Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

Gilbey on Film: Hollow men

No wonder David Cameron likes The King's Speech.

By Ryan Gilbey Published 01 March 2011 12:39

Congratulations are in order to everyone involved with The King's Speech after its Oscar haul on Sunday. And commiserations to the losers, although at least David Fincher and his colleagues on The Social Network can content themselves with the certainty that they have made a film which will still be relished and scrutinised once The King's Speech has gone the way of Driving Miss Daisy, Out of Africa, Chariots of Fire and all the other Oscar-laden middlebrow master-classes languishing in prestigious oblivion.

Best Picture winners fall into various categories (including the "It's About Time" camp, which can benefit anything from Scorsese's The Departed to the third and least deserving Lord of the Rings instalment, or the "They Do Make 'Em Like That Any More" vote which enabled The Sting, Chicago and Gladiator to win). By and large, with exceptions like The Godfather Part II and The Hurt Locker, the Best Picture needs to represent some kind of balm. That might be embodied by the subject matter, which tends toward the familiar -- the historical, biographical or literary. It could be there in the tone, which should be reassuring (even One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which won at the height of the American New Wave, packaged counter-culture rebellion in a way that the aged Hollywood orthodoxy could applaud). It may even be simply in the warmth of the characters, which is my theory for how No Country For Old Men, brutal for the most part but anchored by a meditative, sympathetic Tommy Lee Jones, came to beat the transparently superior There Will Be Blood, which is bereft of anyone to cherish or root for.

In this context, The King's Speech can be viewed as not so much a movie as a machine to win Oscars. It is, from first frame to last, an extended exercise in comfort; it's all balm. It has a cosmetically massaged historical background, purged of any messy details, and divided into heroes and rogues. It has characters whose only purpose is to send waves of warmth off the screen and toward us in the auditorium -- characters who have struggles and moments of uncertainty, but nothing to dent or compromise their decency. Where is the tension? The tension is in the question of whether the speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) will cure King George VI (Colin Firth) of his stammer. Spoiler alert: he does. As James Franco -- admittedly not an unbiased observer given that his film 127 Hours, directed by Danny Boyle, was up against The King's Speech in several categories -- put it: "It's a success story. Is he going to make the speech? You know he's going to get it. He has a little coach, like Mr Miyagi in The Karate Kid, and he gets through it and makes the speech. It's pretty safe."

He's right, of course. (Even better was the New Yorker's Richard Brody, who described the film on Twitter as a "prune stew of a movie".) And beneath that Karate Kid surface runs an overly cute strain of class tension which appears to play in favour of the commoner's irreverence, and its potential to cut through royal pomp and formality. Not so. Logue, and the film, are deferential to the last. Rather than insisting on an essential equality between its characters, the film celebrates the class system and the monarchy's intrinsic oppression of their subjects. Nothing quite grates like the reaction shots of Logue as he savours his magnificent patient, or the coy comedy of manners that unfolds when Mrs Logue stumbles upon royalty in her living room, and fumbles the necessary etiquette. In their vulnerability, and their smiling tolerance of ordinary folk, the image of the royal family today and throughout history is fortified by the movie. There isn't a critical, insightful or searching frame in its entire running time. It is a natural Best Picture winner.

No wonder it swiped the main prize from The Social Network. Fincher's film offers no certainties, no pat conclusions, no life lessons, no succour. It doesn't tell us whom to cheer or hiss. It doesn't try to improve us or stir us: it digs into human behaviour at its murkiest and most suspect, and invites us to arrive at our own conclusions about its characters. What nerve. How any of us ever thought a film like that could have beaten The King's Speech is beyond me. It's almost touching, really, the faith that we fans of Fincher's film had in the plain power of its excellence. Such footling considerations as quality, daring and vision matter not to the voters, many of whom will have helped Shakespeare in Love secure its victory over The Thin Red Line, or Dances With Wolves trounce GoodFellas.

The Best Picture winner must, wherever possible, be as safe and innocuous and fragrant as a Radox bath. The King's Speech is all those things and frothy with it. As a critic I cannot applaud such a hollow film. But as an exercise in how to win Best Picture, and send audiences home from the cinema feeling coddled, it is a masterpiece of calculation and cynicism. No wonder David Cameron is proud to stand behind it.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: oscars

More from Ryan Gilbey

34 comments

Tue, 2011-03-01 17:13 — pointus

as johannhari101 recently "tweeted":

The King's Speech was funded by the Film Council, which David Cameron has abolished.

Tue, 2011-03-01 18:06 — MultiJoe

You guys: "Oscar" "bait"? Whatever are you talking about?!

Wed, 2011-03-16 23:21 — Shoot the Critic (not verified)

"There isn't a critical, insightful or searching frame in its entire running time. It is a natural Best Picture winner."
All true. Your whole article: true. But it's not really important anymore. The Oscars are over and no one who knows anything about cinema believes they have anything insightful to contribute to it. It is exactly as you described the film-- cynical and calculating. The Oscar people aren't movie people like you, Ryan.

I don't even try to understand the Oscar awards. I relish the moments when good people and good films get recognized there but don't see it as an accomplishment anywhere as close to actually making a fabulous film. David Fincher must know that, and I'm sure he has faith in the talent that we know he has. Let's hope he keeps making good films and not that he tries to do as The King's Speech did and make Oscar fodder.

The examples you gave-- such as the amazing and timeless Goodfellas losing out to Dances with Wolves-- is enough for me to only see the Oscars as a night of gowns, bright lights, and awkward Hollywood. And the occasional spontaneous moment. If that. A celebration of itself as an industry, not an art form.

But thanks for the smart words, anyway.

- Shoot the Critic, http://shootthecritic.com

Wed, 2011-03-02 15:51 — Conor (not verified)

janeypet, you're deluded.tough job? fantastic people? what makes them fantastic?

Wed, 2011-03-02 16:01 — ST (not verified)

"I don't think any film should suck up to its characters" what a bizarre attempt to disguise your prejudice. So you're saying it was wrong for Ferris to be looked upon as a hero, or for the directors to paint Captain Steve Hiller in a favourable light in Independence Day? Thank goodness nobody's ever asked you to make a film as I cannot imagine how depressing and boring it would be.

Wed, 2011-03-02 16:51 — Highgater (not verified)

RG: Fair enough!

I do think there's a great Sorkin/Fincher film to be made, but TSN isn't quite it. Hope they work together again.

Fri, 2011-03-04 03:59 — J.R. Cagey (not verified)

Oscar Winners only fall into one category. They are the films in any given year considered the best by the Academy. All these conspiracy theories and pseudo-intellectual analyses are tedious in the extreme.

The King's Speech has entertained millions of people worldwide, all off a very modest budget. Apparently the desire to tell a good story about good people for the entertainment of other people is now a "cynical" exercise.

"As a critic I cannot applaud such a hollow film."

Oh, do fuck off you pompous twat.

Mon, 2011-03-07 11:59 — Brian (not verified)

Many of the pro-King's Speech(and pro-royalty)posts on here are so daft that I wonder if it is not the same person using different names. The film is a cheese-merchants' smarm-fest. Cynically ticking boxes for the Academy to approve. Ryan has got it spot on.

Tue, 2011-03-01 19:39 — Tom Gregory (not verified)

This article is spot on. Then again, who gives a toss about the oscars?

Tue, 2011-03-01 20:03 — steve (not verified)

the king's speech - shit film about a shit person

Tue, 2011-03-01 20:45 — swatantra (not verified)

Not quite the action film we were expecting. Where is the car chase and the exploding booby traps and the bar room brawl? Despite its many drawbacks it mangaged to convince the Academy that it was a film of some substance. We shall see whether it is still remambered in 2020.

Tue, 2011-03-01 21:57 — HGAT (not verified)

Like life isn't depressing enough without having someone in NS slagging off a rare and pleasing British success.

Tue, 2011-03-01 22:49 — ryangilbey

Highgater
I did rave about The Arbor and Another Year when I reviewed them for the NS last autumn. Check out the reviews on this site. As neither was up for Best Picture I didn't feel it necessary to bring them into what I wrote today.

ST 'To summarise: "I don’t like the Royal family so I don’t like The King’s Speech".' My feelings about the Royals don't enter into it. I don;t think any film should suck up to its characters, and that goes for, say, the salt-of-the-earth working class in This Happy Breed or Loach's Bread & Roses as much as it goes for the monarchy in the King's Speech.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:04 — Duncan (not verified)

So what you're basically saying is "I preferred The Social Network because I'm cleverer than you". Good for you, Ryan.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:12 — ST (not verified)

To summarise: "I don’t like the Royal family so I don’t like The King’s Speech".

I actually thought it was really good, although it doesn’t make it on to my top five list:
1) Top Gun
2) Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
3) Rocky
4) Armageddon
5) Independence Day

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:18 — Brian (not verified)

To be fair low budget, heart warming, middlebrow British films do regularly vanish into the ether (On A Clear Day) or successful or not, don't win oscars (The Full Monty, Four Weddings). Describing this a "a machine to win oscars" is going a bit far surely?

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:20 — Mr Bilson (not verified)

Personally i think The Kings Speech lacked a lot of things. there were no time counters on nuclear weapons to inject drama. Nobody was "framed for a crime they didn't commit" and therefore wouldn't care if the DA took their badge.

Personally I think that both the social network and The kings speech would be much improved by more explosions and a few helicopters. If possible... a giant robot, but I know a giant robot might be difficult to fit into a storry about a rich bloke with a speech impediment.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:25 — Nils Boray (not verified)

Yeah will my Mum liked it - so neeeugh !

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:27 — Larry (not verified)

@Duncan: No need to take that horrid point of view. Nothing wrong with feeling that it's a more intelligent film. And it is.

You're argument is typical of a horrible form of self-policing which keeps us all from aspiring to anything other than trash. Everyone saying, "You think you're better than us, eh?! You should be ashamed!"etc. Can't stand it.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:31 — Duncan (not verified)

@ Larry

Thanks for your devastating criticism of several things I didn't say. Had I said any of them I would feel the sting of your rebuke like a knife. But I didn't, so I'm okay.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:35 — ST (not verified)

Mr Bilson makes some excellent points, an over-bearing, cost-conscious New York District Attorney, or even an assistant District Attorney could easily have been brought in to replace the Archbishop of Canterbury in The King's Speech.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:38 — Highgater (not verified)

"The Social Network... offers no certainties, no pat conclusions, no life lessons, no succour."

Yes it does. Rich, privileged white US misogynist boys will always rule the world. That's the story.

"It doesn't tell us whom to cheer or hiss."

Yes, it does. It tells us to hate Zuckerberg & co, but still be impressed and interested in their wealth & success. Very American, really.

"It doesn't try to improve us or stir us: it digs into human behaviour at its murkiest and most suspect, and invites us to arrive at our own conclusions about its characters."

Not that murky. No one dies. Some selfish business deals are made about people we don't care about, that's all. Some young men who were never going to starve in the first place might become even richer, or not.

Sorkin & Fincher try to convince us that Zuckerberg was hurting from being dumped all along. How Hollywood is that? That's more much pat than the King's Speech! And the girlfriend doesn't even exist in real life.

"It's almost touching, really, the faith that we fans of Fincher's film had in the plain power of its excellence."

Taste is taste. The Social Network is great, but the characters in it aren't at all likeable. The King's Speech has likeable characters, and as a result it moved thousands of strangers of all ages and backgrounds. People liked it. Accept that.

Look, Social Network is a great film, but it's not perfect.

A laughable montage scene of Henley Regatta set to In The Hall Of The Mountain King?

Clunky lines like "Don't ask me whether she's single. People don't go about displaying their relationship status in public... Wait a minute!" (rushes to PC)

The portrayal of identical twins by a CGI effect, and quips about "There's two of me"? Yeah, really human of them.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:43 — Mr Bilson (not verified)

@ST - Indeed. Personally I would have liked a police captain, preferably black, shouting at the king about how he blew up all these public buildings and it cost loads of money. The King could respond, "s-s-s-s-sorry"

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:52 — Sean (not verified)

What is the point of film criticism? It's a parasite, making nothing other than a tawdry living off the back of other peoples endeavours.

Tue, 2011-03-01 13:58 — Highgater (not verified)

Anyway, surely a New Statesman film critic should be shouting the praises instead of socially-aware British films like The Arbor, Made In Dagenham or Mike Leigh's Another Year? Rather worrying that you plump for the wealth-obsessed Hollywood flick!

Tue, 2011-03-01 14:03 — Joe (not verified)

Leaving the cinema to the contented hum of people saying:

"I thought that was really good, did you think it was good?"

"Yeah i thought it was good"

or similar, it occurred to me that there was very little else to say about TKS. Another safe and saccharine gawp-fest.

Tue, 2011-03-01 14:22 — Dave Collings (not verified)

As an exercise in how to grab attention by being contrary, this article is a masterpiece of calculation and cynicism.

Wed, 2011-03-02 08:13 — janeypet (not verified)

COLIN FIRTH WAS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC IN HIS ROLE OF THE KING AND DESERVED THE AWARD HE RECEIVED. THE MOVIE RECEIVED A STANDING OVATION WHEN EVER IT WAS SHOWN. IT IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN IN MANY YEARS. IT WAS A VERY HEART WARMING, WONDERFUL PROJECTION OF THE HONOR AND DIGNITY AND COMMITMENT THE ROYALS HAVE TO THEIR PEOPLE. EVEN THOUGH THE TITLE OF KING WAS PUT UPON HIM, BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHERS ABDICATION OF THE THRONE, TO MARRY SIMPSON, HE ROSE ABOVE HIS AFFLICTION AND GAVE THE SPEECH OF A LIFE TIME WHICH WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN. HE PERFORMED HIS DUTY BECAUSE HE LOVED HIS COUNTRY AND ALL THAT WENT WITH IT. HE WAS, MOST ASSUREDLY, A HERO IN THE WORLDS EYES... THANK YOU FOR MAKING SUCH A HEART WARMING, HISTORIC PICTURE..IT WAS WONDERFUL. PLEASE HONOR US WITH MANY MORE PICTURES LIKE THAT. IT WILL BE OUR GREAT PLEASURE TO COME AND SEE THEM...

Wed, 2011-03-02 08:22 — janeypet (not verified)

IT IS SAD TO READ SOME OF THE HATE MESSAGES ABOUT THE ROYALS..... WHAT A SHAME THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE LOVE AND COMMITMENT THE ROYALS PUT INTO SERVING THEIR COUNTRY. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR PEOPLE AND THEIR COUNTRY AND HAVE A TOUGH JOB UPHOLDING THE IMAGE OF THE UK TO THE WORLD...THANK YOU ROYALS.. WE RESPECT AND LOVE YOU FOR BEING THERE IN AN UNSTABLE WORLD . NEVER SHRINKING FROM YOUR DUTIES.. YOU ARE FANTASTIC PEOPLE.. HERO'S IN OUR EYES. GOD BLESS THE QUEEN.

Tue, 2011-03-01 14:48 — ST (not verified)

Even though I enjoyed the King's Speech, it's been overlooked that the whole stammer thing had been sort of touched upon in Die Hard 3: Die Hard With a Vengeance, albeit in a slightly different context (terrorists trying to steal gold bullion from the New York Federal Reserve)