ScottFeinberg.com

Personally, I never thought you had ulterior or sinister motives in posting that information.

Where I somewhat disagree with you, however, is the idea that the whitewashing of history that happens in The King’s Speech shouldn’t be a factor in its Oscar prospects. In fact, it is one of the biggest failures of most Hollywood biopics to scrub clean all of the flaws, ambiguities, and complications of a historical figure to make them palatable to mainstream audiences and Academy voters. It presents a fantasy version of that history that is not only dishonest, but often dramatically inert. I can only imagine how much more fascinating The King’s Speech would have been had King George VI been presented not only with his (in my opinion relatively minor) problem with public speaking but also his much more severe flaw of bigotry and/or failure to stand up to Nazi Germany in time. But, following the example of such squeaky-clean biopics as The Hurricane and The Pursuit of Happyness, George was perfect! Virtuous! He had absolutely nothing about him that would make audiences uncomfortable! I don’t think anyone should begrudge a voter if they snub Tom Hooper’s film for *that* reason.

Are you actually trying to equate the “importance” of spreading this smear with the Wikileaks situation? Seriously?

You published a smear from someone who didn’t have the guts to reveal their name. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be it came from a competing film and not an aggrieved Academy member? You went ahead and posted it before even trying to establish its veracity.

You say you’ve yet to meet an Academy memeber whose vote was changed based on what you posted. So, you’ve spoken to all 6,000?

Of course you never suggested that this was a reason to not vote for the film or for Firth. But did you honestly fail to see how it could very well have that effect?
Note that the film is no longer considered the front-runner. Maybe a coincidence. Maybe not.

I find all this very amusing. I am Israeli. A Jew. Most major cities here have streets named after George V, George VI’s father, who was the monarch when the White Paper, which legitimizes the right of the Jews to establish a homeland in what was then known as Palestine, and under British rule, was published. Yes, in George VI days the British mandate in Palestine tended to be rather ruthless and inhumane to fugitives of the war (see, for example, EXODUS). But whoever tries to spin this to tarnish THE KING’S SPEECH can easily be refuted with the simple fact that it was still in GEORGE VI days as king that the sate of Israel declared independence, and the British left the region,. So now are we supposed to hail him as a wonderful Zionist? It’s propaganda, and an ignorant one at that. The King’s Speech is a glib film, dealing with trivial anecdotes in times of great turmoil. But if you disqualify glib from the Oscars, you’d be left with vety few films.

very few…

I think it would have been a much better film had it confronted this ambiguous area in George VI’s life and made him a much more interesting character. But then the film probably would never get any Oscar nominations, or even have gotten made.

Every film about a real person should not have to, and cannot, focus on every aspect of that person’s life. Filmmakers have every right to focus on the ways in which a man overcame a debilitating problem (stutterers would agree it’s debilitating, not minor as someone here callously suggested). Should every film about Roosevelt examine what he did or did not know about events in Europe at that time? Films have been made about his struggle with his physical problems, and that’s perfectly legitimate. C’mon.

Scott –

Bravo to a brave man on a brave subject. Thank you for being one of the few true journalists out there with the chutzpa to put out the information that needs putting out without adding any spin to it and, more importantly, not appologizing for doing what needs to be done. If only there were more like you.

Sam Negin

I generally like your blog. However, I was troubled by your original post of the anti-semitism charges leveled against George VI and, by extension, The King’s Speech filmmakers, in an anonymous letter sent to you by a purported member of the academy. I was disturbed by your willingness to publish such sensational charges made by a source whose identity was unknown to you at the time (and still is unknown to you today). “Anonymous sources” are controversial in journalism. Traditional journalism has come down on the side of publishing information from sources who wish to remain anonymous to the reading/viewing public, but who are not allowed to remain anonymous to the journalist and his/her editor. The reason for this is quite simple – journalists must know their sources in order to assess and verify the information provided by their sources before they publish it (if for no other reason than to protect themselves from publishing libelous articles). By your own admission, you did not know the source of the letter you published. Without knowing your source, you could not possibly assess or verify the information he (or she) gave you. For these reasons, I thought you should not have published the anonymous letter or the information it contained.

In today’s post you say that although you did not know your source for your initial post, “the information… checked out.” What information checked out? That George VI was anti-semitic? That TKS filmmakers knew George VI was anti-semitic and deliberately ignored it? That your anonymous source/academy member will not vote for TKS for these reasons? That numerous academy members (as claimed by your anonymous source) will not vote for TKS for these reasons? I do not see how any of this information could have “checked out.” First, the anti-semitism charge against George VI is based on one highly speculative article written eight years ago by the “society” editor of the Guardian, which does not constitute persuasive or even particularly credible historical evidence, let alone generally accepted historical fact. (In fact, there are virtually no other articles on this topic on the web.) Second, since the allegation that George VI was anti-semitic is not an established historical fact, then TKS filmmakers did not ignore or whitewash this spurious “fact” in their film. Third, since you do not know your source, you cannot know whether or not your source, or any other academy members, will withhold their votes from TKS due to this spurious charge against George VI and, by extension, against TKS filmmakers. Indeed, you do not even know that your anonymous source is, in fact, an academy voter.

I don’t think you meant to harm TKS or its filmmakers, but, in fact, I think you did harm their reputations and Oscar prospects by (1) publishing a nasty allegation about George VI as if it was a well-known historical fact that the filmmakers deliberately ignored; and (2) publishing an anonymous letter claiming that numerous members of the academy will not vote for TKS precisely because its filmmakers deliberately ignored and/or whitewashed this spurious “fact.”

In today’s post you say that failing to publish your anonymous letter and its charges would have been “journalistically irresponsible.” I think you are wrong about that -publishing the anonymous letter and its charges was journalistically irresponsible. Not publishing it would have been the responsible thing to do. You should have withheld publication until you knew the identity of your source and verified his (or her) allegations.

I think you were in hot pursuit of a story and it muddled your thinking about your ethical duties as a journalist/blogger. I think traditional journalists have an advantage over bloggers – they have editors and publishers to remind them of their ethical duties; to engage them in ethical discussions in situations like this; to remind them that publishing negative information which they have not verified could result in a lawsuit for libel against both the journalist and his/her news organization; and ultimately, to say “no, we can’t publish that” to them.

I sincerely hope that you have someone in your professional life who can serve as a sounding board for you in the future, so that you do not step into this type of hornets’ nest again.

First, Scott, whoever sent you that email is not Julian Assange. And you are not Bill Keller. That analogy is quite a stretch. But publishing it, much like most leaked documents betraying someone’s true sentiments, was the correct journalistic decision.

That you have interviewed Colin Firth and Harvey Weinstein or chatted them up in a hallway is irrelevant to this argument. The group of people offended by the soft portrayal of George VI in “The Kings Speech”—and I would guess that there are far fewer in reality than suggested in the letter—sound like the same people who protest, for example, the use of racial slurs as satire in “Blazing Saddles” or more recently Robert Downey Jr.’s skewering of hardcore method acting in “Tropic Thunder.” I’ll admit those are extreme instances, but Hollywood is a dream factory. And the hallmark of many prestige biopics and historical dramas is to soften the subject’s nature to win audiences. At no point in “Ray” did we hear of Ray Charles’ children born out of wedlock. (There were about a dozen, I believe.)

King George VI was at worst a cotton-mouthed bigot who openly dismissed the the plight of Jews in the Third Reich and at best a stuttering fool who gave little thought to persecuted Jews’ attempts to flee the Nazi regime for British Palestine. His brother, Edward VIII, became quite chummy with German leaders before and during his brief reign.

All of this is absent from the film not to whitewash the moral wrongdoings of the House of Windsor, but to gussy up the film to make it more palatable for awards voters. “The King’s Speech”—the story of a sick royal being healed by the uncommon commoner—is the most blatant form of Oscar bait. The entire film, however charming, is entirely predictable. But that’s a knock on the director and writer. Firth’s performance is terrific and perhaps only with “A Single Man” has he done better. (Though I think Jeff Bridges’ turn in “Crazy Heart,” another predictable heap of Oscar lure, merited everything he won last year.)

But Nazis, anti-Semitism, and World War II are afterthoughts in “The King’s Speech.” Were those details relevant to Bertie’s speech therapy and omitted, then we would all have plenty of reasons to dismiss the film. But they weren’t vital to the story, and thusly omitted. The war speech at the very end is just a simple denouement.

It’s not about who you’re chummy with or even, in this case, what details are left out. Colin Firth gave the best performance in what will likely be one of the strongest Best Actor fields in a long time. That he gave it in a so-so picture that may have given his character a bit too much moral polish is less important. Hell, Kate Winslet was terrific in “The Reader,” and that movie was garbage.

Chalk it up to the price of admission, but if I had a vote, it’d go to Firth.

Retarded it is only a damn film. If the guy was a asshole in real life, it renders irrelevant do to the fact that movies can only have so much truth. Do to the fact that when the real events happened for which the movie was based on, there was no camera fallowing every single person around, to know exactly what happened. Its a movie showing the problem and how is got solved, the details are irrelevant for any other reason other then just entertainment. Releasing the “breaking” news about the real King during the release of the movie would probably have a reverse affect on people. The movie probably would have gotten more attention, or not affect it at all point is. Would people care about the real king when the movie is JUST a movie, entertainment that entertained me. It did what it supposed to do.

Colin Firth didn’t produce the typical behavior of a stammerer or stutterer. But the one who acted as his brother did when taunting him at a certain occasion in the film. I can’t understand what would have been so superb with Colin Firth’s performance that deserved an award. The one who deserved one was his tutor.
Peter Krauliz