SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 11:38pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  The King's Speech Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 5 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print
  Author    The King's Speech  (currently 2079 views)
leitskev
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 10:37am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
note to moderator: didn't find topic on this, but feel free to move if I missed it.

This film is brilliant. It's also very worth watching as a writer, both for the standard story methods it uses to great effect, but also for the taboos and rules it breaks, also to great effect.

The simple formula for successful story in film is on vivid display:

powerful character goal + high stakes + character empathy = power

From the opening scene, especially combined with the title, we know what the goal is: to be able to give an effective speech to his country without stammering and making a fool of himself.

If you have any sense of history, you'll also be able to understand the stakes right from the start. It is Britain in the early 30s, during the Great Depression. Radio is a powerful new medium through which state leaders will need to address their citizens in the tumultuous times that are just beginning. Hitler has assumed power, and as we know, war is down the road. The country will need it's prince and future king to be able to comfort and unite them. Indeed, as the British Empire will be all that stands between freedom and tyranny(for a time), the stakes are about as high as it gets.

The final piece of the formula is to make this very personal, to make us care what happens to the prince. And they do this not by over dramatizing him or making him perfect. He is presented as human and vulnerable. He is loyal to his family and his duty, but he does not enjoy being royalty. He would rather just be with his family. The STC moment comes early when we see him with his wife and kids, where he is not only happiest, but most able to be himself without stammering. This is done deftly, too, for he still stammers a bit, just not in a way which inhibits his relationship with his wife and children.

There are some other things to note as a writer. This film is ALL dialogue. Applying the rule of show it don't say it was not a consideration for this project, and this applies even to the smaller scenes that have nothing to do with speech training.

Another thing I noted: the opening scene, the way it's presented in the film, makes no sense at all. As we come to know the prince, we discover his impediment is so severe that even ordinary communication with most people is almost out of the question. There is simply no way they would have stood someone like that up in Wembley Stadium to address the nation. No way.

Did that actually happen historically? I don't know, but my guess is yes. I would assume that his speech impediment was simply not nearly as bad as portrayed in the film, so speaking for him was awkward, but not out of the question. I'm just saying as it works out in the film, it makes no sense.

However, while the scene makes no sense, and some might suggest it is illogical, in fact it is perfect for the film. Film is dramatization, and this perfectly sets the stage for the film. Right away we know the stakes, the goal. We get a sense of the character, who reluctantly and painfully does his duty as prince. And we get a great sense of the setting. Also, by showing the crowd's uncomfortable reaction to the speech, we get an even better understanding of the stakes.

Another technique used to great effect in the film is conflict. It's in most of the scenes, and it keeps the story always interesting, makes the scenes unforgettable.

Another taboo is crossed, I think, with the portrayal of the speech trainer. Careful steps are taken to develop his character, even to where it does not have obvious impact on the central plot. We see him auditioning for a community play, unsuccessfully, and we see him with his family, somewhat inhibited by his wife. I think this humanizes his character and adds a layer of depth to his relationship with the prince/king, but one could also complain it's not necessary to the story.

Finally, you can definitely perceive the beats to the story, the key turning points. We have the inciting incident where the prince meets the speech therapist, then the classic turn into two when the prince plays the recording of himself in that first session. You also have other typical STC type stuff, such as when the prince insults the trainer and breaks off their friendship/training, and bad guys closing in with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Also, the film is filled with numerous clever little shots that constantly relate back to the central question of the prince's upbringing, his relationship to his father, his brothers, to the outside world.

Great film, in this amateur opinion.


Logged
Private Message
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 12:51pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
I concur. it's a fabulous film. Simple, but perfectly formed.

As I so often say...pro stories tend to be quite simple and tightly focused. There's barely a scene when the main character isn't centre stage.

Couple of points:

1. The illogical scene. perhaps, as you mention, radio is such a new thing that no-one other than his close family know he has a speech impediment? The race course owners merely set it up as a matter of course without him being aware? Probably not, but it didn't even occur to me that it was in any way illogical.

2. The point about dialogue. The issue in films is not generally how MUCH dialogue there is...but the function it takes. Dilaogue should be synonymous with action to a degree...it should move the story along...but the fine line is that it shouldn't TELL the story ie you have characters telling us about things happening all the time.

We are shown he has a speech impediment in the very opening scene...Bam..there it is. No need for a scene where his family are all sat round discussing his condition or whatever.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 1 - 19
Reef Dreamer
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 2:49pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Part time writer

Location
The Island of Jersey
Posts
2612
Posts Per Day
0.57
I have to admit i enjoyed the film but it didn't blow me away. Having said that the craft of this is only really becoming clear for me. It is one i have recorded and would like to watch again.

I read somewhere that one of the reasons for the initial scene was to make the audience sympathise with a character/institution that many not like, i.e. the monarchy. They achieve this so well it didn't even cross my mind. Indeed it seems such a simple, almost out of place scene but conveys so much. Show not tell hey!

Another factor i believe it did so well is the humour. As a pure drama i doubt this would have been as successful, yet if i'm not mistaken it wasn't sold as a comedy, so the humour is a pleasant surprise. Something that helps the audience through the story and adds to the warmth.

I'll be interested to see what i missed first time.


My scripts  HERE

The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville
Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final
Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards.  Third - Honolulu
Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place
IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Logged
Private Message Reply: 2 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 3:50pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Hey guys

I was thinking after I posted this about Lionel(the therapist) and his tryout for the community play. More relevant than I indicated in the post. The part he was trying out for was, I believe, Hamlet, or possibly King Lear. He is terrible. The play directors are horrified, and he responds that he's played it before, knows all the words. They reply they are looking for someone younger.

I think this relates to the central story probably in at least a couple of ways, and it's amazing how no line in this film is wasted. First, we see that he wants to play the part of the king. This perhaps explains his desire to push the prince into becoming king. Also, the fact that he fact that he "knows all the words" is also a clue. It's not enough to know the words to play the part, and this is true not only of himself but of the prince, who must learn to speak the words.

Rick, the point is that he himself knows he cannot give that speech. So he wouldn't. And while the public may not know of his problem, his whole inner circle certainly would. They would have found a way to avoid this disaster. But...it IS absolutely needed for the sake of establishing the premise of the movie and the outline of the journey. Which is really the lesson I took from this. Sometimes you have to stretch believability a little for the sake of the story. It's simply necessary. If you try to make a story too real, often it will fail. I think this is something the classic films understood very well. And I'm talking about stretching believability, not breaking it.

In terms of the movie, the stretch is that they would allow someone with that much of an impediment to give a speech. In real terms of how they stretched the truth from real life to adapt to the film, I suspect they made the impediment far, far worse than in reality it was. Growing up, I had a friend with a stutter. It only came out when he was excited, and was not a barrier to everyday conversation. I suspect the prince was the same way. But even a few stutters in a speech in front of many are horribly embarrassing, but especially to a royal for who form is everything. In the film, however, you do need something more pronounced for the story to work.

As for dialogue, I think there are many instances here where the dialogue tells the story. Lionel tells us how he learned to treat speech problems; the prince relates to Lionel the problems with his father; the death of his brother; his problem dealing with the common man; he tells Lionel why he does not wish to be king. These are off the top of my head. Most of what we learn about Edward and Wallace Simpson is through exposition, numerous times.

Let me relate this to another script device: flash. I've heard it said many times that flash is to be avoided, and should only be used to move a story forward in an essential way. I don't disagree that most flashes are ineffective. But I do disagree with the reasons commonly given, such as above, because I have seen flashes that are a effective, that people respond to, that violate those rules. What I learned, and is currently my opinion, is that what makes flash effective is not so easy to break into general rules. Really good writers knows how to use flash, lesser writers don't. That's the only generality I've found. And when a good writer uses it, it's effective whether it moves the main story forward or not. Sometimes they are simply effective as a side story, or as character building, or even as tone setting.

Same thing with dialogue for me. It works when it works. There are times the dialogue does not move the story in King's Speech, but it's always interesting, always finely crafted, usually done in a context of conflict. That to me is why it works.

Reef, I really didn't see this as comedy at all. Some funny moments, but this was drama. It could even be described as tragedy. Yes, we have a happy ending, but we have a central character that is a prince destined to be king, but who does not at all want to be. He longs to have normal human connections, something denied him all his life. He finally has that with his family, and would prefer to limit his life to the role of father and husband. Tragically, he cannot.

Thanks as always for the feedback guys!
Logged
Private Message Reply: 3 - 19
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 4:16pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
The other point to remember is that his own family...most of all his Father...kept putting pressure on him to speak. I suspect his father had arranged for him to be there.

It was expected of him as his duty and they looked at him as though he was being silly by not being able to do it...not seeing that the real problem, of course,was inside.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 4 - 19
Reef Dreamer
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 4:25pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Part time writer

Location
The Island of Jersey
Posts
2612
Posts Per Day
0.57
Interesting stuff Kevin.

Now that you mention, it in some ways i find Lionel a more interesting character. He can't be lead, in film terms, but maybe that shows that strong films also need powerful supporting characters. Don't forget them.

His audition is intriguing. Your observation about wishing to play King can't be by chance, a lot of thought went into that. What i found persuasive about him is i believed this type of character could pull off this task. He "would" talk to the King that way, when no one else would.

Lets think. Your client is second to the throne - at the beginning - when that meant more than today and you have you get inside his head, in an era when that wasn't normally an option. Further, you have to get the client inside his head, when apart from not being a typically male attribute, is made difficult by the monarchy, his father and the Britain of the times. Who can pull that off? Well to me that needs a chancer, a playboy, a romantic - someone who can play to the gallery, give it a go, so to speak. Not in an army style 'get on with it sense", but more of a believe in yourself style - unconventional.

So getting back to the audition, here is a character who wants to thread the boards, pretend to be someone else, but can't. Does he play that game with his clients?

It is well known that professionals, indeed most people who have to deal with clients, are often very different at work, than at home. Almost different characters. He is an example. He is the man to make the King believe, not make the King do exercises.

You are right this is not a comedy. I just think many people enjoyed it all the more for the light touches. The Full Monty was originally a drama without humour, however, they decided to change this and bring humour into this serious topic. I have to say that is my preferred style of film. A topic with depth, handled with humour to make watchable, enjoyable. But thats me.

cheers



My scripts  HERE

The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville
Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final
Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards.  Third - Honolulu
Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place
IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 4:46pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Yes, Reef, true, and I think if I remember, the prince even refers to Lionel living a dream of being king through him, or something to that effect.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 6 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 10th, 2012, 8:51pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1TubkzxPFY&feature=related

Here is the real speech from the opening of the movie. He looks like he's struggling at times, but it really doesn't sound too bad.

On the same site is a link to the war speech, the one from the end of the movie. He sounds more or less the same, actually.

Someone posted that the microphone didn't pick up the stuttering. I don't know about that. That would be odd.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 7 - 19
sniper
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 9:33am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


My UZI Weighs A Ton

Location
Northern Hemisphere
Posts
2249
Posts Per Day
0.48
Fantastic movie. One of those great "feel good" flicks that had a prefect mix heavy and light - drama and comedy.

Joel Goldsmith did, when he was at Creative Screenwriting Magazine, a great Q&A with screenwriter David Seidler. Unfortunately the Q&A was taken down but it should - at some point - be made available again here.


Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Logged
Private Message Reply: 8 - 19
Reef Dreamer
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 4:20pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Part time writer

Location
The Island of Jersey
Posts
2612
Posts Per Day
0.57
Watching this now.

Only 34 mins in and i can't believe all I missed before.  The first scene sets up not only his vulnerability but the affection of his wife - we sympathise more because a third party is already is doing this.

The next scene is a barbaric doctor trying to help him, in which the future King is humiliated. After two scenes how can you not want him to succeed? He then goes to be affectionate with his two girls - it's STC times three.

I particularly like the young boy that's sent out to speak to the prince before he enters the studio, a soft touch.

Being somewhat anal I did note how they go down in the lift into the basement only to see external windows outside at a higher level.  Forgive me!



My scripts  HERE

The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville
Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final
Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards.  Third - Honolulu
Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place
IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Logged
Private Message Reply: 9 - 19
sniper
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 4:34pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


My UZI Weighs A Ton

Location
Northern Hemisphere
Posts
2249
Posts Per Day
0.48

Quoted from leitskev

Great link, Kev.

I am even more blown away by Colin Firth's performance now. He totally nailed the speech pattern, the slight mumble and, sometimes, odd pronunciations.

Btw. love this scene:



It's the "...and tits" that really drives it home.


Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Logged
Private Message Reply: 10 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 4:44pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Even though the speech is not quite as bad as the one in the movie, your heart does kind of go out to the guy, who is clearly struggling mightily. You do see his trouble with 'p' words too. It must have taken tremendous will to get through that speech.

It is amazing how no moment, no image, no word of dialogue is wasted in the film. Everything has meaning. The guy who wrote it was the oldest to win the academy award for best original screenplay(73). I guess he wanted to write this for a long time because he himself suffered an impediment, but he wrote the queen mum, and she asked that he refrain while she was alive as it was too painful. He complied. He probably was working on it a long time, though, quietly.

I'm not a fan of everything they do or stand for, but I think the Weinsteins really deserve credit for taking on a film like this. Looks like it lost a lot of money, and money could not have been their motivation for filming it. I think there are instances where actors, producers take part in films just because it's a great story that should be told. This looks like one.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 11 - 19
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 5:48pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
Lost a lot of money?

It cost £8M and has made over 250M at the BO alone...
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 12 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 8:40pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Oh, I misread IMDB. Even better! I'm glad a film like that can be successful like that.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 13 - 19
James McClung
Posted: January 11th, 2012, 9:41pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
I thought this was pretty good. I did appreciate the fact that it was a film driven not only by dialogue but by language itself and admittedly, I enjoyed the sweetness of the film too. It was especially refreshing to see Geoffrey Rush play such a good-hearted character. I don't think it should've won Best Picture though. It's a good film but it lacked the intensity and ambition of the films it was up against, namely The Social Network, a much more ideal candidate IMO.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 14 - 19
Electric Dreamer
Posted: January 12th, 2012, 11:29am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Taking a long vacation from the holidays.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
2740
Posts Per Day
0.55
The film felt like a throwback to the carefully crafted entertainment of the 80s.
Where nary a storytelling beat is wasted in a very effective narrative.
Entertaining, engaging, moving, relatable AND a true story. Movie magic.

A few decades ago, this level of craft was seen much more in wide releases.
But this kind of movie gets the shaft, literally, when the tentpole franchises kicked in.
It's all about branding, no one wants to go into production labeled with the dreaded...

Execution Dependent.

Calculatingly attempting to create a movie through marketing strategies is a nightmare.
When I think about it, it's amazing movies like this one get through the system at all.

E.D.


LATEST NEWS

CineVita Films
is producing a short based on my new feature!

A list of my scripts can be found here.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 19
Andrew
Posted: January 12th, 2012, 11:53am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32
Actually thought I'd posted on this thread - perhaps there's another swimming around.

Anyway, I agree with James on this one. I was really disappointed that this won the sweep of Picture, Director and Actor. Whilst I think it was good - and the ending was powerful -i t felt like a film engineered for the Oscars. Social Network, on the other hand, felt fresh, vibrant and inspiring.

As always, though, Guy Pearce stood out and was fantastic in what was essentially a cameo. Firth is an excellent actor but the obvious 'fiening for an Oscar performance turned me off a little.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 16 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 20th, 2012, 9:42pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
WTH!  We've been had!

Man, I love this movie. But I just caught a huge issue in the plot. Huge, I think.

Turn into Two:

This key turning point is when the prince plays a recording Logue had made of him reading Shakespeare while listening to music on headphones. The headphones made it impossible for him to hear his own voice, and the result is he reads entirely without impediment. Cool.

Here's the problem. The whole purpose of the story, or most of it, is to get the prince to be able to address the nation in speeches that are necessary to calm the people in time of war. The triumphant moment comes at the end when he reads such a speech over the radio in the early days of WW II. He does this with Logue's help, of course. The thing that just occurred to me: why not simply have him do his radio broadcasts with headphones on so he cannot hear his own voice? Won't that solve the problem?
Logged
Private Message Reply: 17 - 19
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: January 21st, 2012, 6:37am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
2 possible answers:

1. Now he's aware of the trick it might not work again. It's a one time deal.
2. He needs to prepare for a life of public speaking....he can't have headphones on in public.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 18 - 19
leitskev
Posted: January 21st, 2012, 7:05am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
He would need to continue the training for public speeches. But the main speech of the film...the king's speech...is over the radio.

It doesn't bother me. Still a great film. One has to be willing to accept little plot flaws like this sometimes. But it is a normal question, and I'm surprised I didn't ask it after first viewing. It's clearly a case of visible plot device anyway. The idea that the prince does not even listen to the record until after he was frustrated with his attempted radio address with his father stretches credibility. He would want to hear it right away, probably in the office with Logue. That didn't fit the story need, however.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 19 - 19
 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006