The Oscar-winning box-office hit “The King’s Speech” (which is a story about how King George VI of the United Kingdom dealt with his stuttering problem) won the hearty approval of numerous awards shows for films, as well as the approval of the movie-watching public. But members of the British Royal Family also reportedly approved of the film: Queen Elizabeth II (King George VI’s eldest daughter) was said to be “moved” by watching “The King’s Speech.”
In 2011, “The King’s Speech” won four Academy Awards: best picture; best actor (for Colin Firth, who plays King George VI, also known as Bertie to his close friends and family); best director (for Tom Hooper); and best original screenplay (for David Seidler). Geoffrey Rush (who plays Lionel Logue, King George VI’s loyal speech therapist) and Helena Bonham Carter (who plays King George VI’s supportive wife, Elizabeth) also earned Oscar nominations for their roles in “The King’s Speech,” which was released on DVD and Blu-ray on April 19, 2011.
Among the numerous honors that “The King’s Speech” received, one of the first was the Cadillac People’s Choice Award at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), where “The King’s Speech” had its Canadian premiere. The day after the movie’s TIFF premiere, Firth, Rush, Hooper and Seidler gathered for a TIFF press conference to talk about “The King’s Speech.” Here is what they said.
David, why did it take you decades to write the screenplay for “The King’s Speech” And what drew you to this project?
Seidler: Well, quite simply, I was a stutterer. I was a very young boy who was transported from England to the United States in exchange for a Hershey bar and a package of Lucky Strikes. And the trauma of that started a very severe stutter. I couldn’t speak well.
But as the war progressed, my parents allowed me to listen to the radio, and they said, “Now, listen to the king’s speeches, because he stuttered very, very badly. And listen to him now.” And it gave me hope that one day he could be cured. So he was always a hero of mine.
As I was growing up, I decided I liked telling lies, and therefore, I was going to be a storyteller and a writer, and that one day I wanted to tell Bertie’s story. At university, I began to do some reading, but there are term papers and girlfriends, so it never really happened.
In 1980 or 1979, I wrote “Tucker” for Francis Ford Coppola. And I was very young and naïve and was under the illusion that this movie would get instantly made and change my life. It got made 10 years later. And I was also under the illusion that I could do anything in Hollywood after that, which I really learned was not the way things happened.
But I decided to do Bertie, and I began research. And there were these little blips on the radar screen called Lionel Logue. There’s not much written about him. The Royal Family doesn’t like to talk about the royal stutter, but I sensed that there was a story there.
I had a friend in London who did a bit of research, and came up with a son of Lionel Logue: Valentine. If you’ve seen the film, he’s the one studying to be a doctor. And Geoffrey [Rush, as Lionel Logue] refers to him as “doctor.” I wrote to him. He was now an elderly gentleman, a retired brain surgeon on Harley Street.
And he said, “Yes, come to London. I’ll talk to you, tell you all about it. And I’ve got all my father’s notebooks about treating the king.” And I thought, “Oh, my lord! This is the motherlode!”
But there was a little caveat. He said, “I’ll do all of this, but first you must get permission from the Queen Mother.” So this is when my American friends realized that I really am British. I wrote to the Queen Mother, and I got a replay from Clarence House saying, “Dear Mr. Seidler. Thank you for your letter. Please, not in my lifetime. The memory of these events is still too painful.”
And this is when my American friends really know I’m British because I decided to wait. And I thought, “How long am I going to have to wait? She’s a very old lady.” Thirty years later — literally, I think it was 28 years later — she did leave us.
And shortly thereafter, I was diagnosed with cancer. And you get a little upset over things like that. But after a couple of days, I realized that being upset is not going to do me a lot of good, because it suppresses the immune system, and that’s your best friend. So I thought, “I better get to work. And if I’m not going to tell Bertie’s story now, when am I going to tell it?” And that’s how the process started.
Colin, did you work with a speech therapist as research for your role in “The King’s Speech”?
Firth: Not really, no. I consulted several people. We had a dialect coach with us, because in a way, the discovery of the stammer had to be quite personal and it had to be specific to this individual. And it had to come from some visceral place, but it also had to be carefully monitored for the sake of the drama. It’s a one-hour, 50-minute film, and if it’s a drama with a guy who takes 20 minutes to get a word out, it will affect the pace somewhat.
So you have to find something that is not only expressive and authentic, but specific to this person and what he’s going through. You also have to find something that doesn’t alienate the audience, that doesn’t slide into something that’s pastiche, that isn’t painful in a way that people resist it. And this is where I had to work very, very closely with Tom [Hooper].
And this was one of Tom’s earlier stated concerns: how to pace it, how to score it, if you like. How bad it has to be “here” in order to get to the point where it’s “here.” When are the relapses? How much can we afford to dwell in painful silences? Having established them, can we afford to pick up the paces?
There is humor in the film. I know there’s a joke-y reference to timing not being [King George VI’s] strong suit, but actually, you do have to tread a very careful line of not throwing away the humor without away the stammer. And Tom was very closely engaged in making sure that process was carefully laid out.
Having said that, we did have a speech therapist of some sort come visit us in rehearsal [who] gave us advice about the different forms it can take. My sister is a voice therapist, and she was extremely helpful, in terms of the kinds of exercises that can be done. The montage sequence with us rolling around on floor and the swinging of the arms, most of those came from her consultation.
But I think the best consultant I had was David [Seidler], because he was so compelling about the experience of what you do in life to negotiate around the speech problems you have, the fact that it has a profound effect on your identity, because you don’t do what you want to do. You do what you can do in a lot of cases, [such as] not saying “hello” on the phone.
Seidler: True. I couldn’t do that. That’s right.
Firth: “This is David,” not “Hello.” Maybe you don’t order the beef because you can get [the sound] “b” out. You have to order the fish. You make choices according to these limitations. And that insight … and what my sister gave me was definitely the most useful help I got.
Geoffrey, can you talk about how you prepared for the Lionel Logue character, an Australian living in London?
Rush: When I first read the script and started initial conversations with Tom, I said, “The thing I responded to most was this great class/cultural divide between a very imperial, famous figure and a very anonymous, colonial guy.” And even when I’d studied in the U.K. in the ‘70s, that abyss between the cultures was still quite notable amongst an old generation. We [Australians] were thought of as not very cultured and made to feel quite crude, you know what I mean? And I think that maybe even built up a clichéd national cultural stereotype.
My wife studied at an English drama school in the ‘80s. This is a fairly emblematic but simple example. In one of the workshops she was doing one day, in the speech she was working on, she said the word “nude.” And her English drama coach said, “It’s nuuuuude, you common little colonial.” Quite seriously. He was very old school, possibly.
I’m not condemning the entire population of England. As with Canadians, we [Australians] are the former big pink bits on the map. We’re the offspring of the [British] Empire. And I was very intrigued, And Tom was a big stickler of finding “What is the most authentic, interesting truth, rather than Hollywood-izing up historical events to make them more melodramatic or more interesting?”
Because in the [Lionel Logue] diaries, we did find extraordinary things, like, from Lionel’s entry, they did say things like, “You still stammered on the ‘w,’” which then Bertie said, “I threw a few of them in so they knew it was me.” And we thought, “That’s a really great line to have in a film.” But to try and find an Australian accent and what it sounded like back in the ‘30s, I would imagine it was more Anglo-orientated, but you couldn’t really get it from the Australian films of the period, because they were definitely aping a very English style of speech — and I’m sure that’s not what people on the street would’ve had.
And given that [Lionel Logue] was an elocutionist and an elocution teacher, he probably did sound very Anglo at the time. But I approached it more from a cultural rhythm. You had the formality of this man’s upbringing, where one had to keep a certain distance from the royal personage, but as an Australian, Lionel would probably meet that confrontation by going, “I’m sitting in front of you. Oh, I’m not supposed to sit too close, am I?” Bringing it out in the open.
That’s the beginning of the sort of slightly confrontational technique of, “You’ve got quite a journey to take in this process, and we’ve got to get rid of all of those royal trappings of the four names you’ve got. A friendly nickname is going to be better.” So I suppose that was a balance for the drama: to find some kind of different cultural identify, rather than get too obsessed about the accent. But if anyone is mounting a production of “Richard III,” I am available.
Colin, what research did you do to speak like a member of the British Royal Family, in the 1930s?
Firth: I had to do as much dialect work, in terms of how they spoke. It may sound like a nuance to people who are not English, but we don’t speak like that anymore. My grandfather did. I obviously had some specific things.
Bertie can’t say his “r’s,” for a start. “Woyal” and “Might is wight.” It’s much more pronounced if you listen to the real king than it was in me. But Tom decided to try to go for as much authenticity from the period as we possibly could, partially because it actually says something about those people.
It’s not just ticking your authenticity box. If you listen to those people, every single muscle and vowel in their body must be so tightly coiled and wound up when you hear that sound. An incredible sound escapes their body.
Rush: The vowel movements.
Firth: The vowel moments are barely possible. And it did speak of something. It took an Australian , not [Geoffrey Rush], but when Guy Pearce [who plays King Edward VII] showed up with the full thing going — and brilliantly, I thought — this sound came out of him … tapping his “r’s,” we don’t really do that anymore. I remember my grandfather doing it. And actually, they did speak like that.
When you listen to the news readers, they tend to speak like that. The first guy in the film that you hear delivering that broadcast establishes it. So it’s very clipped and very precise. And to me, it speaks of discipline, no-nonsense, life from the head up, and just jolly well smartening up and being precise and not messing around.
And with a man growing up in that environment, I think a stutter is not a huge surprise, really. Tom had been trying to get me to go further in the beginning, and I was rather resistant. And then Guy showed up, and we were like, “OK, we all have to raise our game here.” [He laughs.]
Tom, why do you think that so many movies have been made about the British Royal Family? What’s the fascination?
Hooper: I don’t know. I don’t think I have a fascination with the Royal Family. I have a fascination with this story. I was always interested in the abdication crisis. This is the only time an English king has ever voluntarily ever resigned the throne — and it was for love.
But I don’t think I would’ve ever been interested in telling the story [of the abdication] head-on. There’s been too much made about it, but I loved the subversion of coming at it through the prism of the relationship with the Australian speech therapist. I loved the fact that very few people know that this relationship was the thing that powered Bertie on and unlocked him.
But I think was drawn to it not because it’s a royal story, but I’m half-Australian, half-English. I grew up with an Australian mom and an English father in London. And I’d always wanted to find an Anglo-Australian story, suspecting that I would never find something, because it’s such a specific cultural phenomenon — the idea of the meeting of these two cultures within an English context.
And when I read the script, what connected with me were many aspects of my childhood. My father lost his father in the war, and at the age of 5, when to full-time boarding school in the 1940s, when at that time, boarding school was very brutal. It was five-mile runs before 6 a.m. every day. It was cold baths, even in winter. It was outside loos [toilets]. It was corporal punishment being the norm.
And one of the themes of my childhood was my Aussie mom unpacking the effects that that upbringing had on my father. And so, for me, to make a film about an Australian unpacking the effects on an English king of a very brutal and tough childhood was something I felt unusually fluent in. So, for me, ironically, although it appears to be a film about a king and his therapist, I think it’s the most personal piece of work I’ve ever done.
Rush: I think there’s potential for a box set: “The Royal Collection.” You start out with David Hemmings, who was in “Alfred the Great.” Remember that? Then you have “The Lion in Winter.” Then you have [Laurence] Olivier’s “Richard III.” Then you have Cate Blanchett in “Elizabeth.” And we’ll throw in as an extra Ian McKellen as Richard III. Plus six steak knives. Someone will do it.
Hooper: I think that given that we still have a monarchy in [the United Kingdom], and there’s conflicted feelings about it. I thought one of the interesting things about this story is that it does unpack our attitude that they’re very privileged people and they’re very lucky to be born into this. What’s so intriguing about King George VI’s story is that most stories about kingship are about the pursuit of power, the seductions of power, the corruptions of power. And this is a story about a man who absolutely, to the core of his body, to the tips of his fingers, did not want to be king, did not want the job — and tried to avoid it.
And when you see him in this story, there’s absolutely no way you can look at him and think, “How lucky and how privileged [he was] to be born into this?” What he was born into clearly becomes his curse, and he rises to meet it. And I like debunking the rather lazy idea sometimes that this is an entirely privileged lifestyle. I think it allows people to see monarchy in a slightly more complicated context.
David, did you take any liberties with the facts in “The King’s Speech” screenplay?
Seidler: I tried to be as historically accurate as possible, because I don’t think you can make things up when it comes to the Royal Family. You can get into a lot of trouble. I really didn’t want to go to the Tower of London. The only real liberties I took were compression of time, because the actual relationship between Logue and Bertie (as pointed out on the screen) bean in 1924, but the main action is in 1935, 1936, 1937. But that’s a long time for a movie, so I compressed things. And that’s really the only liberty that I took.
Everything else was based on published fact or fairly informed supposition. In other words, I knew what Logue’s techniques were, and I knew a great deal about Bertie, so it doesn’t take a large leap to think, “All right, this is what Logue would be doing, knowing that this is what Bertie had suffered.” Obviously, I wasn’t in the room during their work together. Nobody else was, but I think it’s fairly accurate.
Let me point out that when I heard about this motherlode of [Lionel Logue’s] notebooks and then couldn’t get them, then 30 years later, Valentine was no longer with us. I had lost contact. And as far as I knew, the notebooks were gone. Then about two weeks before filming started, a grandson — Mark Logue — showed up with all the notebooks. Tom in particular was saying, “This is it! This is wonderful!”
I must admit, I was horrified, because my script was done. I had created my Logue, and now it could be proved completely wrong. I was very relieved that when they took a look at the notebooks, I kind of got it right.
Firth: I’d just like to verify that’s how I felt about it. To David’s immense credit, what we found and the things these men said to each other was extremely consistent with what you’d already done. There’s something remarkable about that.
Seidler: The only thing that was wrong was — and I guess is the answer to part of your question — the only liberty I took, not knowing it was a liberty. In my conception of it, Logue’s wife, Myrtle, doesn’t want to be in England and wants to go home [to Australia]. In actual fact, the real Myrtle thought it was absolutely marvelous that her husband was treating the king, and she thought it was just terrific. So that part of the script got peeled away. That was the only factual error.
There’s a lot of awards-show buzz around “The King’s Speech”? Colin, how do you feel about going through awards-show season again?
Firth: I can only answer the question as it pertains to last season. It’s not something that anybody can have a simple answer to, really. It’s such a bumpy ride, that even if you were to have a prevailing feeling about it, you couldn’t sustain that through that whole process. Very few people go through the day feeling the same way from morning to night anyway.
And frankly, if something like that is happening to you, you’re being buffered about by all kinds of things. There are surprises along the way. Some of them are disappointing, some of them are enticing, some of them are extremely flattering, some of them are absolutely, blindly terrifying.
And so there is no one attitude to have, frankly. You certainly wouldn’t wish it away. Whatever is happening is certain to be helping the film that you made. And quite frankly, if people are throwing baubles at you, it makes up for years of rotten tomatoes.
So you just take whatever you can get. It’s not a peaceful experience. It’s not the only thing that’s worth seeking, but that is absent from the process, I have to say.
Tom, “The King’s Speech” has a very specific look and a very specific way the characters are filmed. Can you talk about our choices in the visuals?
Hooper: I think I was interested in two things. I wanted to find a visual way of representing some of the pain that Colin’s character was going through. I liked the idea of framing Colin against a lot of negative space. So quite often in the film, you have his face framed against large areas of a distressed wall, where his face in the shot is in communication with absence, with nothingness, with bleak emptiness.
Because I felt that if you’re a stammerer, it’s really about the absence of sound. It’s about silence. It’s about absence, rather than the words or the noises you make. It’s about the pain of living in those silences that’s very powerful. The way Colin’s done it is the way you feel for him most in those moments of absence.
I had a day where I shot Colin in every which way on every which lens, just to play around with how he photographs. And I ended up shooting him quite wide, because this puts him in the context, rather than it being a mushy, out-of-focus background. These empty walls come in quite sharp relief and create a stronger tension in the frame.
And also, I love the intimacy of it. I operate quite a lot of the close-up work myself. Sometimes the camera is only 18 inches from his face, and as I was operating it, Geoffrey was leaning over rather too close on my back.
And there was something about the sense of utter forensic examination on a wide lens with the camera right in front of you that I felt it helps to suggest a stripping away of layers. His face his sharper and the amazing musculature of his neck constantly locked up is more visible. And I was always careful to frame it that whereas Colin is against this emptiness, you turn around on Geoffrey, he was against clutter. He was against the business of this room; he was against the fireplace. They were always divided against space in two different fields of background. But it was really my way of subconsciously represent through space what Colin [as King George VI] was feeling.
I think the other thing I was interested in that there’s a cliché in royal drama of these people living in worlds of gilt and splendor and magnificence, and you always get words like “lavish” popping up in reviews about royal films. And the more I looked at the period, the more I realized it was a very austere period. You’re coming out of the Great Depression.
And one of the greatest clues to the look of the film came from my 93-year-old neighbor John, to whom I said I was making the film. He said, “Oh yes, I remember. In the 1930s, the smog used to be so dense in London sometimes that as a passenger in a taxi, I was required to get out of the cab and walk six feet in front of the taxi and find my way through the streets so the taxi driver wouldn’t bump into anything. And when I heard that story, I thought, “My God, that’s a brilliant image to introduce London to the viewer.”
We tend to think smog of as a Victorian thing, as Sherlock Holmes thing, as a Dickensian thing, but it was actually going up right until the 1960s. And I liked the idea of I would put on screen this London that was actually very dirty, very grimy, very smoky. And had an austerity that actually links the kind of childhood that Bertie had. So not only do you have a better understanding of the world from which he came, but also it’s a metaphor for his own state of mind. That sort of persistence of smog is an image of emptiness or absence is a useful corollary of what’s going on in Colin’s brain.
George VI was actually brought up not in a palace but in a house on the Sandringham Estate, where the rooms are all tiny. It looks like a suburban, detached house in North London. And King George V liked to be in small rooms because he was a naval captain, so he felt secure in small spaces. And no aspect of his upbringing was lavish.
And King George V was, culturally, petty much illiterate. He had no interest in music or art. He had a very narrow upbringing. There’s something about the austerity of that that I thought would subvert this very misleading image.
Even the queen now, she doesn’t live in the state rooms of Buckingham Palace. She lives on the top floor, in small rooms by choice, that are like a normal house. She has her breakfast on top of their containers.
Colin, what was the turning point when Bertie began to trust Lionel Logue?
Firth: I think what I learned most about the structure of this piece was it doesn’t pivot on one moment. Like any credible relationship portrayal, it has ebbs and flows. It has breaking points. It’s cyclical. It is like a marriage. There’s kind of structure, a general arc of “Boy meets therapist. Boy gets therapist. Boy loses therapist. Boy gets therapist [back].”
But you see that trust being tussled over the whole time. I think it was one of the themes that interested me most about the whole thing. If you just want to dig a little bit underneath of that the stammerer is expressing and the business of using royal protocol as a convention, it’s about the possibilities or the impossibilities of one human being reaching another one, how we’re ever capable of doing that.
Even your own children, the people closest to you, you would love to be able reach in and take out someone’s pain. You can’t. You can do everything else. You have language for that. You use all sorts of means of expressions.
And, to me, the film is about Logue’s pursuit of that. And the fact that the man is a member of the royal family means that the challenges are very explicit in away, the fact that his first gesture is to move the chair away, the fact that as Geoffrey said, he’s dealing with a man with his own exclusions around him.
And you can’t even call him by his first name. You’ve got to plow through a bunch of titles, and bow, and you’ve got to get through six names. And the man refuses to allow any more intimacy than that.
It starts of with a complete lack of trust, although I suspect that Bertie is intrigued by this man’s nerve. It’s the reason why he stays in that room for so long: I think the mischief appeals to him. I think it’s slightly love at first sight, frankly. [He laughs.]
Rush: He [Colin Firth] actually leaned over to me at last night [at the TIFF premiere of “The King’s Speech”] at the climax of the film, where he’s made the speech, he know it’s worked, he goes out and gets the official photograph taken at the very posh desk (not the funny little harem room that Lionel ha set up), and he [as King George VI] comes over to me [as Lionel Logue] and says, “Thank you my friend.” And I say, “Thank you, Your Majesty.” And [Colin Firth] leaned over and said, “We should have kissed.”
Firth: [He says jokingly] Had Helena Bonham Carter not entered the room … [He says seriously] So I think trust is won and lost all the time, because Bertie becomes quite hysterical with fear in the park about the fact that he might have to take over [the kingship], and any suggestion from Logue sends him [Bertie] flying off the handle. And it’s not because he really thinks Logue is really talking treason, it’s because he doesn’t want to go there, and he’s afraid of Logue taking him there.
He’s far more afraid of what Logue is saying being true than any idea that Logue is somehow treasonous. And so he comes back and faces that again. And he genuinely does get worried, I think, and trust really does wobble when he finds out that Logue doesn’t have any credentials. But I think he’s convinced entirely of Logue’s explanation. And I think beyond this film, they’ll continue to have hissy fits.
Seidler: [He says jokingly] I hadn’t realizes that I had written “Brokeback Mountain in the Palace.”’
Firth: [He says jokingly] Well, get used to it.
Do you want the Royal Family to see “The King’s Speech”? And what do you hope their reaction to the film will be?
Hooper: I hope they will watch it. I suspect with the queen, we’ll never know, because that’s the way the Palace works. I was told after I made “Elizabeth I” with Helen Mirren, the queen said, “I did enjoy Helen Mirren in ‘Elizabeth I.’ I’m not so sure about her in ‘Elizabeth II’” And this was before “Elizabeth II” has been made.
When I asked a member of the Palace if this was true, he said, “It’s a hall of mirrors and you never know.” I hope she watches it, and I hope she sees it’s a respectful portrait of her father. I’m pretty obsessed with historical accuracies, as these guys will say, and one of the reasons is in this case is you’re dealing with a living person’s relative.
And I would hate the idea in any sense that she was upset by any aspect of their representation. But to be honest, when it came to the subject in mind about King George VI, I think Colin and I rather fell for him, and I think you can see that love for the character in the movie.
Firth: And his love for his daughters. That’s not the strand that the film focuses on, but its there. I think I had about four scenes with the girls, but I wanted to make sure that in every one of those scenes that that was established, because I think that it’s authentic.
Hooper: I think you can say the one word in relation to Colin: “knighthood.” [He laughs.] He was protecting himself.
Firth: You’re misunderstanding my politics. I think it’s interesting as it pertains to our story. If you look at Bertie’s parents and the difference in the way they are with him and difference in the way he is with his daughters could not be more extreme. I think that is a very important thing that is underlined in the storytelling.
When David breaks down on his mother’s shoulders — this is documented — the moment of the death of the king, all of that stuff is taken from historical documentation, she said, “Long live the king.” He said, “I hope I will make good as he made good.” He broke down, fell upon her. Apparently, she was very uncomfortable. She didn’t move.
And the stories about the nanny, it’s all in the history books. You know, the abusive nanny. And this business about having a daily showing. There was not a lot of parental love for Bertie and David. Queen Mary [their mother] comes across as a granite.
And every picture you see of George VI and Queen Elizabeth with their children, it’s tactile. He can’t take his eyes off the girls. He was always smiling. That was clearly a much warmer and more functional relationship.
Politicians often have to be actors, and they manipulate the media. But can you talk about King George VI using radio to portray who is he really was?
Hooper: I think what’s fascinating about the film is the process that we’re in today, where there are [several] video cameras running on us [at this press conference] and still cameras, which will be wired around the world. This revolution of the way the mass media affects the world started with radio in the 1920s with the BBC. And if you look at the impact the coming of radio had on the monarchy, it was the beginning of this incredible transformation that the media has had, live media has had, on the way leadership has to operate.
I think the extraordinary thing about the story, and one of the reasons why I found it so compelling, is that 20 years before, if George VI had become king, being king was a visual thing. As long as you looked good on a horse, you could wave from a carriage, you could wave from a balcony and could look fine, you could fulfill the ceremonial role.
And suddenly, he was facing being king at a moment when you had to speak publicly on the radio to the 58 countries of the British Empire, which covered a lot of the world’s population, only in that technology which was in that window of being a live medium. So you could not pre-record it. You couldn’t edit it. You couldn’t cut out the stammers. There was no choice but to be live.
And suddenly, people looked to the king for a performance that would emotionally connect. And on top of that, you throw in the second World War coming. You’ve got this incredible contrast: Adolf Hitler, who had this brilliant, fiery, fluent, articulate oratory. And you had the King of England, who was struggling to speak at all, and yet the nation was looking to connect with him, given the sacrifices that were expected of everyone.
I think it’s a fascinating moment where you chart the way the mass media has transfigured institutions like the monarchy. And in some ways, [screenwriter] Peter Morgan, whom I’ve worked with twice (he wrote “The Queen”), he was looking at the other end of that. What was “The Queen” but still processing the effect of the mass media on the monarchy? In a way, some of the theme of “The King’s Speech” is similar, which is the monarchy trying to deal and tackle with the effect of the technological revolution.
For more info: “The King’s Speech” website
RELATED LINKS ON hornface.com:
Interview with Colin Firth for “Easy Virtue”
Interview with Colin Firth for “Dorian Gray”
Interview with Colin Firth for “A Christmas Carol”
Interview with Colin Firth for “A Single Man” (Toronto press conference)
Interview with Colin Firth for “A Single Man” (New York City press conference)
Interview with Colin Firth for “A Single Man” (TimesTalk Q&A, part one)
Interview with Colin Firth for “A Single Man” (TimesTalk Q&A, part two)
“The King’s Speech” London press conference
Interview with Colin Firth for “The King’s Speech” (New York City press junket)
Interview with Colin Firth at the 2011 Golden Globe Awards
Interview with “The King’s Speech” stars at the 2011 SAG Awards
Interview with Colin Firth at the 2011 Oscar Nominees Luncheon
Interview with Geoffrey Rush at the 2011 Oscar Nominees Luncheon
Interview with Helena Bonham Carter at the 2011 Oscar Nominees Luncheon
Interview with “The King’s Speech” director Tom Hooper at the 2011 Spirit Awards
Interview with Colin Firth at the 2011 Academy Awards
Interview with Geoffrey Rush for “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” (Cannes press conference)
Interview with Geoffrey Rush for “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” (Los Angeles press junket)
Toronto International Film Festival news and reviews
“The King’s Speech” news and reviews