Before viewing the Kings Speech, I was influenced negatively by others that the film wasn’t very interesting. So going into the film, I wasn’t very excited to watch it, which makes a huge influence on my view of the film. Although the film was made just recently, it was very slow and not upbeat like most modern movies. I guess I do need to realize that it was made to be like times in the 1930’s, which is hard for me to relate too. With all this aside, I still need to observe the film and pick the movie apart.
As our book reads, the best way to analyze a film is too pick it apart in different parts. I’ll start with the story. Other than my personal views on the film, I can’t argue that the movie didn’t have the elements of a good story. Since this film is based on a true story, it is obviously therefor credible and was both simple and complex. The title also very significant, The Kings Speech. Anyone could therefor guess what the movie was about. A king giving a speech. The only title that would make it more obvious would be “The Kings Stuttering Speech”.
In the film, King George VI, is definitely a developing character. Through his struggles and problems with speaking, he definitely develops as the film goes on and in the end makes a friend in Logue, and makes a very important speech without stuttering.
Overall my personal view on the film wasn’t very good. I just wasn’t very intrigued by the film. I guess maybe since there was no action or much suspense at all in the film. I think that my bias of the film also hurt my analysis a lot. It’s just really hard to get into a film you’re not interested in.
