One of the main purposes of Chimesfreedom is to write about things we enjoy and to spread the word about good movies and music and their connections to our history. I do not want to waste time writing about things that are not enjoyable. But because Black Swan is getting such raves from most critics, it seems worthwhile to sound a brief dissent. Yes, there are positive aspects of the film, such as that Natalie Portman does an excellent job in the ballet scenes. And maybe we are not the target audience for this film or maybe our expectations were too high because of the positive reviews. You may love the film . . . but how do we keep our general positive spin while still sounding a warning that some may not enjoy Black Swan ? Here’s our attempt.
Review of Black Swan: If you: (1) like movies with cutting, blood, and disturbing scenes; (2) think that a one-note performance of looking confused all of the time is great acting; and (3) enjoy predictable stories that feature caricatures instead of portrayals of real human beings. . . you will love Black Swan.
The King’s Speech (2010), about King George VI, is one of the best movies of the year. It is entertaining, interesting, and an excellent mix of drama, humor, and history.
Do not be deceived about the “king” in the title and be turned off or expect a story focusing on royalty. Although the movie does give great insight into the life of the royals, it is mainly a movie about human beings. The movie begins with the future king as the Duke of York, known to his friends as “Bertie.” He is second in line to the crown behind his father and older brother, but events beyond his control will later propel him toward the throne. In carrying out is royal duties, he sometimes has to give speeches, and his speaking is hindered by a severe stammer. After various experts failed to help him with his stammer, Bertie’s wife (Helena Bonham Carter) encourages Bertie to try one more expert, Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush.
When Rush enters the movie, it really takes off in its study of the relationship between the commoner and the future king. Rush is outstanding in the role, and Colin Firth is also exceptional in making the viewer come to understand the imperfect person underneath the king. The acting all around is excellent, including Carter and including Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII. Timothy Spall’s portrayal of Winston Churchill was the only weak point in the cast. But the problem may have been in the difficulty of portraying someone as recognizable as Churchill without slipping into caricature.
[This paragraph reveals small potential spoilers.] The title’s reference to “The King’s Speech” refers both to Bertiie’s difficulties in speaking and to the climactic speech at the end where he addresses the nation. While the focus on the former is compelling, the shift to the focus on the latter fell a little flat for a movie climax. Because of the tone throughout the movie, as well as maybe from previews, there was no suspense about whether the final speech would succeed. Plus, the uplifting movie’s ending foreshadows some dark clouds with the images of Hitler near the end and the introduction of Neville Chamberlain, who after the movie ends will have a policy of appeasement to the Nazis. So, the movie did not quite convince me of the speech’s importance, although it was important. It is hard to fault the movie for the climax, though, when it portrays true events and is not responsible for our knowledge of the upcoming events. But it is too bad that his speech alone could not have immediately defeated the Germans, in both the movie and in real life.
Conclusion? The story, acting, and movie are excellent. In a year of few great movies, The King’s Speech is near the top of the crop.
If you have not seen the movie, stop reading here and go see it. If you have seen the movie, you might enjoy hearing the actual speech from King George VI featured at the end of the movie here:
During a time when I lived in Arizona, I often went hiking in the desert by myself. There is something about being alone in the wilderness by yourself that is rejuvenating. After seeing 127 Hours, though, you will think twice before heading off into the wilds alone.
In 2003, Aron Ralston was out hiking and climbing rocks when he fell in a canyon and a boulder trapped his arm. For the next five days, he struggled to stay alive and to try to figure out a way to escape. Anyone going to see the movie probably already knows how it ends. Knowing that, 127 Hours, which is based on Ralston’s book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, is pretty much what you expect.
Although I had hoped to be surprised in some way, there was not a lot beyond what I expected. The accident happens early in the movie, and then it builds toward the brutal ending, and it is rather explicit even if some of it is thankfully blurred out.
The ending, though, was somewhat surprisingly uplifting. In the loner’s struggle to get back to civilization and to get help from other people, there is a release from the anxiety. I am not sure, though, whether or not the release came from the telling of the story or whether, as in Mel Gibson’s The Passion, the movie slowly beats you into submission with its brutality so that you feel the emotion when you are finally released from that brutality.
Is it worth seeing? If you know what happens and you are still curious, 127 Hours is worth seeing. James Franco, as always, does a good job, which is important in a movie such as this where the lead actor must carry the film. The scenery is captivating and best seen on a big screen. And it is a compelling true story about what a human being can do in desperate circumstances.
