The King’s Speech is an amazing movie.
You should all see it.
Let me describe it though so that you don’t just go based on my advice; it is the story of King George VI (1895-1952), who was king of the UK during WWII, and had a speech impediment.

Albert (Colin Firth) doesn’t even want to be king, and lives a quiet life with his wife (Helen Bonham Carter) and daughters. He suffers from a stutter he has had ever since he was a child, made worse by his family’s constant teasing and familial neglect. He begins to see a speech therapist (Geoffrey Rush), a commoner who uses his knowledge of theatre to help people with their speech defects via unorthodox means. However, when his brother Edward abdicates the throne to marry an American divorcee, he must take the throne, becoming King George VI, and come to terms with his fear and inability to make public speeches. To make matters worse, Hitler is on the march in Germany, and the King must compete with his charisma. His speeches will affect the course of history.

The movie is really exciting, dramatic, inspiring, all that jazz. It makes you consider politics, and where nowadays we would accept a politician who isn’t comfortable speaking in the public arena. Luckily for George VI, his speeches were mostly played via radio (and you can look up the authentic speeches he delivered, as my friend Grace and I did after watching the movie). However, in today’s world, his stutter would certainly be caught on camera, and what would come of his career then? I want your input on whether one qualification we should look at in a politician is his ability to deliver charismatic, motivational public speeches, or whether that is simply a symptom of our being swept away by all the glitz and glamor?

Comments are closed.