The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
The King's Speech--Colin Firth brilliant again
Jeff Wrangler:
A historical movie riddled with historical inaccuracies? What a surprise. ... ::)
Hitchens needs a laxative.
serious crayons:
Excerpt from a NYT story about TKS's Oscar prospects:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/movies/awardsseason/01smear.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha28
... And before those ballots come due on Feb. 22, an army of competing Oscar strategists will be probing for any sign that “The King’s Speech” can be beaten.
In the last week or two a flurry of news reports and Internet banter have chewed over questions about the real King George, particularly whether he was actually less than stalwart in his opposition to the Third Reich.
On Jan. 24, for instance, Christopher Hitchens wrote on Slate.com that the king was devoted to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, and “even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation.”
So far, there has been no sign that any stain on the real George has tainted the more heroic portrayal by Mr. Firth, who on Sunday night was received royally.
Nor is it clear that any competitor has circulated such reports, in possible violation of an academy rule that forbids “casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film.” A year ago something like that happened when Nicolas Chartier, a producer of “The Hurt Locker,” sent academy voters an e-mail urging votes for his movie over “Avatar,” then seen as its main competitor. Mr. Chartier was banned from the awards ceremony as punishment, but his film won the best picture Oscar anyway.
That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been some not-so-subtle jabs thrown around. On Friday the cover of Daily Variety carried an advertisement boldly proclaiming Paramount’s “True Grit,” with its 10 Oscar nominations, to be the “most honored American movie” of the year — lest anyone forget that a vote for “The King’s Speech” is a vote to send the top Oscar offshore.
The Weinstein Company has had a battery of publicists poised to respond to any negativity with countermeasures that point to the film’s authenticity and the king’s integrity.
“We’re obviously prepared,” said David Glasser, the Weinstein Company’s chief operating officer. “A lot of time and planning went into writing the screenplay and making the movie, to ensure the accuracy of this picture,” Mr. Glasser said.
And it is lost on few here that a primary competitor, “The Social Network,” has also faced questions about the veracity of its portrayal of the Facebook entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg, so any showdown between that film and “The King’s Speech” over matters of fact and fiction might end in a draw. (... continues)
HerrKaiser:
Hollywood's versions of history rarely get it 100% correct. The error in the film I found most annoying, although it did not deflect much on the overall greatness of the movie, was the characterization of the Duchess of Windsor as a loud-mouthed, sloppy, drunk. Totally wrong. Wallis had the royal family in turmoil partly due to her very urbane and polished demeanor.
Shakesthecoffecan:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on February 02, 2011, 08:15:15 pm ---Hollywood's versions of history rarely get it 100% correct. The error in the film I found most annoying, although it did not deflect much on the overall greatness of the movie, was the characterization of the Duchess of Windsor as a loud-mouthed, sloppy, drunk. Totally wrong. Wallis had the royal family in turmoil partly due to her very urbane and polished demeanor.
--- End quote ---
In real life, Waltons's Mountain was Spencer's Mountain.
Aloysius J. Gleek:
The Royal Fambly
(Over the Years)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version