Until I finally looked closely at the best film of 2010 according to the American Film Academy, which happens to coincide with the royal wedding of the alleged heirs to the British throne; film that, like last year did not go down in history never, ever though it was covered with international awards. This is the story of how Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor eventually became, thanks to the vagaries of genetics and the monarchical hierarchy in George VI of England , and how he had to overcome the hurdle of his stubborn stutter to achieve with conviction and aplomb pronounce the speech he was troops lead his country to war was coming. Finally comes a story of two kings are happy, love, and something unusual not made a straw hehehehe air or more, then the queen mother if you had a true love story according to this story.
A drama or a comedy?, A very British story, "The King's speech" proven wisdom oozing all fronts. In the formal, opts for a kind of classicism "leaky", based on the oscillation between sober planning a peaceful assembly, and a language which uses camera close-ups and refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of the game shot / reverse, which often denies the depth of field of wide-angle shooting (to describe strange and beautiful interior exterior) and playing with the air of the characters (looking, top, etc). A strange combination that nevertheless remains perfectly cohesive and form a set as individual as the fluid.
a Hollywood movie with all the traditional elements are arranged to be placed in the privileged position to win prizes (OSCAR). The story of personal growth based on real events, with a protagonist who spent nearly "zero to hero" in a context, and mystified, with plenty of historical references. Only this time it is not Hollywood, but English (is not the same?). A dash of high literary dialogues are delivered with ease sharp, precise, carved with restraint, always with the full intention of detailing the relationship between the two protagonists. So the movie is based on a series of battles that are revealed gradually dialectical complexity of the characters. If at first there were two strongly contrasting personalities, well defined, little by little, new edges, the projections of a personality (Bertie in particular) is not free of complexes, weaknesses and traumas.
And it Tom Hooper, the director, it is very clear. And easy care, which came from "John Adams , another detailed portrait of a statesman resulted in success. The story that manages Hooper is History, written text in large print books and majestic pictures. And yet he is more interested in fleeing triumphalism and bring events to the state of his characters. So much for outside events and scrutinize the interior of the characters.
There goes the election of photography, cold and foggy, with a long field mired in a haze similar to what the English called smog, which dissipates as the story progresses, is chilling in this sense the atmosphere and light weight in the first sequence. Colin Firth and especially Geoffrey Rush offer a sublime performances, close to perfection, giving the history of close friendship to be cementing the precedence that you need. Both know how to print that sort of complicity never free of British elegance, irony and high comedy fine English. That is what ends up raising a story that a priori would seem not offer much more than what we always (Here comes that touch british ) to heights reserved only for first-class dramas, for its part, the two-time Oscar nominee Helena Bonham Carter was well attended, she is one of the best actic I've seen in my life.
summary speaking boring movie but not unpleasant, slow English style and perfect for critics who see beyond what traditional perfect but l.
Score 7 / 10
0 comments:
Post a Comment