DID YOU READ

Why Does the Truth Matter in “The King’s Speech?”

Why Does the Truth Matter in “The King’s Speech?” (photo)

Posted by on

I’ve talked to a lot of people about “The Social Network.” I’ve met people who didn’t like it because they felt it didn’t tell them enough about Facebook. I’ve met people who didn’t like it because they didn’t think it lived up to the hype or their expectations. But I haven’t met anyone who didn’t like “The Social Network” because it was untruthful. For whatever reason, it’s just not a big deal to most viewers. Oh sure, they may be curious about where director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin contorted the facts to serve their needs as filmmakers. But very few people looked at the truth, compared it to the movie, and said “this invalidates the film.”

Which is why I’m a bit confused by the growing controversy around “The Social Network”‘s biggest competitor at next month’s Academy Awards, “The King’s Speech.” Most of it surrounds this article by Christopher Hitchens for Slate. Entitled “Churchill Didn’t Say That,” Hitchens details the various ways in which the film, about King George VI (Colin Firth) and his battle to overcome his speech impediment on the eve of World War II, strays from the historical record. According to Hitchens, the film, directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler, is particularly inaccurate in its depiction of Winston Churchill (Timothy Spall) and the King as longtime allies. In fact, Churchill was extremely loyal to George VI’s predecessor, Edward VIII. Further, while the film implies that George VI immediately rallied England to defeat the Germans after his coronation, he actually supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement for as long as he could. Hitchens writes:

“The king himself, even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation. He ‘told him how grossly unfairly he had been treated, and that I was genuinely sorry.’ Discussing a successor, the king wrote that “‘, of course, suggested [Lord] Halifax.’ It was explained to him that this arch-appeaser would not do and that anyway a wartime coalition could hardly be led by an unelected member of the House of Lords. Unimpressed, the king told his diary that he couldn’t get used to the idea of Churchill as prime minister and had greeted the defeated Halifax to tell him that he wished he had been chosen instead. All this can easily be known by anybody willing to do some elementary research.”

To be fair, Hitchens does note that “The King’s Speech” is “an extremely well-made film with a seductive human interest plot.” But he also says that it constitutes “a major desecration of the historical record.” But why does that matter in the case of this film and not in the case of “The Social Network?”

Maybe the liberties Fincher and Sorkin took don’t constitute “major” desecrations. Maybe they avoided some blowback by working a commentary on the ambiguous nature of history and memory into the structure of their screenplay. But they didn’t exactly make a documentary either. In the film, their version of Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is motivated to create Facebook for two reasons: his desire to join one of Harvard’s elite clubs, and to stick it to Erica (Rooney Mara), a girl who dumped him. But according to David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect,” the real Zuckerberg, “was uninterested in the clubs. Instead, he had concluded that sharing and transparency would redefine the Internet and was determined to experiment with software that exemplified his ideas. He also wanted to respond to widespread student dissatisfaction that Harvard had not put online its paper “facebook,” with photos of freshmen.” “The Social Network” ends, quite powerfully, with a shot of Zuckerberg — I am about to spoil the end of “The Social Network” here, people — obsessing over Erica’s Facebook page. But by that point in time Zuckerberg was already dating his longtime girlfriend Priscilla Chan, who is not mentioned once in Fincher and Sorkin’s version.

I’m not bringing these things up to condemn “The Social Network” but to observe its similarities to “The King’s Speech,” which is being condemned. In both cases, the changes are primarily omissions, and specifically omissions designed to refine and “movie-ize” their lead character’s motivations. Mark Zuckerberg might have just started Facebook because he was a smart, forward-thinking nerd, but there’s no movie there if he did. Making him a loveless dork crystallizes his need to belong and his inability to connect with the people around him, which is a perfect movie-ized reason to start a website about social connections. King George VI’s journey to overcome his speech impediment is inspiring, but it’s not truly dramatic without a climactic test — hence condensing (and movie-izing) the period between his coronation (May 12, 1937) and England’s declaration of war against Germany (September 3, 1939).

I’m not necessarily saying that makes what Hooper and Seidler (or Fincher and Sorkin) did okay. But you can’t have it both ways. If Sorkin can shape the truth as he sees fit to tell a story, then so can Seidler. You can’t pick and choose which one is an outrage based on whether or not you liked the movie.

And I do suspect “The Social Network” has gotten a bit of a pass because people love the movie so much, and because people like and respect Aaron Sorkin. I think Sorkin’s also been smart in the way he’s addressed the issue in the press. Although he’s said New York Magazine Magazine, “I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling.”

And that’s the party line I’ve seen repeated in most articles and reviews about the film: the movie isn’t trying to be a definitive historical record of Facebook and Zuckerberg, so to hold it to that standard is unfair, like judging a drama by how often it makes you laugh out loud. Seidler hasn’t given as many interviews, hasn’t made his intentions as clear, and maybe as a result, has not been given as much benefit of the doubt.

Now you might say that there’s also a moral difference between erasing a man’s girlfriend and erasing a man’s sympathy of Nazis. But it’s not as if “The King’s Speech” is pro-Nazi; it’s clearly and bluntly anti-Nazi. If Hooper and Seidler erased George VI’s dealings with Chamberlain and Hitler and made absolutely no mention of England’s political realities at the time, pretended the Nazis didn’t exist, you might have something. Though I’m not offended or outraged by either movie, I think the changes made in “The Social Network” are a lot more potentially serious because those people are still alive, and their existence can (and, I suspect, will) be inexorably changed by the versions of themselves millions of people watch onscreen.

Mostly I would hope that in 2011 we’re not so naive as viewers as to believe that what we see in a docudrama is the entire truth. We should have learned by now that the finer details of history are always sacrificed for the broad needs of drama.

Watch More
ISA_2017_Episodic_101

Forget Oscar

Find Your Spirit Animal

The Spirit Awards are LIVE this Saturday at 2p PT/5p ET.

Posted by on

In just a few precious days, the greatest, most epic, most star-studded awards ceremony of the year comes to IFC.

And please, we’re definitely not talking about the Oscars. We’re talking about the Spirit Awards. Hosted by iconic comedy duo Nick Kroll and John Mulaney, it’s a relatively under-the-radar awards show with serious cred. And if the past is any indicator, we’re in for a wild night.

If you feel like doing your homework, you can find a full list of nominees and performance excerpts here. It reads like a who’s who of everyone that matters – those larger-than-life personalities with status that borders on mythological. Our celebrity spirit animals, if you will.

This isn’t hyperbole. Literally everyone who takes the stage at the awards show is spirit animal material. Let’s see if we can help you find yours…

Do you

Live in someone else’s shadow despite shining like the sun? Do you inexplicably vandalize your pretty-boy good looks with a sloppy-joe man bun and a repellent pubic-hair beard? Do you think sounding stoned and sounding thoughtful are kinda the same thing?

Congratulations, your spirit animal is Casey Affleck.

He’s the self-canonized patron saint of anyone who’s got the goods but doesn’t give a damn.

Do you

Have mid-length hair and exude a certain feminine masculinity that is universally appealing? Are you drawn to situations that promise little to nothing in the way of grooming or hygiene as a transparently self-conscious attempt to conceal your radiant inner glow? Does that fail miserably?

Way to go, your spirit animal is Viggo Mortensen.

He’s the yoga teacher of actors, in that what should make him super nasty only increases his curb appeal.

Do you

Get zero recognition for work that everyone knows is unrivaled? Do you inspire greatness in others yet get shortchanged when it comes to your own acclaim? Are you a goddam B-52 bomber in an industry of biplanes?

Bingo, your spirit animal is Annette Bening.

What does it take for this artist to win an Oscar? Honestly now, if her performance in 20th Century Women doesn’t earn her every award on the planet, consider it proof that the Universe truly is a cold dark void absent of reason or compassion.

Do you

Walk into a room full of strangers and walk out with a room full of friends? Have you been hiding under the radar just waiting for the right moment to leap out into the spotlight and stay there FOREVER? Do you possess the almost messianic ability to elevate Shia LaBeouf’s on-screen charisma?

You guessed it (or not), your spirit animal is 100% Sasha Lane.

If you haven’t seen American Honey, then you haven’t heard of her. She came out of the blue with a performance both subtle and powerful, and now she’s going to be in all the movies from this moment on. Or she should be, at any rate.

Don’t see your spirit animal there? Worry not. There are many more nominees to choose from, and you can see them all (yes, including Shia LaBeouf) during the Independent Spirit Awards, this Saturday at 2pm PT/5pm ET only on IFC.

Watch More
carnotes3_thumbnail

Car Notes

Portlandia Keeps Road Rage In Park

Get a lesson in parking etiquette on a new Portlandia.

Posted by on

It’s the most American form of cause and effect: Park like a monster, receive a passive-aggressive note.

car notes note

This unofficial rule of the road is critical to keeping the great big wheel of car-related Karma in balance. And naturally, Portlandia’s Kath and Dave have elevated it to an awkward, awkward art form in Car Notes, the Portlandia web series presented by Subaru.

If you’ve somehow missed the memo about Car Notes until now, you can catch up on every installment online, on the IFC app, and on demand. You can even have a little taste right here:

If your interest is piqued – great news for you! A special Car Notes sketch makes an appearance in the latest episode of Portlandia, and you can catch up on it now right here.

Watch all-new Portlandia Thursdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More
MAT_101_blog

Naked and Hungry

Two New Ways to Threeway

IFC's Comedy Crib gets sensual in time for Valentine's Day.

Posted by on

This week, two scandalous new digital series debut on IFC’s Comedy Crib.
Ménage à Trois invites people to participate in a real-life couple’s fantasy boudoir. And The Filling is Mutual follows two saucy chefs who invite comedians to make food inspired by their routines. Each show crosses some major boundaries in sexy and/or delicious ways, and each are impossible to describe in detail without arousing some awkward physical cravings. Which is why it’s best to hear it directly from the minds behind the madness…

Ménage à Trois

According to Diana Kolsky and Murf Meyer, the two extremely versatile constants in the ever-shifting à trois, “MàT is a sensually psychedelic late night variety show exploring matters of hearts, parts and every goddamn thing in between…PS, any nudes will be 100% tasteful.”

This sexy brainchild includes sketches, music, and props that would put Pee-wee’s Playhouse to shame. But how could this fantastical new twist on the vanilla-sex variety show format have come to be?

“We met in a UCB improv class taught by Chris Gethard. It was clear that we both humped to the beat of our own drum; our souls and tongues intermingled at the bar after class, so we dove in head first.”

Sign me up, but promise to go slow. This tricycle is going to need training wheels.

The Filling is Mutual

Comedians Jen Saunderson and Jenny Zigrino became best friends after meeting in the restroom at the Gotham Comedy Club, which explains their super-comfortable dynamic when cooking with their favorite comedians. “We talk about comedy, sex, menses, the obnoxiousness of Christina Aguilera all while eating food that most would push off their New Year’s resolution.”

The hook of cooking food based off of comedy routines is so perfect and so personal. It made us wonder about what dishes Jen & Jenny would pair with some big name comedy staples, like…

Bill Murray?
“Oh, that’s easy Meatballs with Lingonberry Space Jam it’d be great, but then we’d have to Oh, that’s easy Meatballs with Lingonberry Space Jam it’d be great, but then we’d have to… Oh, that’s easy Meatballs with Lingonberry Space Jam it’d be great, but then we’d have to avoid doing any kind of silly Groundhog Day reference.” 

Bridget Everett?
“Cream Balls… Sea Salt encrusted Chocolate Ganache Covered Ice Cream Ball that melt cream when you bite into them.” 

Nick Kroll & John Mulaney? 
“I’d make George and Gil black and white cookies from scratch and just as we open the oven to put the cookie in we’d prank ’em with an obnoxious amount of tuna!!!”

Carrie Brownstein & Fred Armisen? 
“Definitely a raw cacao “safe word” brownie. Cacao!”

Just perfect.

See both new series in their entirety on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet