Customer Reviews

Madness of King George [VHS]

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is a marvelous period piece that deals with an intriguing subject: the apparently intermittent madness of King George III. Nigel Hawthorne brilliantly plays the role of the King, creating a benevolent personage, a sort of aristocratic populist, who is, at heart, a family man. Yet, he understands, all too well, his role as King. His Queen, a loving and caring wife, is played to perfection by Helen Mirren. Rupert Everett wonderfully plays the part of their eldest son, the indolent Prince of Wales.

The King begins his strange journey along the highway of dementia by shouting obscenities and behaving in a shockingly unseemly fashion towards his Queen's gorgeous lady-in-waiting, Lady Pembroke, played to ice maiden perfection by the always stunning Amanda Donohoe. He undergoes a total personality change. His doctor is mystified by these mental, as well as physical changes, which are broken up by moments of lucidity.

The Prince of Wales see this weakness in his father as an opportunity for him to make a bid for control of the crown, and he rallies a slew of supporters. The ensuing palace intrigues depict the gamesmanship in which the King's supporters involve themselves in order for the King not to lose his crown in addition to his wits. The only question is whether the King will succeed in recovering his wits in a timely enough fashion in order for them to prevail.

This is a wonderful film with a first class supporting cast. The production values and cinematography are also first rate, and the film won an Oscar in 1994 for its art direction. The film also addresses an issue that did, in fact, arise during the reign of King George III. It is now believed that the King may have suffered from a hereditary illness of the nervous system known as Porphyria. In any case, this is a brilliant, award caliber film that lovers of historical dramas and period pieces will, no doubt, enjoy. Bravo!

The year--1788. The loss of that place that must not be mentioned by England has gradually sent King George III down the slope to insanity, so some ministers say. His emotional rantings, rushing out in the early morning in bedclothes with his attendants in tow, and even an imagined flight from a flood causes tumult within the Royal household. Some actions in his "catalog of regal nonconformities" are harmless, as he plays cricket with a group of peasant children, and visits a farmer, admiring the pigs.

This causes a political struggle between the Whigs and Tories. Prince George, the future George IV, wants the take advantage of his father's deterioration to be named Regent, translation: "king in all but name and all the power, subject to Parliament... and certainly all the funds." He also wants his secret marriage Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic widow, to be recognized in the open. In this, he has enlisted Charles James Fox, former foreign secretary under Rockingham and now an opposition leader who supports America to the point of saying, "If a few ramshackle colonists can send him packing why can't we?", Doctor Warner, and later, the Lord Chancellor, Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow. Supporting the king is William Pitt the Younger, prime minister (1783-1801), who advocates parliamentary procedure and insists that Parliament has the right to decide who should be regent and under what terms. Queen Charlotte and Lady Pembroke, the king's mistress, are also on the king's side, as is his new equerry, the eager and loyal Captain Greville. The political struggle is another type of madness, as it has torn at the fabric of the government that is the envy of all nations.

The king's contempt for doctors is shown when he rants at Dr. Baker, who has given him senna, a mild purgative. "Mild? Forteen motions and you call it mild? I could have manured the whole palace." His views on sleep are amusing, as he wakes his handlers at four AM. "Six hours is enough for a man. Seven for a woman, and eight for a fool." That places me between a woman and a fool, then.

The role of the royal family as the symbol of England is also an issue. Prince George wants to do something, like handle some things in government. A line from his mother as they wave to their public is telling. "Smile, you lazy hound. It's what you're paid for. Smile and wave." I wonder Prince Charles has heard that from his mum.

The classical music score includes Handel's Water Music, adding to the splendour of the Georgian court. And this is based on Alan Bennett's play, Bennett of course being a collaborator of Dudley Moore, Peter Cook, and Tim Brook-Taylor in the 1960's.

However, the sobering lack of knowledge of porphyria, which is the modern diagnosis of what ailed the king, and is a hereditary metabolic disorder of which George suffered acutely and intermittently, is also a kind of madness of the ignorance of 18th century medicine. Yet, Dr. Willis does the best he can in avoiding the usual pronouncements and recommendations of the court physicians.

Nigel Hawthorne should've gotten a Best Actor award from some ceremony for playing the monarch, displaying the manic ups and downs, and sufferings of George III with great aplomb. Ian Holm gets the next honours as Dr. Willis, who stubbornly defies convention and sees the king nor as the king, but as a patient, and dares to look him in the eyes. Helen Mirren of Prime Suspect is Charlotte and Rupert Everett does a good turn as the Prince. However, Julian Wadham plays Pitt with great dignity and honour. And Geoffrey Palmer (As Time Goes By) is Warner. Also, the petitioner who attacks the king is played by Janine Duvititski (Jane in the Waiting For God series). Interesting look at one of the most misunderstood monarchs of England, what what?

The Madness of King George is simply the best movie I have seen in many years. The first thing that attracted me to the movie was the costumes: they are impeccable. The set, costume, and makeup: there is no cause for complaints there and many, many reasons for praise. But the most remarkable thing about this movie is how well each actor fits his or her part, and the pace of this drama. First of all, the acting is wonderful, but this movie was also wonderfully casted. Nigel Hawthorne blew me away with his hilarious, deep and believable portrayal of George III. His madness was heartbreaking and painful for the audience and his sane George the Third was funny in such a way that you couldn't help but root for him. Rupert Everett was simply so detestable that by the end of the movie I couldn't watch any movie with him in it without feeling a little hostile. Helen Mirren is, as always, pitch perfect in her portrayal and absolutely beautiful as Queen Charlotte. The environment created by this wonderful ensemble cast makes the movie exciting and the kind of film that elicits a real emotional response. Who knew that you could feel suspense, pain, happiness and exhilaration from a costume drama about a dead king? As soon as you put this movie in your DVD player you will be hooked, entranced and entertained. If you are even a mild fan of historical dramas, give this movie a chance. It'll only take a few moments for you to love it.

This is a triumph of acting. Nigel Hawthorne and Helen Mirren shine in this movie. While it has been criticised that Helen's German accent comes and goes, I think it was acceptable. Accents are just funny that way. And Mirren's acting makes up for it, especially in the "Do you think you are mad" scene after the Handel concert.
Ian Holm gives a superb performance as the determined little "mad doctor".
The costumes are stunning, the music (all Handel, George's favorite) gorgeous and brilliantly adapted, the story is bittersweet, at times painful, other times painfully funny! This movie is an underrated little gem.
Wish the DVD held more features such as behind the scenes or actors bios or something! It's seriously lacking in that department, but doesn't detract from a wonderful film!
Recommended for all Anglophiles.

Born in 1738, George III went on to become England's second-longest-ruling monarch, clocking in at nearly 60 years (only his grand daughter, Victoria, ruled longer). In 1788, however, the King took ill with severe stomach pains followed by severe mental instability and derangement. One of the dominant characteristics (amongst other things) was an uncontrollable (and often obscene), unstoppable, delusional, rapid, rambling speech which often went on for hours on end. The illness lasted only a few months, but it is this period that is the subject of the film.

Although George III certainly had his faults (not to mention the odd peculiarity), he was nonetheless a conscientious, responsible, and uncommonly down-to-earth monarch and a very honourable, morally upright man who was devoted to his family. His eldest son, the Prince of Wales, could not have been more different, however. He was a gambler, a womanizer, and a spendthrift who was chronically short of money. For him and his like-minded cronies, a Regency would be a godsend. So they attempted to have Parliament pass a bill to that effect.

One has here all the elements necessary for a ripping good story, and although liberties have necessarily been taken both for the sake of art and entertainment and in order to squeeze the story into 110 minutes, the film does a better job than many with the facts. As for the acting, it is quite simply unsurpassed. The performance by the late Nigel Hawthorne (Yes Minister/Prime Minister, Mapp & Lucia) as George III is simply breathtaking--sheer perfection. Hawthorne (who sadly died on Boxing Day 2001) was even nominated for an Academy Award for his role. Helen Mirren (Prime Suspect) is splendid as his wife, Charlotte; while Rupert Everett effortlessly evokes our loathing as the dissolute Prince of Wales.

George III has, in the 20th century, been posthumously diagnosed as likely having had porphyria (a rare hereditary disorder). For those unfamiliar with his reign, although he did indeed recover from his illness and go on to have many years of good health, the illness eventually caught up with him. In 1801, he suffered a relapse and was dogged with recurring bouts of illness over the following few years, not to mention failing eyesight. The final blow was struck in 1810 when his youngest daughter took ill and died. The King's health and sanity deteriorated to the point where he could no longer rule and a Regency was established in February 1811. He died in 1820.

I enjoy English history and historical biographies immensely, and I enjoyed this film. I would certainly recommend it to others with a similar interest, but I would also recommend it to anyone who simply enjoys a good period drama. I would also recommend, for those looking for a more in-depth treatment of the life of George III, the biography entitled George III--A Personal History by Christopher Hibbert.

I found Madness to be one of the very best period pieces I have seen. The insights into the working of British government at a time when the Monarchy was in its last stages of real day to day power were very enlightening. Similarly, the parliamentary maneuvering between Pitt the younger's Tories and Charles James Fox's radical Whigs, and their tie ins to competing factions of the Royal Family was simply fascinating. Americans are generally unaware of what a critical point in history this was, as the Foxites were very much in sympathy with the Jacobin regicides in France and the absence of England's opposition to the nouvelle regime there would likely have led to a French republican hegemony in Europe with untold consequences.

I disagree with some of the reviewers here who view George III as a great and good king, but he was certainly not the monster viewed in America either. To the contrary both the film and history demonstrate that he was a rather stodgy, unimaginitive man of mediocre talents but great force of will. When his physiological/psychological disease takes grip, the consequences are shocking, if not quite tragic. The real dramatic impact of the film comes with the effect of changed circumstances on the supporting characters, who take stances on one assumption and wind up surprised and vulnerable when those assumptions are no longer true. The more altruistic that a nonroyal character's behaviour has been, the harder the fall or disillusionment that results. Conversely, the more cynical a character's approach is, the better he or she comes out in the end. This one is really not to be missed, not only for all of these reasons, but also for the wonderful soundtrack of Handel pieces.

I saw this movie on a business trip in London when it first showed in the theaters and again recently on DVD. I enjoyed it very much both times and I recommend this DVD.

While I read a great deal of history, I don't read enough on this period to comment on the accuracy, but this book certainly FELT accurate. The costumes, scenery, bumbling doctors, scheming politicians and scrambling servants set a historical mood that's half the fun in this very enjoyable movie.

Of course, the screenplay is written for a modern audience, so we would, naturally, see irony in the bumbling doctors. Particularly ironic is one doctor's protestation that a doctor's work is of careful observation and should not be swayed by the color of the King's urine.

The scenes of Prime Minister Pitt in Parliament defending his king certainly reminded me of watching Tony Blair in action on CSPAN. I was also left with the impression that it's a lot more fun to be in British Parliament than in U.S. Congress.

One may expect to dislike the King, but in the end, one can't help but feel great sympathy for the man and not just because of the maltreatment he receives from his doctor's.

Overall, the movie was as enjoyable as I remembered it. Unfortunately, other than the trailer, the DVD did not give us any extras to enjoy.

That this tale of regal insanity has a basis in fact is only a tiny facet of its charm. The disease which renders the king temporarily insane is a real one, though modern treatment (thank god!) is a bit less excruciating!

The central fascination in this nightmarish little tale is the poor king's absolute helplessness in the face of his diagnosis of madness. Once labelled a madman, it's open season for every highly placed quack in the kingdom, and the vicious tortures that they regard as treatment resonate louder as they are practiced on the sacred person of the king.

But the movie comes fully to life in the relationship between the king and queen. "Mrs. King," he calls her, and "Mr. King" she responds. Regarding their public office with balance and humor, their marriage with deep respect, and each other with passionate and devoted love, the couple that happens to be King and Queen are absolutely charming! United in the face of the threat to the King's office by the crown prince, it is the two of them against the phalanxes of politicians as well as their own son. (To each other, they refer to this, their oldest of 13 children, as "the fat one", another humorous touch.)

Beyond even this, it is chillingly fascinating to trace the old ways of thought and the hints of developing modern medical science in the treatment of mental illness.

This is a fascinating and hugely enjoyable movie that I would watch over and over again, and I am crushed to find that it is presently unavailable!

"The Madness of King George" is a fairly accurate portrayal of George III's battle with insanity and his son. George is sent to an institute where a Dr. Willis hopes to cure him by using discipline. As the mental state of King George seems unfit for a king, his son,the Prince of Wales, tries to pass a bill that will let him replace his father as king. But George prevails in the end and remains King of England. I thought this was an excellent movie. I have always found English history extremely fascinating, and I have always been interested in the rulers of England. I thought this movie did an excellent job of portraying the time and characters. Though there were a few anachronisms (an incorrect map of America; the year 1892 carved on a door even though the movie took place in the 1780's) I thought it was very accurate and very well-researched. And the costumes were very attractive and made the movie fun to watch. I also thought the actors did a wonderful job. Nigel Hawthorne did an excellent job, and he truly deserved his Oscar nomination. Hawthorne provided most of the comic relief in this movie, and he made King George quite an endearing character. Ian Holm did equally as well as Nigel Hawthorne. He has always been a master of facial expressions, and this added to his amusing portrayal of Dr. Willis. And though I'm not much of a fan of Rupert Everett, in fact, I quite dislike him, I must admit he was very good as the Prince of Wales, and he had the right attitude and personality in the movie to pull that role off. I did not care of Helen Mirren, and I feel that an Oscar nomination was wasted on her. Her "German" accent was not consistent, and her acting was good, but not great. I think this was a great movie. It was funny, educational, and most of all - entertaining. This is a movie that I could watch again, and still enjoy just as much as the first time.

King Lear comes back to life! This time as the demented (or is it all too lucid!) King George III, who shakes up his familly, court and even Parliament with his seemingly absurd antics. This glorious little period piece gives us an accurate slice of 18th century English life, as well as providing laugh after laugh. More than that, this film artfully and subtly examines the serious subject of madness and what it means to see things a little differently.

Nigel Hawthorne's performance as George is flawless. He brings to life a very complex and misunderstood historical figure. Whether we follow the Mad George rushing to the rooftops trying to save his family from some paranoic threat, gallop after him darting across the dales, nightgown and all, or snigger while he 'instructs' the Court orchestra on how to 'properly' play their instruments, we feel the profound human spirit of a man trapped within confines not of his own making. Like Lear's, his mad roar is that of a free spirit shackled in chains. And for George, these are the shackles of propriety and royal duty. While the end of the film makes mention of the obscure aliment which supposedly tormented poor George, the film leaves open other possibilities as well. The film poignantly shows how madness and idiocy are far from being synonomous. In rare moments of clarity, George not only seems to know his condition better than his quack doctors do.....'I'm here, but not all there,' but he also shows some keen perception into the limits of the human mind. As he told his beloved 'Mrs Queen,'(the ever professional Mrs. Mirren), 'I just want to talk it all out,' maybe his true problem lies in not being able to accept the limits thrust upon him by his political responsibilities.

The film poses some interesting questions not only about the nature of madness and self-control, but about being a leader or public figure. The only doctor who manages to reach the far-gone King(brilliantly acted by Ian Holm), shrewdly states that he who is unable to govern himself is not fit to govern a country. Self-discipline appears to be the lacking ingredient.

In addition to the entertaining laughs and hidden questions, the film is supremely well-crafted. All the performances are well above board. The best supporting roles are those of Rupert Graves, as the proper and reserved Mr. Pitt, who valiantly defends his King when all others have abandonned him and the sultry Amanda Donohoe as the loyal Lady Pembroke, capable of making any sacrifice for her Majesty. Rupert Everett's Prince of Wales is the weakest link. Somehow, he seemed out of place in the film. Better stay by Madonna's side.

All in all, a great piece of entertainment. Stay in tonight and rent it....or better yet, buy it. A must for any serious collection. Even hardened Anglophobes and anti-royalists (like myself) will find it impossible to hold back the laughs and tears. Well, maybe we colonists shouldn't have sent old Georgie packing after all!