It will though. Of quick note, this film is great. It is an all around well made piece of cinema with crisp editing, fantastic performances from the three main leads (Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, and Geoffrey Rush) as well as from the supporting roles, the cinematography is note worthy as is every other technical aspect of the film. It is, without question, well deserving of all of its 12 Oscar nominations. But, with all this in mind, I don’t believe it deserves the title of Best Picture of 2010. Please keep in mind, here there be spoilers.
Reason #1: This film is Oscar Bait. If you are unfamiliar with this term, it is a label put on the types of films that the Academy historically prefers. Most films that get nominated for Best Picture and the other major categories, to be fair, fall under this distinction. But, The King’s Speech falls under a particular brand of Oscar Bait. This particular brand is made up of the films that speak to the close relationship between cinema and theater and the drive to be recognized as a serious medium of art. This includes musicals (Nine), films about World War II, in particular the Holocaust (The Reader), and biopics, especially those about the British Crown (Elizabeth). If it is also a period piece, preferably set in Britain before World War II, you’re golden. The Academy, hoping to appear appreciative of fine art, will gladly push nominations on these types of films rather than the ones that took more risks and strayed away from the film making norm. This has been pointed to as the reason for Nine’s four Oscar nominations and The Reader getting a Best Picture nomination over the widely popular and critically acclaimed The Dark Knight. Not to say these types of films never deserve the recognition, but it is a well documented bias in the Academy’s history.
The King’s Speech manages to hit several of these notes. It is of course a period piece set in 1930’s London and tells the tale of the Duke of York becoming King George VI. Also, the main conflict of the film is the King attempting to overcome a stammer so his people will have faith in him and the country as it enters World War II. This is the type of World War II action that the academy loves: ignoring the dirty, ugly warfare and concentrating on the effects past the battlefield (see: Saving Private Ryan, which undeservedly lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love, a period piece). Oh, the Academy also loves films where the main character has to overcome a disability (see: Forrest Gump, which undeservedly won over one of the most influential films in recent history, Pulp Fiction).
I should mention that I don’t believe films like these should not be made. They tell interesting tales that are enjoyable and open overlooked chapters of history to a new audience. But, stacking the deck so heavily in one’s own favor for praise from the Academy is frustrating, especially when films attempt to do this every year. What I would like to see from future films of this particular sort that deal with the Crown are to take more risks in their film making and not to just play to the audience who will give you the award. Challenge your audience.
Reason #2: The ending of the film is curious. For those who haven’t seen the film, King George gives a flawless speech to his nation, impressing his teacher/ friend, his wife, his country, and himself. With the victory under his cap he goes on his balcony to acknowledge his people. The country is ready for World War II! That last part bothers me. The film is meant to end on an uplifting note of personal triumph over seemingly insurmountable odds. As the jovial, celebratory score kicks in and King George confidently stands over his people, all I can think is “How about some perspective here?” One of the most brutal struggles in the history of society is beginning, the Holocaust is occurring on the same continent, and I’m meant to be revelatory over the King of England overcoming a speech impediment? I’m aware, though, that this is where the story has to end and I doubt there was a way to keep what I just mentioned in context and still achieve a feel-good ending. It just leaves me with a poor taste in my mouth as I leave the theater.
Reason #3: The film’s not saying anything new or interesting. This is pretty much all my personal preference, but Best Picture should go to a film with subversive or challenging themes. The King’s Speech is about personal triumph, overcoming the obstacles each of us is presented from the day of our birth, learning to trust others, and, to a certain extent, fulfilling our destiny. These are all classic themes in cinema and are important for people to see and enjoy, but The King’s Speech does not do much to this established genre. One could argue that the film is trying to say something about class systems, mainly that we lose opportunities for greatness when this type of system is strictly observed. The film, though, fails to take this idea to fruition, settling for the need for classes shown by the importance of the King in the universe of the film. Thus, the film fails to challenge its audience and is happy to stay a good personal story of growth, which it does wonderfully. I just would hope for more from what is supposed to be the best film of the year.
Also, this poster is TERRIBLE!-Daniel Perry