Jose’s anticipation for W.E. (and concurrent retrospective bashing of The King’s Speech) got me thinking about all the plot points at work in Hooper’s Oscar winner. Granted, I liked The King’s Speech. I felt it improved upon multiple viewings unlike most films of its genre, but there are so many interesting concepts at work that could make for (more?) interesting cinema. Case in the point the relationship between David and Albert.
For someone I’m always wont to forget whenever he turns up in anything, Guy Pearce gave a particularly affecting performance as the abdicator (perhaps, I should dedicate a column of Forgotten Characters to him). Firth is great all around the film, especially opposite Rush and HBC but my favourite scene of his is opposite Firth at that engagement party of Wally’s. Maybe sibling drama doesn’t make for revolutionary cinema, but I find the dynamic between the brothers to be more than worthy of a footnote in a film.
The only reason that Albert has all those issues to sort out with his speech therapist/shrink is because his youth is saturated with significant issues. I’d love the idea of a Becket like history of the brothers in their youth, and because women make everything better we could throw in the courtship of Elizabeth for the hell of it. I like Hooper, so I wouldn’t mind him returning for the prequel. I say James McAvoy as Albert and Matthew McFayden as David with Anna Friel as Elizabeth perhaps and we have a winner.
Who’s with me? Is this prequel worth funding?
No comments:
Post a Comment