I really don't understand your objection here. George VI couldn't speak publicly, which caused him enormous pain and embarassment, and was well-known to the public. The opening scene really happened; read a biography of George.First, in purely cinematic terms, the scene is not true to life. Which is a flaw in the drama, especially as this scene is meant to dramatize the stakes.Which was true to life. What's your problem?
How is wanting a knighthood automatically a disqualifying factor? It's an honour bestowed by his country. They're distributed annually in the UK to the successful these days, whatever their class origins.A man who wants a knighthood is not a down to earth commoner, Australian or not, and trying to pretend he is questioning the monarchy in some fashion is just the script phonying up the real story. Cf. The Madness of King George for a similar character.
Whose notion? I didn't say the King had nothing to do with rallying support for the war, you did. That was the point of his speech, both in the movie and in real life, where he is recorded as having been a very important figure in the British war effort.The notion that the king had diddly to do with inspiring support for the war is questionable in the extreme.
What?Third, the review was not very positive but it seems to me that the real sting is not about the movie but about its relations to the real world. Or is it possible there's another real world connection validating the movie? Is there a stutterer in your life? There is in mine, which is why I could tolerate watching this movie.
I take issue with your review because you're not actually reviewing the movie, you're attacking it for not being an anti-monarchist polemic, and for some reason you think that the movie is presenting stammerers as cowardly and weak when that's the exact opposite of the movie's message. Heck, the movie was written by a man who had a speech impediment as a child and viewed the King as an inspirational figure.