sized towns scattered over a humongous area. I think this relative lack of development and settlement is due to that region's geographic isolation from the rest of Canada.

In general, I think the reason why "Canada" is somewhat of a dubious concept, and the reason for its weak central government, is that most, if not all, of the provinces have far more similarities to their immediate neighboring American states than they do to the other provinces: Alaska-Yukon; B.C.-Washington; Alberta-Montana, etc.

Alaska, Yukon, BC, Oregon, Washington (plus maybe Idaho) would have made excellent geographic sense. 54-40 or fight? Perhaps the British should have tried to cut Pickett's military career short in the Pig War :)

The BC interior (and the rest) is undeveloped as there's really not much call for developing it... it's nice having such a huge back yard...

Almost *all* of Canada is undeveloped. 90 percent of the nation's population is concentrated within 100 miles of the US border. I don't think British Colombians would even want to become part of the United States, if only for the fact that it would be much harder to get weed!

Quote: boymimbo

Almost *all* of Canada is undeveloped. 90 percent of the nation's population is concentrated within 100 miles of the US border. I don't think British Colombians would even want to become part of the United States, if only for the fact that it would be much harder to get weed!

Hey hey.

I'd also have to emigrate again, and that would just be hassle.

A lot of Canada is undeveloped because it's cold, damp and not actually very hospitable for major cities. I like it that way...

The Western Block party proposes the seperation of the four provinces (BC, Alberta, Sas. & Manitoba). I think these provinces have less than 1 out 3 Canadians. The Extended Golden Horshoe around Toronto is 12,186 sq mi or slightly less than three times Los Angeles county (4,752 sq mi). This region contains 1 out of 4 Canadians.


But back to the movie, the 7 initial review on rotten tomatoes have all bee very positive. He was married in 1923 so the movie appears to start shortly after the wedding before Elizabeth is born.

Quote: Emanuel Levy

The King’s Speech

Tom Hooper’ s vastly entertaining period drama, “The King’s Speech,” walks a fine line between an art feature and a commercial movie, a serious drama and a crowd-pleasing fare.

The handsomely mounted movie, which played extremely well at the Telluride and Toronto Film Fest (in the Gala Presentaions section), will also serve as a gala of the London Film Fest. The Weinstein Co. will release the film November 24 as one of their Oscar contenders (the other is Derek Cianfrance’s “Blue Valentine,” starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams).

The verstaile British actor Colin Firth (Oscar-nominated for "A Single Man') renders yet another compelling, Oscar-caliber performamce as King George VI, also known as the father of Queen Elizabeth II. He is ably supported by Geoffrey Rush (also credited as one of the producers), who should get a Supporting Oscar nomination, as the raffish Aussie speech therapist who treats the king's paralyzing stutter.

Like another highly accompished costume feature, the Oscar-winning “The Queen,” which won Helen Mirren the Best Actress Oscar, “King’s Speech” represents a classy and prestigious, if a tad too conventional, entertainment, offering emotionally stirring moments and accessible historical background in equal measure, about a beloved monarch, George VI, who began as a weakling and underdog and then reigned supreme for a long time, showing strong leadership during Hitler’s Nazism.

Essentially, “King’s Speech” is a male camaraderie narrative, which depicts in detail the initially unlikely but then powerfully evolving friendship between King George and his unorthodoxtherapist.

When first met, George IV is a young, shy prince and Lionel Logue is sort of an eccentric speech specialist, assigning with reconstituing the monarch’s delivery—and, by implication, his ego and confidence.

Initially, these social expectations (actually pressures) prove too overwhelming for Prince Albert (Colinr Firth), whose crippling speech impediment causes public embarrassment at the British Empire Exhibition, in 1925.

Screenwriter David Seidler, who was originally supposed to direct the movie, finds an interesting strategy to the text and its main characters, focusing on a seminal era in mass communication, when the then new media of radio and film newsreels offered a more direct, immediate and effective rapport between leaders and their followers.

Scribe Seidler and direcor Hooper make clear that the new communications calls for new skills, such as charsimatic presence, compelling and convincing voice, and clear, articulate and eloquent delivery.

The King's Speech premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. It is drawing huge emotional reaction and they are talking about Oscar level performances.