Skip to main content

The King’s Speech - the real synopsis



Synopsis: About a grossly privileged twat who has to overcome his stuttering problem so that he can say, ‘let’s live off the hard work of the masses’, instead of ‘let’s l-l-l-ive of the ha-ha-ha-hard wer-wer-wer-work aw-aw-aw-off duh-duh-duh-the mmm-mmm-mmm-mmm-ass-ass-ass-ass-ass......’

Well, this git - ‘king’ George the 6th - might stutter that to his cronies, but that doesn’t mean that he, and others of his ilk, pause even for a moment when he thinks it, or does it - same goes for the British ‘royal’ family today. And whilst we are empathising with this knob, let’s not forget that millions were dying for ‘king and country’ all over the world. I’m talking about the colonised peoples. So who gives a far-far-far-*k about Georgie's stutter.

(same thing goes for another rubbish film, ‘The Titanic’ where a white boy shouts out, ‘i’m king of the world’, whilst millions were at the same time dying under the hands of the colonialists - you won’t see a blockbuster being created out of that. This is how we are taught to devalue the grossly exploitative capitalist past of human history through identification at some 'human' level with the relatively privileged people of the past and present.)

At the end of the day, to empathise with the human problems that these exploiters have serves to detract our attention from their inhumanity to the rest of humanity via our identification with them at some level.
Perhaps the revolutionaries who lopped off Marie Antoinette’s head might not have done so if they had theatrical performances sympathising with her for that zit on her nose which she had been trying to get rid off for ages. “Awww...poor thing. Never mind our starving children, she’s got her own problems, and I've got those zits too”, i can almost hear them saying, if they had less than half a brain that is. If Hollywood existed back then, or if people were stupid enough to make celebrities out of mere entertainers, the French Revolution would never have happened. Well, thankfully, they got rid of their hallowed aristocracy. When are the Brits going to pull their heads out of their asses and get rid of theirs? (though i don’t support depriving anyone of their heads or lives. Terrible thing about the French revolution that...and also the shooting of the Romanov family in Russia....amongst others. I think that they should just be exiled to some island as was Napoleon. Oh, by the by, did you know that just about all the 'royal' families in Europe are related by blood? You could say that the 'glorious dead' of ww1 were victims of a family squabble amongst the privileged. 'Glorious fools' would be more accurate.)

At the end of the day, to empathise with the human problems that these exploiters have serves to detract our attention from their inhumanity to the rest of humanity via our identification with them at some level. To give this rubbish movie an overly-vaunted Oscar is, in essence, to promote and reinforce that. But you can't expect the actors starring in the movie to know all that. They are, after all, just actors.

The BBC article on this rubbish goes, ‘Oscars 2011: The King’s Speech reigns’. Well, according to the gospel of ed, that’s because the masses have yet to free their imagination off the blinkers and reins of the privileged.


ed

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…