When one reviews a film that wins the Oscar for “Best Picture” at the 2011 Academy Awards, it raises questions of a motive. Does this film really even need a review? Isn’t it enough of a recommendation that the members of the Academy considered it the best film of the year?
Well truth be told, there is a lot of politics in who walks home with the golden statue on Oscar night. Picking ‘The King’s Speech’ was the conservative choice in a field of much more ambitious and compelling films including ‘Inception’ and ‘The Social Network’.
Perhaps it also reflects the age of the Academy members who chose to give the prize to a film about the British monarchy instead of the founder of Facebook.
Do not get me wrong Colin Firth was brilliant as King George VI, the second born who unexpectedly finds himself king at the doorstep of World War II. And Geoffrey Rush was amazing as the unconventional speech therapist who helps the king overcome his stutter to give the speech of his life.
Like most period British films, the incredible acting is supported by straightforward filmmaking. As we witnessed last year with the acting heavy ‘The Hurt Locker’ beating out the theatrically epic ‘Avatar’, The Academy Awards tend to celebrate traditional values of acting and screenwriting over edgy or groundbreaking filmmaking.
While this is unfortunate, you should still see the film. Perhaps for no other reason than to see Helen Bonham Carter playing the Queen Mother.OT