Changes

==The King’s [[File: Kings Speech (One.jpg|300px|thumb|left| Firth as George VI and Bonham-Carter as his wife Queen Elizabeth]]__NOTOC__In 2010)==, The King’s Speech was one of won the most acclaimed Oscar for Best Picture and indeed popular motion pictures of 2010grossed over $414 million worldwide. It is was an unlikely box office champion because it was based on a historical drama and it portrays true story about the relationship between King George VI of Britain (1895-1952) and an Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (1880-1953). It shows how Logue helped the king to overcome a crippling stammer and how this enabled helped him to lead his country during World War II. The movie was made for 8 million dollars and it earned over 400 million dollars around the globe and was a world-wide smash hit. The movie was directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler. Critics have widely praised the editing, cinematography, directing and acting and the movie was able to express the inner life of the main characters by the clever use of lighting and other cinematic techniques. The King’s Speech was produced by a British company and it was shot mainly in London. It had a cast of mostly British and Australian actors. King George VI is played by Colm Firth and the speech therapist is portrayed by Geoffrey Rush. Among the supporting cast was Helen Bonham-Carter who played Queen Elizabeth, the wife of the king. It was nominated for 12 academy awards and it won four awards, including one for Best Picture. Seidler just before filming began, found the journal of Logue from the period and elements from this were incorporated into the movie. However, despite this the historical accuracy of the movie has been questioned and even widely criticized. [[File: Kings Speech One.jpg|200px|thumb|left| Firth as George VI and Bonham-Carter as his wife Queen Elizabeth]]

==The historical background==The King's Speech take's place mainly in Critics have widely praised the 1930s at a critical juncture for Britain editing, cinematography, directing and its Empire. The nation acting and its various dependencies had still not recovered from the ravages of World War or the Great Depression. Internationally, Hitler movie was in power in Germany and many feared, correctly, that there would be another World War <ref> Thorpe, A. Britain in able to express the 1930s (London, Blackwell 1992), p 115</ref>. The rather bleak mood inner life of the time is captured very well main characters by the directorclever use of lighting and other cinematic techniques. At this critical point in its history the British Royal Family faced its own crisis. After the death Colin Firth won an Oscar for his portrayal of George V, he IV/ The King’s Speech was succeeded produced by his eldest sona British company, who became Edward VII and it was shot mainly in 1936, but he wanted to marry a divorced American Wallis SimpsonLondon. This was unacceptable to many in Britain at this time as Among the King supporting cast was also head ofHelen Bonham-Carter who played Queen Elizabeth, the Church wife of England. Divorce at the time was socially unacceptable and the idea of the monarch marrying a divorced woman was denounced by the Anglican Bishops and othersking. When Edward VII did decide to marry Wallis Simpson, he The movie was forced to abdicatenominated for 12 academy awards, soon after his Coronation. This meant that his younger brother George or Bertie as he was known became king <ref>Thorpeand it won four awards, p 118</ref>including one for Best Picture. This was all shown in the motion picture and is shown accurately. However, there are some inaccuracies in  Just before the movie. One of began filming the most glaring and one that caused controversy were the scenes where Sir Winston Churchillwriter, Seidler found Logue's journal from the future leader of war-time Britain, supporting period and incorporated elements from the accession of George V, but this was not journal into the casemovie. In fact, ChurchillHowever, believed that Edward VII (1894-1972) should remain as king despite his marriage to Wallis Simpson. He was actually very friendly with the abdicated king and remained a supporter <ref> Rhodes Jamesthis, Robert A spirit undaunted: the political role historical accuracy of George VI (London: Little, Brown & Co, 1998), p 118</ref>. Unlike in the movie, Churchill did have grave doubts about the ability of George VI to carry out his Royal duties has been questioned and this was shared by many others in the highest circleseven widely criticized. Over time, he did come to accept the younger brother of Edward VII and even came to respect him as an able monarch and leader <ref> Logue, Mark; Conradi, Peter,  ====The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy (New York: Sterling, 2010), p 13</ref>. historical background====

==The King and his Stutter==The central theme of the movie is the difficulties faced by George VI because of his stutter and how Logue When Edward VII decided to marry Wallis Simpson, he was able forced to help him overcome abdicate his crown soon after his speech defectCoronation. This is historically accurate, and the future meant that his younger brother George VI had a serious speech impediment. In the movie the character played by Firth is shown or Bertie as having a terrible stammer and that when he was known became nervous or anxious he was almost unable to communicateking. This made public speaking near impossible for the monarch. The movie makes clear that his speech impediment was a result of his insecurity and shyness <ref> LogueThorpe, p 134118</ref>The depiction of these events in the movie has been fictionalized but is reasonably accurate. This was very much  However, there were some inaccuracies in the case and George VI did have a very bad stutter from childhoodmovie that troubled viewers. The King’s Speech does show accurately One of the real problems scenes that caused for most controversy was when Sir Winston Churchill, the future George VI and the entire Royal Family. In one scene at leader of war-time Britain, supported the opening accession of a exhibition celebrating the British Empire George is shown struggling with a speech and becoming visibly upsetV. The movie shows many senor officials and members This scene misrepresented Churchill's view of the Royal Family becoming gravely concerned about thisEdward's abdication entirely. In the 1930a, when the movie is set, for the first Churchill supported Edward VII (1894-time members of Royalty were expected to speak in public 1972) and believed that he should remain as king despite his marriage to be effective communicators because of Wallis Simpson. He was friendly with the growing importance of the mass media abdicated king and remained a supporter. <ref>ThorpeRhodes James, Robert A spirit undaunted: The Political Role of George VI (London: Little, Brown & Co, 1998), p. 289118</ref>. The inability  Unlike in the movie, Churchill did have grave doubts about the ability of George VI to publicly speak clearly carry out his Royal duties. He was a real problem not alone in the belief, and it was feared many others shared that it could damage the Royal Family and even undermine confidence view in the government highest circles of the British Empiregovernment. The movie does somewhat exaggerate Over time, he did come to accept the importance younger brother of Edward VII and came to respect him as an able monarch and leader .<ref> Logue, Mark; Conradi, Peter, The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the king’s stutterBritish Monarchy (New York: Sterling, 2010), but it was nonetheless a very important issue for the Royal Family. p 13</ref> ====The King and his Stutter====

====The treatment of the King==Perhaps the biggest inaccuracy in the movie is that Logue was in reality able to help the King to overcome his stammer before the abdication crisis and his coronation rather than after these events. His first began to treat the second son of George V in the 1920s and continued to do so for many years. The movie shows that the treatment took place in the 1930s and this was no-doubt done for dramatic effect but this is not strictly correct. Cooper’s movie relates how George had been seeking help all his life for his stammer and he tried every technique and treatment that was available for the time, which is true. The 2010 motion picture does really capture the sense of desperation and anxiety that the future George VI had over his speech impediment. He is shown as going in desperation to the Australian Logue and this is also correct. The therapist is shown as using innovative techniques to help George to overcome his stammer and this is right. The Australian was an early pioneer in speech and language therapy and he was an innovator <ref> Logue, p 145</ref>. The film shows Rush trying to instil more confidence in the Royal. He adopts a number of strategies, but none are shown to work. Eventually he provokes the king and in his anger he is able to speak stutter-free. In reality the speech and language therapist gave the monarch a series of daily vocal exercises, such as tongue twisters, that were designed to help him to relax. This helped the future king to relax and this was key to the improvements in his speech. The motion picture does show that the treatment was not a total success and the king continued to have a very slight stammer. This was indeed the case, however, the improvement in the speech of George VI was remarkable and this is accurately shown in the 2010 movie. It shows George having grave doubts about Logue and his treatment when he hears that he is not formally qualified as a therapist. In real-life, this did not cause a crisis in the relationship between the British sovereign and the Australian therapist. It is correct that Logue was not formally qualified that was because there was no system of education for language therapy when he was young. Instead he was self-taught and had travelled the world studying the ideas of respected speech therapists. The movie leaves the viewers in no doubt that the king and the Royal Family owed the Australian a great debt and this was the case and when George VI died, his widow, the Queen, wrote to the therapist to thank him for all he had done for her husband <ref> Logue, p 115</ref>. ==

Perhaps the biggest inaccuracy in the movie is that Logue was, in reality, able to help the King to overcome his stammer before the abdication crisis and his coronation rather than after these events. His first began to treat the second son of George V in the 1920s and continued to do so for many years. The movie shows that the treatment took place in the 1930s and this was no doubt done for dramatic effect but this is not strictly correct. Cooper’s movie relates how George had been seeking help all his life for his stammer and he tried every technique and treatment that was available for the time, which is true. The 2010 motion picture does really capture the sense of desperation and anxiety that the future George VI had over his speech impediment. He is shown as going in desperation to the Australian Logue and this is also correct. The therapist is shown as using innovative techniques to help George to overcome his stammer and this is right. The Australian was an early pioneer in speech and language therapy and he was an innovator.<ref> Logue, p 145</ref> The film shows Rush trying to instill more confidence in the Royal. He adopts a number of strategies, but none are shown to work.  Eventually, he provokes the king and in his anger, he is able to speak stutter-free. In reality, the speech and language therapist gave the monarch a series of daily vocal exercises, such as tongue twisters, that were designed to help him to relax. This helped the future king to relax and this was key to the improvements in his speech. The motion picture does show that the treatment was not a total success and the king continued to have a very slight stammer. This was indeed the case, however, the improvement in the speech of George VI was remarkable and this is accurately shown in the 2010 movie. It shows George having grave doubts about Logue and his treatment when he hears that he is not formally qualified as a therapist.  In real life, this did not cause a crisis in the relationship between the British sovereign and the Australian therapist. It is correct that Logue was not formally qualified that was because there was no system of education for language therapy when he was young. Instead, he was self-taught and had traveled the world studying the ideas of respected speech therapists. The movie leaves the viewers in no doubt that the king and the Royal Family owed the Australian a great debt and this was the case and when George VI died, his widow, the Queen, wrote to the therapist to thank him for all he had done for her husband.<ref> Logue, p 115</ref> ====The relationship between the King and the speech therapist====The movie shows that over time that the two men began to become real friends, despite their differences. This was the case and it appears that both men liked each other and even enjoyed each other’s company. The relationship between the British king and the Australian is very realistically shown and indeed they remained friends until the early death of George VI. The movie shows that Logue was present when George made important Radio broadcasts to the British Public. This was into the case, but for many years Logue continued to coach the king so that he could speak in public.  In the movie , Logue is shown as a present when George VI pronounced that Britain was at war with Germany in September 1939 during a radio address to the nation. This is not correct, but the Australian did provide the king with notes, on things where he should pause and breathe, and these were a real help in what was the most important speech the monarch ever made. Logue continued to coach the king for many years until about 1944. The therapist is shown as being very much at ease in the presence of the King and treating him like any other client. This was not the case, despite their genuine friendship, Logue would have been expected to have been somewhat formal and respect the Royal Person of the King at all times. In real life , Logue was not as easy-going and familiar with George VI as portrayed in the historical drama .<ref> Logue, p. 167</ref> ====The representation of the main characters====Colin Firth’s performance was widely praised. The British actor won the Academy Award for Best Actor. While the performance of Firth was widely acclaimed there were some concerns about how accurately he portrayed the monarch. In the main Firth did manage to capture George VI and his character in the feature film. The British actor did correctly show that the monarch was a very shy and insecure man who felt that he was not equal to his Royal duties and this was something that greatly distressed him.<ref> Logue, p 189</ref> His stammer may have been a result of his sense of inadequacy, but this cannot be known, for certain. Firth does show that the monarch did grow in stature after he was crowned as King. It leaves the viewer in no doubt that by the end of the movie that Firth, who has largely overcome his stammer was able to lead his country in its hour of greatest danger.<ref> Logue, p 192</ref>  This was the case and the monarch became widely respected for his leadership and his calm dignity. However, the script tends to be overly sympathetic to George and avoided the rather unpleasant aspects of his character. He was to have fits of anger and alleged acts of domestic violence. The performance of Helena Bonham Carter was praised, and she does capture the personality of Queen Elizabeth (1900-2002). She was a very supportive wife and dedicated to her husband and she did not want him to become king because she feared what it would do to him and to her family as shown in the feature film.<ref> Rhodes, p 201</ref> Geoffrey Rush played the character of the speech and language therapist Logue and he presented him as a larger-than-life figure who was charismatic and this was indeed the case. It is generally agreed that Rush really captured the personality of the acclaimed speech and language therapist.

==The representation of the main characters==Colin Firth’s performance was widely praised. The British actor won the Academy Award for Best Actor. While the performance of Firth was widely acclaimed there was some concerns about how accurately he portrayed the monarch. In the main Firth did manage to capture George VI and his character in the feature film. The British actor did correctly show that the monarch was a very shy and insecure man who felt that he was not equal to his Royal duties and this was something that greatly distressed him <ref> Logue, p 189</ref>. His stammer may have been a result of his sense of inadequacy, but this cannot be known, for certain. Firth does show that the monarch did grow in stature after he was crowned as King. It leaves the viewer in no doubt that by the end of movie that Firth, who has largely overcome his stammer was able to lead his country in its hour of greatest danger <ref> Logue, p 192</ref>. This was the case and the monarch became widely respected during the war with Hitler’s Germany for his leadership and his calm dignity. However, the script tends to be overly sympathetic to George and avoided the rather unpleasant aspects of his character such as his fits of anger and alleged acts of domestic violence. The performance of Helena Bonham Carter was praised, and she does capture the personality of Queen Elizabeth (1900-2002). She was a very supportive wife and dedicated to her husband and she did not want him to become king because she feared what it would do to him and to her family as shown in the feature film<ref. Rhodes, p 201</ref>. Geoffrey Rush played the character of the speech and language therapist Logue and he presented him as a larger-than-life figure who was charismatic and this was indeed the case. It is generally agreed that Rush really captured the personality of the acclaimed speech and language therapist. ==How accurate is the movie====

====References====<references/>