Thoughts on The King's Speech and Historical Accuracy in Hollywood

Just got back from an afternoon date with my wife. We went out for lunch and then to see The King's Speech. Hence the late post here. (I'm taking the week off from work, so you might see me online a tad less than normal. I'm sure you're heartbroken.)



Thoroughly enjoyed the movie. A fantastic story, well executed, without too much schmaltz. Is it historically accurate? No. Do I care? No. What is 'history'? In the end, it's an agreed upon story. It's impossible to recreate it, and if you did, it would be insanely boring. Any time any film is made of history, it automatically won't be accurate by default. It'll be limited to a few points of view.



If you ask a room full of people what happened at a place and time last week, you're bound to get a room full of different answers. Is any one of them more 'accurate' than the others? History is tinted by our perceptions of it, and one of the worst reasons to watch a Hollywood movie is to get a history lesson. Movies tell stories. Film strips and documentaries take stabs at history. Stories require pacing, characterization, drama, plot, conflict--at all parts of the story. That's the lifeblood. Lose those elements, and you lose your audience. So to make a successful movie based on history, you need to condense some parts, create others--even fabricate events at times.



In the end, I'd say this movie seems pretty close to history, but it's taken liberties. It doesn't matter. If it makes you curious to find out more, you can. Don't be disappointed when 'reality' is different than what you watched. If you had seen reality first, you might well have not been interested to find out more.



In any case, I loved the movie. Four stars for me, and I'll not be displeased at all if it wins Best Picture on Sunday. Of course, I haven't seen The Social Network, so I can't say one way or the other who I want to win.



Anyway--back to my edit . . .