THUMBS UP

The movie was a miss for me

The therapist was outstanding, best of the best but the rest were not as good with their roles.

It is shocking how so many iranian public critics of pahlavi's have no issue with other monarchs who never did 1/1000 th for their people what the pahlavis did for iran, this is the problem with politics actually.  While the critics narratives of history fit well with the stories maufactured by the cia, mi6 and kgb, in order to fulfill their countries foreign policies, they are based on lies and nothing more.

Congratulation on thwarting iran at the hands of Iranians, lets now see how long the west can sustain and expand their inhumanity in the region. 

Blood drenched British Monarchy living in filthy luxury

Saw this film. it is propaganda film for British Monarchy designed to have people pity it... The film is evidence of the luxury and security of British monarchy as they prance about 500 room buckingham palace amidst accumulated opulence of 500 years behind its golden gates! Did you see the golden gates?  Buckingham Palace and its loot is worth over $50 billion. the British Queen herself has a net assets worth $500 Billion. Why arent Iranian pseudoscholars like Mr. Dabashi and Mr. Milani calling for overthrow of blood-drenched British Monarchy? 

Despite this overt and ostentatious wealth, the British papers hide the wealth of their British Monarchs - but they constantly lie about the wealth of our Pahlavi Kings and encourage people to persecute our Pahlavi Kings by publishing lies about our Pahlavi Kings.

Also, notice Edward married a divorce and was forced to abdicate. Prince Charles has also married a divorced woman, Camillia. So, he will never be king? or will he? 

Down with the Blood drenched British Monarchy and Qajar Dynasty, another British propped up Dynasty whose members are the biggest traitors to iran.

Long Live Iran and its Pahlavi Monarchy.

Excellent movie, but more like Masterpiece Theater

They should give the Oscar for the best male actor to Colin Firth right now and get it over with.

Must see it

Thanks for your interesting review and drawing the parallel to the Alireza's death. I now must see the film.

very much I enjoyed your piece!

Dear Ari,

I did enjoy your very well structured article on King's speech movie. your offered comparison btw Prince Alireca and Prince Albert , which was also very interesting. I'm on the same page with you. Would prince alireze if he was given the chance, speak for himself?  he died bc he was overshadowed by his bro! well not even history can exactly retell their story, but in the new world, I mean there is no place for monarchy, prince and princesses. they belong to fairy tales and for the new world they need to re-adjust themselves with reality. Prince Alireza if so died bc of depression originated from his childhood, he would have been raisen up with false information. I know england still enjoys monarchy as a touristic attraction, however, as I just said, Alireza could not have possibly think of regaining monarchy of his beloved nation. therefore also they are all possibilities, he may simply suffered depression bc of million of other reasons. anyhow peace be upon him.  

Brilliant Darius!

Dramatic efficiency

As for what you missed: Albert was already king when he delivered that line. So he could not have been whining about how much less power he had than his brother because Edward was no longer king; Albert was!

Derek Jacobi was a Stammerer in "I Claudius"

The Choice of Derek Jacobi was indeed a subtle private joke by Tom Hooper in the form of a cinematic tribute to the BBC classic series I, Claudius (TV series):

I, Claudius - Livia and Claudius

I, Claudius - Half Wit Beats Senate 

The King's Speech

Actually, when he says “If I am King, where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government?
Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because they
think that when I speak, I speak for them,” he's not whining about the fact that his older brother has all the authority and he has none, he is describing the limited powers of s British monarch. We can't twist facts to suit whatever point we are trying to make (Read my review of this superb film on screencomment.com. )

double post

&%#@!!

Looking forward to your review Darius

 .............................

Monda: Yes, Geoffrey Rush's Logue was admirable. You're insightul to point out the bishop. We can understand Logue being nice to wife, kids, king etc. but so humanely confronting that pedar sookhteh bishop really took strength of character. By the way Derek Jacobi as the bishop is almost as brilliant an actor as Geoffrey Rush, so he was cast very well.

Interesting outlook and Review Ari Jaan ( also Logue's Diaries)

Saw the film during the weekend. Hope to write a review soon too. 

A TV series is a great idea which indeed would allow a more in depth study of this extraordinary story.

I highly recommend the following book released with the film which is based on the diaries of Lionel Logue which inspired the film's script ( co authored by Mark Logue the grandson of Lionel Logue):

 The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy by Mark Logue (Author), and co author Peter Conradi

I am currently reading it and it contains some amazing insights into Logue's life as well never seen photos of Logue and the Royal family.

Notice the Real Life Lionel Logue was actually much more handsome than the genial Geoffrey Rush.  

Watch BBC Breakfast News interview with Mark Logue:

And another one Where Mark Logue shows his archives on his grandfather's belongings and diaries:

BBC News - Finding the real King's Speech 

Logue's bad acting

Ari, I thought that was a brilliant way to show Logue's human side (vs his therapist side). That he was also dealing with public anxiety, hence could identify with his client's issue on another profound level.

Acting (Drama therapy) is a great therapeutic modality on its own. It helps a humanistic therapist like Logue with expressing his own insecurities, by being in touch with his own fears. At the end of the day, a therapist is a human first. The quality of their personal life matters (to me anyway). Did you notice the consistency of Logue's personal virtues in all realms? His relationship with his spouse and children, his encounters with Albert's wife, and the bishop, etc. He was firm on his values but gently attentive in action, always very present. That's also another "unconventional" piece about a therapist's style back in that era. Whether Logue was portrayed That genuinely humanistic for the sake of this movie's audience to better relate to his role, who knows (and who cares?)... I'd love to have him as my shrink, any day. (Not to imply that my own therapist isn't cutting it for me.)

Ari jan, I think it's a great idea to have mega (not mini) series on the dysfunctions within royal families. It would be wonderful to learn about trans-generational impacts of family dynamics, on each person's functioning. Of course researching for such movies would be more arduous than producing it, granted. But throwing the idea out there would not hurt right? Oh wait, you already did that on this thread. :o)

Many thanks Monda

Regarding a therapist's professional neutrality, why was Logue such a bad actor when auditioning for Richard III in front of the play director but blew you away when performing for his kids?

The question is an argument to suggest that Logue's state of mind is affected in the presence of authority. Even though he is a therapist, he sometimes cannot see through himself. His brief failure at neutrality in the presence of royalty makes him a less competent therapist, but a more human character.  

As an aside, and just in case, for the reader:  Richard III was jealous of his brother Edward who was king. To stay honest, the film had to bring up the subject of jealousy, though it does so indirectly. Richard didn't stutter or suffer from depression; his parallel disability (according to Shakespeare) was a congenital deformity. 

Very Nice review Ari

I can only draw a parallel as far as the two Royals' needs for therapeutic help. Even though psychotherapy was a very new science, let alone Logue's brilliant but unconventional model, Albert took the risk of working with him. And of course his wife and children were great resources to his process of committing to therapy. (I hardly know anything about Alireza's relational resources. Nor do we know if he ever committed himself to any form of psychotherapy.)

Another point which I'd like to share with you is the neutrality of an effective therapist to the status of the client. It just comes with the non-judgmental aspect of effective therapeutic work. A client's titles, looks, education and other attributes, are used as mere descriptives in A) proper diagnosis and B) find what helps that person, the best one knows how. So, whether the client was a prince or a commoner would not have much impact on Logue's quality of work. That's my take on the excellent way Rush and the writers portrayed Albert's therapist. Logue was a wise, decent and passionate human being. We observed those qualities in his parenting his sons, as well. I saw this movie for the second time to pick on more on Logue's personal styles. Lovely man, fabulous therapist, acted superbly bu Rush..

By the way, the disappointment that Logue faced in the early phase of his relationship with Albert, is part of the journey, with many clients. As in any significant relationship, bonding of the therapist-client is a very delicate process and it's sensitive to the trust issues in the client as well as to time invested in the process. 

Now, the "clean" visuals that you and JJ mentioned... ! What did you expect in two hours and a few bucks? The entire gory detail of Albert's life? As Ari suggested, it takes a series rather than one film to depict only his (or any Prince's) first four years of life. (Or, I can imagine a film noir about sweet Berti's relationship with his dark, stoic, cruel father George. And were the heck were his mum and nannies in this child's life?!)

Anyway, I had very nice time seeing The King's Speech, twice. And Thank you Ari, for the interesting points which you opened in your blog.

Excellent observations

and well written too.  JJ has a good point though.  You'd want to see more pain and loathing in situations like that.  No doubt seeing this movie could have been inspiring to our late Prince, but perhaps because we don't experience in the movie, the same pains that our own prince was surely feeling before his end, comparison may fall short of target.

Great synopsis

I loved the film and your review but the connection to Alireza Pahlavi was a bit far-fetched.

Not an exact parallel, though!

Indeed a good film, but I failed to make such connection, not even after enjoying your article. To me the differences between the two men were too many: The King had power, the late prince did not. The king enjoyed the love and support of his wife - it is documented that the queen was instrumental in all his practices and that without her, he would not have succeeded. He also had a teacher who cared deeply and believed in him and he had children. We may never know what the melancholic prince had. Most importantly, one man was under constant spotlight while the other hid behind windows that were boarded shut. Still, I enjoyed your article as it gave me food for thought.

A clever parallel

What a clever and tragic parallel you have drawn Ari.    

Thanks Anahid

JJ

2. I see your point about wanting to see Albert's stutter reflect visually in the film. Brilliant suggestion!

3. Also, point well taken regarding Iranians'  phobia of therapy. Particularly among our men.  So many marriage problems, parent-child issues, and personal anguish troubles would be addressed if we lowered this barrier. My guess as to why the barrier exists is that therapy upsets pecking orders in our culture. 

Thanks Ari, what a great review

As if DK's great praise of this movie was not enough, now we have your excellent review too. Add to that all awards and nominations and any movie lover has to see this movie. I also like the part of your review which talks about Albert internalizing the need to not outshine his brother. Ari jan, I really liked your review and at first good opportunity, I will see this movie. Thanks for sharing.

Too clean?

Thanks Ari. I liked the film too and enjoyed it.

One thing that bothered me a bit though was that the film felt too clean. I don't know how else to describe it. So much attention went into making the film visually perfect that it got in the way of "feeling" the verbal imperfection of the prince/king.

You made an interesting connection with Alireza, depression and therapy. One thing we need to discuss is why Iranians generally don't like the idea of therapy. Opening up and expressing buried feelings is scary and unsettling. It's not for Iranians :)

Ari Siletz: Great Piece

And touchingly great connection to our story of Iran.