The London Lounge

I had the pleasure of watching the film this past weekend and really enjoyed it. Fellow Loungers would likely enjoy it also. However,it could have been even better with more thoughtful consideration of form. Firstly,I found the two outbursts of profanity to be unnecessary,distracting and offensive. The script writter has conceded that there was no factual basis for this, so why risk an otherwise very moral and uplifting plot. Secondly, the portrayal of the Duke of Windsor seemed unfair to me. Surely, the man had some faults and made some mistakes. However,the reduction of his character was too much. Moreover, Bertie would have appeared all the more noble had David been presented as even half noble, which in reality he was at least that. Thirdly, and least important, the film may win awards for costume design but not for fit. In several scenes the Duke's collar stands far away from his neck. Perhaps orinigal in cut and detail, the designer surely did not consult with Michael Alden on the weight of cloth that was commonly worn just prior to World War II.

I too enjoyed the film. I am afraid I must disagree with you about the POW my reading of him is that yes he may have had some good points and fine dress sense but that a Nazi sympathiser who put his own satisfaction above his duty to the country did not deserve to be portrayed any better. I felt the fit of George VI's clothes improved as the film progressed so wonder if this was not a method of characterising the change from insecure, bullied second son to king.

Culverwood, Very good points indeed. To the charge that the DoW did not recognize the evil that would soon engulfe the world; I assent. It was a mistake made by many good men in the 30's before that evil became manifest. To the charge that he shirked a duty ; I answer as a philosopher; he obeyed a higher one. Since the time of John Locke in the early 18th century the western nations have held that kingship,though high, is not as high as liberty. Kingship is for liberty not liberty for kingship. Absent divine right there can be no divine duty,only duty by tradition. The duty of king by tradition is long for sure,but the duty of husband is longer still and prior. Some would argue that it is itself divine. This man gave up a high good for a still higher one,when he likely and selfishly,could have had both. Few men in history have been confronted with such awesome choices. I hold that he made the right choice. Moreover,the country got the right king.
Respectfully,
Rodes

rodes wrote: Moreover,the country got the right king.

Certainly his father thought so. As his death approached, he wished that Elizabeth would eventually get the job and predicted that David wouldn't last a year at it.

Rodes, I am no philosopher but I find your arguments profoundly unconvincing. Firstly, when he made his choice David was nobody's husband but he was the King of Great Britain. Secondly, it requires very little imagination to propose that his choice was based on no higher principle than infatuation. Even had he loved the woman, his decision to abandon the people of his empire at a time of approaching calamity could have benefitted only two people, himself and Wallace Simpson; the consequences for Britain must have looked, even to him, at best uncertain and at worst disastrous. The idea that he was obeying some higher principle here is preposterous. The better members of our royal family in recent times have realised that the absurdity of the hereditary principle can only be salvaged by sacrificing all else to duty; to the nations and peoples under their dominion. And I say this as a monarchist. However, fate did indeed deal Britain a kind hand; George VI was the right King at the right time and his daughter has been magnificent.

However much we may laud the DoW for his stylish dress I fear the general historical verdict is much harsher. Perhaps this is unfair but he brought it entirely upon himself. Incidentally, I am certain he could not have "had both". The government and Church were implacably opposed to a marraige.

As for the costume in the film - dead right. George VI may not have been a dandy but I imagine his clothes were made to fit!

Some collar issues I think!
http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-st ... lls#photo2

http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-st ... lls#photo3

Well said, Scott: just one further small point: Mrs Simpson had been married twice before and, presumably, wives have duties too?

A side issue, if I may. In picture number 6, the king is shown recording, or about to record, a speech in his shirtsleeves, at a time when, I am told, BBC announcers read the news in black tie. Am I right in being astonished?
Frog in Suit

FiS - shirtsleeves, in reality, seem unlikely; possibly introduced to make him 'accessible' to the audience.

I concur with storeynicholas; the film insinuates formality is one of the burdens contributing to George VI's stutter. His early attempts at public speaking are framed by top and bowler hats, while the ceremonial dress worn at the Accession Council (photograph no. 2), with its restrictive collar and audibly clinking decorations, is perhaps deliberately ill-fitting to illustrate the confining nature of the office. Thus shirtsleeves and the ilk are construed as part of Logue's campaign to imbue the new king with a measure of 'colonial' self-confidence.

Utter tripe! How can being incorrectly dressed give anyone self-confidence??

What I meant was that they possibly put him in shirtsleeves in order to give him 'street cred' with those marvellous people out there in the dark. However, I haven't even seen the film yet and hope to see it very soon. There are Youtube recordings of George VI's broadcast speeches and although he does not stutter, the effort that he made is perceptible - and really quite moving.

The 'shirtsleeves' still is to show the small, informal room the speech was broadcast from. The film then depicts the King replacing his jacket for this photograph to be taken - which was, presumably, presented to the public as a depiction of the broadcast.

Guy Pearce was miscast as Edward VIII (as much as anything he is too tall), I preferred Tom Hollander's portrayal in the recent adaption of William Boyd's Any Human Heart.

Frog in Suit wrote:A side issue, if I may. In picture number 6, the king is shown recording, or about to record, a speech in his shirtsleeves, at a time when, I am told, BBC announcers read the news in black tie. Am I right in being astonished?
Frog in Suit

To me it makes perfect sense in the script’s logic - the speech scene is in fact the last of the therapy scenes, so the patient’s dress is consistent with the previous scenes in Logue’s appartment (Logue arranged the broadcasting room such as to put Bertie at ease). So I suppose we cannot really discuss “appropriateness”, unless we also want to discuss rolling on the floor and shouting out loud four-letter words… in the privacy of a therapy session. It was as “inappropriate” as Logue’s calling his patient Bertie – in fact, one of my favourite scenes is when he congratulates the King after delivering the speech, addressing him as “Your Majesty”.

The costumes pass with flying collars



But even beyond the ill fit, I found the (male) costumes unremarkable:


The originals were much different:

There was a telemovie "Bertie and Elizabeth" centred on the same events (somewhat less focus on his speech impediment) which was quite entertaining, and I thought well-acted. The costumes in that telemovie were quite well done, you hardly notice the clothes, only the style of the character (which is as it should be?).