AS - Section B - The Film Industry - The King's Speech

Synopsis and Character

The King’s Speech tells the story of how King George VI of England (Colin Firth) learns to live with a speech impediment. As father of the current Queen of England he unexpectedly becomes King after his brother, King Edward VIII (played by Guy Pearce) abdicates the throne to marry to marry divorcee Mrs Wallis Simpson in December 1936. The British government feared a constitutional crisis surrounding a British monarch (King Edward VIII) marrying an American socialite divorcee - Adolf Hitler was amassing troops in central Europe ahead of a very probable WW2 and it was thought this scandal would be too much for the country and as such, pressured the Palace for Edward to step down. King George VI was never expected to be King as Prince Harry would not today.

The film opens with Prince Albert (later King George VI) in 1925 attempting to make a speech at the British Empire Exhibition in Wembley Stadium but painfully struggling, and failing because of a chronic speech impediment – a stammer.

His wife, Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (played by Helen Bonham-Carter) persuades him to see an Australian Speech Therapist in London, Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush) who has a reputation for using unusual techniques to help his patients.

Prince Albert does not get on initially with Logue as he insists on breaking royal protocol by calling Prince Albert by his family name, ‘Bertie’. After several sessions where the Prince feels he is not making progress storms out, but not before Logue gives him a gramophone record recording of what Bertie believes is a failed attempt by him to recite Shakespeare.

A few years later in 1934, Prince Albert’s father, King George V insists that he gets help again to improve his stammer as he has an inkling that all is not well with his eldest son, The Prince of Wales (Kind Edward VIII). Prince Albert plays the recording that Logue had given to him and hears himself reciting Shakespeare with a near faultless delivery, without a stammer – he immediately returns to Logue who helps him over a sustained period of time with the two becoming friends. ‘Bertie’ (King George VI) reluctantly ascends a throne in May 1937 after Kind Edward VIII’s abdication, a throne he never thought would be his and immediately realises he needs Logue’s help more than ever.

War is declared in 1939 and King George VI summons Logue to Buckingham Palace to prepare for his key radio speech to the country – Bertie is petrified but Logue coaches his through every moment and the triumphant King celebrates on the balcony to cheer and applause from thousands of Londoners after his rousing address. A final note informs audiences that the King and Logue remained friends throughout the duration of their lives with Logue at Bertie’s side every time he spoke to the nation during WW2.

The film is character led, offering strong performances and emotive representations, focussing on the relationship between Bertie and Lionel Logue.

Production Development

As indicated above, the origins of The King’s Speech lay of course in historical fact about how English King George VI (father of the current Queen Elizabeth II) learnt how to cope with his stammer during his relatively short reign from 1936-1952 which included the entire duration of WWII. It is however, a very personal film that has laid in the hearts and minds of two men, David Seidler who wrote the Screenplay and Tom Hooper who directed for a considerable length of time.

Seidler had, like George VI himself developed a stammer as a three year old boy while being evacuated during WWII and as such, his entire life wanted to write about the ‘reluctant King’.

British born, Seidler arrived in Hollywood at the age of 40 in 1977 and a had a ‘degree’ of success as a writer but had been researching the life of King George VI since the mid 1970s, even finding the surviving son of King George’s VI’s Speech Therapist, Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush in the film).

On meeting retired Brain Surgeon, Dr Valentine Logue was keen to share his Father’s notebooks with Seidler but only if the Queen Mother (King George VI’s widow) agreed to this request.

Seidler wrote to the Queen Mother in the early 1980s but received a written request from her Private Secretary that she would prefer the project not to be pursued in her lifetime – Seidler and Logue respected this wish and the idea was abandoned in 1982. The Queen Mother passed away in 2002 and in 2005, while suffering from Throat Cancer Seidler wrote a draft of the screenplay that, on the suggestion of his wife, he turn into a stage play to allow for more character relationships to develop. Theatre Producer Joan Lane was sent the script and was immediately drawn to its content, passing it on to friend Geoffrey Rush who was appearing in a Period Drama stage play at the time – Rush also liked it but preferred the idea of a film version. Lane then passed the script on to Independent Film Production Company, Bedlam Productions who then joined forces with See Saw Films as co-producers and the potential for filmic development was explored. Eventually both companies sold the project to the Weinstein Brothers and Momentum to distribute but only after the BBC and Film4 declined the idea.

In step Oxford University educated Director Tom Hooper; or rather Tom Hooper’s Mother, Meredith Hooper; an Australian writer who had been invited to a fringe theatre reading in London as part of the Australian community. Meredith Hooper begged her accomplished television and film Director son to read the play and he did, remarking on its brilliance developing further the realisation of the film. Employing original writer David Seidler (who achieved an Academy Award and a BAFTA for Best Original Screenplay) Hooper embarked on what also became a very personal project that as much reflected his own family and family life as it did the life and times of King George VI. It is arguably the personal passionate vision of Seidler and Hooper that ensured critical and ultimately commercial success for the film – a key scene where King George VI finds cathartic release from his stammering through swearing was taken directly from Seidler’s own experience as a 16 year old where the ‘f’ word allowed him to work through his own frustrations at his speech impediment.

In The King’s Speech Hooper depicted a dynamic between two men, an English King and a forthright, Australian born Speech Therapist that had many parallels with his own family unit – Hooper’s Father, Richard was an English Media Businessmen married to an Australian Author with Hooper able to explore key cultural reference points in relation to his own upbringing. He also argues that the stoicism that was, and is to a lesser extent now represented by the British Royal Family was reflected also by his own life – his Grandfather as a WWII Bomber Navigator was refused permission to land at the nearest UK airfield (as Hooper describes it, ‘in that English bureaucratic way’) and as a result, crashed and died on the way back to the Midlands. Tom Hooper’s father, Richard was subsequently sent away to boarding school at the age of five and had a strict, austere upbringing. Hooper’s mother Meredith used to remark to her husband that he would have to learn how to be a father because he never had a father of his own – Tom Hooper remarks that parallels with the film also lay in Meredith’s relationship with her husband in that like Lionel Logue, in a stereotypical brash Australian way she was openly antagonistic to Richard’s traditional English, middle class way of life.

Tom Hooper was in many other ways ideal for the role of directing The King’s Speech – he has a successful background of directing fact based dramas from the Soap Opera Eastenders to the critically acclaimed 2001 BBC Period Drama Love in a Cold Climate to HBO’s Elizabeth I in 2005. Helen Mirren (Elizabeth I) requested him as Director in a precursor to playing King George VI’s daughter, Queen Elizabeth II in Stephen Frears’ 2006 film, The Queen.

Hooper has achieved respect and critical acclaim within both the film and television industry and was Emmy Award nominated for the reprise of Prime Suspect in 2003, again working with Helen Mirren and won the Outstanding Director Award for Elizabeth I.

Working with writer Peter Morgan (Last King of Scotland, The Queen, Frost/Nixon) he also received critical acclaim for the 2006 C4 film, Longford and The Damned United in 2007, again working with Morgan on the life of football manager, Brian Clough.

Hooper is known for his directing style and employs similar techniques in many of his films from lingering two shots to representing the central character at the extreme edge of the frame for dramatic effect – he was awarded Best Director for The King’s Speech by the Director’s Guild of America and a Best Director nomination.

Production Funding

The King’s Speech is majorly funded by Prescience, unusually (but that’s how they like it) a little known ‘boutique media bank’ of private investors who it is claimed include professional footballers. Prescience was formed in 2003 by experienced film producers Paul Brett and Tim Smith whose website suggests their imperative is to fund ‘independent British films’ – whether The King’s Speech can be classified as independent film will be explored later. Films that Prescience have been involved in from a funding perspective include Harry Brown and the Ian Dury biopic, Sex and Drugs and Rock n’ Roll. Prescience’s ‘majority funding’ of The King’s Speech can only be estimated from the total production budget of £10m. Prescience assure its investors of a share of the net profits once the revenue starts coming in and with The King’s Speech this certainly has been the case. Prescience has several film funds that invest money in specific films and the Aegis Film Fund channelled the money into the production and development of The King’s Speech. In this regard The King’s Speech remains an unusual film in that it benefitted from the almost secretive private investment of Prescience but also from public funds in the guise of the UK Film Council.

The King’s Speech remains the jewel in the crown of the recently demised UK Film Council (April 2011) whose role as a UK film funding body has now passed to the British Film Institute (BFI). The UKFC have been much criticised in recent years for their use of public funds via the National Lottery to fund films that failed to achieve any degree of commercial success.

The King’s Speech is a film which is a fundamental response to this accusation with the revenue drip offsetting and even attempting to explain and justify previous UKFC films that flopped like Sex Lives of the Potato Men (2000) receiving £2m from the UK Film Council’s Premiere Fund (for production). Criticism of the UKFC however may wish to reference the hundreds of films that have received small grants enabling lower production value films and new Directors an opportunity to get their film distributed, a foot on ‘the ladder’  and achieve a degree of critical success.

The King’s Speech received £1m from the Premiere Fund (and as such compared to Prescience was a significant, but not primary investor) with the subsequent success ensuring the BFI will recoup 100% of their investment plus significant net profits – a rare banker film for the historical Quango.

Distribution

Other investors included Momentum and the Weinstein’s whose role as distributors was crucial – The King’s Speech had a similar release pattern to a mainstream Hollywood (saturated distribution) but slightly less than a Hollywood blockbuster – 395 sites received the film compared to the high production value Hollywood film of the same year, Meet The Parents: Little Fockers which was distributed to 483 sites. Precise figures for the amount of money spent on advertising is as difficult to locate as small print details about Prescience’s financial involvement but Momentum were given responsibility with distributing the film as a historical drama in the UK while the Weinstein’s contributed to the UK investment but primarily prepared US markets for the film. Conservatively it is claimed films released at the same time like The Social Network outspent The King’s Speech (in terms of advertising revenue) by a ratio of 5:1. A significant reason for the box office (commercial success) of the film has been accredited to Harvey Weinstein’s involvement in regards to the timings of the release of the film in reference to January/February post holiday marketing and the proximity of the awards season, specifically the phenomenal number of Golden Globe and Academy Award nominations.

Stereotypically however, standing back from the film The King’s Speech always stood a good chance of success with strong star marketing, genre marketing of a Historical Drama to American audiences and notions of high concept (based on the true life story of a fabulously wealthy, aspirational, globally respected, well known family).

Weinstein however, carefully crafted a well timed cross media advertising campaign that combined with the film’s PR machine that was cashing in on the avalanche of award nominations. Momentum’s posters for The King’s Speech became iconic with some billboards split down the middle showing Geoffrey Rush on one side adorned by quotation with Firth on the other emblazoned across him in a huge font, ‘God Save the King’.

Other posters showed the splendour of the interior of the Palace and other locations unattainable to most of the mainstream, mass target audience. American audiences just needed to be made aware that it was a film about the British Royal Family – as a cliché that it is, the heritage and culture of the UK, particularly the cultural heritage that brings millions of American tourists to the UK every year was always going to be an easy one to market to Americans as long as it had stars and an emotive, 3 act narrative.

The Distributors, as with the Prescience, The UK Film Council, Bedlam, See-Saw and Tom Hooper benefitted (and are still benefitting) from the profit share with significant returns going to the Weinstein’s and £10m to Momentum. Money is still regularly coming in from DVD and TV sales. The stars of the film also benefited from a profit share agreement in excess of $50m – for obvious reasons the amounts were again shrouded in secrecy but Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham-Carter were rumoured to have secured seven figure payments. The King’s Speech was more typical to a Hollywood film in terms of funding and profits in that all film financing arrangements were structured so that the bankers recouped their original investment before any other profit share took place. Distributors in each country had to be paid back for their marketing costs before the film was deemed to be in profit but as explained below, profit was a byword that was, and is inextricably associated with The King’s Speech - a lot of people laughed all the way to the aforementioned bank.

Ahead of this profit and a January 7th new year release came the nominations and awards evidencing substantial critical and commercial success – as well as scooping the 2011 Best Picture Oscar The King’s Speech was nominated for seven Golden Globes securing Best Actor for Colin Firth. At the British Academy Film Awards the film won Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (Rush), and Best Supporting Actress (Helena Bonham-Carter). As well as securing the Best Picture Oscar against strong opposition ‘Speech’ also walked away with the Best Director Oscar for Tom Hooper, Best Actor for Firth again and for David Seidler, Best Original Screenplay.

Exhibition

The King’s Speech met with resounding commercial success after critical success and numerous awards – globally it took $405m which is staggering compared to its £10m production budget but this must also be offset against the amount of money spent on distribution. As a comparison Slumdog Millionaire took $377m in worldwide box office takings but helping this was eventually distributed by 20th Century Fox as well as Pathe. This highlights problems of definition which will be explored later as The King’s Speechwas very much erroneously described by some as ‘independent’ British film and described in some reviews as the ‘Best Performing Independently Financed’ British film in history referring to the role of Prescience and the UK Film Council. The film did however have an independent and a mainstream multiplex release catering for the older, allegedly more educated target audience at cinemas like The Curzon in London’s Mayfair and Soho and The Greenwich PictureHouse. The film’s opening weekend secured £3.52m which was significantly higher than any other British films including Slumdog Millionaire which took £1.8m, Atonement which took £1.63m and Pride and Prejudice which took £2.53m. As with all films this successful opening weekend was a guarantee of broader commercial success. Danny Boyle did well releasing 127 Hours against The King’s Speech and ensured a £2.16m opening weekend at 310 sites (compared to ‘Speech’s’ 395). It was though after this opening weekend and in particular the American and global box office that all the investors started to smile.

The King’s Speech as British Film

The King’s Speech is undoubtedly a ‘British’ film but what is drawn into debate is what British film is and the role of American investment.

Critics made the same noises about Slumdog Millionairewhen it was distributed by 20th Century Fox even suggesting that it could also not be described as even culturally British as it was set in Mumbai and the key protagonists, (although British Asian actors) within the narrative were natives of the Indian sub continent. Does it really matter is what some would ask but when it comes to where the profits end up it is a very relevant question.

After The King’s Speech and Slumdog Millionaire the next most commercially successful British films were The Full Monty and Billy Elliot, both distributed by Hollywood studios 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios respectively. It is common knowledge within the film industry that most of the profits from The Full Monty were not ploughed back into the British Film Industry but in fact went straight to Hollywood and Fox.

Most medium to high production budget British films need American investment to reach the target audience for commercial success but this comes often at a price including overdoing on the entertainment values and ensuring a more simplistic narrative for a global audience. Independent British films tend to have limited distribution, low production values and only critical success. The King’s Speech achieved both (so have others) and can be described as British on a number of levels but also received significant American distribution from the Weinstein Company, not it has to be said one of the so called ‘Big Six’; Warner Bros., Paramount, Universal, 20th Century Fox, Sony (Columbia Tri-star and MGM) and Disney. Several attempts have been made to classify British film since the historical dominance of American film distribution and film exhibition in the UK originating from the 1920s – The Cinematograph Act of 1927 laid down a framework that identified a film as British but perhaps from the point of view of The King’s Speech the most useful analysis is the cultural and institutional definitions of British film developed by the BFI. A film can be described as culturally British if it represents the image of a nation e.g. setting/location (regional representations), dialogue, costume, objects and props, music etc. with The King’s Speechmoving carefully into this description -  it has British actors, represents an iconic British institution, is obsessed with social class (very British), is filmed and set in the UK, primarily in London and is littered with cultural signifiers of Britishness.

In contradiction to this a film is described as institutionally British if the funding powerbase, production and distribution originate in the UK – the so called ‘industry’ signifiers of ‘Britishness’. Independent films like This is England , Fish Tank and Shifty are easily described as culturally and institutionally British while The King’s Speech is only institutionally British in relation to production funding and some UK distribution. The bottom line for The King’s Speech and most commercially successful British films is that they need American distribution but should this be referenced in a critique on ‘how British’ a film is? The term UK/US collaboration has been used for some years now to describe this very, very common type of British Film from Alfie in 1966, to Love Actually in 2003 to Hot Fuzz in 2007 and to Paul in 2011. Industry professionals and indeed, anyone involved with the origination, development and production of the film would argue that The King’s Speech is more independent than the body of UK/US collaboration typified by the above films and by, for example the relationship between British Production Company, Working Title and Universal Studios who have produced a vast number of commercially successful British films from Four Weddings and a Funeral in 1994 to Johnny English: Reborn in 2011.

The King’s Speech arguably has more British institutional involvement in terms of screenplay, directing, actors and personnel/crew, production funding and to a lesser extent UK distribution but although an outstanding example of British cinema still bears the hallmarks of a non independent production – star marketing, single stranded narrative with a simplistic three act structure based on a simple concept, emotive representations, standard conventions of filmmaking, wide/saturated distribution, popular with mass/working class audiences and American distribution. Along with another ‘feel good film’, Slumdog Millionaire, The King’s Speech does represent a significant move away from the standard UK/US collaboration formula by utilising every potential opportunity available to ensure British ‘ownership’ and maintaining the industry reputation for critical success and films that are narrative and production led rather than distribution led.