The King’s Speech stands as a precise mixture of humour, drama, and history. The film’s director, Tom Hooper, has made leaps and bounds in his skill at displaying important pieces of history in a way that steps up what happened and draws out the finest in the cast.
Hooper somehow is able to bottle the essence of the moment and the minuscule details. His carpentry of the film and the exhibition of the work, whatever the screen size, is mesmerizing.
Hooper has been on a winning since Elizabeth I in 2005. Many consider him one of the best film producers of all-time. Leonard Maltin has posted on his site info that David Seidler wrote to the Queen, widow to King George VI, requesting to put to script the story of the therapy used to deal with the stuttering of the King. She only required he await her passing, due to the very personal nature of the matter. Once she passed at over a hundred years old, he began the play. The public received it so well it easily went to film.
It’s no easy feat finding followers of period films. Most people fit into one of three classes. Either they could not care less, treating them as something so boring they couldn’t imagine staying awake even half way through, or they will ignore it until it picks up steam in the mainstream, or they eat it up, watching every period film available.
The truly worthwhile are distinguished by their characters more than anything. The Young Victoria (2009) succeeded in this area as does The King’s Speech. There are only a few characters treated in depth. There are no vacant, zombies, as sometimes happens.