Søren

Again, “gorgeous” is subjective – I didn’t find Valhalla Rising or Drive to be particularly beautiful. Just long and dreary cinematic meditations that Refn seemed to think were much deeper than they actually were. Talk about not being sold on the story – all I could think about were Refn’s camera choices. I know what you’re saying about modern comedies and I agree. I wasn’t comparing the styles as similar in technique, but in how they come across to the audience. No one thinks about the cinematography in Along Came Polly, and I didn’t think about the cinematography in The King’s Speech. It may have come across to you as intentionally “artsy,” but I got no such vibe.

Josh

So then, in your opinion, why did Hooper include all those shots? Because it’s not like they aren’t there. He wants you to think about the cinematography, clearly, or else he wouldn’t have done them.

Søren

They’re there, but those shots seemed to have that effect on you where you felt Hooper was trying to force you to think about the camera. For me, they were simple classical Hollywood takes that kept me in the film and didn’t draw any particular attention to themselves. Potato potato, or some such relevant cliché.

Josh

This is a classical Hollywood take? With the weird framing and the subtle-to-the-point-of-pointless dutch angle?

Søren

Yeah, sure. It’s classical in that it’s unobtrusive, fleeting, and keeps me grounded in the film. I’ve seen the movie several times and never noticed those slight Dutch angles at all.

Josh

I can’t understand how that shot is unobtrusive. It draws attention to itself in the worst way. Also, if you never noticed the slight Dutch angles, that kind of proves my point about Hooper. He’s doing pointlessly artsy things. If those little shifts aren’t noticeable, then what other reason would he have for doing them?

(At this point, our mutual friend JP entered the conversation to offer her take.)

JP

Hmm, I don’t mean to butt in, but I just wanted to offer my take on the cinematography in The King’s Speech. I always felt that the shots where Firth is not in the center of the frame were done so to illustrate the feeling of an overwhelming environment that his character is so disrupted by. He is so small compared to his surroundings, when he is supposed to be a big, powerful leader – he is supposed to be front and center, and in the lead, but he doesn’t feel that way at all.

I think it is a purposeful choice of composition which does further the feeling of the film, not to mention is aesthetically appealing. It makes the viewer feel trapped and pushed to the side, as King George felt, and it conveys the tension that he is feeling – as you begin to identify with him as a character, when he is squished to the side in a frame, you feel that uncomfortable squish as well. At least, that was how I felt and interpreted the shots while watching. I thought that it added a fresh breath of air to a film that easily could have become another tedious and mundane historical biopic.

Josh

I really like that interpretation. I really do. In fact, I might be inclined to buy into it. That is, if Hooper wasn’t doing the exact same thing in Les Mis.

Søren

Well it could be that he had only one good idea and he’s sort of running with it. That happens to artists, alas. Some directors only have one or two good films in them, and then they burn out. Same goes for authors. But I agree with JP – those awkward shots of him on Rush’s couch sort of emphasize how uncomfortable he is addressing his stammer. As for your comment, Josh… For me, it could be that those small additions (the minor Dutch angles, for example) keep the film feeling unique and slightly “off,” so as to separate it from other biopics (as JP mentioned).

Even if it’s only working on a subliminal level, I see no harm in it. At best, it’s a purposefully subtle way of keeping the audience feeling engaged, and at worst, it’s an irrelevant choice that doesn’t really affect the proceedings one way or the other.

Josh

Okay, I’m pulling out the big guns. Film Crit Hulk is a brilliant writer and more knowledgable about film than most people on the internet. His takedown of Tom Hooper is definitely worth a read if you want to understand what I’m trying to get at.