the king's speech year

Recent changes
Random page
View source
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Page information
Create account

How historically accurate is the movie The King's Speech

In 2010, The King’s Speech won the Oscar for Best Picture and grossed over $414 million worldwide. It was an unlikely box office champion because it was based on a true story about King George VI of Britain (1895-1952) and an Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (1880-1953). It shows how Logue helped the king overcome a crippling stammer and how this helped him lead his country during World War II. The movie was directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler.

Critics have widely praised the editing, cinematography, directing, and acting. The movie was able to express the main characters' inner life by the clever use of lighting and other cinematic techniques. Colin Firth won an Oscar for his portrayal of George IV/ The King’s Speech was produced by a British company, and it was shot mainly in London. Among the supporting cast was Helen Bonham-Carter, who played Queen Elizabeth, the wife of the king. The movie was nominated for 12 academy awards, and it won four awards, including one for Best Picture.

Before the movie began filming, the writer, Seidler, found Logue's journal and incorporated elements from the journal into the movie. However, despite this, the historical accuracy of the movie has been questioned and even widely criticized.

When does the King's Speech take place?

The King's Speech takes place mainly in the 1930s at a critical juncture for Britain and its Empire. The nation and its various dependencies had still not recovered from the ravages of World War or the Great Depression. Internationally, Hitler was in power in Germany, and many feared, correctly, that there would be another World War. [1] The rather bleak mood of the time is captured very well by the director. At this critical point in its history, the British Royal Family faced its crisis.

After George V's death, he was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Edward VII in 1936. Edward VII's reign was both brief and controversial. Edward wanted to marry a divorced American, Wallis Simpson. Marrying a divorced was unacceptable to many in Britain at this time as the King was also head of the Church of England. Divorce was socially unacceptable, and the Anglican Bishops and others denounced the idea of the monarch marrying a divorced woman.

When Edward VII decided to marry Wallis Simpson, he was forced to abdicate his crown soon after his Coronation. This meant that his younger brother George or Bertie, as he was known, became king. [2] The depiction of these events in the movie has been fictionalized but is reasonably accurate.

However, there were some inaccuracies in the movie that troubled viewers. One of the scenes that caused the most controversy was when Sir Winston Churchill, the future leader of war-time Britain, supported the accession of George V. This scene misrepresented Churchill's view of Edward's abdication entirely. Churchill supported Edward VII (1894-1972) and believed that he should remain as king despite his marriage to Wallis Simpson. He was friendly with the abdicated king and remained a supporter. [3]

Unlike in the movie, Churchill did have grave doubts about the ability of George VI to carry out his Royal duties. He was not alone in the belief, and many others shared that view in the highest circles of the British government. Over time, he did come to accept the younger brother of Edward VII and came to respect him as an able monarch and leader . [4]

The King and his Stutter

The movie's central theme is the difficulties faced by George VI because of his stutter and how Logue was able to help him overcome his speech defect. This depiction is historically accurate, and the future George VI had a serious speech impediment. In the movie, Firth's character is shown as having a terrible stammer and that when he became nervous or anxious, he was almost unable to communicate. His stammer made public speaking almost impossible for the monarch.

The movie shows that his speech impediment was a result of his insecurity and shyness. [5] This was very much the case, and George VI did have a terrible stutter from childhood. The King’s Speech accurately shows the real problems caused by the future George VI and the entire Royal Family. In one scene at the opening of an exhibition celebrating the British Empire, George struggles with a speech and becomes visibly upset. The movie shows many senior officials and members of the Royal Family becoming gravely concerned about this. In the 1930a, when the movie is set, for the first-time, Royalty members were expected to speak in public and be effective communicators because of the growing importance of the mass media. [6]

The inability of George VI to publicly speak clearly was a real problem, and it was feared that it could damage the Royal Family and even undermine confidence in the government of the British Empire. The movie does somewhat exaggerate the importance of the king’s stutter, but it was a significant issue for the Royal Family.

When did Lionel Logue begin treating George VI?

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. He 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 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 overcome his stammer, which is right. The Australian was an early pioneer in speech and language therapy, and he was an innovator. [7] The film shows Rush trying to instill more confidence in the Royal. He adopts several strategies, but none are shown to work.

How did Logue treat George VI's speech impediment?

Eventually, he provokes the king, and in his anger, he can 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, which 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 because there was no education system 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. [8]

What was the relationship between King George VI and Lionel Logue?

The movie shows that the two men began to become real friends over time, 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 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 the case, but Logue continued to coach the king to speak in public for many years.

In the movie, Logue is shown 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 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 King's presence 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. [9]

Was George VI accurately portrayed in the King's Speech?

Colin Firth’s performance was widely praised. The British actor won the Academy Award for Best Actor. While Firth's performance 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 timid and insecure man who felt that he was not equal to his Royal duties, and this was something that greatly distressed him. [10]

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, Firth, who has largely overcome his stammer, could lead his country in its hour of greatest danger. [11]

This was the case, and the monarch became widely respected for his leadership and his calm dignity. However, the script tended to be overly sympathetic to George and avoided his character's rather unpleasant aspects. He was alleged to have both fits of anger and alleged acts of domestic violence. Those allegations have not been confirmed.

Helena Bonham Carter's performance was praised, and she does capture the personality of Queen Elizabeth (1900-2002). She was a very supportive wife and dedicated to her husband. She did not want him to become king because she feared what it would do to him. Her family, as shown in the feature film. [12] 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 realistic is the King's Speech?

Overall, the movie is historically accurate. It shows the modern viewer the importance of the King's treatment for his speech impediment. This movie also captures the real sense of anxiety in Britain in the 1930s, and it broadly captures the historical context of the Coronation of George VI. The relationship between Logue and the monarch is also largely accurate. However, this is a movie, and the need to entertain means some inaccuracies, especially concerning details such as the king's treatment. However, when compared to other historical dramas, the movie is very realistic.

‘The King’s Speech’ wins top Oscars

Copy Link URL Copied!

“The King’s Speech” was crowned best film at the 83rd Academy Awards on Sunday night.

Nominated for 12 Oscars -- the most of any film -- it won four statuettes, including for Colin Firth for lead actor, Tom Hooper for director, and David Seidler for original screenplay.

“I have a feeling my career just peaked,” Firth deadpanned as he accepted the honor. It capped off a phenomenal year for Firth, who won practically every award out there for playing George VI’s attempts to overcome his stuttering before he assumes the throne of England.

Meanwhile, Natalie Portman danced away with Oscar for playing a prima ballerina spinning into madness in “Black Swan.” It has been a magical awards season for Portman, who had swept nearly every honor she was nominated for, and she has glowed every step of the way: Pregnant, Portman met her now fiance on set.

“This is insane. ... I’m so grateful to do the job that I do,” Portman said.

“The King’s Speech” and “Inception” were the big winners at the Kodak Theatre, with four Oscars apiece. “The Social Network,” which was the biggest rival to “The King’s Speech,” went home with three Oscars. “Toy Story 3,” “The Fighter” and “Alice in Wonderland” all won two apiece.

Overlooked was “True Grit.” Joel and Ethan Coen’s revisionist remake of the classic Western had earned 10 nominations, including best film, director, adapted screenplay, actor and supporting actress.

While audiences flocked to the movie and critics lauded it, it went home empty-handed. But the academy and the Western genre have always had an uneasy relationship, with only three Westerns ever winning best picture.

Christian Bale won supporting actor for his role as the drug-addicted former boxer in “The Fighter.” “What the hell am I doing here in the midst of you?” Bale said, referring to all the talent in the room. He singled out his co-stars, including Melissa Leo, who earlier had won for supporting actress for playing his mother in the film. But, Bale joked, “I’m not going to drop the F-bomb like she did.” (Leo later apologized for the emotional slip.)

Bale and Leo were considered shoo-ins, and it was just two of many awards that went as expected.

Adapted screenplay went to Aaron Sorkin for “The Social Network,” and original screenplay went to David Seidler for “The King’s Speech.” “Toy Story 3” won animated film and original song for Randy Newman’s “We Belong Together.” Art direction went to production designer Robert Stromberg and set decorator Karen O’Hara for “Alice in Wonderland.” Cinematography went to Wally Pfister for “Inception.” Director Susanne Bier became only the third woman to win in the foreign language film category for Denmark’s “In a Better World.” (Bier had won the Golden Globe.) Original score went to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for “The Social Network,” and “Inception” won for sound mixing and sound editing. Makeup went to “The Wolfman,” and costume design went to Colleen Atwood for “Alice in Wonderland.”

Other honors given out were short subject documentary, which went to Karen Goodman and Kirk Simon for “Strangers No More,” a film about a Tel Aviv school for children struggling to overcome adversity. Live action short went to “God of Love” by Luke Matheny, who thanked his mother for doing craft services during shooting the film about a modern-day Cupid.

A buxom Oprah Winfrey handed out the Oscar for documentary feature to Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs for “Inside Job,” about what caused the country’s economic crisis. Ferguson noted that three years after the crisis, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, “and that’s wrong,” he said.

A surprise appearance by Billy Crystal, considered by many to be the best Oscar host over the past 20 years, earned a standing ovation. He introduced a tribute to the late Bob Hope, who had hosted the awards 18 times. Through movie magic and some crafty dubbing, Hope was projected, hologram-like, at a podium to crack wise and introduce presenters Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. The pair handed out Oscars for visual effects (“Inception”) and editing (“The Social Network”).

To lure younger audiences, the academy chose James Franco, nominated for lead actor for “127 Hours,” and Anne Hathaway, nominated two years ago for lead actress for “Rachel Getting Married,” as emcees.

The pair kicked off the show with a clever montage in which they were injected into the top Oscar-nominated films, including “Inception,” “True Grit,” “The Kids Are All Right,” “The King’s Speech” and more. After taking a trip “Back to the Future,” the couple ended up onstage for banter with each other -- and their mother and grandmother. A bit long perhaps but otherwise nonoffensive and kind of sweet.

[email protected]

The top 5 takeaways from the 2024 Oscars, according to those who were there

Hollywood, CA - March 10: Jimmy Kimmel during the live telecast of the 96th Annual Academy Awards

Review: An upbeat Oscars, on the edge of good taste and not entirely divorced from reality

Hollywood, CA - March 10: Johnathan Glazer, right, during the live telecast of the 96th Annual Academy Awards in Dolby Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center in Hollywood, CA, Sunday, March 10, 2024. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

How the Oscars addressed wars in Ukraine and Gaza and the Hollywood strikes

Only good movies

Get the Indie Focus newsletter, Mark Olsen's weekly guide to the world of cinema.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Susan King is a former entertainment writer at the Los Angeles Times who specialized in Classic Hollywood stories. She also wrote about independent, foreign and studio movies and occasionally TV and theater stories. Born in East Orange, N.J., she received her master’s degree in film history and criticism at USC. She worked for 10 years at the L.A. Herald Examiner and came to work at The Times in January 1990. She left in 2016.

Rene Lynch is a former writer and editor with the Saturday section, where she worked across a variety of coverage areas, including wellness, design and food. She also edited the weekly L.A. Affairs column.