Peter Hitchens (Christopher's brother) is an English journalist and I've been intrigued by his critiques of The King's Speech (which I really enjoyed overall). His atheist brother Christopher has also sharply criticized the movie for it's blatant inaccuracies:
"I can’t speak for my brother, except to say that he, like me, thinks that historical inaccuracy is important - and that there is no justification for the inaccuracies in this film. I suppose the plot would be difficult if the job weren’t hereditary, though I suppose you could have someone trying to recover his voice after some disease or accident had robbed him of it (and his chosen profession) . But the fundamental message - entirely unjustified by the known facts of the story, which is far from lost in the mists of time - is (I sum up loosely) ‘cheeky, hard-up, informal and classless Aussie jackaroo saves stuck-up repressed royal snob from stammer probably caused by snobbish repression, largely by making him swear and by mocking the grandeur of his position’. It has everything for the modern leftist, not least some pretty severe mockery of the Church and of such flummeries as solemn oaths."
Read more here, about how the movie makes the subtle assertion that a monarchy's only legitimate reason to exist is to oppose fascism, and how in reality the British (and the West in general) did not actually oppose Hitler until the war had already been going on for a couple years.
"I can’t speak for my brother, except to say that he, like me, thinks that historical inaccuracy is important - and that there is no justification for the inaccuracies in this film. I suppose the plot would be difficult if the job weren’t hereditary, though I suppose you could have someone trying to recover his voice after some disease or accident had robbed him of it (and his chosen profession) . But the fundamental message - entirely unjustified by the known facts of the story, which is far from lost in the mists of time - is (I sum up loosely) ‘cheeky, hard-up, informal and classless Aussie jackaroo saves stuck-up repressed royal snob from stammer probably caused by snobbish repression, largely by making him swear and by mocking the grandeur of his position’. It has everything for the modern leftist, not least some pretty severe mockery of the Church and of such flummeries as solemn oaths."
Read more here, about how the movie makes the subtle assertion that a monarchy's only legitimate reason to exist is to oppose fascism, and how in reality the British (and the West in general) did not actually oppose Hitler until the war had already been going on for a couple years.
3/03/2011 08:13:00 AM
|
|
0
comments
0 Response to "Peter Hitchens on the inaccuracies of The King's Speech"
Post a Comment