Sorry if this topic has been previously posted.

I just saw the movie The King's Speech. Absolutely magnificient and I highly recommend it.

But what I thought was a bit ironic (if that is the correct word for this)...near the end of the movie, as the new king is giving his speech to the English people, telling them of the unavoidable war with Germany and asking them to be brave and be ready to meet the challenge, etc., the background music was Beethoven's 7th Symphony. Through my tears (yeah, I did get a bit emotional), I had to smile knowing that Beethoven was, IMO, the most famous German of all. I wonder if the people who were responsible for chosing the music for this film had ever given this a thought. No matter...the music, so amazing, fit the scene beautifully.

Kathleen

The king's great-grandmother--Queen Victoria--was German, too.

He was Belgian...

Sorry, dolce sfogato, but Ludwig was born in Bonn, Germany.

Kathleen

A wonderful film.


???

By descent, but not nationality.

A bit indirectly.

But his great grandfather Albert, on the other hand, WAS German.

It was a perfect piece of music and was immediately followed by the Emperor concerto. I'm sure that Alexandre Desplat understood the irony but whether that was a deliberate action to add irony there is an interesting question.

I read somewhere (have no idea whether it's true) that Beethoven 7 was used during therapy sessions in the same way you see the Mozart used earlier.

Well, allied soldiers in WWII were quite accustomed to hearing a well-known German-composed piece whose first four notes in morse code are ...

dot dot dot dash!

V for Victory.

King George VI reigned from 11 December 1936 – 6 February 1952
after Edward VIII had abdicated to marry Mrs. Wallis Simpson.

Having lived through the period as the Hun (Churchill lingo)
was rolled back to Berlin in 1945... the bold Theme of
Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto was a rallying call .
It matched the Morse “V for Victory” ... dot.dot.dot.dash .

Can still remember newspaper pictures of King George VI
announcing the end of WWII from the balcony of Buckingham Palace ... as I remember, he was accompanied by the Queen
and Princess Elizabeth (present Queen E2) and Princess Margaret.

Kathleen, I have no doubt that you enjoyed the film. It is very moving in its own way and very flattering to the British, but it is mostly a gross falsification. The irony of using Beethoven's music was not lost on me.

A recent review in Slate confirmed my fears of such a film as this winning an Oscar.

The private letters and diaries of the royal family demonstrate a continued, consistent allegiance to the policy of appeasement and to the personality of Chamberlain. King George's forbidding mother wrote to him, exasperated that more people in the House of Commons had not cheered the sellout. The king himself, even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain's resignation. He "told him how grossly unfairly he had been treated, and that I was genuinely sorry." Discussing a successor, the king wrote that "I, of course, suggested [Lord] Halifax." It was explained to him that this arch-appeaser would not do and that anyway a wartime coalition could hardly be led by an unelected member of the House of Lords. Unimpressed, the king told his diary that he couldn't get used to the idea of Churchill as prime minister and had greeted the defeated Halifax to tell him that he wished he had been chosen instead. All this can easily be known by anybody willing to do some elementary research.

Then more damningly:

In a few months, the British royal family will be yet again rebranded and relaunched in the panoply of a wedding. Terms like "national unity" and "people's monarchy" will be freely flung around. Almost the entire moral capital of this rather odd little German dynasty is invested in the post-fabricated myth of its participation in "Britain's finest hour." In fact, had it been up to them, the finest hour would never have taken place. So this is not a detail but a major desecration of the historical record—now apparently gliding unopposed toward a baptism by Oscar.

Bah humbug. There were a lot of people in England at the time who chose to ignore the coming tide, rather than wade out to it. Reading a biography of Churchill during this time makes it seem he was waging a one-man campaign against apathy and apeasement. That doesn't change the film and it would be a worthy Oscar winner.

Again from Slate:

In point of fact, Churchill was—for as long as he dared—a consistent friend of conceited, spoiled, Hitler-sympathizing Edward VIII. And he allowed his romantic attachment to this gargoyle to do great damage to the very dearly bought coalition of forces that was evolving to oppose Nazism and appeasement. Churchill probably has no more hagiographic chronicler than William Manchester, but if you look up the relevant pages of The Last Lion, you will find that the historian virtually gives up on his hero for an entire chapter.

You can read the whole article here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282194

Take it up with Slate if it upsets you, or just ignore it. But don't bother me with it. Having been raised in the UK I know a fair amount about British history, and -sorry to say- I think the Slate review is accurate.

There are also other areas of the film -not covered in the Slate review- which I also find problematic, i.e. no reference to the -contrary to Anglicanism- religious beliefs of Lionel Logue.

Young fan is trying to bend history ... but what a load of bunkum ... such unbridled republican drivel about the British monarchy deserves a swift broadside with all guns blazing ...
being totally inconsistent with the facts .

Imagine fan bleating this rot

“Almost the entire moral capital of this rather odd little German dynasty is invested in the post-fabricated myth of its participation in "Britain's finest hour."

Forgetting that “this rather odd little German dynasty” has reigned for 300 years

George I ( House of Hanover)
George II
George III
George IV
William IV
Victoria
Edward VII (House of Saxe-Coburg)
George V (House of Windsor)
Edward VIII
George VI
Elizabeth II

Enough for now ... before reloading with another wilting load of shrapnel aimed at the republican twit.

BTW King George’s “forbidding mother” looked like this

A German resistance group in Hamburg began from listening to BBC German-speaking broadcasts which always began with the first four notes of Beethoven's 5th which represented the morse code for V, Victory. Helmuth Hubener formed this group after getting access to a short wave radio, and he eventually posted anti-Hitler flyers in the city using news from these broadcasts.

Steady boys, the crusty btb is launching an offensive!

Welcome to call me 'republican', just don't call me 'Republican'!

What a sorry lineup. George I couldn't speak English (nor seemed to have any intelligence), George II was continually constipated, George III (well, we know about that one), George IV was too fat, even if Brighton Pavilion is worth a visit, William IV was at best interim, Victoria was a prude, Edward VII an empty-headed bon vivant, George V sold out his cousin Nicholas II and screwed up at Versailles, Edward VIII was a playboy, George VI an appeaser, Elizabeth... well, she's 'nice'. (What's not to like?)

Hopefully Prince Charles will take a hike and let Prince William of Wales take over. Perhaps he might make a better case for an increasingly decrepit and pointless monarchy.

Since emigrating to the US last year, there is a lot about England I do not miss, and there is a lot about America I find bothersome (particularly the Republicans), but perhaps I'm just too young to really have much sentiment for a monarchy which seems to have less relevance with every year. But it's good for tourism.

Well, well ... the congregation has finally got tired of fan’s churchy bad notes ... and banished him to the furthest American colonies.

What a sorry load of republican codswallop by the ingrate

George I couldn't speak English (nor seemed to have any intelligence),
... because he was German ... Handel wrote Water Music
George II was continually constipated
... perhaps needed more fibre in his diet ...
the last British monarch to lead an army in battle at Dettingen in 1743.
George III (well, we know about that one) ...
born in Britain and spoke English as his first language ... Nelson defeated the French/Spanish forces at the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar ... defeat of Napoleon at Battle of Waterloo
George IV was too fat, even if Brighton Pavilion is worth a visit
instrumental in the foundation of the National Gallery and King’s College London..
William IV was at best interim
His reign saw several reforms: the poor law was updated, child labour restricted, slavery abolished in nearly all the British Empire
Victoria was a prude
Reigned for 63 years ... Her reign is known as the Victorian era and was a period of industrial, cultural, political, scientific, and military progress within the United Kingdom.
Edward VII an empty-headed bon vivant
Edward played a role in the modernisation of the British Home Fleet, the reform of the Army Medical Services.
George V sold out his cousin Nicholas II and screwed up at Versailles
In 1931, the Statute of Westminster recognised the dominions of the empire as separate, independent kingdoms within the Commonwealth of Nations.
Edward VIII was a playboy
Rather than give up Mrs. Simpson, Edward chose to abdicate.
George VI an appeaser
three years after his accession, his realms, except the Irish Free State, were at war with Germany.
Elizabeth II ... well, she's 'nice'. (What's not to like?)
2nd longest reigning British Monarch at 57 years , outdistancing Elizabeth I and close to Queen Victoria at 63 years.

The day war was declared my teacher was visiting Myra Hess. How about that one!

Nice googling btb. Unfortunately, 63 years is longer than 57.

Another patriot Debrucey ... thanks for the correction to the timelines ... EII could still top the poll (that's if the likes of fan don't ferment a Republic) ... I was in London at the time of the coronation and seem to remember either in 1953 or was it 1956 that two Scottish students pinched the Stone of Scone from the ceremonial Coronation Chair ... but was later returned.

But how does this grip you chaps ... The Republic of Great Britain (ouch!! shudder the thought).

Hope to wave a Union Jack for King William V.

Huh? I guess you don't really know Hitch very well. But you don't seem to need to know much before you go off half cocked.

Heck, I thought the King's wishy-washy attitude toward Nazi Germany, and his disapproval of Churchill, was common knowledge.

yes i caught that too, but it reminded me that in "the art of the piano" there was a segment on dame myra hess playing beethoven for the british troops. and great music SHOULD transcend politics.

Certainly nice 'selective' googling.

He don't google too good.

Do es anyone think, like i do, that acting is ione of the most overrated jobs in the world? i mean, being a good actor is tough, but acting like most hollywood actors or actresses do looks just easy?

If anybody makes anything look easy they're working quite hard (as Mozart once said 'I do my practicing at home).

In response to the original post, pointing out the irony of a German-born composer's music playing at this particular part of an English film:

I suppose they could have put on some Elgar or something similar, but, really...so what?

Knowing what we know about Beethoven's politics, does anyone doubt if Ludwig saw what was happening in Germany in the 1930s, he would have sided with England?

I am far from being a patriot.

That is interesting as Britain has never had a Queen Elizabeth the first.

Anyhoo, I'd rather hear Beethoven's music used in The King's Speech than in A Clockwork Orange.

Indeed, though she was "Queen of France". Well, according to the English of course. It was George III who finally abandoned pretensions to the French throne ... ah, so now I know what argerichfan means with "we know about that one".

King George VI giving the Royal-wave at the end of WWII in 1945 from the balcony of Buckingham Palace ... with him the Queen and a beaming Winston Churchill ... left is Princess Elisabeth (future QEII) and to the right her younger sister Princess Margaret.


PS I’m presently glued to Lord Moran’s book Winston Churchill: The Struggle for Survival (864 pages) ...Physician to the PM from May 1940 ... as he notes in opening

“Winston Churchill is 65. He has just been appointed Prime Minister, and I have become his doctor, not because he wanted one, but because certain members of the Cabinet, who realized how essential he had become, have decided that somebody ought to keep an eye on his health.”

PPS Spike Milligan’s book “Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall” will just have to wait.

I haven't seen "The King's Speech," and probably won't, as it appears from all the buzz to be a pop-historical film of the sort that encourages deficient people to idolize the talentless and unproductive; a phenomenon even worse than idolizing certain celebrities for no reason other than they are celebrities.

Having disqualified myself from commenting further, I nevertheless will: the irony of using Beethoven's music seems fitting, given the irony of the British royal family being German.

Tomasino

Strangely Tomasino some of us won’t want to see the movie The King’s Speech ... watching Hollywood actors hamming their way through part of one’s life’s history will never come close to the touching drama of the real thing ... not to mention the irritation barbs of gross Yankee misconceptions expressed by others ... like this Lulu from Prof. PD

“Heck, I thought the King's wishy-washy attitude toward Nazi Germany,
and his disapproval of Churchill, was common knowledge.”

You wouldn’t believe a word of it, judging by the smile above on Churchill’s face.

PS Might I correct your close

"given the irony of the British royal family being German" ... "being OF aristocratic GERMAN (Greek and Russian) STOCK."

that's too bad; you'll miss a great performance by colin firth.

when one realizes that almost all art is subjective a temporary suspension of disbelief allows a bit of pleasure to seep in.

that or that its actually easy

Wow! Thank you all for responding to my post. So much to digest, whether fact or fiction, theory or opinion, I just wish I had more brain cells to take it all in. History, especially European history, was never my strong suit. I had all I could do to manage a somewhat spotty grasp of American history.

That being said, while a few of you did touch a bit on what (I thought) the film was really about, I would like to expand/expound on that just a little more. IMO, the story was that of one man (just a man, really, nothing more) who, because of horribly traumatic experiences in his childhood by adults who ignored, belittled and abused him, suffered such anguish that he was unable to speak in public without stammering. But with the help of a wonderful teacher, he was able to find that confidence that was buried deep within, overcome his doubts of self-worth and with extraordinary bravery, defeat the effects that caused him such inner pain and turmoil. He rose to the occasion that was thrust upon him and did so (while not exactly happily) with grace and dignity. While the backdrop of this story was one of historic significance, I believe the movie was about the strength of the human spirit. And the actors were unbelievably talented in expressing this tale of man’s struggle to become all that he might be, whatever the odds. (Beethoven's music was indeed a perfect choice in this regard.)

Kathleen

Gotta hand it to you, btb, your logic is almost as cockeyed as your grammar!

Let's see, a benignly smiling Churchill stands on a balcony with an awkwardly waving George in early 1945, after six bloody years of war, and this supposedly tells us what George's views were in 1939 as an anxious Europe began the descent into hell. Yeah, right. Only in your mind is this called logic. But people who have made up their mind just construct "evidence" as a way to feel good.

1945 ≠ 1940

Four kings:
King Edward VII (far right),
his son George, Prince of Wales, later George V (far left),
and grandsons Edward, later Edward VIII (rear),
and Albert, later George VI (foreground), c. 1908.

At least he called you a Lulu! That's got to be worth something.

Maybe if I'm brutal enough in my arguments he'll call me a Wozzeck.

-Jason

Yeah, but it's a quaint and old-fashioned sort of term .... much like the reverential attitude taken toward the Windsors.

Maybe I should post the pic of me having lunch with the Iron Lady. That might get him going.

One of my relatives with King George V and the Prince of Wales. He did tell George he needs to keep an eye on his son!

I don’t know how to interpret this. Are the “deficient people” those of us who loved the film? I would politely suggest that this is a baseless generalisation. I have never hitherto considered myself deficient.

Are you saying that the actors are “talentless”? That is patently ridiculous. Or do you mean the Royal Family? It is not their role to be talented. As a figurehead for a nation at war, George VI had a most important role. Talent had nothing to do with it.

“loveschopintoomuch” has summed up what the film is really about perfectly.

Would you call Obama Kenyan? I certainly would not wish to be called Polish, despite having Polish ancestors. The royal family are not German.

SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA English?

Lots of people in the UK have foreign names and foreign origins. Doesn't make them not British now.

Indeed, but the family often spoke German among themselves into the 20th century, at a time in which Germany was rising as the UK's prime rival for power. You can perhaps forgive people for worrying about the German connection without thinking that the Windsor family was somehow disloyal (which they weren't).

Whew Kathleen, very well written (though historically suspect), and I suppose this film is as harmless as 'Amadeus', but not as I see it.

Lionel Logue was a Christian Scientist -at that time a very popular religion- but I find it very difficult to believe that Logue didn't invoke Mary Baker Eddy's statement in her book 'Science and Health' on page 454: Right motives give pinions to thought, and strength and freedom to speech and action.

IMO, there is no way that Logue couldn't have brought that up with the King, and Mrs. Eddy's choice of the word 'pinions' is interesting.

That was because Churchill had expressed significant doubts about him as a potential future King.

Wow. What a profoundly astute observation. No wonder I emigrated to the US, and I truly fear for the Realm.

Not only do I have to fight Republicans on the new side of the pond, I also have to worry about the Old Country. It's a hard life.

Backed by the appeasing “Peace in our time” communique of then PM Neville Chamberlain (but later taken for a ride by Hitler) ... is it any wonder that King George VI questioned the new PM Winston Churchill who quickly showed his “ We will fight them ....” bellicose colours.

Here’s Churchill in bulldog mood visiting the north east defences of England ... 1940.

There is some doubt about the actual location where that picture was shot, propaganda being what it is... and necessary.

btb, don't question my love of the Old Country, you should know better than that. You can make fun of me as you wish for not being a proper 'Monarchist', but in emigrating to the US I did what I had to do. My life was at an end in the UK, and the opportunity came up to leave. I am so much happier now, you don't approve of that?

My friend, if you're going to seek validation for your life choices in the writing quirks of our good chappie, you might be in for a confusing time. I imagine that's a long and absurd road.

(no offense, btb; just "stirring up the pot")

-J

Any more of this anti-monarchist chat ...
and “Ve vil haf yo shot” (putting on my best Deutch voice)

We can agree to differ.

But coming back to the film - Kathleen summed it up perfectly. It is a drama about people. And much more moving than I had expected. The political situation is just a background.

How was the music score of the movie, ie the original music composed by Alexanre Desplat?? He is a talented composer..

As for the British monarchy, their past is no more or less brilliant than their present and not terribly different than that of other politicians. It would thus be good if they could be similarly voted in or out of "royalhood".. I find it odd to be walking around with a Prince title and entitlement just because you were born with it.. 'tis the 21st century after all. But we do -love to- digress, don't we.

No Sir, David-G ... and with respect ... Kathleen has put on her mollycoddling boots with her opinion of the core of the movie “The King Speaks”.

“IMO, the story was that of one man (just a man, really, nothing more) who, because of horribly traumatic experiences in his childhood by adults who ignored, belittled and abused him, suffered such anguish that he was unable to speak in public without stammering”

Where in the world did someone dredge up those diabolical adults who “ignored, belittled and abused him” ... this is apron-strings balderdash

From Wikipedia

“He often suffered from ill health and was described as "easily frightened and somewhat prone to tears". His parents, the Duke and Duchess of York, were generally removed from their children’s day-to-day upbringing, as was the norm in aristocratic families of that era (Public School boarding house). He had a stammer that lasted for many years, and was forced to write with his right hand although he was naturally left-handed. He suffered from chronic stomach problems as well as knock-knees for which he was forced to wear painful corrective splints.”

Perhaps he was sidelined from playing rugga ... however was later mentioned in despatches for his action as a turret officer aboard HMS Collingwood
during the battle of Jutland (31 May — 1 June 1916).


But King George VI got over his stammering ... by speaking slowly he managed to make New Year addresses over the radio ... even from distant Cape Town we used to look forward to his encouraging BBC speeches.

I thought UK inheritance was via the Paternal line. So in Philips Case (Duke of Edinburgh) his father was from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (which is described as "Danish").

I like the idea of the royal family being rebranded yet again back from Mountbatten/Windsor to "Holstein" since it sounds like a cow or lager which I guess is quite fitting! But "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" don't sound very British either!

I think its different if youre a prince consort instead of a king.

No, actually. The early Georges were "Hanoverian." But when Victoria married Albert (prince consort), their children were Saxe-Coburg Gotha (which George V changed deliberately to Windsor during WWI). Presumably Charles is the first of his line and could change the dynastic "name" to his father's. As if anyone cares.

Further thought: It doesn't sound British, but sure sounds AngloSaxon (hence Anglish)?

I saw this movie -- and I have to say that all the musical excerpts of Beethoven, Mozart, etc. were quite exquisitely played by the London Philharmonic. I think the music stuck in my head more than the actual movie =P

In the absence of anything remotely correct regarding history (maybe one needs to be a Tory or a Republican) perhaps we have to indeed fall back on the music.

'Amadeus' was good clean fun, and WOW! what great music, it was almost easy to overlook the idiocies (no one will be harmed), but 'The King's Speech' falls into a hysterically sentimental 'pulling of the heart strings'. Why not glamorize Nazi Germany?

fuzzy, was there original music by the film composer (Alexandre Desplat)???

There must have been; Desplat was nominated for a Golden Globe for "Best Original Score" for "The King's Speech."

Regards,

I know, which is why I am asking.But nobody seems to have noticed or commented on his music. I haven't seen the movie.

it's now time to invoke godwin's law on this thread.

There's a few historical liberties taken (like the crowds outside the palace in one scene) but nothing much that distorts the general picture I think? What did you find? Are you just reacting to the IDEA of a monarchy? There have been films about Nazi Germany that go beyond a strictly documentary approach. Do you reject them too? But for sheer glamourisation you can't top Mel Brooks' "Springtime for Hitler" :-)

On the contrary, the liberties regarding history were modest and were essentially artistic licence to serve the drama.

Your last sentence is bizarre and in bad taste.

Well no, I shouldn't think so.

I love it! Now there's truth if you're looking for it.

"The Producers" Brook's only comedy.

"don't be stupid, be a smarty
come and join the Nazi party"

Exactly. Great poetry too!

I like the bit in the official trailer for the film where George and daughter are watching a News Reel of Hitler speaking and she say's "What's he saying" and he replies:

"I don't know, but he seems to be saying it rather well".

Funny, I thought his mother Mary (May) of Tech spoke German to all her children. This seems to continue the usual propoganda.

EJR, can you quote any references for that?

I am not sure that it makes much difference to anything. Some of my family spoke German when I was a child. But I would be interested to know. Thanks.

As you wish. Pulling heart strings always wins the day, damn those misunderstood Germans, nice to see a film make a fool of itself.

I've never seen a more dangerous rewriting of history.

Try Gone with the Wind.

We have really gone astray from the original post of this thread. That is- the frequent use of Beethoven's music in the film.

Out of curiosity, I tried to find what the movie critics thought of the film. Afterall, they're the experts. Right?

Surprisingly (or maybe not so), the combined score was an 88 out of a possible 100, based on 41 critics from all over the country. The well-respected Roger Ebert gave it a 100. Stephanie Zacharek from "Movieline" had this to say:

We know this is a true story that has been folded, trimmed and wedged into a piece of dramatic fiction. But strict veracity aside, it’s such a relief, and a pleasure, to care about people and things we see in a movie. The real strength of The King’s Speech is that it allows us to care deeply about those little princesses and their parents in movie terms, rather than in real-life ones. And that’s our job when we go to the movies.


I guess those "mollycoddling boots" I wear, according to btb, are a fairly popular line of footwear.

Kathleen

No, Kathleen, they are not the experts on many of the issues that we have been talking about as this thread wandered away from "Beethoven as Background Music." People like Roger Ebert may think they are capable of writing historical commentary as they relax in their proverbial armchair, but that would be hubris at best. His opinions on the "true story" nature of this film carry no more weight than, say, ..... mine.

What a slog that one was. Too much epic melodrama for me, and the US Civil War is not my historical area of expertise.

But... Max Steiner's soundtrack is glorious!

Except that nobody considers it a serious account of the civil war. Besides, it has Vivien Leigh at her most fetching.

re: the authenticity of the film, a very enlightening segment on 60 Minutes yesterday:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7357190n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

Hurray! I guess I can write: "He who laughs last, laughs best.!

Kathleen

I fully expected The King's Speech to be anointed at Hollywood's annual self-congratulatory fest. The Social Network (IMO a far better film) was just too hip and damned with faint praise.

I thought 'The Social Network' was the better film as well. Hollywood loves 'brits.'

Indeed you can. I can't remember when I enjoyed a film as much.

TSN was a snappily written little movie, tho very much a monet of a haystack. having been in sw & webdev much of my adult life i can say with some certainty that much of the intrigue portrayed in TSN boils down to long hours in meeting rooms and at computers figuring out very difficult technical problems (e.g. usability, reliability, maintainability, scalability, performance) to deliver a better mousetrap than anyone else. the idea of facebook has been around for @ 15 years, but zuckerberg nailed the implementation to create the killer app.

a good take on TSN here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jose-antonio-vargas/the-social-network-hollyw_b_747233.html

Very nice post, Entheo. I remember reading that Huffington article -and Vargas's profile of Zuckerberg in The New Yorker- some months before I saw the film. That said, I'm not inclined to be as critical of the film as Vargas is. Yes, I understand and agree with many of his points, but I think the film was a little more alert to its subject than Vargas gives it credit for.

The first scene alone is worth the price of admission, and a friend and I backtracked the DVD twice to savour it!

And Clark Gable at his most dashing! (Whatever Scarlett saw in that wimpy Ashley Wilkes I will never know.)

I really loved TSN and my husband couldn't stand it. Well, he actually liked the movie but couldn't stand most of the characters. (Since I am attending college in my old age, I am much more understanding.)

Who was played by Leslie Howard, though not the pianist. I sometimes jokingly refer to the pianist as Ashley Wilkes, I'm not sure if anyone ever got the reference.

I guess I'll have to see this King's Speech when it comes out on DVD, but I don't have the slightest interest in the social network.

Damon - I'm a lot older than you - and definitely a dinosaur when it comes to computers and the internet - BUT I found TSN quite fascinating and well made.

And - do you remember Leslie Howard (Ashley Wilkes) as a violinist in 1939's "Intermezzo" with Ingrid Bergman. Great flick.