Having read Christopher Hitchens' eloquent and clever critique in Slate of David Seidler and his screenplay for this year's Oscar frontrunner 'The King's Speech', I began to realise that there are two processes at work in the debate between these men, and that their points were illustrative of a discussion that arises again and again about films depicting the lives of real people, especially historically significant ones.
http://www.slate.com/id/2285695/pagenum/all/#p2
The film, by anyone's estimation is a masterpiece, masterfully performed, photographed, edited, but there is no denying that as a bio-pic the script takes considerable liberties with the historical facts.
Of course there's nothing new about cinema bending history to its will, but in this particular case, the screenplay in its zeal to gain the audience's favour for a man in personal crisis, to make him a likeable character whose story, whose plight we'll empathise with, even though he was the hereditary ruler of 25% of the world's people and wealthy from birth beyond our imaginations, paints George VI or Albert or 'Bertie' as a very different political being than he in fact was at the time.
The truth of the history as Hitchens unveils it would have certainly soured our sympathies for a leader, a man whose persuasions were, like his abdicated brother more in line with preserving the monarchy and his family fortune than in taking a moral stand against a Nazi regime that was enslaving Europe and murdering the continent's Jews, Gypsies, Communists, somewhat later Poles of all religious persuasions, really anyone they found in their disfavour. Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that Bertie went out of his way to influence the government into denying entrance to British governed Palestine by Jewish refugees fleeing war-torn Europe, and thereby sealing the fate of untold numbers to the concentration camps and death in the ovens of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Jadwiga, Bergen Belsen, etc.
Once the die was cast, and war with Germany unavoidable, the leadership provided by the king as a voice to help rally Britain and to give strength to the inhabitants of an empire, at least those in England who were raised to feel comfort from the rule of a strong monarch, albeit a constitutional one, was undoubtedly an important factor in the war effort, and the film thoroughly engages us in the private struggle of the man in the process of overcoming a crippling disability to become the king. As Christopher points out, however, it is very dangerous for cinema, especially when it's executed with such a high level of creative skill, to pave over the serious cracks in the real lives of the figures it chooses to portray.
The film, by anyone's estimation is a masterpiece, masterfully performed, photographed, edited, but there is no denying that as a bio-pic the script takes considerable liberties with the historical facts.
Of course there's nothing new about cinema bending history to its will, but in this particular case, the screenplay in its zeal to gain the audience's favour for a man in personal crisis, to make him a likeable character whose story, whose plight we'll empathise with, even though he was the hereditary ruler of 25% of the world's people and wealthy from birth beyond our imaginations, paints George VI or Albert or 'Bertie' as a very different political being than he in fact was at the time.
The truth of the history as Hitchens unveils it would have certainly soured our sympathies for a leader, a man whose persuasions were, like his abdicated brother more in line with preserving the monarchy and his family fortune than in taking a moral stand against a Nazi regime that was enslaving Europe and murdering the continent's Jews, Gypsies, Communists, somewhat later Poles of all religious persuasions, really anyone they found in their disfavour. Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that Bertie went out of his way to influence the government into denying entrance to British governed Palestine by Jewish refugees fleeing war-torn Europe, and thereby sealing the fate of untold numbers to the concentration camps and death in the ovens of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Jadwiga, Bergen Belsen, etc.
Once the die was cast, and war with Germany unavoidable, the leadership provided by the king as a voice to help rally Britain and to give strength to the inhabitants of an empire, at least those in England who were raised to feel comfort from the rule of a strong monarch, albeit a constitutional one, was undoubtedly an important factor in the war effort, and the film thoroughly engages us in the private struggle of the man in the process of overcoming a crippling disability to become the king. As Christopher points out, however, it is very dangerous for cinema, especially when it's executed with such a high level of creative skill, to pave over the serious cracks in the real lives of the figures it chooses to portray.
Balancing the tale of a man versus his deeds in the real world, or artistry and inspiring works versus the politics and personal behaviour of any individual has never been an easy task for the storyteller who seeks to inspire and to tell a compelling yarn to that end.
I think, however, the key lies in understanding that all characters, all men and women are a complex interweaving of good and questionable, and that if a writer or a director has faith in their ability to truly tell the story of a human being with all their shortcomings and attributes honestly on display in equal measure, then the reader, the viewer will in the end be all the more inspired by the narrative, and that honesty in all its shades of dark and light will have rendered the tale unassailable for its truth and the stronger story as a consequence.
Film may be entertainment, but it can also quite easily become a vehicle for ideology, and if we celebrate a motion picture's creative achievements, as will undoubtedly be done this coming Sunday evening in Los Angeles, then certainly we have a right, maybe even a duty to critique its manipulations of the truth along the path to providing us with those entertainments.
I think, however, the key lies in understanding that all characters, all men and women are a complex interweaving of good and questionable, and that if a writer or a director has faith in their ability to truly tell the story of a human being with all their shortcomings and attributes honestly on display in equal measure, then the reader, the viewer will in the end be all the more inspired by the narrative, and that honesty in all its shades of dark and light will have rendered the tale unassailable for its truth and the stronger story as a consequence.
Film may be entertainment, but it can also quite easily become a vehicle for ideology, and if we celebrate a motion picture's creative achievements, as will undoubtedly be done this coming Sunday evening in Los Angeles, then certainly we have a right, maybe even a duty to critique its manipulations of the truth along the path to providing us with those entertainments.
downandunder
1 comment:
well said!
Post a Comment