The King's Speech

[joe]

Hi,

Went to see the new Colin Firth film "The King's Speech". A very interesting assortment of radios and broadcasting equipment to be seen.

I was pleased (and proud) to see the BVWTS included in the credits.

Joe

[Tractorfan]

Hi,
Did their researchers get it right this time?

"BVWTS"?

Cheers, Pete

[ian rose]

I have a 78rpm record of the Kings speech. The label is handwritten in ink but with no manufacturers details.
has anyone any knowledge of this record or an idea of its possible value?
Ian Rose

[Ian B]

I too enjoyed the film. The BVWTM received a worthwhile fee from the hiring of 5 sets to the film company!

One thing niggled me; the Royal Family were shown using horn gramophones in the 1930s. Is this likely? - I would have thought the top model EMI radiogram would have been more likely. Mind you, I wouldn't have wanted to loan the film company an HMV 800 or similar, and I don't suppose they'd have enjoyed lugging it around!

Ian Blackbourn

[tis your junk]

Hi All,

Took the family to see this last night - very enjoyable and I would fully recommend it.

Aside from the story itself it has the added benefit of showing the younger generations the sort of power and influence the "wireless" had in those days.

Can anyone give me more information on who the "Mr Wood" of the BBC mentioned by name in the film was?

Thanks

TYJ

[chipp1968]

What sets were used ?
Not another horn gramophone ! upstairs downstairs were using one as well in the 30s

[geoff999]

A very interesting selection of radios, gramophones and microphones were shown.

Can anyone shed any light on the disc-cutting machine said to be American?

Geoff999

[geoff999]

A Wireless Set of 1923 once belonging to HRH The Duke of York (later King George VI) is shown on page 15 of Geddes and Bussell's book "Setmakers"'

The equipment is mounted on what looks like a drop-sided tea-trolley, with batteries on the lower deck, and on the top an enclosed cased receiver, a large rotatable frame aerial and a horn loudspeaker.

[dseymo1]

I notice that, following the release of the recent acclaimed film, the story has 'emerged' of the young BBC editor who removed most signs of King George VI's speech impediment from his 1939 speech prior to broadcast.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the story has been reported as news. However, I have been aware of this account for a number of years, but cannot now recall where I first came across it.
Have other forum members known of the story before now, and if so, where was it first seen?

[geoff999]

See This:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-stutters.html

The whole story seems to me highly improbable on both technical and historical grounds.

[ENGLISH VICTOR]

I don't think it matters if the tabloid story is true or not. The film makers depicted the story as "based upon histroric facts" now if millions of people gained harmless pleasure by watching the film it was a film well made. Ever heard of artistic licence.
If indeed there was time to edit the speech i imagine the sound would have been laid down as an optical sound track on film and edited in a cutting room, then transcribed to a disc. Not so difficult a task, but surely not one entrusted to a 19 year old.
Victor.
P.s. I enjoyed the film.

[AlanBeckett]

Originally Posted by ENGLISH VICTOR

The film makers depicted the story as "based upon histroric facts" now if millions of people gained harmless pleasure by watching the film it was a film well made. Ever heard of artistic licence.

I for one can't go along with that. The problem with this sort of 'Historical' film is that it is believed by the vast majority of the population, and hence becomes 'fact' in their minds.
By the way I haven't seen it, not because I object to it in any way, it's just not my sort of fim.
Alan

[Skywave]

Originally Posted by ENGLISH VICTOR

I don't think it matters if the tabloid story is true or not. The film makers depicted the story as "based upon histroric facts" now if millions of people gained harmless pleasure by watching the film it was a film well made. Ever heard of artistic licence.

Surely that second sentence should read "based upon alleged historical facts". That one added word changes the entire context. And the use of the word "based" gives a breadth of licence that cannot always be justified, when taken to extremes. We've all seen many films that, at best, make us laugh - at worst, get really annoyed - at attempts to re-write history.

As for a "film being well-made", there have been lots of films that come into that category - but if they were released at a time when the plot was not to the public's capricious taste, they would not be well-received. But such a negative reception would not change its status as a "film well-made".

Al.

[Heatercathodeshort]

For what it's worth the BBC interviewed the daughter of the guy that edited the broadcast this morning on News 24. It certainly appears to be a true story. Does not surprise me at all. The Film story ended in 1939 but the broadcast was 1942 apparently. J.

[wireful3]

I don't think I can go along with English Victor though I can accept if it gives pleasure then artistic licence is fair. I am always very disturbed by films based on historical fact. I feel many people do treat them as accurate facts. It might be obvious to someone who experienced the situation that it is fiction but often it seems to be a deliberate attempt to rewrite history. I would be more comfortable if it was stated to be a work of fiction perhaps inspired by some historical event.
I would accept that if it was a fully and competently researched item I must relax this.

[Count Moriarty]

In answer to both the questions of the editor of the Christmas 1951 broadcast and the identity of the BBC's Mr Wood, they were both the same person, Robert Wood, who had been an engineer at the inception of the BBC, set up and ran the Manchester station and then moved to London when Reith made him personally responsible for the King's broadcasts. He wrote a memoir, "A World in your Ear" about those times, which I would recommend as essential reading for any vintage radio enthusiast.

[Count Moriarty]

Further to that, having just perused the Robert Wood book again, it shed some doubt about the Daily Mail story. Wood recalls that George VI preferred to broadcast live, and only when called upon to reheasre his Christmas message during the late stages of his illness in 1951 did he accept the need to pre-record.

[ENGLISH VICTOR]

I find it quite interesting that a number forum members find the public so highly gullible, hopefully they are wrong in their judgement. I fully accept Al's criticism of my statement regarding a film well made, I should have written "the film appears to have been highly successful for the producers and backers and gave millions of people a couple of hours of harmless pleasure even if a little artistic licence was used. It is quite possible that the word "alleged" was used and maybe the word events was used instead of "facts" I did not intend to quote verbatim as I only read it once at the cinema but to indicate that the film makers were making it clear from the start that the film was not a factual re-enactment but a STORY based on past events.I suspect the film was not intended to be an authoratitive history lesson but entertainment, perhaps we are taking the subject too seriously.
Victor.

[AlanBeckett]

Originally Posted by ENGLISH VICTOR

I find it quite interesting that a number forum members find the public so highly gullible .....

But I fear they are. Film is a very poowerful media. If the story is presented 'on screen' why shouldn't you believe it? The comments on the lines of 'Based on' are usually in the small print, like the Sales which say 'Up to 50% off' where the 'Up to' is a tenth the size of the rest.
Actually I suspect that 'The King's Speech' is better than most in that the sins only appear to be ones of omission as opposed to actual distortion, See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_%28film%29.
Alan

[dave walsh]

On a related theme, I've got the Robert Wood book and will now give it more attention [when located] particularly re the Xmas message given in 1934 [George V then of course]. I picked up a large framed print of this at an Antiques Fair twenty years ago. [The photo is on Wikki I see]. I'm not much of a Royalist and thought it just included items of desk furniture at first glance. Close examination showed "stereo? " mikes in custom built oak cases. These boxes are probaly enclosing the marble and graphite hexagonal design of the period that took a lot of TX current fairly directly, I think. Got one of those in fact-it's heavy! Much more recently I then found the same illustration in a 1936 review of the period which, of course, explained that one mike had been a "spare" in case of failure at a crucial point ie just after the turkey. Not that many people would be on Turkey in the thirties!

I presume that this is Mr Wood making sure that nothing went wrong! Interestingly, the lack of a broadcast at Xmas 1936 is put down to the delay in sorting out the political situation [second week of December] rather than problems delivering a speech. Not seen the film yet but it will be interesting to follow up both the technical and historical side. Predictably it scooped the awards but these class based dramas tend to play well with audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. Who, in the mid sixties, would have imagined two versions of upstairs downstairs on British TV in 2010?

As a further aside and quite by chance, I recently picked up a copy of the Hundredth Year by Philip Quedala [pub Thornton Butterworth 1940] reviewing that year including the abdication at home. The style is so dry and laconic that it's hard to work out if he's being sarcastic or not. Like the film, it's worth picking up this sort of thirties related volume and taking a look, as they often contain unexpected technical nuggets of info, photos etc [although not in this case].
Dave W