I measured Robert Pattinson's performance in the Timothee Chalamet vehicle "THE KING" not by good, great, or bad, but by it's willingness to border all three. I don't know what to make of his accent. His posturing, and histrionics could be viewed as overacting, and yet is that not a fair assessment of the intention? Is the dauphin not meant to be a wannabe? A boy posturing as a man, as a killer, as a leader? The film sure does spend a lot of time speaking explicitly and implicitly about the difference. About growth, and stunted growth. Disfigured growth caused by outside interference. In most storytelling especially that of a western tilt , the hero must have a mirror image, the villain, someone who is almost exactly the same except less. Usually by way of depth of journey. Where a hero continues to grow beyond, a villain simply stops, remaining undeveloped, repeating similar tactics and schemes meant to undermine the hero, but also to mask their own willful defiance of their own inadequacy. Is the dauphin not such a man. A grand fool, who spends a great deal of his screen time trying to prove the same in his chosen adversary. Pattinson brings this to life in ways both organic to his own artifice, and in ways that portray his craft. His posture is a bit stunted. He sits and stands as if their is a hump on his back, huddled under the weight of his insecurities. His opening scene has the energy of a child; the fingers tapping on the box, the poor posture in his chair, the robes seem almost too much for him. He jostles about in his seat, it is Impertinent, impatient, giddy, and mischievous.
