At least the writing (content) and acting was good.

Well he did have German lineage :)

Johnston's third cousin from Hamburg

Hopefully, if it was "English sans-serif, 1920s", they would know enough to use the appropriate cliche... Kabel.

Unless by "English" you mean of English origin, not simply a Roman-alphabet typeface, which can be used for printing English. In that case, I suppose you are rooting for Gill Sans.

penn said:
> At least the writing (content) and acting was good.

who let you onto typophile?

don't you know that, to be in good stead here,
you _must_ judge films by their typefaces?

ok, you can have one more chance, but don't let this
happen again, not if you know what's good for you...

-bowerbird

You were expecting Mr. Gill?

I was indeed expecting Mr Gill.
However, the German magazine Signal occasionally used Gill Sans (the modified European version) during WWII, so WTF.

It always strikes me as strange that different aspects of the mise-en-scène in a film can vary so much in authenticity.
Costume, make-up and hair styles, set decoration, and music (often patently anachronistic), as well as typography.
I wasn't totally convinced by the accent of Rush and Firth, which seemed a little too modern (i.e. 50 years after), and Firth not quite aristocratic enough. Bonham-Carter was spot on though, very plummy.

He really does have trouble with those 'p's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF8q45vwf-0&feature=player_embedded

It always strikes me as strange that different aspects of the mise-en-scène in a film can vary so much in authenticity.

Definitely.
Consistent and knowing departures from the period (such as the soundtrack to Marie Antoinette) are a filmic device, but anachronisms ruin it for me.

I'm not sure the titles should be subject to the same rules as the film environment though…

…anachronisms ruin it for me.

Me too. I don't mind an anachronism if it's pointed (Aphex Twin in Marie Antoinette was its one redeeming feature, IMO!), but when it appears to be done through ignorance or mere favoritism, not so hot.

"I'm not sure the titles should be subject to the same rules as the film environment though…"

Quite right. What would the titles be for prehistoric films? or even futuristic films? or even films made in countries with scripts different than the viewer's own?

Papyrus, of course.

I spotted a promotional ad for the film in the newspaper today - where of course they used...

"Papyrus, of course."

LOL!
I would have bet on Trajan :-)

Period movies ALWAYS contain anachronistic elements, eg the actors… You can always tell in which decade of the last century a movie about the Scarlett Pimpernel, or WW2, or the Crimean War, etc. was shot. Look at Mr Firth in the poster: he has a typical 2010-visage!

And even the sky in the background looks very contemporary, due to the air pollution that is totally different from the one in the pre-war days when coal was the main fuel used for heating and cooking.

More Brylcreem! Firth's hair wasn't slicked down enough:

"I'm not sure the titles should be subject to the same rules as the film environment though…"

Quite right. What would the titles be for prehistoric films? or even futuristic films? or even films made in countries with scripts different than the viewer's own?

Therein lies the problem! Have to be true to the context of the audience in this sense.

Overall I thought it to be quiet a good film.
I felt Berty's sense of dread and enjoyed the sense of him overcoming it.

Oh, p-p-p-p-pu-please.
Gill Sans?
Hasn't that family seen enough scandal?

:o)

@ Chris & Nick "Papyrus, of course."
...
"I would have bet on Trajan"

----

That choice would depend on if the movie is from the point of view of the plucky underdogs or or heartless overlords

LOL!
Oh, and Happy Birthday< Russell!

Thanks, sir.

what bigger no-brainer could there be than "English sans serif, 1930s"? — and they go with… Futura.
We are all incurably mad. I was thinking exactly about that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/31/the-kings-speech-gross-falsif...

Christopher Hitchens says it best here.

The King's Speech is an extremely well-made film with a seductive human-interest plot, very prettily calculated to appeal to the smarter filmgoer. But it perpetrates a gross falsification of history.

I could defend the film by advancing the theory that Edward VIII was actually a British spy who managed to advance the Allied cause against Hitler, or defend Churchill by noting that Gandhi's pressure for independence for India an a rapid timetable contributed to the bloodshed which the forces seeking partition for Pakistan unleashed.

However, I've brought already far too much politics into this forum, and these would be extreme longshots, so I think I'll leave Christopher Hitchens alone. Churchill, at least, has a reputation that is safe from any naysayers.

As for Eric Gill: while Gill Sans would have been the appropriate choice, given recent revelations about his personal life, and the increasing awareness of the rights of women and the needs of the victims of sexual violence, and the dependence of a movie studio on its image and public goodwill... avoiding his typeface was only to be expected.

Nick:
You went to see an Oscar front-runner and you are disappointed by the lack of (historical or any kind of) accuracy?

…anachronisms ruin it for me.
Isn’t told history per se anachronistic?
And how much historical accuracy should one expect from a film that, above all, has to be financially profitable and of a certain entertaining value?

Here's a small puzzle for some of you... There weren't many buildings made with this monogram. This one is on a Canada Post building in Toronto and it the mongram probably superseded before the cement was dry.

Oh, my, yes. Very few people passing by that would think "Edward Rex"; they would think "Elizabeth Regina" and just ignore the Roman numeral!

You went to see an Oscar front-runner and you are disappointed by the lack of (historical or any kind of) accuracy?

I noticed the type issue and duly reported it at Typophile.
I enjoyed the movie, despite one or two shortcomings.

Thank God they didn't use Gill anything. Talk about scandal! The man was a pedophile in a hemp sack cloth. Yuck!

And OK, the movie is not quite historically accurate per the Hitchens piece, but come on, at least the king wasn't George Bush. And Nick, how many kings and queens do you know whom you might compare to Colin Firth in the accent department? I don't know any myself.

"Thank God they didn't use Gill anything. Talk about scandal! The man was a pedophile in a hemp sack cloth."

So I guess we just throw away all of those great typefaces. Hell, let's burn all printed materials that feature anything Gill did! Let's deface all of the stonework he did! ERADICATE IT! Just face it: everyone has demons. While the things Gill did in his private life are shocking, those things are separate from his contributions to typography.

Enough about that, though. Back to the original topic, I drive my friends nuts commenting on type inaccuracies in modern period pieces. I don't remember what I was watching but it was a low-budget kind of thing set in the 40s or 50s and they made the mistake of using Arial. I died a little on the inside.

It might seem pedantic but imagine:

The Dam Busters with F15s.
Lawrence of Arabia with air conditioning units…

@thetophus:
So I guess we just throw away all of those great typefaces. Hell, let's burn all printed materials that feature anything Gill did! Let's deface all of the stonework he did! ERADICATE IT!

Although you are right that making Eric Gill into an unperson is not appropriate either, movie studios, at least in the United States, are in a difficult position. Even while they make their money most effectively when pandering to our baser instincts, they must constantly struggle to prove to the American people that, no, they really aren't corrupting the youth of the nation.

Thus, they are vulnerable to the activities of single-issue political organizations. Whether these organizations act on behalf of conservative religious denominations, the disabled, or women whose children have been killed by drunk drivers, or women who seek greater equality with men, they wield great power over vulnerable industries that are dependent on public goodwill to sell their products.

I could mention the pentagram in the background that was removed from the Magic: the Gathering card "Unholy Strength".

I could mention the immense controversy that surrounded the movie "Tropic Thunder", in which the moviemakers decided to have the soldiers portrayed in it use the word "retard" as a pejorative term, rather than the stronger language real-life soldiers might use.

Then, there is the immense controversy that surrounded the movie "The Passion of the Christ", which was essentially a traditional depiction of the life of Christ in the manner in which emphasis is given to its components within the Roman Catholic faith, which ended up driving Mel Gibson to drink and ruin.

And, so, if a Hollywood movie studio can find a way to avoid annoying one of the major pressure groups out there... they will take it.

And Nick, how many kings and queens do you know whom you might compare to Colin Firth in the accent department?

George:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhFW_auT20

Colin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk56SwKzpwE

Sorry, I don't think Firth cuts it.
He sounds like Bluebottle (Goon Show): George had a certain repose, as befits a king, despite the pauses.
In fact his speech mannerism becomes a kind of affectation.
Firth puts too much melodrama (never mind the music) into it, making the mannerism a debility. Too strident, too much variation in pitch, for one thing, too high a pitch for another. George is so much more relaxed, more musical and poetic in delivery than Firth's theatrical struggle.

Bonham-Carter was excellent. Reminded me of several snooty upper-crust women I've known.

I was struck by the choice of Beethoven for the climactic wartime speech scene. Musically, it gave a building, triumphant, emotional tone to the scene (maybe too much), but then I recognized the music and thought, what an ironic choice. I almost wonder if that and the Futura were chosen purposely.

(By the way, the signs above the equipment in the BBC control room were set in Helvetica.)

@Mark Simonson:
(By the way, the signs above the equipment in the BBC control room were set in Helvetica.)

OK, that's an unacceptable anachronism. The credits can be in whatever typeface, because they're part of the real world, when the movie was made. The signs in the BBC control room, however, are part of the world within the movie itself; for them to be wrong is a genuine error, not simply a failure to set or maintain the proper mood.

(By the way, the signs above the equipment in the BBC control room were set in Helvetica.)

I noticed this too but was unsure… I told myself it could be Akzidenz!

OK, that's an unacceptable anachronism. The credits can be in whatever typeface, because they're part of the real world, when the movie was made. The signs in the BBC control room, however, are part of the world within the movie itself; for them to be wrong is a genuine error, not simply a failure to set or maintain the proper mood.

My position is generally the same. Diegetic vs non diegetic.

Right. Except I wouldn't go so far as calling it unacceptable (or maybe you're being facetious). Type nerds like us might be annoyed, but no one else will notice. For all I know, the shoes were completely wrong for the period.

I would say the type used in the titles is an artistic choice, and I agree with Nick that Futura was not the best choice here. Could have been worse, though.

You know, it might be Twentieth Century.

Overall I imagine more care goes into the costume than the type. Perhaps one person to consult at least? People regularly request period type suggestions here, it can't be that hard!

I was almost an extra in The King's Speech, perhaps I could have pointed a few things out!

I maintain that I enjoyed watching the film though, despite all of the above.

You know, it might be Twentieth Century.

Hey, 20C belongs to HOUSE!!

I enjoyed the film, too, and I'm not sure if I would have noticed the Helvetica (it went by very quickly) if I hadn't been specifically looking for errors like that.

I actually went to the movie at the request of a reporter for The Telegraph. I wanted to see it anyway, but it made a nice excuse to take a break from FontLab. (If anyone is curious, here's the article.)

A million times worse than the Helvetica was the fact that someone started talking on a cell phone just outside the theater during a critical scene. It was so distracting that I completely missed what was said in the scene. I'll take the occasional anachronism over that any day.

Diegetic vs non diegetic.

Not quite so categorically cut and dried.
I await the "Dogme" version, made with original equipment.

I also found the casting disconcerting, in that some characters were very much look-alikes, while others, such as the two leads, were not.

In general, knowing something of the original history, I was aware of all sorts of dialectics between the authentic and the interpretive. So I would fault the film for not being more consistent in this respect, and that is probably the producer's responsibility.

Nonetheless, it was a great movie and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Especially as the usual filmic manipulators of death, sex, and violence were completely absent.

Finally,we got to see it!
Loved the film! There was actual acting going on instead of "just another CGI effect". Perhaps film making is back.

Chris

@NS - Especially as the usual filmic manipulators of death, sex, and violence were completely absent.

Finally a movie that sounds interesting.