Comments on 'The Real King's Speech'

Largely, ''The Real King's Speech' was an expository documentary. It aims to educate the viewer on the life King of George VI, his struggle with public speaking, the technological developments of the historical period and of the speech therapist Lionel Lougue. Broadcasted shortly after the Oscar-winning motion picture 'The King's Speech', I wonder if this is simply being used as a marketing tool for the film. While the film made heavy use of archive footage and interviews with royal biographers and former patients of Logue, the re-visualizations of the rooms in which Lougue set up his practice (with no figures on-screen) appear strikingly similar to the sets that can been seen in the actual film. Also, there are moments in the film where I swear I can hear audio extracts from the actual motion picture, those of Lougue's training methods with the King. However, had I not seen the actual motion picture a few days previously, I may not have been provoked to make these accusations, and I wonder if my re-action the the documentary would have been different.

In terms of historical facts, I am confident that the documentary was accurate. the interviews with Dr. Lionel Lougue's former patients confirm that he was a man with unconventional methods, as present in the actual motion picture. With this in mind, along with the historical facts released with the voice-over, I found myself making comparisons to the actual film which I had seen a few days previously, instead of absorbing the information for my own academic purposes. Another key feature of the film that struck me was the director's decision to combine archive footage, which was in black and white, with present-day footage in colour, of the outdoors and possible re-creation of the set from the motion picture, as mentioned above. I was initially dazzled by this, and the only conclusion that I could come to as a way of explaining the director's choice was to easily distinguish the historical footage of the past with today's reality, and this included a flag of the Union Jack - a image repeated in closing half of the documentary. I couldn't understand why this was necessary, and see it only as a form of patriotic bragging. The filmmaker is trying to enforce the britishness of both the history and success of the recently successful motion picture.

Another message which I think the filmmaker is trying to present is the reality of the situation that King George VI faced public with speaking. In the archive footage of him, it is clear that he is struggling in front of the microphone, and at this point i sympathize with the King - I fear of the embarrassment and nervousness that he is feeling and the footage becomes saddening to watch. He was a figure that was forced to have a strong public duty, and he simply couldn't manage it on his own. the extreme close-up shots, in colour, of the microphones that he would have spoken into at the time, are the filmmaker's attempt, I think, to re-create to the viewer how patronized and intimated the King would have felt in front of them. This is a motive which certainly had the potential present this feeling strongly, but falls short of the inclusion of the large BBC letters imprinted on it. Again, I see this another attempt of patriotic bragging - with the camera focus on something uniquely British.

We can easily learn something about British history by watching 'The Real King's Speech'. We are presented with the troubles that King George VI faced and historical footage to back this. However, with a release date so close to the film, which is still in high popularity over the world, I wonder weather holding off the broadcasting date would have calmed my earlier speculations. Undoubtedly, this is a good lesson in history, but maybe an even better way of promoting a film.