Op-Ed | Cynicism and Symbolism: A Defense of The King’s Speech

[note]This is a guest essay written by Michael Miecielica – in response to our invitation to readers inspired to defend the King’s Speech as the Best Film of 2010. We had several submissions but chose this one.[/note]

Like most film buffs, I have a long, sordid and contentious history with the Oscars. Indeed, in all 82 years of the show’s history, the Oscars and I have never agreed on what is the best film of the year. While there are certainly winners I begrudge less (Schindler’s List), or for that matter winners that I begrudge more (Crash), I have taken a very Zen approach to the whole thing. Hoping that for once the Oscars and I will agree, but not expecting to, being glad when films I love win something, or anything at times, I let the whole process roll off my back.

Now, for the second time in 83 years, my favorite film of the year is on the cusp of wining Best Picture. (The first time was Brokeback Mountain, and Lord knows how that turned out). As par for the course, many in the internet film community are displeased with this development. Many flock to the banner of The Social Network (which I like a great deal too), and many people demand that the Oscars rubber stamp the “critical consensus” and crown The Social Network the “official” best film of the year. If The Oscar does go to The Social Network, which is certainly possible if unlikely, I’ll will shrug my shoulders and hope that next year we will agree for once. And if The King’s Speech wins, I’ll be happy.

But none of this matters to the question before us; which is what is the better film, The King’s Speech or the Social Network? In general, there have been two arguments made in favor of The Social Network over The King’s Speech. The first is that The Social Network is the film of this time, and one of intellectual pursuits that captures our minds; while the King’s Speech is a film of the heart, a crowd-pleaser of sentimentality. I’ll refer to this as the heart-and-mind argument. The second is that The King’s Speech is Oscar bait, that by its subject and production it is a coldly calculated film to win Oscars and other awards. I’ll call this one the Oscar bait argument.

To turn to the heart-and-mind argument, I’m deeply suspicious of this classification to begin with, but let’s set that to the side for a moment. I’ll grant that TSN feeds the mind, while TKS feeds the heart. My response to this is, so what? To quote Bentham, Pushpin is as good as poetry. A film that feeds the mind is not, inherently, superior to one that feeds the heart (or for that matter, vice versa). What matters is the degree to which both feed their respective targets.

TSN’s intellectual pursuits are of curious and superficial being. Why, what do you know, the hunger for power and fame can lead people to destroy each other? Envy and disappointment can dissolve friendships? Such insights as these, while TSN handles them with flare and care, are not profound. TSN is smart; it is not a philosophical treatise. However, most damningly, there are several intellectual bones that TSN simple does not wish to chew. The most obvious of which is the film takes the validity of the lawsuits against Zuckerberg, especially the Winklevoss’ complaint, as a given. TSN informs us that every creation tale needs a devil, but does the film identify the right one? To what degree was it the courts that were the devil in this story? What could have been an insightful social commentary is reduced to a pissing contest between a few unlikeable people. And while I’m on the subject of the devil of the story, TSN spends 90% of its runtime making Zuckerberg one of the most unpleasant people in the history of cinema, but then as if Sorkin finally realized that Zuckerberg was a real person we are told (not shown) that he is only “trying to be an asshole” at the last moment. Such a pat declaration is unworthy of serious attention and the film is weaker because of it.

On the other hand, TKS is a moving portrait that, if it be sentimental, is of moral sentiment. Symbolism is important; we thrive on it. In a sense films are nothing if not symbolism. The personal growth of King George VI, in him finding his voice, is exactly the sort of useful myth that moves the soul to response. But here’s the thing: The emotional resonance of TKS rests on the interplay of King George VI and Bertie. The Divine Right of Kings is a patent absurdity, but having a person who is a living symbol of Sovereignty of the state is a luxury us Yanks do not fully understand. Bertie is just a man, but King George VI is a performance that Lionel and Bertie craft. And like all good performances it served as a symbol for a great cause. That being the resistance of a free people standing against tyranny. In short, TKS feeds the heart to such a degree because it reaches a real need; the need for symbolism.

However, I started this section by saying I was deeply suspicious of this classification. And I am. TSN has emotional content, and TKS has intellectual content. TSN incites, however unfairly, our righteous indignation against the excesses of human greed, while TSK leads us to meditate on why living symbols are so needed in the political arena and how systems of power and privilege can entrap the advantaged as much as they constrict the disadvantaged. The only reason why Bertie’s stuttering even mattered was because of the social role his was forced into. This trap of circumstances beyond our control is one faced by each of us at some point in our lives. In light of this, I find more food for thought and heart in TKS.

According to the heart-and-mind argument TSN is the film of our time. I simply do not find this to be the case. The internet and social networking has changed our lives, but over the past decade these developments were not the most far-reaching or the most important. There were several other stories — the wars the USA engaged in and the election of the first black president to name but two — which are far better define this era than Zuckerberg‚Äôs website. But most importantly, TSN‚Äôs themes treat the real social importance of the story, the development and popularity of Facebook, as incidental. Indeed the main thrust of this film has nothing to do with social networking; it is simply a convenient placeholder for a business venture. I must note here I deeply resent TSN telling me that it is the film of our time as the film does in the club sequence between Zuckerberg and Parker.

TKS is not the film of our time either, but unlike TSN its story has already withstood the test of time. I have little doubt that TSN will prove to be timeless (human greed and envy being commonplace), but TKS’s story already is. That I, a Yank college student in 2011, relate powerfully to this story demonstrates its timelessness and universal appeal. But here the thing, cynicism already plays a great role in our culture; TKS pushes against that with its earnest sentimentality. It is not a film of our time, but it is a film that pushes against our time’s worse excesses.

This brings me to the Oscar bait argument. As far as I am concerned there is no evidence that TKS was produced as a coldly calculated ploy to win awards. The film took Rush years to get financing and the production company eventually needed a public grant to get it done. That is not something you do unless you truly care about a project. But this is a secondary concern. The main thrust is the film’s subject matter. With the WWII trope, the sentimentality and so forth, people say it ticks off every box on the Best Picture check-list. Again, my response to this is, so what? A film is not good, or bad, by virtue of its subject matter. It is good or bad by how it handles its subject matter. On paper, TKS seems more conventional then it really is. Thanks largely to Hooper’s off-kilter direction (off-center framing, unusual shot sequencing and so forth), TSK is a conventional (but wonderful) story told in unconventional ways. TKS transcends its subject matter to become a great film and an innovative memorable series of starling images. Who knew speech therapy could be so exciting?

But while we are on the subject of check-lists, this idea cuts both ways. If one were to intentionally try to make a film that appealed very strongly to the internet film community on could hardly do better than TSN. With its cynicism, subject matter, “quotable” dialogue and dispirited view of the American Dream, it is little wonder TSN is as popular with internet film buffs and critics alike. But all this amounts too is that different groups like different films.

At this point I wish to conclude by putting forth the two main reasons why I hope that The King‚Äôs Speech wins the best picture. The first is, taken as a whole; it is the best-crafted film of the year. In its production details, such things as art direction and cinematography, The King‚Äôs Speech invokes the eve of WWII with exquisite detail that grounds the drama so that it feels like history is unfolding before your eyes, even at the film‚Äôs most ahistoric moments (such as the material surrounding Churchill). Taken as a whole, the film‚Äôs main elements — the acting, writing and direction — come together to create a drama that is moving and inspiring. Firth had a particularly difficult job with the stuttering, but the entire cast ebbs life into their characters. I never saw Firth, Rush, or Carter in the film. I saw Bertie, Lionel, and Elizabeth. Hooper‚Äôs unconventional direction complements and brings out the complexities and ironies (King George had to engage in a war of words with Hitler!) of Seidler‚Äôs economic and deceptively ‚Äúsimple‚Äù screenplay. (Many of the historical elements that people are complaining about, such as the appeasement issue are hinted and dispensed in shorthand in the film.)

The second reason — and this is why it is my favorite film of the year — is that The King‚Äôs Speech is life-affirming. It’s easy to criticize, tear down and be cynical about our systems of social relations; it’s far harder to construct, and build up people such that they believe in things. By the time King George VI gives his final speech my sentiments were involved in the useful Myth; I came to believe in the symbolism of his Sovereignty and I cheered as Bertie lived up to the social role thrust upon him. I was inspired to do the same. I hope I too can meet life‚Äôs challenges with as much honor and resolve.

In the end, if the King’s Speech wins Best Picture, I fully expect to hear of the “disappointment “and “travesty” of it for years to come. It will join in the chorus of the received view of the years the Oscar got it really “wrong.” (Raging Bull should have won, Goodfellas should have won, and so forth) But for this film fan, if the King’s Speech wins Best Picture, it will be the first time in 83 years that the Oscars and I agree on the best picture of the year. I’ll gladly take that trade-off.