Blog Post #8

In my paper i am focusing on the two arguments of those who liked the film The Kings Speech to those who thought it was a complete wast of time. Tying this two perspectives into my paper was challenging because they focused on totally different topics, making it hard to compare the two. I was able to connect them in a way that was easy for someone who hadn’t seen the movie to understand what i was arguing. 

some things that are not fully complete in my paper such has my last paragraph arguing about the people who didn’t like the film. Also I’m having a hard time trying to make a conclusion that will tie the two arguments together and make the whole paper flow together. While my peer view my paper i want to know if they think my paper flows in an organized way and if my sources fit in with my arguments, making them reliable. 

Source 10

“TIFF Review: THE KING’S SPEECH, Emotionally Effective Historical Drama with Stunning Colin Firth Performance.” WhatCulture TIFF Review THE KINGS SPEECH Emotionally Effective Historical Drama with Stunning Colin Firth Performance Comments. N.p., 14 Sept. 2010. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.

Why did so many people see this movie and why did it win an Oscar? These are the questions that are covered in this article. The writer of this paper explains the background information during the time of the movie. All of the events that are shown in the movie are from 1925, this is when Hitler was beginning to take over Germany.  The writer believes that The Kings Speech won an Oscar because of the theme of the movie; British royalty and the responsibilities of the family to the people of the Empire, who are overcoming the pressure of failure. They believe that this movie is so different than any other movie that came out during its time in 2010. From the theme, to costume, to actors, this writer believes there is no doubt that The Kings Speech deserves its Oscar.

This article can tie into my paper because it provides excellent reasons why people loved the movie. Including background information, the actors, wardrobe, plot, and the script. These are all aspects that movie watchers and critics look for when viewing a movie. Including these characteristics in my paper can provide back up for my argument. 

Source 9

Freeman, David. “Perspective: How True Is ‘The King’s Speech’?” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.

The LA times is digging deep into the sources that David Seidler used when writing the screenplay for The Kings Speech. When Seilder was interviewed by LA times he was reported at being ambiguous about what sources he used to get his information to write the script. The official biography published in 1958 was one of the sources he admitted to. The LA time’s goal for this article was not to blast David Seilder and the sources he used, and why people believe some aspects were inaccurate, but to explain to those people that Seiler is just trying to tell a good story. Yes, he might have to tweak the record a bit, but all in all, he produced an award winning movie.

The LA times review on The Kings Speech will be useful to me because it talks about why movies are made. They are made to entertain people, and not made to please every critic or historian. I think the LA times did a good job at backing up the film in a way that the writers wanted people to see the movie. The movie was made for people to enjoy and to understand what happened during that time. This is helpful in my argument to the people who enjoyed the film, for the reasons that the LA times supported about the film.

Source 8

Tookey, Chris. “Good? It’s Stutterly Brilliant!” Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.

This is an article from the UK newspaper that talks about why The Kings Speech was such a brilliant movie. The main points throughout the paper discuss the role of Colin Firth and how he played an almost perfect King George the VI. Colin Firth was not the only actor that played a phenomenal role, according to the author, but so did the whole cast. Acting out shy, ambiguous, and sensitive relationships is something that only this cast is able to do conferring the writer. He was astonished to hear that this was the first movie that was made about Albert, Duke of York and how “he rose above a crippling speech impediment to become King and a focal point of opposition to Hitler”.

I think this is a piece of information that can help with both sides of my argument. It is able to help with those who liked the film because of how well the cast was in the movie and the roles they were given to play. It is also helpful because it’s not written by people who live in the US. This helps in my argument because the people in Britain loved the movie, and all the aspects of it. I found it interesting because not one comment was mentioned about how the film was historically inaccurate( as other articles have mentioned), it was all positive feedback from the British writers and critics.

 

Source 7

Chotiner, Isaac. “Royal Mess.” New Republic. New Republice, 6 Jan. 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.

In reviews to the film The Kings Speech, Isaac Chotiner discusses the role of Winston Churchill. Timothy Spall who plays Churchill has a very small role but is inaccurate in many ways. Choriner studies the scene in which Churchill is counseling Bertie and reports his (Churchill’s) dismay at the way Edward is behaving. This is huge news to historians and critics because shockingly Churchill supported Edward though out this crisis. The author then goes to explain how because of Churchill’s historical standing the film assigns the wrong historic leader the opposite position as to the one he actually held.

Involving such a historical leader such as Churchill to a film can make it very powerful. After reading this article I can relate this to my research because even though Churchill is a historical leader, his role in the movie is so small, but historians are paying close attention to his role than any other role in the movie. Why might this be? As I began reading I discovered that making a movie that is based on a true story is difficult, and is also difficult to please the viewers, especially the historians. Relating this to my paper would be beneficial to my argument because it discuses the importance of nailing real life events and how that has a huge impact on how well the movie is portrayed to its audience. 

Source 6

McGrath, Jane. “10 Historically Inaccurate Movies.” HowStuffWorks. How Stuff Works, Inc., 24 Feb. 2009. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.

Reading this article was something I could relate to myself and also to my paper. The article listed the top 10 movies that were historically inaccurate. For historians and movie watchers seeing a movie that is not accurate can really bother them. When critics review a movie and notice that an event is not shown in the correct way it can downgrade the movie on many levels. In the article the one movie that stood out the most was Pearl Harbor. After the Japanese attacked, Danny and Rafe jumped in their plans and took down a dozen enemy planes, when in fact the U.S pilots attacked fewer planes. Something so small can have a huge change on a movie and the way people view it.

I will be able to relate this source to my research because when people hear the words “based on a true story” they expect all aspects to be true. When reviewing The Kings Speech many critics and reviewers noticed inaccurate historical events. This changes how viewers look at the movie and how they rate it. Adding this type of review to my paper is important because it lets viewers know to watch these “based on a true story” movies with a skeptical eye. This is also the reason why people may not have liked The Kings Speech; because its not historically accurate, and that’s what viewers want to see when they hear a movie is based on a true story. 

Source 5

Bradshaw, Peter. “The King’s Speech – Review.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 07 Jan. 2011. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.

Most people liked The Kings Speech because it proves that old-school British drama movies can be exciting and thrilling to watch. Peter Bradshaw, the writer of the article says that “its acted and directed with such sweet, verve, darting lightness. George VI’s talking cure is gripping”. From his reviews he believes that this movie is a must see, not only because it is well acted but because since it takes place in the 1920’s and 30’s that there is so much more. He highlights many well acted and descriptive scenes in the movie that really emphasize what kind of role Colin Firth had to play, in order to create such a perfect, yet unperfected king.

Like the other articles and reviews I’ve looked at this one is also one I can include for my research paper. Bradshaw indicates why people would like the film and why people would not like the film. He says that people may not like the film because it focuses too much on Elizabeth’s initial enthusiasm for appeasement, and that others may believe that its too royalist. This also provides a good argument for why people liked and disliked The Kings Speech. 

Source 4

Roberts, Andrew. “The King Who Couldn’t Speak.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 20 Nov. 2010. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.

In this review the critic was giving negative reports of the movie. He indicates that Albert’s stuttering was very mild and in his speech to the Australian parliament in Canberra in 1927 it was delivered without stuttering. He is mostly indicating that all the facts were not on point to what actually happened in real life. In the movie he concludes that Collins stuttering was so chronic that he couldn’t say a single sentence without prolonged stuttering, when in fact it was never that bad. In the reviewers conclusion it states that the film was “gorgeously produced” and the excellent acting of an all-star cast was a huge plus. The down side that this reviewer had was that the historical aspects of it were worthless because they were so inaccurate.

I find this to article/ review to be very beneficial to my research because I can use this for the argument of a person who didn’t like the film. This review had many good points about how the information portrayed in the film was inaccurate and not true to what the king actually went though. I liked this review because none of the other reviews brought up this controversial idea, and it can bring up a good argument. 

Source 3

Jackson, Josh. “The King’s Speech Review.” Pastemagazine.com. N.p., 16 Dec. 2010. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.

The critic in this review state “It’s not the way that a non-stuttering actor stutters that makes him believable, but the pitch-perfect emotional resonance of gifted actor”. The main point this person wanted to get across was that Colin Firth played a part that was not easy for many people to act out. The writer compares him to Dustin Hoffman who played in Rain Man. He believes that so many people liked this movie because of the phenomenal acting of Colin Firth and how he made his stuttering so believable.

This article is helpful for inquiry 2 because like the other article it talks about the acting of Firth and how it compares no nothing else that came out during that year. When writing my paper I want to compare the two types of people who liked and who disliked the film and for what reason. This could help me argue why people liked this film and why Colin Firth made such a perfect fit for the part.

 

Source 2

Wollcott, Gary. “Tri-CityHerald.com.” Acting so Good in ‘The King’s Speech’ It Leaves You Speechless. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.

In this review, the writer talked about how well written and how impressed he was by the acting of the film, and for sure thought it was going to win an Academy Award. Colin Firth who players Albert has wowed critics for a while, but has not been on the radar since a decade ago when he stared in Bridget Jones’ Diary. He was noticed a few years back for an Oscar in A Single Man. The writer of this article believes that The Kings Speech is like no other movie nominated for the 2010 category. He quotes “Firth’s work is stunning and the balancing act brilliant. It is the best performance in any acting category of 2010, and Firth is a shoo-in for an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a dozen other best-acting awards”.

I think this can be a good thing to include in my paper because I like how the author has faith in an actor that isn’t as famous as say Brad Pit, or George Clooney. This is helpful because in comparing why people liked or disliked the film can have a lot to do with who stars in the movies.