Category Archives: Nazis

Why The King’s Speech Could Win Best Picture (and Why it Shouldn’t)

Leave a reply

Just when we thought we had a definite frontrunner, everything suddenly turned around. “The Social Network,” likely suffering from a case of peaking too early, has been dethroned by “The King’s Speech.”

Last night, director of “The King’s Speech” Tom Hooper took home the Directors Guild Award to add to the film’s Producer’s Guild Award. It is rare for a film to win those two awards and then not win big at the Oscars. Nothing is definite just yet, but “The King’s Speech” has certainly become a new force to be reckoned with.
Now, this might mean nothing. “Brokeback Mountain” took both the Director and Producer awards and famously lost to “Crash.” Usually though, this is a sign that “The King’s Speech” is a frontrunner.
Before I begin ranting and raving, I would like to clarify something. I in absolutely no way hated “The King’s Speech.” I thought it was a fantastic film. The directing and acting are phenomenal, the story is inspirational, and most importantly, boring subject matter (English aristocracy) was made timely and interesting. These are all factors that make “The King’s Speech” worthy of Oscar nominations. However, it doesn’t necessarily make it a winner.
The media likes to manufacture Oscar races, and this year it has become “The Social Network” vs. “The King’s Speech.” I’m going to throw “Black Swan” into this because it was my favorite movie of the year and this is my blog so I can do whatever I want.
Anyway, the main race between “The Social Network” and “The King’s Speech” represents a race that seems to happen every year: the hip, young film that represents something new and filmmaking, and the safe movie with a classic Hollywood story anyone can fall in love with. “The Social Network” is the story of young nerds turning the internet into what it is today. Meanwhile, “The King’s Speech” has everything most people associate with Oscar movies nowadays: Nazis, war, and overcoming disabilities.
I admired the ability of “The King’s Speech” to have all these elements yet not seem to be begging for awards. Yet, it still feels slightly like the Oscar movie we see every year. It has that uplifting ending about overcoming adversity. Compare that to “The Social Network,” which ended more on a loose thread than a moment of absolute clarity.
And that could be the reason it has begun to lead the pack. Not because it is simply a good choice, but a safe choice. Nobody truly hated “The King’s Speech” so who would throw a giant fit if it won? “The Social Network” was also universally loved, yet it contains some things that would probably drive an older voter crazy. The central conflict in the film is the battle of new money vs. old money; the young and ambitious vs. the old and privileged. Quite ironic, for the fact that “The King’s Speech” has much less Hollywood royalty behind it than “The Social Network” does.
When will the day come when voters get some chutzpah and vote for something they wouldn’t normally vote for? They have a few times in recent years. The best example I could think of is when “No Country for Old Men” beat “Atonement.” Even the recent “Slumdog Millionaire” which seemed like an atypical choice, ends with a poor boy overcoming poverty and finding the love of his life. Maybe the whole reason is that the typical human reaction of being afraid of what is new. Even “Citizen Kane” didn’t win Best Picture.
Or, if they want to, the Academy could be even more daring and pick “Black Swan” as Best Picture. If there’s any movie more ambiguous than “The Social Network,” it’s “Black Swan.” Who doesn’t love a good movie about a character changing? Even if it is for the worse. Maybe they could come even more out of left field and give “Toy Story 3″ the prize. Or how about “127 Hours?” When is the next time we will ever see a film about a guy trying to cut off his arm for 90 minutes?
“The King’s Speech” is a great movie that has resonated with audiences and critics alike, a rare feat these days. If it takes home the Best Picture prize, it would not be a crime against humanity (like many other past winners have been), but it just wouldn’t be very exciting. I’m sure that picking a Best Picture winner is a challenging and even painful process. One must pick a film that is representative of that year, one that is relevant today and will be relevant 20 years down the road as well. Who knows what will happen to “The King’s Speech” by then. All I know is that the movies that challenge us the most, the ones that make us ask questions, the ones that dare to try something new, are the ones that are never forgotten.

The Great Mistakes
Here are some of the worst decisions the Academy has made:
1941: How Green was My Valley (over Citizen Kane)
1964: My Fair Lady (over Dr. Strangelove)
1968: Oliver! (over un-nominated Once Upon a Time in the West, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Rosemary’s Baby)
1976: Rocky (over Taxi Driver and Network)
1979: Kramer vs. Kramer (over Apocalypse Now)
1980: Ordinary People (over Raging Bull)
1990: Dances with Wolves (over Goodfellas)
1994: Forrest Gump (over Pulp Fiction)
1996: The English Patient (over Fargo)
1998: Shakespeare in Love (over Saving Private Ryan)
2009: The Hurt Locker (over Inglourious Basterds)

Movie Review: The King’s Speech

Leave a reply

It must be hard to make a speech to an entire nation, but I imagine it’s even more difficult to have to do it with a speech impediment. “The King’s Speech” manages to bring history’s most insecure king’s struggle to life, one oblique angle at a time.


“The King’s Speech” does the extraordinary by making British royalty both sympathetic and not at all boring. I guess people are just more interesting when they’re facing total ruin from an evil foreign power.

For those who need to brush up on their history (like me), “The King’s Speech” is a biography on King George VI (Colin Firth). It begins in the days when he was still Duke of York, to his rise to the throne in the wake of World War II.


George’s path to power is blocked by his speech impediment, a problem which prevents him from speaking in public. So, his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) hires speech doctor Lionel Lougue (Geoffrey Rush) to help him get rid of his confining stutter. Throughout the years, Louge becomes both a doctor and a life coach to George.

That man playing the king is someone who has hopefully become a household name by now, because his acting ability is too good to ignore. Firth turns a character that might’ve been cold and unsympathetic into someone who is both warm and funny, a man who under his problems is radiating with personality and life.

Firth is also one of the most emotional actors working today, and Hollywood’s best crier. I still remember that first scene in “A Single Man” when he breaks down into silent rage. Nobody knew anything about this character, but still, we wanted to cry with him.


As an actor, Firth does best when given as little to say as possible. Even in a film about the importance of rhetoric, Firth’s silence is a dominating factor.

Not only is “The King’s Speech” wonderfully acted, it’s also wonderfully told. What could have been dated and stale historical nonfiction feels so alive and modern; the characters of the past feel as tangible and relatable as characters in the present would. The fantastic screenplay, written by David Seidler, brings fascinating historical depth and great moments of comic relief when needed.

The man who deserves the biggest praise for the success of “The King’s Speech” is director Tom Hopper. The rookie British director directs like an old pro. It is both claustrophobic and emotionally shot. The best example of the superb directing would be that first scene. Everything from the way the camera is slightly tilted to how the frame is slightly blurred represent a nervous tension leading up to the opening speech. You could look at that, or the subtle imagery, like the way the microphone is placed in front of George’s mouth to look almost like a muzzle, or a cage. The best directed films are the ones you have to look at with the keenest eye, and find the greatest little details.

“The King’s Speech” is even better than the Oscar-begging period piece it appears to be. It will be raking in the Oscar nominations this year because it deserves it, and that is a rare find nowadays.

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds

Leave a reply

Who said history has to be accurate? Don’t tell that to Quentin Tarantino, who pulled off his newest masterpiece in a brilliant revisionist style. “Inglourious Basterds” is the work of a world-class auteur at the top of his game.

When I first heard years ago that Tarantino was developing a war film, I was hesitant, unsure of whether Tarantino’s directing style could fit into a war movie. But then I realized, it is the perfect genre for him. 
Of all of Tarantino’s films, “Inglourious Basterds” has the most traditional narrative structure. While all of his other films hop through time in no particular order, this one moves through time in order with only a few brief flashbacks. What’s extremely unconventional about it though, are it’s multiple different stories that only loosely connect. 
The first story starts in the early days of World War II, in Nazi occupied France. Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), is a French Jew who narrowly escapes death at the hands of brutal Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Four years later, Dreyfus is still living in France under a pseudonym, operating a movie theater and hoping to one day get revenge on the Nazis.
The second story focuses on a group of Jewish American soldiers also in France. This troop, nicknamed the Basterds, also plans to get revenge on the Nazis and their reign of terror. The troop is led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Raine commands his soldiers to attack the Nazis with absolutely no sympathy. He also demands that each man bring him 100 Nazi scalps (and he gets his scalps).
Now, where do these two stories connect? Well, both are revenge missions, and both seek their revenge in the exact same place. Shosanna and the Basterds never meet face to face, but all I can say is that if they ever were to meet, they’d all be pretty good friends.
In almost every way, “Inglourious Basterds” shouldn’t be a good movie. It has long expanses of meaningless dialogue, little action, and major historical inaccuracies and politically incorrect stereotypes. It’s kind of like “Lawrence of Arabia.” But these things don’t serve to make the movie worse; they end up making it even better. Only a mind like Tarantino can take flaws and turn them into idiosyncrasies. Only Tarantino could capture people talking and turn it into amazing, real conversations about the meaning of life. The dialogue is harder to quote because most of the film is spoken in either German or French, However, Raine and Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz (Eli Roth) give more than enough catchphrases to go around. 
Oh, and that dialogue. No matter what language, Tarantino’s dialogue is always so pleasant to listen to; not a single word out of a character’s mouth ever seems corny or contrived. 
And yes, the movie is violent. Very violent. On the Tarantino violence scale, it would rank slightly higher than “Pulp Fiction” but slightly less in “Kill Bill.” The violence is often ridiculous, but is also somehow the most realistically violent of all of his films.
Tarantino has a habit of reviving the careers of many once great actors (John Travolta, Michael Parks, Pam Grier, David Carradine). The careeer revived in “Inglourious Basterds” is that of Christoph Waltz. Much has been said about Waltz’s performance, and every accolade is well deserved. He plays Landa as both friendly and creepy at the same time. He can seem friendly by making small talk and then intimidating by doing something like ordering someone to get him milk. He is never a villain who seems psychotic, he just seems scary because of his overstated friendliness. It is without a doubt that Landa’s Cannes winning performance will also get nominated for an Oscar.
The true villains of World War II, Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, are played here with perfect inaccuracy. Martin Wuttke plays Hitler as  a whiny baby and Sylvester Groth plays Goebbels as a soulless zombie and something of a suck up. While Waltz has gotten the majority of praise, a large amount of it belongs to Groth. Through Groth’s eyes, Goebbels doesn’t seem like a zombie just from the things he says, but also from the things he does. In one scene, he shakes Shosanna’s hand but he doesn’t quite give it a tight grip. In fact, he barely grabs it with his cold, white hand. It looks almost like a skeleton who can walk and talk. 
Also scoring points are the Basterds. I always knew Pitt was talented, but not even his performance in “Fight Club” can top this. His Aldo Raine comes from Tennessee, and he talks in a perfect Southern droll. Roth is also a scene stealer. Roth is known for directing torture porn like “Hostel.” However, he should stick to acting. His overly hammy Boston accent becomes one of the funniest parts of the movie. And yes, the movie is funny. Tarantino’s sense of humor is one of the darkest in cinema; many of the jokes here are dark as ever. However, many are as light and hilarious as Raine’s horrible grip on the Italian language. A scene like that almost feels like something out of a Sacha Baron Cohen movie.
Tarantino is known for referencing hundreds and hundreds of movies in everyone of his films. In this one, he often draws references to his own films. The opening scene reminded me something of the Royale with Cheese scene in “Pulp Fiction.” Like Jackson, Waltz first disarms the character through light banter before suddenly unloading on him. The revenge mission feels almost like The Bride’s in “Kill Bill.” 
Tarantino also references many of his favorite movies. You can see a shot that looks like “Scarface” or a camera movement that feels Hitchcockian. What’s referenced most here though is Spaghetti Westerns. Spaghetti Westerns were Italian westerns that were made in the late 1960s popularized mainly by Sergio Leone. As I watched “Inglourious Basterds” I realized what it truly was: a Spaghetti Western presented as a war film. There are Mexican standoffs and a score that often resembles the brilliant music of Ennio Morricone. 
The plot of “Inglourious Basterds” is almost directly based off of the plot of “Once Upon a Time in the West.” Like “Once Upon a Time in the West,” “Inglourious Basterds” is about two different people getting revenge on the same person for different reasons. Both reasons however, have something to do with the loss of family or brotherhood. “Inglourious Basterds” also contains long stretches without much action. However, while Leone reveled in long silences, Tarantino revels in lots and lots of talking.
“Once Upon a Time in the West” is also the best western ever made. “Inglourious Basterds” is one of the best war movies ever made. Not only that, but it is also the most audacious for daring to change the face of history. It really makes sense as to why “Inglourious Basterds” is so revisionist: every Tarantino movie exists in its world with its own interconnecting characters and its own brands. Even though “Inglourious Basterds” doesn’t take place during modern times, it feels as if it could’ve taken place in the same world as any other Tarantino film.
“Inglourious Basterds” was one of few movies I’ve seen recently where I left feeling reinvigorated, feeling as if all my faith in cinema had been restored. Only someone like Quentin Tarantino can do this. He reinvented the crime drama, the kung fu film, and now, the war film. Being a great director doesn’t involve any film school, just a great imagination and a love for movies. And not to mention, a strange and interesting view of the world.
One more thing: we never find out why the title is misspelled. Tarantino says he’ll never explain why, and in a way it’s better like that. The spelling is a part of Tarantino’s world, and we’re lucky that we even got this good of a glimpse of it.
If you liked this movie, you’ll also like: Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Dollars Trilogy, Carrie, Scarface, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Grindhouse, The Wild Bunch, No Country for Old Men