The King’s Speech: The film to beat and to bad-mouth

Recently,the movie,about a stammering British monarch and his rhetorical struggle with the Nazis,won the ensemble cast award from the Screen Actors Guild,as well as an individual award for its star,Colin Firth. The film also picked up a prize for its director,Tom Hooper,from the Directors Guild of America,the previous day.

The movie had already been named the year’s outstanding film by the Producers Guild of America,and picked up 12 Oscar nominations,to lead a field that includes True Grit,The Fighter and The Social Network,among others.

While the film is small,with a budget estimated at only about $15 million,and its performance at the box-office is still relatively modest—it reached $72 million after more than two months in theatre—it has so far gone down like a plateful of comfort food.

Its themes are familiar (friendship and the overcoming of personal demons). Its story is uplifting. (All turns out well.) And its anti-Nazi stance is a draw. (Oscar voters have been perennially attracted to films like The English Patient,Saving Private Ryan,Schindler’s List and The Reader.)

But the Oscar ballots are not in the mail yet. Those were dispatched to the 5,755 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with camera-ready publicity flourish at the academy’s Beverly Hills headquarters at 10 a.m. last Wednesday.

And before those ballots come due on February 22,an army of competing Oscar strategists will be probing for any sign that The King’s Speech can be beaten.

In the last few weeks,a flurry of news reports and Internet banter have chewed over questions about the real King George,particularly whether he was actually less than stalwart in his opposition to the Third Reich.

Christopher Hitchens wrote on Slate.com that the king was devoted to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement,and “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.”

So far,there has been no sign that any stain on the real George has tainted the more heroic portrayal by Firth.

Nor is it clear that any competitor has circulated such reports,in possible violation of an academy rule that forbids “casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film.” A year ago something like that happened when Nicolas Chartier,a producer of The Hurt Locker,sent academy voters an e-mail urging votes for his movie over Avatar,then seen as its main competitor. Chartier was banned from the awards ceremony,but his film won the best picture Oscar anyway.

That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been some not-so-subtle jabs thrown around. Daily Variety carried an advertisement boldly proclaiming Paramount’s True Grit,with its 10 Oscar nominations,to be the “most honoured American movie” of the year—lest anyone forget that The King’s Speech is a vote to send the top Oscar offshore. The Weinstein Company has had a battery of publicists poised to respond to any negativity with countermeasures that point to the film’s authenticity and the king’s integrity.

Said David Glasser,the Weinstein Company’s chief operating officer,“A lot of time and planning went into writing the screenplay and making the movie,to ensure the accuracy of this picture.”

And it is lost on few here that a primary competitor,The Social Network,has also faced questions about the veracity of its portrayal of the Facebook entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg.

Early in the awards season The Social Network ran strong with the critics and picked up a string of awards,including a Golden Globe for best drama. But none of those honours came from groups heavy with Oscar voters.

In recent history no film has swept the top awards from the directors guild,the producers guild and the actors guild and then failed to win the best picture Oscar. No Country for Old Men (2008) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2004) each won the top prize on Oscar night after winning at all three guilds.

Still,a possible threat may come from a relatively new Oscar voting system in the best picture category. Publicists who represent films other than The King’s Speech—point out that preferential balloting that was put in place in 2009,when the academy doubled its field of best picture nominees to 10,means that the movie with the largest number of first-place votes,at least in theory,can lose to a film with a strong second-place showing.

So the key to winning this year may lie in being everybody’s second choice. Or so goes the theory among those who are not backing The King’s Speech,which,so far,is a clear No. 1.