Care to pm me with #$*&!*! words used in Kings's Speech to determine if we'll see it?

[sheryl]

I understand this is an excellent movie and has won or being nominated for many awards. However, there is swearing in it. While I understand the use of words were used to help his tongue, were they bad? I'd like to see it as a family....dh, me and almost 12 yo dd, but if there is foul language I will not. If foul language was used, wouldn't other words that are similar in pronounciation have the same effect?

 

So, can you discreetly somehow (leaving a letter out) tell me the offensive word/s? PLEASE PM ME!

 

Thanks!

[CAMom]

I know you said to PM but others might be interested in the answer. :)

 

The main usage of the swearing is in one particular scene. It's a string of words including the "f-word".

 

There are one or two other scenes where it's done again on a much lesser scale.

 

And, no. Other words that sound the same would not have had the same effect in context. The point was that when he was specifically spouting out swear words he did not stammer.

[sheryl]

I know you said to PM but others might be interested in the answer. :)

 

The main usage of the swearing is in one particular scene. It's a string of words including the "f-word".

 

There are one or two other scenes where it's done again on a much lesser scale.

 

Ah, thanks. Yep, that's a pretty offensive word for us. Why couldn't they have used fork? :lol:

[Jane Elliot]

Just fyi. We use this when we watch a DVD and want to cut that stuff out.

[sheryl]

Thanks Luann, I'm checking it out now.

[blessdmommy]

We always read the kids-in-mind reviews for movies we are considering watching as a family. They are extremely thorough in their descriptions.

 

Here is the link to their review of The King's Speech

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/k/kingsspeech.htm

 

They rate the profanity a 6 out of 10

 

PROFANITY 6 - About 12 F-words, 1 sexual reference, 12 scatological terms, 4 anatomical terms, 4 mild obscenities, exclamations (bloody), name-calling (coward, egg-head, peculiar, buggars, mad, bravery), 1 religious exclamation.

Edited February 7, 2011 by blessdmommy

[Dolphin]

I always check plugged in online first. It gives all spoilers for the family, but if I am taking my kids I don't mind. Here is the review for the Kings Speech

[Mary in VA]

We DO NOT swear in our family. We don't use s*ck, or any other words that others find borderline or substitutes either. I find profanity offensive. I do not remember ever going to an R rated movie before and wouldn't take my children to one.

 

That being said, there are no substitutes that could be used in this movie. His speech therapist asked him to swear, and after using one word repeatedly asked him about the "F" word. The King said "Fornication?" (actually very funny) The therapist said, "No" and had him go on and use the "F" word. He strung many swear words together in the speech exercise. The whole point being that for some reason stutterers do not stutter when swearing. In a couple of other scenes the profanity was used to get the flow of his speading going when he got stuck. He used singing what he wanted to say when he got stuck too. The profanities were just used as a speech therapy tool.

 

When we left the theater I asked my husband if he had been offended and he said absolutely not, it was as if they were just syllables and nothing more.

 

I will take my 16 yo dd to it as soon as we can find the time. I probably would have taken her when she was younger and just explained what was coming. We shielded our kids from profanity much more when they were younger, but they certainly couldn't avoid hearing the words. They know they are offensive and that we don't use them. They also see that many times people who use them have very unimaginative vocabularies. :001_smile:

 

If you're that concerned about it, see it yourself now and let your children watch a filtered DVD once it comes out. I'd still HIGHLY recommended this movie to any adult. It is the best movie my dh and I have seen in YEARS!!

 

Check out the World magazine review online. They liked it too!

 

HTH,

Mary

 

ETA: I went back and re-read your post and see your child is 11. As much as I loved the movie, I'm not sure I would take a 11 yo.There were definitely adult themes, the Prince of Wales affair with a married woman, the impending war with Germany, in addition to the language. I personally would feel comfortable with a mature 14 yo and above. Of course so much depends on the individual child!

 

I left the theater VERY THANKFUL that George VI was King of Enland during WWII and not his brother, who ultimately was a NAZI sympathizer and fan of Hitler, in addition to having terrible morals! (I researched after the movie)

Edited February 7, 2011 by Mary in VA

[Laurie4b]

Ah, thanks. Yep, that's a pretty offensive word for us. Why couldn't they have used fork? :lol:

 

Expletives are stored in a different part of the brain than normal speech, which is why people who have had a stroke and can't talk can sometimes cuss. So it's actually realistic, not gratuitous.

[Beth S]

I'm sensitive to cussing & hate the way it ruins movies. I hate all the cussing my dd hears at our local community colege.

 

But we were warned ahead of time about the reason for the R-rating, and both my dh and I had no problem in this instance. (IMHO, you can just wait for the DVD to avoid any encounter with the cussing . . . but the movie was SO excellent that it is possible to overlook this component.)

 

And I will try not to spoil the movie for others here.

 

The cussing is dictated as part of his (Colin Firth's character's) unconventional therapy, and both the f-word and the s-word are repeated in a row (20 times?).

 

From my dh's and my perspective, true cussing is meant to be shocking, and these 2 words especially are usually combined with other words in a sentence to form "inappropriate" visual images. Just saying the word 20 times does not have that same effect.

 

My dh and I loved Colin Firth's subtle acting in 1995 P&P, and he absolutely nails the subtle facial expressions and diction needed to characterize the Duke of York's predicament. An Academy Award for Best Actor will have been WELL earned.

 

Go see it in the theater . . . or at least plan to buy the DVD when it comes out!

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Expletives are stored in a different part of the brain than normal speech, which is why people who have had a stroke and can't talk can sometimes cuss. So it's actually realistic, not gratuitous.

 

I have no clue whether they're stored in a different part of the brain or not, but yes, profanities are treated differently by the brain. That's why some Tourette people cannot stop swearing. They can't substitute the word 'fork' for the other F word.

 

At first, I thought it was just because of the emotional component behind a swear word, but we can see in the movie that it's not. While there is some actual swearing (with the least offensive words), most of the swearing is used as speech exercises. The actual swearing is needed for the speech therapist to realise the lack of stutter. It's actually very striking.

 

I would not turn away from this movie because of the words that are used. It's not gratuitous swearing. It's not just an emotional discharge. Those words are a true part of the story. (well, 'true' as in 'inherent'. I have no clue if King George ever used those specific words or not...)

 

Oh, did you know that my grandparents dined with King George? Too bad they're gone from this world, I could have asked them about the stutter ...

[FaithManor]

Well, I am no fan of swearing, much less gratuitious swearing and we avoid a lot of movies because of it. But, the scriptwriters/directors were being true to the event, to the history. This was a real life, pivotal event for King George. Many who have speech issues will have a "sphere" of speech in which the impediment stops. For James Earl Jones, he stuttered terribly as a child, but in high school a literature teacher discovered that if he "read lines", as in "acting" so that he was projecting another personality and not his own, or even reading poetry aloud, he would stop stammering. Though not a speech therapist, she used this to encourage him out of his shell and into normal speech patterns.

 

We have a 4-H member in our group that stuttered quite badly, but she could sing. She was a shy little bird but another music teacher and I put her through a serious round of voice lessons having her train on a variety of styles, even foreign languages, culminating in a little rapping, and then to chanting in rhythms, then to practiced conversations, and finally to impromptu speech. She'd had a lot of speech therapy and nothing worked, but this did. She now only rarely stammers and that's usually when she's over tired.

 

Much of what this was about for King George was emotional release....just letting go, wild, unfettered, un edited, not thinking before speaking, just letting a massive amount of repression OUT! His speech therapist recognized that since he could "swear" without stuttering and also, for those that edit themselves and try not to use vulgarity, likely to then cause a strong physical release when shouted, he used this as a defining moment in getting George to take a step beyond himself. You can imagine the pressure/stress a child of the King of England at that point in history would feel if he was "second rate" due to a speech problem that was widely looked down upon by the high society minds of the day. The guy had to have had a volcano of repressed emotions that had never come out, a ticking time bomb.

 

The scriptwriter could have conveyed a lot about the story without the language, but the scene is more powerful and the historical integrity of the event runs true with the language intact. Still, I understand the complaint. Do we have to have every single vulgarity/immorality/offense/violence dictated to us blow by blow in order to understand the historical gravity of any event?? History is messy. I know I don't always want or appreciate every detail shoved in my face! So, it's really hard to draw that line.

 

So, again, we are a conservative house and I don't appreciate the language for what it is. But, I can appreciate how the speech therapist made use of it to help the king.

 

I once let a little boy with severe speech problems (related to having been abused by his bio parents) in a kindergarten class that I was teaching, go with me to the janitor's office and let him "rip" so to speak...some of which wasn't too nice! But, his emotions had just morphed so badly that day and he was making this absolutely valiant effort to hold it together. The longer he tried to hold it together, the more he stuttered until it got to the place he just couldn't say anything at all and was sitting in the corner, crying quietly to himself. I asked my aide to stay with the class while we went for a private walk. He let loose for about ten minutes. When it was over, his speech had improved dramatically. It was worth enduring the shouting, obscenities, name calling of his parents, screaming at me (though it was actually only frustration about his academics and not disrespect for me), hatred towards kids who teased him, etc. That became a regular trip for us...watching him carefully, waiting until he was close to not handling it anymore, and then having our little walk to the janitor's office. Over time, those trips became more and more rare and by the end of the year, he'd learned to express himself much more appropriately. I guess because of this experience, I have a little different perspective.

 

My boys will have to be a bit more mature in order to watch the movie. They aren't mentally there yet where they can really separate this into some nice, neat, philosophical boxes and so, we'll wait.

 

Wow! I ended up being rather long winded along with some rambling! My apologies everyone.

 

Faith

[DarcyB]

I'm going to add, besides the actual real life experience that stutters have, and singing and swearing are often ways of them to be able to express or speak without the stutter, this was a pivotal moment for the character! It was a time when he realized that there were times when he could express without the stutter, and it wasn't necessarily about the words themselves.

 

He had a strong, powerful voice when he could use it without the stutter. He could come out of his built-up shell put on him by his father and his brother and his life. It was an epiphany for him. It's integral to the story, and it is not gratuitous at all.

 

However, if your daughter hasn't been exposed to the words, and you haven't had talks about what those words mean, it might be best if you saw it without her, or at home using filtering equipment.

 

But as adults, it's one movie where I would say the swearing is not done in a profane manner at all, and shouldn't be viewed as such.

[sheryl]

OK, thanks everyone and Faith, no, you were not rambling....very interesting and glad your little guy was able to improve. That's a goal everyone should have...to improve oneself.

[JVA]

Well, I am no fan of swearing, much less gratuitious swearing and we avoid a lot of movies because of it. But, the scriptwriters/directors were being true to the event, to the history. This was a real life, pivotal event for King George. Many who have speech issues will have a "sphere" of speech in which the impediment stops. For James Earl Jones, he stuttered terribly as a child, but in high school a literature teacher discovered that if he "read lines", as in "acting" so that he was projecting another personality and not his own, or even reading poetry aloud, he would stop stammering. Though not a speech therapist, she used this to encourage him out of his shell and into normal speech patterns.

 

We have a 4-H member in our group that stuttered quite badly, but she could sing. She was a shy little bird but another music teacher and I put her through a serious round of voice lessons having her train on a variety of styles, even foreign languages, culminating in a little rapping, and then to chanting in rhythms, then to practiced conversations, and finally to impromptu speech. She'd had a lot of speech therapy and nothing worked, but this did. She now only rarely stammers and that's usually when she's over tired.

 

Much of what this was about for King George was emotional release....just letting go, wild, unfettered, un edited, not thinking before speaking, just letting a massive amount of repression OUT! His speech therapist recognized that since he could "swear" without stuttering and also, for those that edit themselves and try not to use vulgarity, likely to then cause a strong physical release when shouted, he used this as a defining moment in getting George to take a step beyond himself. You can imagine the pressure/stress a child of the King of England at that point in history would feel if he was "second rate" due to a speech problem that was widely looked down upon by the high society minds of the day. The guy had to have had a volcano of repressed emotions that had never come out, a ticking time bomb.

 

The scriptwriter could have conveyed a lot about the story without the language, but the scene is more powerful and the historical integrity of the event runs true with the language intact. Still, I understand the complaint. Do we have to have every single vulgarity/immorality/offense/violence dictated to us blow by blow in order to understand the historical gravity of any event?? History is messy. I know I don't always want or appreciate every detail shoved in my face! So, it's really hard to draw that line.

 

So, again, we are a conservative house and I don't appreciate the language for what it is. But, I can appreciate how the speech therapist made use of it to help the king.

 

I once let a little boy with severe speech problems (related to having been abused by his bio parents) in a kindergarten class that I was teaching, go with me to the janitor's office and let him "rip" so to speak...some of which wasn't too nice! But, his emotions had just morphed so badly that day and he was making this absolutely valiant effort to hold it together. The longer he tried to hold it together, the more he stuttered until it got to the place he just couldn't say anything at all and was sitting in the corner, crying quietly to himself. I asked my aide to stay with the class while we went for a private walk. He let loose for about ten minutes. When it was over, his speech had improved dramatically. It was worth enduring the shouting, obscenities, name calling of his parents, screaming at me (though it was actually only frustration about his academics and not disrespect for me), hatred towards kids who teased him, etc. That became a regular trip for us...watching him carefully, waiting until he was close to not handling it anymore, and then having our little walk to the janitor's office. Over time, those trips became more and more rare and by the end of the year, he'd learned to express himself much more appropriately. I guess because of this experience, I have a little different perspective.

 

My boys will have to be a bit more mature in order to watch the movie. They aren't mentally there yet where they can really separate this into some nice, neat, philosophical boxes and so, we'll wait.

 

Wow! I ended up being rather long winded along with some rambling! My apologies everyone.

 

Faith

 

Thank you for such a descriptive explanation. I understand it much better now.

[Beth S]

I did not notice that your dd was 11.

I don't think I would ever take an 11yo to an R rated film, just as a matter of precedence when they become teenagers!

("But MOM, you took me to an R-rated movie yourself when I was 11!!) Sigh.

:glare:

[PinkInTheBlue]

I agree with what everyone else has already said. There is A LOT of language, which I normally despise but this...just...wasn't the same. It never offended or annoyed me, which is pretty much amazing. I also do not like my 14 or 12 year to be around language much because what you hear you tend to use in moments of thoughtlessness. I would like to take them to see this though. Loved it!

 

Obviously I wouldn't take the 4 year old. :)

[sheryl]

I'm going to add, besides the actual real life experience that stutters have, and singing and swearing are often ways of them to be able to express or speak without the stutter, this was a pivotal moment for the character! It was a time when he realized that there were times when he could express without the stutter, and it wasn't necessarily about the words themselves.

 

He had a strong, powerful voice when he could use it without the stutter. He could come out of his built-up shell put on him by his father and his brother and his life. It was an epiphany for him. It's integral to the story, and it is not gratuitous at all.

 

However, if your daughter hasn't been exposed to the words, and you haven't had talks about what those words mean, it might be best if you saw it without her, or at home using filtering equipment.

 

But as adults, it's one movie where I would say the swearing is not done in a profane manner at all, and shouldn't be viewed as such.

 

OK Darcy, thanks! The wtm reviews all confirm each other.

[sheryl]

I agree with what everyone else has already said. There is A LOT of language, which I normally despise but this...just...wasn't the same. It never offended or annoyed me, which is pretty much amazing. I also do not like my 14 or 12 year to be around language much because what you hear you tend to use in moments of thoughtlessness. I would like to take them to see this though. Loved it!

 

Obviously I wouldn't take the 4 year old. :)

 

Thanks to you too, Jessica!

[buddhabelly]

On NPR today, I heard that swearing is from a different part of the brain, a more primitive part. It is more like a dog barking than speech. I can't remember the context of this story, but it wasn't "The King's Speech." BTW, I'm going to take my 11-year-old to see it. He'll be 12 by the time we get around to it (so it might be DVD at that point). There are also some references to sexuality between Wallis Simpson and Edward, but it would probably go over the heads of the younger ones. It is kind of like the purported phone calls between Charles and Camilla while he was still married to Diana, but not as.....graphic. They use euphemisms....and the only reason that adults would understand what is referenced is because you know (from history and from the movie) how completely loony they were for each other.

 

Julie

[Laura Corin]

Ah, thanks. Yep, that's a pretty offensive word for us. Why couldn't they have used fork? :lol:

 

Just as he doesn't stutter when he sings.

 

Laura

[kalphs]

I understand this is an excellent movie and has won or being nominated for many awards. However, there is swearing in it. While I understand the use of words were used to help his tongue, were they bad? I'd like to see it as a family....dh, me and almost 12 yo dd, but if there is foul language I will not. If foul language was used, wouldn't other words that are similar in pronounciation have the same effect?

 

So, can you discreetly somehow (leaving a letter out) tell me the offensive word/s? PLEASE PM ME!

 

Thanks!

Thank you for starting this thread! :)

[goldberry]

Just fyi. We use this when we watch a DVD and want to cut that stuff out.

 

Sorry if hijacking, but does that really work? I would love to buy it if you have had good experiences.

[Jilly]

I agree with what everyone else has already said. There is A LOT of language, which I normally despise but this...just...wasn't the same. It never offended or annoyed me, which is pretty much amazing. I also do not like my 14 or 12 year to be around language much because what you hear you tend to use in moments of thoughtlessness. I would like to take them to see this though. Loved it!

 

Obviously I wouldn't take the 4 year old. :)

 

:iagree:

I took my twins to see this today. It was a wonderful movie that we all loved. My son told me after that it was the best movie he has ever seen. :001_smile:

[mazakaal]

Oh, did you know that my grandparents dined with King George? Too bad they're gone from this world, I could have asked them about the stutter ...

 

How cool! Did they ever tell you about it? What was the occassion?

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

How cool! Did they ever tell you about it? What was the occassion?

 

http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/05/17/13913/

 

My grandparents were dignitaries (my grandfather was chief justice, I think that's the English equivalent). So they were invited to official dinners all the time. This one was a tad more special than usual.

 

No, they never mentionned it. By the time I was old enough, it was 'ancient history' . It came up once in a conversation after they had died. My mom was 6yo at the time, I should ask her if she remembers anything. Her oldest sister was 16 but she's no longer with us. Anyway, it was sort of a family joke. "Sit properly at the table, what would the King say???"

[mazakaal]

"Sit properly at the table, what would the King say???"

:lol:

 

Sounds like an amazing day.