I stumbled across the following article today:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/02/01/kings-speech-tom-hooper-dga-award/
As a classical music expert myself (I mean that as modestly as possible), I disagree. The movie was AMAZING even without the music. Keep in mind that these pieces weren’t composed for the movie like soundtracks often are. Thus, there already were problems with the fit of the music to the movie. In addition, in a movie about sound and psychological issues regarding speaking, you’re obviously going to have to rely on music to amp up the whole aural/oral relationship. Keep in mind, too, that the scene in which they play Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, the audience had no clue that Bertie was speaking fluently. It would have been presumptuous and downright confusing to play such triumphant music, at the very beginning of the speaking lessons, if it weren’t incorporated into the movie as actually being played from the machine. The emotional moment there was supposed to be when he was listening to his flawless speaking, at home, Elizabeth standing behind him, both shocked. And there, the moviemakers relied on utter silence to emphasize their point.
Music is crucial to emotion and feeling in movies, I more than anyone would agree with that. Recently re-watching The Fellowship of the Ring, I realized that I forgot some scenes and dialogue, but recalled the music perfectly. But motifs and recurring themes that run through the original scores of movies utilize that recognizable tune to aid storytelling. With the long orchestral works in this movie, it just isn’t the same. Besides, these musical elements usually occur in death scenes, horror or suspense movies, or at heroic war scenes. This movie had none of that.
So quit giving so much credit to the music! Tom Hooper did a great job directing. People are so focused on the music they’re not watching what was unfolding before their eyes. Watching the second time, I noticed more things inThe King’s Speech. The sessions in the beginning, when Lionel and Bertie weren’t close, exchanging brief sentences, even sparring, consisted of back-and-forth shots of their profiles up close, with the blank empty blue room stretching far behind. When Lionel did things like get up to make tea or make a recording, the camera followed from Bertie’s point of view instead of changing perspectives. Same thing at the protagonist-overcomes-conflict-with-self moment, when Bertie was yelling at Lionel and turned to see him sitting in St. Edward’s chair. And most notably, when Bertie was walking the long walk to the broadcasting room and back, that was in just one or two takes. The viewer followed the King all the way, there and back again, even at one point zooming in on his face and then panning out again, which i particularly enjoyed. It’s like excellent syntax in writing sentences. They all serve the purpose of bringing the meaning closer to the audience. For me, every element of The King’s Speechwas excellent and slightly unique in its own little indie way. No one element is responsible for how amazing it is. The great trifecta of Bonham Carter, Rush and Firth played off each other’s acting prowess, just like the cinematography and music balanced each other. Accept the King’s greatness already, and stop trying to look for excuses not to heap prizes upon the cast and crew!
EDIT: Colin Firth, the King himself, says it better. He talks about the emotional weight that Tom Hooper catches in each cut of the film. Go to about 3:20 up until 4:15.
