LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 22, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     barack obama     gay marriage     chris hedges     ndaa     robert scheer
Most Read

God Is Watching

Every Year Russia Beats the Nazis One More Time

The Good-Natured Dictator

Mark Zuckerberg Just Lost $2 Billion

The Occupy Movement and the Politics of Educated Hope

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * The Nearly $1 Trillion National Security Budget
The NAACP’s Relevance Step

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator
A Beast Bent on Grace

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Mural

Mural

By Mahmoud Darwish
$13.57

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Critics Call ‘King’s Speech’ Historically Incorrect

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Jan 27, 2011
imdb.com

Royal backlash: Some critics think “The King’s Speech” paints too rosy an image of King George VI, played by Colin Firth, pictured with Helena Bonham Carter in this still from the film.

With “The King’s Speech” sitting comfortably atop this year’s heap of Oscar-nominated films, it’s not surprising that there might be some grumbles from critical corners about the movie’s actual merits. But in this case, a couple prominent voices are crying foul about the extent to which the historical drama claims cinematic license, particularly with regard to the character and allegiances of stammering King George VI.  —KA

The Wrap:

It’s as predictable as the Oscars themselves. A new front-runner often means some fresh round of attacks, and the charge of historical distortion is a perennial one.

In this case, intellectual gadfly Christopher Hitchens and the New York Review of Books’ Martin Filler are charging that the monarch in question was no better than a Nazi appeaser and, in Filler’s words, “a nitwit.” They paint a portrait of the wartime king that is far different from the shy family man essayed by Oscar nominee (and favorite) Colin Firth.

“‘The King’s Speech’ …perpetrates a gross falsification of history,” Hitchens wrote on Slate on Monday, saying the king was not worthy of hagiography. Fillers says the king had an uncontrollable temper and even struck his wife.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: 'King's Speech' Rules in Oscar Race

Next item: The Real Deal



Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Inherit The Wind, January 29, 2011 at 12:46 am Link to this comment

Isn’t funny that Oliver Stone’s “JFK” never got the flack it deserved for being pure fantasy dressed up as “fact”.

OTOH, “Inglorious Basterds” never claimed to be anything but a work of fiction as, clearly, the ending never happened in reality—we just wish it had.

Report this
Queenie's avatar

By Queenie, January 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

Hitchens wouldn’t know a gross falsification if he fell over one in a drunken stupor. He absolutely KNEW there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (0h my God!) in Iraq. His support for the war on Iraq was disgusting.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






                        Number of characters remaining: 4000

Are you a human? Retype the word you see here.

     

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.