Why 'The King's Speech' Shouldn't Win the Oscar for Best Picture

Of course The King's Speech deserves the Best Picture Oscar.

No one goes to the movies to learn history. If they were paying attention during their History class in high school, then they will know about the role of Churchill in World War II. They might have even learned about Wallis Simpson. What they WON'T know is how King George overcame his speech impediment.

And for THAT, we can thank this wonderful movie.

If you use perspective as a criteria, most of the Oscar winners shouldn't have won.

Gone With the Wind made little mention of the slavery that made the ante-bellum lifestyle possible.

What about westerns? Did the give equal time to the Indians or point out that most early settlers lived quiet lives of desperately trying to get established?

Was Going My Way a Typical Catholic Church and pastor? I wish all nuns looked like the leading lady!!

Ahhaaa, this article seems to have misunderstood the British psyche. While Churchill did have a lot of importance as a leader, and he was certainly a great rhetorician, the royal family holds a position that politicians will never occupy.

Indeed Chruchill was voted out in the first election after the war. No the Royal family are symbols and always have been, they are above politics and are the figure heads of the country.

Secondly, it was made by the British Film council, and while Winston Churchill may be unknown in the US, he is widely known here in the UK, while the story of King George is not. Seriously in the last year of secondary education (high school) I had studied world war 2 no more than 3 times, in successive years as well!

So you should take that into context as well...

They should win all the awards they deserve :)

If we are going to get all historically accurate here, lets discuss who really defeated the Germans in World War 2. American deaths were 416,000 (including the Pacific Theatre so about half against Germany), British 384,000 and Russian about TEN MILLION. It was the Soviet flag that flew over the Reichstag when Berlin fell. The American and British effort was a sideshow for Mr. Hitler. Also, if we want to be historically accurate, the U.S. and Britain did not "liberate" Europe. Half of Europe became socialist anyway and the other half spent the rest of the century under Soviet control. I don't think Poland, East Germany, the Baltic States, and the rest considered themselves liberated by any definition. World War 2 was yet another senseless avoidable bloodbath caused by politicians. Both sides were inspired by various leaders; King George here was one of them and in no way did the movie ignore Churchill.

You are a little over the top, I think. It took them all, to lead the British people through that nightmare. Even the Queen's "Why you would wear your best to visit me!" helped. Great men, women rarely stand alone, we must not forget this truism. The King's Speech, helps us to remember a great time of real danger where everyone did their best, and some even beyond that.

Back off. It is a MOVIE, not a documentary!

I beg to differ. I was and am an admirer of Winston Churchill, and, his speeches still move me with their eloquence and passion. That said King George and his wife (the queen Mum) had a strong role in bolstering the morale of the British people and representing the very essence of what it was to be British during the war. Even during the worst of the bombings, the Royal couple left London except for business trips. The children remained with them and were not sent off to the suburbs as many other children. The King and Queen freuently traveled throughout the city during the worst of the bombings, shared the air raid shelters with them and reached out to the people in their hours of need1 The Royal family went on the same stringent food and fuel rationing as their subjects. And yes, he did make speeches all about the British Isles and while they lacked the eloquence of Mr. Churchill's talks, the people loved he and his family because they symbolized Britain at its very best when times are tough. If you don't believe this man was loved and respected by his subjects, take a look at the outpouring of grief exhibited by them when he passed away. I think the film was great and deserves all the praise it gets. We've forgotten how to make films like this, thank God the Brits still do.

If ever a writer missed the mark, it is Peter Brown in the above article. As the thread below notes, there are still enough people who do not accept movies as historically correct 'documents' just as, hopefully, they do not accept all reporters articles as unbiased and accurate.
I also hope "The King's Speech" gets all the recognition it deserves, i.e., multiple Oscars!

If there were a bust of George VI in the white house, it would probably be returned, too.

The facts are that it was a two man act that saved the UK. Yes, Winston Churchill did a lot with his speeches, but he was a political leader. The King was the monarch, and that is a place that holds a special place in the psyche of the people of the UK. If you have any question about the importance the people of the UK place in the royal family, just look at the excitement about the royal wedding in April, or the Queen's jubilee next year. Politicans come and go, indeed Churchill was gone before the war was over, but the throne endures. Through scandels, failures, and rouges, the throne has gone on. When the nation needed encouragement, it has always turned to the King/Queen.