It would be a damn shame, although it would be a perfect sign of the times, having a film about the narcissists who started Facebook, win out over a story about triumphing over adversity.
“It would be a damn shame, although it would be a perfect sign of the times, having a film about the narcissists who started Facebook, win out over a story about triumphing over adversity.”
Firstly, just because the movie is about a narcissist (or someone with narcissistic tendencies) doesn’t mean it celebrated narcissism. Actually, the main character was sort of the villain. Secondly, at least he was a self-made man. And though his product was unecessary and perhaps socially destructive (not that people were getting along in the old fashioned way beforehand), it was what the people wanted. He’s a true entreprenuer.
The King, on the other hand, is a useful figure for the culture in which he lived. We don’t need one, but the British are used to it. Anyway, if you’re going to have a king, he’s the sort you’d want, from what little I know. In the very least he was a triumph compared to his predecessor. However, is anyone going to seriously argue his role was necessary when you had Churchill to make speeches for you? Does anyone outside of rabid royalists study his speeches—or his life as a whole, for that matter?
Aside from the general overemphasis on politics, there is the old aristocratic bias at work here. I, for one, think it’s perfectly okay for a Horatio Alger story (if characters in Alger stories were pricks who struck it rich making superficial trinkets) to win over a silver spoon story. Then again, The King’s Speech also has Geoffrey Rush’s character, so maybe I’m talking out my rear.