Friday, 4 February 2011

The King's Speech


I have now finally got to see this much hyped film. As I expected from the trailers and from the various comments and reviews I have read the film is rather a travesty of history, and utterly misrepresents the characters and events of the time. No surprise there then, since it is rare for a commercial feature film to portray historical events with any degree of verisimilitude.

I think that Colin Firth is badly miscast as George, and though he struggles hard with the role he fails to convince chiefly because he is physically so wrong - too tall, too good-looking and altogether too commanding a physical presence. Also Helena Bonham-Carter is perhaps rather too pretty and shapely for Elizabeth. Others, too, are physically wrong for the roles they play, such as Baldwin and Churchill. Guy Pearce on the other hand is very convincing as the raffish and devil-may-care Edward (David) and in fact the believability of his portrayal tends to throw into sharper relief the "wrongness" of Firth as George, as for example, in the scene when Edward mocks and belittles him. The whole scene utterly fails to convince. Some of the other parts, however, are well played and a delight, especially Geoffrey Rush who is brilliant as Dr Logue (though I confess I have no idea what he was actually like), and it is interesting to see Ramona Marquez, so amazing in "Outnumbered" as Princess Margaret Rose.

But much more important than the miscastings, is the general tone of the film and its misrepresentations of the political and social realities of the time. Crucially of course is its depiction of attitudes towards Nazi Germany and the looming threat of war. The film credits many characters, but especially George V (a bit of a dimwit by all accounts) with extraordinary political insight and prescience. He at one point foretells and rails against Britain being squeezed, politically, between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The Royal Family are being recruited into the ranks of anti-appeasers, against all the evidence that they were generally rather non-political, and deeply conservative insofar as they were political at all. Certainly one cannot accept the idea of either George V or George VI as arch anti-appeasers. (At least this film was better, in this respect, than an ITV production I recall from a few years ago which has George, quite ludicrously and unhistorically, attacking Chamberlain's appeasement policy in conversation with Roosevelt on his American tour).
The portrayal of Churchill as a supporter of George, when he was a die-hard supporter of the lost cause of Edward, is also egregiously wrong. Many other things jar horribly, such as Baldwin "telling" George that Chamberlain is to succeed him as PM, rather than merely "advising" him as was of course the constitutional position.
Most egregious of all the historical falsities is of course the final scene, which depicts an event which I am fairly sure never happened, namely the broadcast from Buckingham Palace to the nation on the outbreak of war. Of course it is understandable that the film-makers should need a climactic scene, for dramatic reasons, in which the "hero" overcomes the enemy, or in this case, overcomes his own weakness and inadequacy, and moreover does so in the context of using this personal triumph to rally the nation in a time of peril, for otherwise the film would just tend to trail away. But even if we are to accept this dramatic licence, I can scarcely believe that the broadcast would have happened in the way depicted, with George going out onto the balcony in front of a huge crowd of cheering people. This was horribly, crashingly, glaringly wrong. The nation was surely in a deeply sombre, despondent and apprehensive mood at this precise juncture, and no such scenes would have occurred. This was much more in keeping with the huge outpourings of celebration that occurred at the conclusion of the war, not at its commencement.

All in all an entertaining and stimulating film, well directed, with good production values and some outstanding performances, but badly marred by its historical inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of the attitudes and cast of mind of many of the characters portrayed.




Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Caro-Kann Defence, Panov Attack, B14 - New Analysis

Opening books, it seems to me, very often fail to include analysis of moves which are natural and perfectly playable in standard openings.

A case in point is the Panov Attack in the Caro Kann where after the standard moves:- 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Qb3 the only move given is 6...Bg7, gambitting the pawn. This is fine if Black wants to go in for a speculative pawn sac, but it is by no means forced. There seems to me to be no reason why Black cannot simply play 6...e6, holding the centre, or even 6...dxc4, though I think 6...e6 is the better of the two.
I have done some extensive computer analysis of these lines and they seem OK for Black, though almost never played. Yet opening manuals, such as Jacob Aagaard's "Easy Guide to the Panov-Botvinnik Attack" (Cadogan 1998) fail to mention these moves entirely and take it as read that Black has to go in for the gambit line. Why this omission? Probably pressure of time and space, but it can create the misleading idea that they are unplayable and thus cause players of the White pieces to consume a lot of time and energy trying to refute it at the board if they are ever confronted by it - when in fact there is no "refutation" to be found.

No sooner had I posted these thoughts on the ECF Forum than it was pointed out to me that in fact Topalov had played 6...e6 against Gashimov at the recent Nanjing Pearl tournament, getting a draw in 40 odd moves. All the more strange then for the omission of any analysis of 6...e6 in any of the manuals.

Sunday, 31 October 2010

GMT and putting the clocks back

Now that we have arrived at my favourite day of the year, when the clocks go back and we can all have an extra hour of slumber, there is the predictable and tiresome chorus of nincompoops who want us to stay on British Summer Time all the year round. It is bad enough having to endure this abomination for six months, never mind about all year round. I say let us stay on the time zone we were clearly meant to be on, viz good old GMT, all year round. I know there are the silly arguments from the Eurofanatics that it will put us on the same time zone as the rest of Europe, but does this matter in the slightest. I don't believe any less business is going to be transacted in six hours than in eight, and if people are that obsessed with the number of co-ordinate hours of transaction time we might just as well put the clocks back by eight hours to be on the same time zone as California.
I remember the experiment with this back in the early seventies when it was sensibly abandoned because it meant those in Scotland were getting up in pitch darkness. Whatever time zone you are on there is difficulty but we might just as well stick with the natural one.

Friday, 29 October 2010

Chess Leveller - new blogsite has arrived!!!

Greetings to all and sundry. The new Chess Leveller blogsite is now here, hosted by yours truly. I intend the blog to be chiefly concerned with chess matters, but also covering the full range of my interests and pre-occupations including politics, history, current affairs, sport, games other than chess, books, film, television, art, theatre etc.

Please feel free to contribute anything and everything that might be pertinent to these subjects.