choice

Erich 2022-04-19 09:02:53

Just two films this year mentioned the kings of Denmark and Norway, both of which are parliamentary constitutional monarchies. That is, the nominal leader of the state, but the actual parliament is the highest authority (the king of Norway is also an elected king). One chooses to surrender to save the people when the war starts, and the other chooses to fight to the end, even at the expense of abdication. Although Denmark ended up losing relatively little in World War II, Norway had a relatively difficult time because of the pig teammates. But before the major decision in history, they all bravely made the decision that might be correct at the time, and took the courage to take it. I like Nordic movies more and more, and there are strong emotions under the cold surface.

View more about The King's Choice reviews

Extended Reading
  • Guy 2022-03-20 09:02:52

    Humans sometimes live not only for bread, but for power, and for survival. The real hero always enters the abyss first, the king huddled in the sound of gunfire, the threat of German force, the questioning of the minister, the fear of his son, and the tears of his family. When he stood up again, he no longer feared the fall of the world. This is a life force that transcends freedom and humanity.

  • Sister 2022-04-24 07:01:24

    Living in humiliation after a compromise or resisting the inevitable bloodshed, both attitudes have grand reasons on the surface, but they cannot escape their own bleakness behind them. It's really hard to choose. The more important significance of the king's insistence is a self-salvation of the constitutional monarchy. Although the king could hide behind the government and do nothing, Haakon VII used his kingship to take on the destiny of the country.