MovieChat Forums > The King's Speech (2010) Discussion > Why wasn´t it recorded?

Why wasn´t it recorded?

posted 9 years ago by Aticusfinch
4 replies | jump to latest

This is a typical situation where many people, myself included, would say :"There´s obviously a huge plothole going on here, why did they run the risk of having the speech aired live, why didn´t they run a recording?" But it no plothole because, as it seems, this is how it actually happened.

But the questions still stands, why didn´t they first record the speech and afterwards have it broadcast? This is for instance what emperor Hirohito did in the famous speech, where he announced Japan´s surrender. I don´t understand why George VI couldn´t have done the same.

[–] varunthedragon-931-766034 9 years ago

Because it matters how he presents it. His father used to give live speeches and his stutter is common knowledge. If it was recorded, it would shatter public faith in the government,something that was already at a low after David's sudden abdication(regardless of actual power, the king is still the official head of state). For ending a war, a recording seems okay but for starting one, especially when Germany will be intently listening, it needs to be done live if he's gonna inspire troops.

[–] buxtehude99 8 years ago

They could have recorded it, but there was no way to edit "takes". Remember, there's no magnetic tape at this point in history.

[–] Trax-3 8 years ago

magnetic tape

Additionally, only magnetic recording could have created the illusion of a live performance - records of the time could not have pulled it off.

I seem to recall that the Germans, who invented it, used it for the purpose of faking live transmissions.

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

Maybe there wasn't enough time for that. Or because of psychological factors (inspiration for example).

They could have also used another man with similar voice instead of the king. :D