article on the king's speech

2

Click here to load reader

Upload: jeanphilippeguy

Post on 21-Jul-2015

258 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Article on the king's speech

Of magic and daylight“The King's Speech” is both preposterous and oddly shrewd about Britain

Bagehot

Jan 13th 2011 | from PRINT EDITION

DEEP in Britain’s collective unconscious, it is said, a special place is reserved for dreams about the queen dropping round for tea—

a fantasy that taps into modern snobberies but also ancient tales of monarchs passing incognito among their subjects, and

commoners with secret royal friends. Small wonder, perhaps, that “The King’s Speech”, a film about King George VI, has sparked

swooning adulation since opening at British cinemas this month. Towards the end, it hits all three fantasies at once: a humble

speech therapist is forced to reveal that the king is his patient and friend, after his wife finds Queen Elizabeth at their dining table

in a hat, pouring tea.

Ostensibly, the film’s success is rooted in its depiction of an interesting, little-known true story. There is something to this. Many

younger Britons have only sketchy notions of George VI, perhaps knowing he reigned during the second world war and fathered

the present monarch, Elizabeth II. The film shows a shy prince overcoming a bad stammer with the help of an unorthodox

Australian therapist, Lionel Logue (who did exist), in time to ascend the throne after the abdication of his brother, Edward VIII. It

breathes rare life into his wife, Elizabeth, later revered in the role of Queen Mother, a rather doll-like figure loved for smiling,

waving, saying little in public and living to 101.

But acclaim for “The King’s Speech” cannot be attributed to narrative interest alone. Once popularity reaches a certain pitch, it

cannot be fully explained by examining its object: extreme public enthusiasm is often a form of narcissism. If British cinema-

goers have taken this tale of a reluctant king to their hearts, it is because it faithfully reflects their sense of themselves. At the

heart of the film lie two linked themes. One involves Britain’s ideas of hierarchy, the other its wartime heroism and rejection of

fascism. First, hierarchy. At a casual glance, the film could pass for subversive. Its least attractive characters believe in grandeur

based on birth or rank. They range from snooty members of an English amateur theatrical society (who snigger at Logue, an

Australian, auditioning for Shakespeare) to the priggish Archbishop of Canterbury, appalled by Logue’s lack of qualifications.

Above all, Edward VIII is shown as unworthy: a bullying playboy, unmanned by dependence on ghastly Wallis Simpson.

In contrast, George VI, his wife and two young daughters are shown fulfilling what the original Bagehot called the English ideal of

“a family on the throne”. This leads to some moving scenes, such as when the two princesses first see their father in a king’s

dress uniform and—after an instant of uncertainty—curtsy with a mixture of love and faint alarm. At other moments, the film

wallows in sentimental anachronism. One preposterous scene has the king shuffling across a nursery floor in white tie and tails,

impersonating a penguin for his daughters (in view of a nanny). In another, he celebrates a stammer-free speech by snogging his

wife and whirling his children about. Not that much is known of George VI’s private life. But given that he died in 1952 and his

daughter the queen seems pretty formal, it seems implausible that he cast protocol to the winds like a proto-Diana in trousers.

Equally, for most of the film, Logue is shown using impertinence as a clinical tool, calling his royal patient “Bertie” or lounging on

a throne to provoke the king’s stutter away. In fact Logue’s real-life diaries show a more formal relationship.

What is going on? A clue can be found near the climax. The buttoned-up king calls Logue “my friend”. In return, Logue at last

calls him “Your Majesty”. The message is thumpingly clear: only once the king has shown he is Logue’s equal in humanity has he

earned the Australian’s reverence. Triumphantly swelling chords give the game away. This is a moment of conservative closure: a

celebration of a very British doctrine of meritocratic snobbery—the notion that deference is quite proper, as long as it is deserved.

That grudging doctrine has its uses. Historically, Britain’s insistence on earned respect arguably helped insulate the country from

fascism. In much of Europe would-be tyrants spent the 1930s strutting about in black shirts and shiny boots on stages lit by

searchlights. In Britain, Oswald Mosley recruited thousands to the fascist cause but—vitally—he was also seen as ludicrous. As

one Conservative MP noted acidly: “he is wearing riding breeches and riding boots though I cannot see any horse.” In the film,

Edward VIII is a flashy, selfish chap. When he praises Hitler (shown preening and ranting on a newsreel), it is no surprise.

These themes come together in the climactic royal speech of the film’s title, broadcast on the day war broke out. Audiences watch

George VI—a man who did not seek the throne, wanting only to raise his family in peace—reminding his subjects that Britain

(depicted as a drab, grey little island, albeit one with a large empire) had also sought to live in peace, until forced into war.

Flummery and flattery

This is the stuff of national myth-making: the undemonstrative king and his undemonstrative country provoked to painful duty by

foreign tyranny. There are some lessons here for Britain’s present rulers. This is a prickly, conservative and proud nation, in

which grandeur must be offset with displays of humanity: David Cameron, a privileged chap who has suffered tragedies in his

private life, knows this already. When it comes to the monarchy, it is a confused place, half-imagining that British kings earn their

thrones: just ponder the frequent opinion polls suggesting that the Prince of Wales should stand aside and let Prince William, who

seems less stuffy, succeed the queen.

Perhaps it is simpler still. “The King’s Speech” is at times uplifting and at other times absurd. But if you are British, or even just

an admirer of Britain, it is a deeply flattering film. No wonder that it is proving so roaringly popular.

Page 2: Article on the king's speech

Match the following definitions to words or expressions from the text :

1. (Adj.) Contrary to nature, reason, or common sense : absurd (2 possibilities in the text)

2. (Noun) One who is not of noble rank

3. (Gerund) To become enraptured, over-excited with…

4. (Noun) Representation by or as if by a picture

5. (Noun) A level or degree, as of intensity (in the context of the text)

6. (Adj.) Looking down the nose : showing disdain / characterized by snobbery

7. (Verb) To laugh in a covert or partly suppressed manner

8. (Adj.) Exaggeratedly proper, is said of one who offends or irritates by observance of proprieties (as of speech or manners) in a pointed manner or to an obnoxious degree

9. (Expression) To fling overboard, ostensibly discard something or not to worry about something (rules...).

10. (Adverb) The adjective means: impressively large, great, or excellent

11. (Phrasal verb) Synonym of betray, disclose, reveal... (in the context of the text)

12. (Adj.) Done, given, or allowed unwillingly, reluctantly, or sparingly.

13. (Conjunction) Conceding the fact that : even though, although

14. (Verb) To serve as a counterbalance for : compensate