The king's speech is one of those films that cries out for a classical approach. With the focus on royalty, narrating historical events, with outstanding players but away from the Hollywood star and director production and England. And it did not. Or at least not only that. The king's speech, driven by something different and unusual ways by Tom Hooper (the director who clamored for recognition with the splendid and very unfortunately ignored The Damned United) is a modern film and current, but respectful of the environment and the demands of their background. In the story embraces the classical force, but on the package reveals itself as a film of its time, shot with wide angle lenses, with different frames, with different levels in the plane. And all this together, rich and tender, completed a master's formidable acting box, is a splendid film at all levels. Splendid and surprising. Emotional and beautiful. A very successful script-improvement within a framework unlikely (and elitist). After only three films, and it can be said that director Tom Hooper is a fearless and a name that must be borne in mind for the future. It unfolds like a fish in water in human history developed in different contexts. He does not mind dealing with ordinary people or historical figures, with kings or football coaches, with black or white, men or women. In all there and in his films after Red Dust (a story about South African apartheid) and The Damned United (the most controversial phase of the career of English football's most celebrated its time). But if anything stands out is the double portraits, the relationship between two main characters, always placed on opposite sides of the spectrum of personality. And so, eye, without repeating, which has even greater merit. The king's speech is selling like Colin Firth's film and the first big surprise in store is that it is not at all. In the credits that name appears at the same level as that of Geoffrey Rush. And is that the film is about both.
who see it devoid of the weight of the publicity machine, you'll notice right away that is. That is as important as Rush Firth, although the Academy Awards has DECIC place to first in the category of actor. Not understood the story without it, is so essential to do with your family or reciting Shakespeare the man dedicated to solving problems of speech as the intimate rertato Hooper makes the King George VI. And therein lies much of the greatness of The king's speech, in a dual x-ray of the human soul, their fears, their achievements, their aspirations and, above all, their friendship (if anyone doubts that is the central theme of this movie, read the last message which is superimposed on the screen that appears before the parade's end credits). Firth and Rush, both sublime (although the first vocal effort give an apparent advantage), starring some interpretations exceptional, thanks to all around them. Helena Bonham Carter, Derek Jacobi, Guy Pearce and Timothy Spall (usually underestimated because of the comedic exploits both) help the dual picture is unbeatable.
And it is in the long scenes of conversation, skillfully prepared with the other key role players (there's nothing left), which broke out between a magic show is expected in many sequences. Is sensed because the first impression that leaves is that the formal aspect of the film is different. The unpredictability of audience before the show that provides you can even at times doubt about the wisdom of the choice, though the mystery is cleared gradually with master plans (the end of the conversation in the gardens, leaving one of the characters blur and a few steps back, as opposed to placing one side of the screen and Russ Firth in the flat-reverse shot of one of its conversations) and with a splendid use of all weapons which may be worth a movie, from a photograph precious to sublime music of the great Alexandre Desplat (this is where comes the only difficult decision to explain: why is not music Desplat Beethoven but which illustrates the final climax to the movie title?; the magic is broken here, but only minimally because the scene, assembly and their performances are outstanding levels).
There may be those facing the king's speech afraid to encounter a relatively slow and leaden. It is not. Absolutely. On the contrary. It is a vigorous portrait of an essential character of modern British history, which goes through a steady thanks to a superb dialogues (less rapid but equally scathing in more than one occasion that those The network, another film that played with a classical background and modern packaging but more acute). And for anyone who believes it's only going to attend a remarkable work of actors, see this film outside attending to details the interpretation will be a delight. Because this is also and above all, a film by Tom Hooper, who made a great job of direction and gives a very personal stamp on a film that, on paper, was in danger of being lost in a sea of \u200b\u200binterchangeable titles. It was not an easy film to make. Perhaps it was easier to interpret than direct. And the collective success of all involved is what makes The king's speech a showcase title. Modern and classical. Beautiful and inspiring in any case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment