When making a film based on a person in a position of power, like a state head or a leader of a political party, one has to be careful about how they are written or portrayed; if they are seen as flawless or too sympathetic, then you can be accused of idolatry; however, portray them overtly evil or just twisted like a Saturday morning cartoon villain, then you can be accused of bias or just lazy writing. Take, for example Bruno Ganz’s and Robert Carlyle’s portrayal of Hitler in Downfall (Der Untergang) and Hitler: The Rise of Evil respectively; Ganz’s portrayal is of an downtrodden Hitler who has built up a proud nation but due to his arrogance and hatred it is all falling down around him, it’s not a sympathetic performance (which is impossible when the character is Hitler) but it is more realistic, Hitler is a genocidal madman but he is human; however, Carlyle’s portrayal was more cartoonish and was so unsubtle it would be more sublime to have Hitler wearing a top hat and tying Europa to the train tracks of tyranny. Now, I’m not saying you can justify Hitler’s actions, but he wasn’t a demon sent from the very depths of Hell. And now after that long and unrelated diatribe, let’s look at The King’s Speech
