I thought a perceptive casting decision was Michael Gambon as George V:
Although the casting of Churchill was disappointing:
Sunday, June 12, 2011
I finally watched The King's Speech last night
It was a really excellent movie. I liked the feel for interwar Britain they gave you. It also oddly enough reminded me of Pirate Radio in how it treated a new medium of communication (well, both radio and it wasn't all that new by Pirate Radio). Anyway, the underlying theme of both being that the way society is shaped by technology is highly dependent on the way society chooses to use technology, and the strength of character (or lack of character) that we amplify with technology (of course, in both movies, the protagonists bring strength of character to the table).
I thought a perceptive casting decision was Michael Gambon as George V:
Although the casting of Churchill was disappointing:
I thought a perceptive casting decision was Michael Gambon as George V:
Although the casting of Churchill was disappointing:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I found it strange that for an interwar Britain movie, it showed top British statesmen, including even Churchill, as more of, "We don't want another war. The last one was bad enough."
ReplyDeleteUsually, it is rather, "We are the only ones who realize who bad it is, and the gullible journalists and public be damned - we must take action!"
I felt King's Speech could have done a little more to emphasise why that speech was important. This King was about to give the spurring to his fellow people, that the situation commands that they send all the young men in their family to die abroad. Given what he the sovereign was about to demand from them, he could not mess it up.
But to an extent the movie still did emphasise that, as the King explained that they would now have to resort to the more primitive and barbaric way of resolving disputes, and that all else was exhausted.
PS: WWII reminds me of the strange nature of British sacrifice - to fight and die for people abroad. Many years before WWII, nearly 10,000 people died in a joint British and French operation to stop Russian advance in the Crimean War's battle of Sevastapol.
"well, both radio and it wasn't all that new by Pirate Radio"
ReplyDeleteWhat does "it" refer to in the sentence?
"WWII reminds me of the strange nature of British sacrifice - to fight and die for people abroad. Many years before WWII, nearly 10,000 people died in a joint British and French operation to stop Russian advance in the Crimean War's battle of Sevastapol."
ReplyDeleteAnd just what people were they dying "for"? Britain and France wanted to check Russia's power in order to maintain their own.
Perhaps you can describe how many Brits died "for" the people of Ireland in their 8 centuries of helping the Irish out?
radio - the medium of communication that the story centered around in each case
ReplyDeleteThe reason the British wanted to halt Russia's advance was simple - any southerly movement by the Russian's threatened buffer zone of Turkey and the Arabic that separated Russia from Britain's empire in India. What was strange was how much against this over a hundred year old policy Britain's efforts against Turkey were.
ReplyDeleteThe French of course had their strange obsession with the "Holy Land" as a pretext; this lead to a show down of powers representing the Catholic (which isn't really catholic - sort of like the Holy Roman Empire being neither holy, Roman nor an empire) and Orthodox churches.
People tend to forget the religious import of the Crimean War; Turkey after all held the lands sacred to three faiths.
ReplyDeleteLater in the 19th century Zionists had many meetings with the Kaiser in an effort to convince him to get an agreement out of the Ottoman Empire to allow Jews en masse to return to what had been Israel in ancient times. While the Kaiser was sympathetic (there is some historical irony here obviously) the deal was never really done (though there was a slow and steady trickle Jewish immigration to the Levant from the late 19th century onward to WWII).
I see your point, Mr. Callahan.
ReplyDeleteBut it's more about the average British person that I wonder. He benefits zero from imperial power and maintenance of armies abroad. These things only held up the chauvinistic pride of the elite in the British establishment.
Yet such a person goes far across the other side of the world and gets killed in a horrifying, traumatic battle that had the first use of modern weapons. For what? Upholding the interests of such chauvinistic elites?
I reckon such a person either believes he was really doing something right to protect interests of people abroad, or believes that he is dutibound to do anything or everything for Britain and its Empire (no matter how irrational or senseless the cause).
The Iraq War saw 4,000 US dead in nearly a decade, and is a major scandal in the US. Crimea saw many more British dead in the course of a few battles in a single year. Yet, no reports of there having been nearly as many mass protests against the Crimean War. It is deeply disturbing.
That's what I meant by the strange nature of British sacrifice. So many families giving up their first born child, or their only son, for something that didn't benefit them personally at all. And if they could have their young die just for Crimea, what were they prepared to offer for WWII?