The King's Speech

The King’s Speech (released December 10, 2010) is the inspiring story of King George VI of England and his struggle with his rather sever stutter. The film stars Colin Firth as King George VI, Helena Bonham Carter as his wife Elizabeth, and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Longue the King’s Australian speech therapist.

Colin Firth excels at portraying the struggling prince and eventual king. His stammering is incredibly realistic and his display of self-doubt is remarkable. His growth as a character becomes evident in his interactions with Geoffrey Rush. He goes to meet the speech therapist at the insistence of his wife, dislikes him immediately, and storms out of the first session in anger. As the story progresses, however, the king-to-be begins to trust and respect the therapist more and more. Colin Firth ably showcases this transformation. Eventually he comes to look at Lionel Longue as a friend and both his familiarity with and his dependence on him grows.

Geoffrey Rush plays an incredibly interesting character. Lionel Longue had no formal training in speech therapy; he was a somewhat successful theatre actor who attempted to help returning Australian WWI veterans who ended up with speech issues. Rush portrays him as a homey and familiar man genuinely concerned for those with whom he is working. He is charming and amusing, much of the humor in the film comes from him. Rush also excels at showing the awkwardness facing a “common man” forced to interact with royalty and the politicians and nobles surrounding them. His faithfulness to the king is unshakeable despite the hurtful snubs and words that occasionally emanate from the king.

Helena Bonham Carter. Where does one begin? In this film she plays an incredibly extraordinary normal woman, demonstrating that she can excel at more than just the bizarre. Her portrayal of Elizabeth is very moving. Indeed, her role personifies the old adage that “behind every great man there is a great woman.” Carter exemplifies all the love and devotion of a woman determined to help her husband achieve his true greatness. She is a business woman with Longue, she is a wife to George VI, she’s a mother to the princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. Her performance, as always, is impeccable.

The screenplay was very well written. Scenes such as the king-to-be’s difficulty in telling a story to his daughters due to his speech are superimposed between his failures at public speaking and his anguish filled practice sessions with Longue. One gets a strong feel for the humanity of the man. Another contrast was afforded by George VI’s older brother who found himself unable to “man up” and accept his responsibility to the country when it conflicted with his then scandalous love life and George who, though he did not want to be king and felt inadequate, strove to become what his country needed. One caveat: to those offended by language, there are two scenes where dozens of strong curse words are used.

The soundtrack fitted the movie very well – a well crafted combination of Beethoven and original pieces. At the climax of the movie, as George VI gives a speech announcing Britain’s entrance into WWII, the second movement from Beethoven’s 7^th symphony is played creating the perfect mood for the in tempore belli speech. This movie was as nearly perfect as any I have seen.

Decision Points: A Masterful Presidential Autobiography

Former President George W. Bush’s masterful autobiography displays the wisdom and struggles of a much maligned president. Its chapter structure follows from its title, i.e. the chapters are each about specific issues he had to face: Katrina, Iraq, Stem Cells, etc. In addition to detailing the reasons for his decisions and the results of those decisions, Bush gives a subtle apologetic for various conservative goals. He often uses stories and anecdotes to accomplish this apologetic. Indeed in reading his book, I was perpetually reminded of Plato’s discussion on the importance of stories designed to teach people virtues.

Bush begins his book with a candid discussion of his formative years and some of the struggles he went through. He talks about his proclivity to alcohol abuse and the circumstances that led to his defeat of his problem. His education included graduating from Yale and Harvard, which one would not expect given his bumpkin portrayal by the media.

His discussion of his decision to stop federal funding of stem cell research was well done. He established the ethos, pathos, and logos necessary to make the decision and to attempt to convince reasonable people of the merits of that decision. He looked at the facts and realized that other stem cells harvested in non-lethal ways showed much more promise. He grappled with the ethical considerations, realizing that most of these embryos would die eventually anyway, and established his ethical grounding on the issue. Finally, he introduced the country to “snowflake babies,” individuals born from frozen embryos, putting a human face on the issue and demonstrating that ethical considerations needed to be made.

His discussion of the Katrina crisis showed his disappointment and hurt at being labeled as not caring about African Americans. He points out that he had appointed two African Americans to the post of secretary of state, one of the highest positions in the executive branch. He also demonstrates that there were constitutional constraints on his ability to send in federal forces without authorization from Louisiana’s governor – that authorization did not come until too late. In this chapter, Bush takes the blame that he deserves, but also attacks the criticisms not grounded in fact.

In his chapters on Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush lays out the reasoning behind his decisions and the evidence that he had. He demonstrates that he and our intelligence services were not alone in our analysis of those countries and the dangers they posed. He is unapologetic about his decisions, but still give both his reasoning and the results of his actions for the reader’s perusal.

My only criticisms would be his use of language and his comparing himself to other presidents. While I do not necessarily reject the use of language, Bush's use of language seems merely designed to maintain the interest of the reader or to emphasize a point. If used for the former, he fails as there are only about a half a dozen spread throughout the book. If used for the latter, he fails again as they seem strained and ill-fitted to the task at hand. His comparisons of himself to other presidents, namely Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan, while understandable are often strained as well. Especially in the case of FDR, it sometimes seems as if he is using them in an attempt to gain popularity himself. These two very minor blemishes were the only ones that stood out to me in his prose.

The rest of the book is a similar discussion of other “decision points” in his presidency. Bush masterfully gives his readers the reasons for his decisions and the results of those decisions, and ultimately leaves it up to them to decide their merits. He candidly takes the blame for mistakes he makes, but also deals with unfounded criticisms. His use of stories and personal examples both from his own life and the lives of “normal people” that he interacted with during his presidency strengthens his decisions. It is a well crafted and insightful book.