![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apologies again if it seems I'm on a bit of a hobby horse about this film. But it's all a lot of people in my little world are talking about right now.
First of all, I want to smooch InContention.com's Guy Lodge for this comment, where he takes some commenters (and bloggers) to task for using the label of "Masterpiece Theater" as a pejorative and, as he says, a "byword for cosy British corset-porn." WORD.
But I've read comments from people who are resisting seeing the movie, because it seems so much like "Oscar bait" - another pejorative that is better earned by a great number of films, but not all, and certainly not The King's Speech. It's in the Academy's sweet spot, to be sure, but if you're avoiding seeing it because you think it's another Dreamgirls or Benjamin Button or Atonement or Invictus or Nine or any number of past Oscar bait films, please reconsider. Just do yourself the favor; you won't be sorry. I will say, however, that the television ads I've seen for the film are not helping the misconception. Nor is Harvey Weinstein's interview where he basically says all the best films are Oscar winners. *sigh*
I've also been dismayed at the jabs (and I suspect they can't be avoided now that the film is part of the larger cultural consciousness) at TKS and its "white people problems" or "privileged people problems." First of all, speech difficulties and similar problems that can be traced back to child abuse are not "white-people/privilege problems" - nor are they silly or meaningless problems - and SHAME on anyone who says so. Second, being a king, even a ceremonial one, and especially during wartime, carries immense responsibility and pressure that most of us will thankfully never have the "privilege" to know. I hate to be all "poor little royals," but there's a good deal more to "kinging" than champagne and silly waves, and I don't see how anyone who's actually seen the film can possibly miss that.
In other King's Speech news, I am flabbergasted at the number of respectable news outlets and writers who are jumping on the "news" that Queen Elizabeth II has seen the movie and found it "moving" and whatnot. This is from the SUN, people; there is no other source for this except all the people quoting it and linking to people quoting it. And, as I understand (and director Tom Hooper said as much in the Q&A at Lincoln Square), it is palace policy not to comment publicly on fictional portrayals of the royal family. But now this story is out there and taking hold, and whether it's true or not, it's going to be perceived in the culture as true. *headdesk*
First of all, I want to smooch InContention.com's Guy Lodge for this comment, where he takes some commenters (and bloggers) to task for using the label of "Masterpiece Theater" as a pejorative and, as he says, a "byword for cosy British corset-porn." WORD.
But I've read comments from people who are resisting seeing the movie, because it seems so much like "Oscar bait" - another pejorative that is better earned by a great number of films, but not all, and certainly not The King's Speech. It's in the Academy's sweet spot, to be sure, but if you're avoiding seeing it because you think it's another Dreamgirls or Benjamin Button or Atonement or Invictus or Nine or any number of past Oscar bait films, please reconsider. Just do yourself the favor; you won't be sorry. I will say, however, that the television ads I've seen for the film are not helping the misconception. Nor is Harvey Weinstein's interview where he basically says all the best films are Oscar winners. *sigh*
I've also been dismayed at the jabs (and I suspect they can't be avoided now that the film is part of the larger cultural consciousness) at TKS and its "white people problems" or "privileged people problems." First of all, speech difficulties and similar problems that can be traced back to child abuse are not "white-people/privilege problems" - nor are they silly or meaningless problems - and SHAME on anyone who says so. Second, being a king, even a ceremonial one, and especially during wartime, carries immense responsibility and pressure that most of us will thankfully never have the "privilege" to know. I hate to be all "poor little royals," but there's a good deal more to "kinging" than champagne and silly waves, and I don't see how anyone who's actually seen the film can possibly miss that.
In other King's Speech news, I am flabbergasted at the number of respectable news outlets and writers who are jumping on the "news" that Queen Elizabeth II has seen the movie and found it "moving" and whatnot. This is from the SUN, people; there is no other source for this except all the people quoting it and linking to people quoting it. And, as I understand (and director Tom Hooper said as much in the Q&A at Lincoln Square), it is palace policy not to comment publicly on fictional portrayals of the royal family. But now this story is out there and taking hold, and whether it's true or not, it's going to be perceived in the culture as true. *headdesk*