Having said the above, the film lacked ambition: it prefered to show "Bertie" and his wife in a good light, whilst showing "David" and Miss Simpson in a bad light; it set up Churchill as a man on the right side of history with both the royal family and the upcoming war; and it never challenged the concept of a royal family.
I think any discussion of the film's "ambition" have to be put into context with David Seidler's initial intentions for his play (as it was originally planned).
Seidler grew up during the war, and was himself a stammerer. George VI was a great hero of his, because of the way he overcame his own condition to lead the country during it's "darkest hour". The script was therefore always going to be aimed at a "triumph in the face of adversity" angle rather than any historical revisionism. TBF, I don't think it's a story that was previously all that well known - off the top of my head,
Hope and Glory is the only other film I can think of which has touched on Bertie's stammering, and there haven't been many documentaries about it.
The respective portrayals of Bertie and David may seem cliched, but form a pretty accurate representation of how many felt about them at the time (and in many cases, still feel: you should hear what my mother has to say about Simpson...)
I do agree with you about Churchill, though. His views regarding the abdication were complicated and fascinating, but would have almost certainly unbalanced the film if portayed accurately. I suspect his inclusion was mainly to give foreign audiences a recognizable "anchor point" for the controversy. Also: much as I love Timothy Spall as an actor, I do think he was miscast in this particular role...
reply
share