The King's Speech

[LawrenceU]

I've not seen this movie yet. It opens in Mobile tomorrow. My sister, who lives in Memphis, has highly recommended it. She will almost never see a movie twice. This one she has seen twice already. . . and it is not because Colin Firth is the lead role.

Have you of you seen it? The trailer is quite moving.

The King's Speech - Official Site

 

[Jack K]

It opens tomorrow here, too. It's on my list to see. I've heard only good things about it. Reviews are excellent. Oscar nominations likely. Subject matter sounds generally wholesome.

 

[JML]

I've heard only good things about it.

Not all good.

"The Lord's name is also taken in vain on a couple of occasions."

- Crosswalk Movie Reviews

 

[nicnap]

It is an outstanding movie. It does have some language, though. My wife is an SLP and she said it is very accurate.

 

[T.A.G.]

any sex in it?

 

[Wannabee]

Plugged In Online has something to say about it as well. "Close to 20 each of f- and s-words. Christ's name is abused twice, and God's is misused at least once."

We won't be seeing it.

 

[LawrenceU]

Hmm. I read Plugged In's review. I understand a great deal of what it is saying regarding some of the use of foul language from a little bit different point of view than perhaps some do. I, too, have struggled with stammering/stuttering in speech. It is true that many who stammer/stutter do not do so when singing or swearing, and that sometimes either or both of those are used in trying to aid the person to work through the 'block' in speech.

As a young man George VI was held up to me as an example of a man overcoming great odds and doing it well. That is another reason I am drawn to this movie.

 

[Phil D.]

My wife is an SLP

May I ask what this is?

 

[Tripel]

Sounds good. I hope to see it

 

[JBaldwin]

SLP-speech language pathologist?

 

[Phil D.]

SLP-speech language pathologist?

That's the best I could come up from Googleing it too! Yet I'm still hoping Pastor Nicholas will give us a definitive answer.

 

[Jack K]

The film is rated R for "some language." It gets this rating only because the F-word is used a number of times as a part of the king's speech therapy. In England, the rating is 12a (for strong language in a speech therapy context), which is a far more permissive rating than the R here in America.

The few uses of God's name are unfortunate and, I would guess, unnecessary for the film. This bothers me most. I trust the sources mentioned in this thread, though it's interesting I hadn't read of these uses anywhere else. It shows how Americans are focused on the F-word and comparatively disinterested in respect for God's name.

All in all, this is another example of how film ratings in America punish certain, specific content while ignoring larger themes. A movie that glorifies or laughs at promiscuous sex, or does the same with mass violence, may well earn a PG or PG-13 while this film gets an R. It pays to do some research rather than just read ratings.

 

[Wannabee]

Like many movies, I'd really like to see this. I can appreciate the struggle and the emotional work to overcome it. But subjecting my ears to such words when I can just as easily avoid it is not edifying. I think I've seen one R rated movie in the last 10 years because of this. Since we don't have cable, the cleaned up version won't be available to us. We miss a lot of "good" movies because of this. But I don't think we've missed out on godliness because of it. Everything teaches. Even in the interview the use of such language is espoused as necessary, or at least beneficial, in order to achieve the objective. I don't buy it, and neither did the reviewer on Plugged In. Perhaps others are much less affected by profanity and the abuse of God's name.

 

[nicnap]

She is indeed a Speech Language Pathologist. And the cursing in the film is related to the stammer ... which she said, and Lawrence confirmed. (I didn't know this until the movie; she leaned over and explained it to me.) It is a good movie.

 

[Philip]

In my humble opinion, this is the best film of the year. Is there swearing? Tons of it, but it's swearing with a purpose. The swearing of a man who is trying to find his voice and can't do it any other way. Frankly, it's painful to watch and therefore the resolution is powerful. It's there for a reason, not gratuitous, certainly not there to be entertaining. We're not supposed to enjoy it, we're supposed to sympathize with a man who has to speak into a time of world crisis despite the fact that he has no voice. It's powerful (and at times painful) to watch, and it's a beautiful story of perseverance, courage, and humility (Bertie has to go to the therapist in secret and treat him as an equal).

 

[JML]

Is there swearing? Tons of it, but it's swearing with a purpose.

How is taking the Lord's name in vain "swearing with a purpose"?

 

[Tripel]

Is there swearing? Tons of it, but it's swearing with a purpose.

How is taking the Lord's name in vain "swearing with a purpose"?

I gathered from Philip's post that he was referring to the use of 4-letter words, not the misuse of God's name.

 

[Phil D.]

I must admit I sometimes feel torn on what to do in situations like this. For example, if I go to a football game, or many other forms of public entertainment, I can almost certainly count on hearing profanity, including God's name taken in vain. (For that matter, the same holds true for many jobs I've had.) So should I simply avoid these things altogether?

 

[Wannabee]

I've pondered this as well. The conclusion I came to was that being subjected to profanity was much different than subjecting myself to it. One is simply part of being in the world. The other is inviting the world in. Do we take Christ to an R rated movie?

One movie that I really wish I could show my sons is Saving Private Ryan. Obviously it has a profuse amount of profanity. The reason I wish I could take them though is to help them understand the horror of war. The sequence where they're taking the beach still brings images to my mind (how many years later). But I refuse to subject them to the profanity in order to get that point across. Incidentally, I took my wife to see it at the recommendation of the youth pastor of the church we were attending at the time. I want to be clear that I'm not condemning others though. While I don't see how someone cannot be negatively affected by profanity in such cases I also recognize that some may have stronger consciences regarding these things. But I also know the heart of man, and that many lie to themselves in order to justify subjecting themselves to these elements in order to "enjoy" the movie.

 

[JennyG]

I saw the film last night - I have mixed feelings. I could definitely have done without the language. I seriously doubt whether it really happened like that, but even if so, the producers were just indulging themselves in including it. It elicited a lot of pleased chuckling from the audience, which didn't please me at all.
George VI has been a big hero of mine ever since I understood what it meant to him to be forced to step into the shoes of his waster brother, and what a fine job he did. Edward the abdicator and his Wallis were very well represented - not overdone, but I thought his playboy self-centredness rang very true. Colin Firth's performance was extremely moving, and only Churchill seemed horrendously badly cast to me.
I liked the seriousness that was given to the King's understanding of his historic role, and of course the Name of God couldn't be deleted from the recorded text of his speech. BUT -! this was the man who periodically called the nation, in extremis, to days of prayer, which God was pleased to hear and answer, otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here now typing away in English.
The film had his therapist virtually ordering the ABC out of the Abbey and then reducing all the most solemn content of the coronation ceremony to "...rubbish, rubbish, rubbish..." Also, the ABC was portrayed as an idiot (which he may have been, but I couldn't help feeling it was probably done with intent)

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

in other words the cursory and dismissive treatment of the King's faith, not the language, seemed the worst thing to me. Structurally it might not have fit, but it was a shame they couldn't have included his 1939 Christmas message when he quoted

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year
'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.'

And he replied,
'Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way'

years after, that was still deeply resonating with a lot of my parents' generation

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

Christ's name is abused twice, and God's is misused at least once.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't even pick that up - maybe I was . You could hardly miss the other kind

 

[Jack K]

Christ's name is abused twice, and God's is misused at least once.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't even pick that up - maybe I was . You could hardly miss the other kind

I didn't notice it either, and I usually do notice it before I notice the stuff that's merely vulgar. I will continue to assume that if someone else heard it, it is there. But it isn't obvious at all.

I agree with the observation that this is a movie with modern-day, secular sentiments. It might have delved into matters of faith, but chose not to.

it was a shame they couldn't have included his 1939 Christmas message when he quoted

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year
'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.'

And he replied,
'Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way'

Here's a question: Which would be the greater misuse of God's name? Having it spoken as a cast-off exclamation? Or having it used in a speech by a secular-minded king who is trying, by invoking that name, to instill hope in a largely secular people?

I don't know what I'd say is the right answer. Certainly, it's a great quote with wonderful words. I'm with you in that I really like that line from the Christmas speech. But isn't the making of speeches about God without the exercise of true faith exactly what the third commandent says we must not do? As much as I liked this character, I'm not sure I would have appreciated hearing him say those words. Then again, maybe I would have.

 

[jayce475]

My supervisor was telling me about there being an SLP in the movie and I was like "Woohoo we made it to the big screen!" Intriguing.

 

[jfschultz]

After seeing the movie, I began to wonder if Elizabeth's feelings/thoughts about Charles and William are like George V's about Edward and Albert.

 

[py3ak]

Christopher Hitchens expressed some historical caveats.

 

[Philip]

Christopher Hitchens expressed some historical caveats.

Hitchens clearly just doesn't like the monarchy any more than he likes Christianity. But he's correct: Churchill made rather a fool of himself during the abdication crisis, but thankfully was able to get past it. Even he later admitted that it was a mistake to try and prop up Edward.

And yes, the film cleans stuff up, makes it nice and tidy, but that's to be expected. All great men have dark sides, if only more people would wake up to this.

 

[JennyG]

I may be wrong, but I believe the King quoted the man who stood at the gate of the year in all sincerity and with full awareness of what he was saying - otherwise I might agree that however well-intentioned, it was only a form of taking God's name in vain. However, George VI was an old-fashioned Englishman and would no more have been likely to make a public display of his faith, than to make a show of his feelings in affairs of the heart.

I believe that when he called the nation to prayer, before Dunkirk for eg, it did come from a true faith.

Yesterday's Telegraph has an interesting sidelight on the film(quoting it because there's stuff on the site you might not want to see):



A key figure who acted as King George VI's mentor and helped transform him from a stammering sickly prince into a wartime leader was omitted from the hit movie The King's Speech, it has been claimed.
He was a Scottish surgeon, who was King George VI’s confidant for more than 40 years.
Sir Louis Greig helped to save his life on one occasion and arranged his marriage to the future Queen Elizabeth. They even played doubles together at the Wimbledon tennis championships.
Not that anybody watching The King’s Speech, the critically-acclaimed film, would ever know that. The movie, for which Colin Firth is tipped to win an Oscar, airbrushes Sir Louis out of history in favour of Lionel Logue, the Australian speech therapist.
“The film-makers picked the wrong man,” said royal biographer and historian Christopher Wilson, “It would have been a much more interesting film if they had focused on Greig rather than leaving him out altogether. He was the surrogate father who helped turn the prince from this terribly gauche, ill-prepared young man into the wartime monarch he became.
Geordie Greig, the editor of the London Evening Standard and author of a book about his grandfather’s exploits, said: “Greig was known by senior courtiers as the man who made the king.”
While Logue’s role in curing the king of his stammer was crucial, it was Louis Greig who gave Prince Albert – as George VI was called before he became king – the confidence to overcome his frailties.
Born in Glasgow in 1880, the ninth of 11 children, Louis Greig first encountered Prince Albert at a Royal Naval college on the Isle of Wight in 1909. Despite being 15 years older, Louis was soon to become the future king’s ever-present companion.
Albert was a sickly child. Apart from his stammer, he suffered from stomach ulcers and bow legs which required him to wear iron leg braces for several hours a day. Louis was the opposite. A brilliant tennis player, he also captained Scotland at rugby.
After school, where Prince Albert was treated by Louis for life-threatening flu, the prince was sent to serve with him on HMS Cumberland. “Prince Albert had a terrible war,” said Geordie Greig, “He was ill constantly.”
In 1917, Louis, then a naval staff surgeon, advised George V that his son should undergo an operation to remove the ulcer that had caused him huge pain for so many years. “If he was my son or brother I would operate,” Sir Louis told George V. He was part of the surgical team that successfully operated on the prince. Albert would later tell his equerry that Sir Louis was responsible for “saving his life”.
“From that point on, George V very much insisted my grandfather stay with him,” said Greig. “When Prince Albert went to Cambridge to study, Louis and his wife had to take a house and the prince lived with him. When Albert joined the air force, Louis joined too and had to learn to fly.”
While at Cambridge in 1920 - six years before Logue began his speech therapy sessions with the future king - Louis Greig is credited with giving him the confidence to bring the stammer “more under control”.
Courtiers noted that for the first time, Prince Albert was able to give a speech in his own words, something his stammer had previously prevented. His father was so pleased that in 1920 he bestowed upon him the title Duke of York.
Sir Louis was the key man in “fixing” the shy prince’s incredibly successful match and lifelong partnership with Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
He guided Albert in his courtship with the future Queen and later Queen Mother.
Three days after the wedding, King George V wrote in a letter to his son, who was on honeymoon: “You have got a wonderful man in Louis Greig, who will be a great help to you. I told him how grateful I am for all he has done for you.”
Sir Louis and Albert played in the 1926 men’s doubles at Wimbledon – he was qualified to take part as RAF tennis champion and chose the prince as his partner – and was a key figure in organising the coronation in 1937. After Albert became George VI, Sir Louis was a senior courtier at the palace, guiding his dealings with politicians.
By the time of his death in 1952, Sir Louis was widely credited with putting steel into the king and saving the monarchy.
Yet there is no mention of Sir Louis in the film or credits of The King’s Speech, which shows Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, single-handedly coming to the rescue.
“George V thought Louis Greig was the man who transformed his son’s life and George V’s and Queen Mary’s letters show that,” said Greig, “On one of the very few times I have met the Queen, she clasped her hands together and she told me that my grandfather and her father were so close.
“I don’t know much about Logue and they were clearly close but my grandfather had been with Albert for a very long time. Theirs was a tremendous story of loyalty and friendship.”

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

this is the best film of the year.

....of 2011 you mean ?