The King's Speech

          When I had first heard of The King’s Speech, I thought the movie sounded incredibly boring. What made me even more upset is the fact that it won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year because I had wanted another film to win instead. In a Film History class, I was forced to watch watch The King’s Speech and was incredibly surprised by how much I actually enjoyed the film. i can now say that The King’s Speech is an outstanding film that deserves its Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay.

          One reason I was originally uninterested in the film was due to the heavy use of British actors and actresses. I had not seen anything with Colin Firth and I felt like I would not be able to connect with his character. I couldn’t be more wrong. As it turns out, Bertie (Firth) and I both hate public speaking. He would get in front of an audience and absolutely freeze. To make matters worse, he had a horrible stuttering problem. While the dialogue, casting, and scripts were great, it was Colin Firth’s performance that made this movie outstanding. Watching Firth’s stutter was marvelous and horrifying. Every scene showed off his immaculate acting skills while making the audience truly feel bad for his character, Bertie. Its performances like these that are both Oscar worthy and remembered for a long time.

          While I was watching The King’s Speech, I thought to myself, “why is this movie rated R?” It was only a few scenes later that I found my answer. One dramatic scene, filled to the brim with expletives, gave The King’s Speech an “R” rating. Usually, scenes like this drive me crazy. They provide a cheap laugh for the audience, but it doesn’t enhance the story. However, The King’s Speech is not your typical movie. This scene was pivotal to both Bertie’s character and the story as a whole. It showed that Bertie would not stutter when he swore. This gave him confidence and also helped contribute to the success of Bertie’s final speech. 

          While it may sound cliche, I walked away from The King’s Speech inspired. The story is not only well told, but it is also based on a true story. There seems to be an added dramatic effect to true stories. The audience seems to be able to relate to the characters more which only helps the film’s success. For example, look at the films Titanic and Saving Private Ryan. If these events had not happened, would the film be as popular, and would we still be able to relate to the character’s situations?

          Overall, The King’s Speech was an incredible movie that deserved its Academy Awards. Colin Firth’s performance, the swearing scene, and the fact that the movie is based on a true story, added to the overall success of the film. I am embarrassed to say that I once thought The King’s Speech would be a boring movie. This just goes to show that opinions can change and first impressions can be very very wrong.

The "Classics"

I would like to start by defining the word “classic.” Using Dictionary.com, I received 20 different definitions. The first definition of the word “classic” said: “Of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.” This definition without a doubt applies to many films that are referred to as “classic” like 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho. Because these are some of the earliest films made, they are referred to as “the best.” While they were revolutionary for their time, they simply cannot compete with the most up to date films. 

  Imagine watching the news on a black and white television from the 1950’s. Now compare that to watching Avatar in 3D IMAX. Which one is better? Quality wise, IMAX is immensely better than a 1950’s black and white TV. Both forms of entertainment were incredibly revolutionary for their time. Mass producing TV’s and being able to put them in every home in the 1950‘s was amazing, but so is the 3D motion capture technology specifically created for Avatar. While our modern day technology beats the 1950’s in quality, both are examples of radical change within the entertainment industry. 

In 1895, the Lumiere brothers created one of the first films, which showed people exiting a factory at the end of the day. They showed the film, Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory, to an audience and those who viewed it were absolutely amazed. If this same black and white film were shown to an audience today, they would say, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a bunch of people walking.” The difference between these two situations is exposure. In 1895 when the Lumiere Brothers created the first films, a person’s exposure to film was absolutely zero, but now, a person has seen dozens, if not hundreds, of movies. This principle of exposure shows that early films such as 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho are partially thought of as “the best films ever” because there were very few films before then. 

  While this first definition of “classic” is good, I prefer to look at other definitions. These definitions include words such as “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard.” These “classic” movies are here to serve as a guide. They are important to the overall industry of filmmaking only because they represent the start of the industry. For example, I absolutely love Apple products. They are efficient, reliable, and high quality, but I wouldn’t say that the first Apple computer from 1976 is one of the best computers made.

  While some old films are good, I find that most of them are incredibly boring. They were experimenting with what audiences enjoyed watching, and that process took a long time. Movies like The Godfather are horribly painful to watch because of their incredible length and lack of compelling storytelling. Some of the few movies, at that length, that are worth watching are The Lord Of The Rings movies, The Green Mile, Titanic, and the Director’s Cut of Kingdom Of Heaven. While these are all incredibly long films, they actually have interesting stories unlike The Godfather.

  Are old films so great because the directors were brilliant, the first of their kind, or because they’re dead? Once a person dies, their art usually skyrockets in value. Maybe these directors weren’t actually all that good to begin with. Now that they are dead, nobody would be able to interview, scrutinize, or ridicule them. It’s a lot like the Founding Fathers. They were the catalyst of something great, which is the reason why they are so respected. If someone duplicated their work now, they probably wouldn’t amount to much. Some idiot directors have had decent careers copying other “classic” idiot directors.

One of my favorite series is the James Bond series. While I enjoy watching all of the films, I prefer to watch the more recent ones because they are higher in visual quality, they’re more relatable to me, and they (usually) have more entertaining stories. I understand that the old films were the beginning, but they simply do not compare to the more recent films.

  In almost every situation, the word “classic” should be avoided at all costs. If it needs to be used, it should only reference the “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard” definition. Most people would agree that the old films are important. They are a part of our history and should be respected. However, it is time to move on, look toward the future, and embrace the films that we have today.