So I think it's interesting to see the ways we are explaining how has it become such a "success"? Even he's a bit bemused by it all
A lot of the (politically) sympathetic commentators want to to trace something about the content itself to explain the popularity. I'm sure he's a very nice fella, but let's be clear neither he nor the speech is particularly insightful, novel or compelling in itself. And that's being nice about him* and it, too.
No, the 'thing' itself is not a great explanation.
Nor is the closely related 'spirit of the age' explanation much cop – that this is what we all (more or less secretly) feel about the British PM and that's what this film is saying on our behalf. Again, it's hardly the first time these kind of arguments have been aired and hardly the best, most authentic or compelling version.
The truth is the film has been re-broadcast and endorsed by the likes of Limbaugh and the Drudge report – this helps deliver the kind of numbers of first timers (and broadcast is the word, here)
But more profoundly – as with much online stuff – it seems to be just one of those things: something had to be popular; as with all things that spread through random copying, what gets to be popular is very much a lottery. (What we don't bother thinking about – as the Black Swan would chastise
us for – is all the other speeches that didn't become successful)
Ask yourself this: if you were to try to replicate the success of this rather banal piece of political speechifying, which features would you try to replicate? The casting, the argument and the delivery or the links and the luck that's clear after the fact?
I know where my money is!
*He has some dodgy previous, it must be said