| The Madness of King George | |
|---|---|
 Theatrical release poster | |
| Directed by | Nicholas Hytner |
| Screenplay by | Alan Bennett |
| Based on | The Madness of George III 1991 play by Alan Bennett |
| Produced by |
|
| Starring | |
| Cinematography | Andrew Dunn |
| Edited by | Tariq Anwar |
| Music by | |
Production companies |
|
| Distributed by |
|
Release dates |
|
Running time | 110 minutes[2] |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Box office | $27.4 million[3] |
The Madness of King George is a 1994 Britishbiographicalcomedy drama film directed byNicholas Hytner and adapted byAlan Bennett from his own 1991 playThe Madness of George III. It tells the true story ofGeorge III ofGreat Britain's deterioratingmental health, and his equally declining relationship with his eldest son, thePrince of Wales, particularly focusing on the period around theRegency Crisis of 1788–89. Two text panels at the end of the film note that the colour of the King's urine suggests that he was suffering fromporphyria, adding that the disease is "periodic, unpredictable andhereditary."
The Madness of King George won theBAFTA Awards in 1995 forOutstanding British Film andBest Actor in a Leading Role forNigel Hawthorne, who was also nominated for theAcademy Award for Best Actor. The film won the Oscar forBest Art Direction and was also nominated forOscars forBest Supporting Actress for Mirren andBest Adapted Screenplay. Helen Mirren also won theCannes Film Festival Award for Best Actress and Hytner was nominated for thePalme d'Or.
In 1999, theBritish Film Institute votedThe Madness of King George the42nd-greatest British film of all time.
King George III's bout ofmadness in 1788 touched off theRegency Crisis of 1788 and triggered a power struggle between factions ofParliament under theToryPrime MinisterWilliam Pitt the Younger and the reform-mindedLeader of the OppositionCharles James Fox.
At first, the King's behaviour appears mildly eccentric. He is deeply concerned with the wellbeing and productivity ofGreat Britain and exhibits an encyclopaedic knowledge of the families of even the most obscure royal appointments. He is devoted to his loving wife, Queen Charlotte, and their large brood of 15 children. However, he is growing more unsettled, partly over theloss of America. His memory fails, his behaviour becomes erratic andhypersexual, he talks and talks, and his urine turns blue.
George, Prince of Wales, aggravates the situation, knowing that he will be namedregent if the King becomes incapacitated. George chafes under his father's relentless criticism, and yearns for greater freedom, particularly when it comes to choosing a wife. He married the woman everyone believes to be hismistress,Mrs. Fitzherbert, in a secret ceremony in 1785. Without his father's consent, the marriage is illegal. Even with consent, it would remove him from thesuccession, because Fitzherbert is aCatholic. He knows that he has the moral support of Fox, whose agenda includesabolition of the slave trade and friendlierrelations with America. Knowing how to exacerbate the King's behaviour, the Prince arranges a concert of music byHandel. The King reacts as expected, interrupting the musicians, speaking lasciviously toLady Pembroke, and finally assaulting his son.
In a private moment, the King tells Charlotte that he knows something is wrong. They are brutally interrupted when the Prince has them separated, supposedly on the advice of physicians. Led by the Prince of Wales' personal physician,Dr. Warren, the King is treated using the medical practices of the time, which focus on the state of his urine and bowel movements and include painfulcupping andpurgatives.
Lady Pembroke recommendsDr. Francis Willis, who cured her mother-in-law. Willis uses novel procedures. At his farm inLincolnshire, patients work to gain "a better opinion of themselves." He observes to anequerry "To be curbed, thwarted, stood up to, exercises the character." When the King insults him, foully, he is strapped into a chair and gagged. He will be restrained whenever he "swears and indulges in meaningless discourse" and "does not strive every day and always towards his own recovery".
When the Prince has the King transferred toKew, Charlotte watches as her beloved, bearded and wearing a soiled diaper and a straitjacket, struggles against being put in the coach. "Until you can govern yourself, you're not fit to govern others. And until you do so, I shall govern you," Willis says. At Kew, the King spits soup at Willis, but gains control under the physician's intractable gaze.[a] Later, the King, properly dressed, feeds himself to a round of applause from staff—but the delusions persist.
TheWhig opposition confronts Pitt's increasingly unpopularTory government with a proposal that would give the Prince powers of regency.Baron Thurlow, theLord Chancellor, obtains and suppresses proof of the marriage. Fox wins, and the Regency Bill is printed. Thurlow comes to see the King and joins in a moving reading ofKing Lear.[4] "I have remembered how to seem..." the King muses. "What, what!" an expression he has not used in six months. His urine is yellow.
Thurlow and the King arrive at Parliament in time to thwart the bill. The King forces the Prince to admit his marriage and to put away Fitzherbert. With the crisis averted, all those who have witnessed his suffering are summarily dismissed, including Captain Greville, the King's equerry. Fitzroy, another equerry, observes to the sacked Greville: "To be kind does not commend you to kings."
Cheering crowds welcome the royal family toSt. Paul's Cathedral. Willis stands by, but the King dismisses him.
"We must be a model family," he declares; George wants "something to do." "Smile at the people, wave at them. Let them see that we're happy. That's why we're here." Saluting, Willis disappears into the crowd, where Mrs. Fitzherbert also smiles, wistfully.
Alan Bennett insisted that director Nicholas Hytner and actor Nigel Hawthorne should be cast in the film version, after having acted in the play.[6][7]
In adapting the play to film, the director Nicholas Hytner changed the name fromThe Madness of George III toThe Madness of King George for American audiences, to clarify George III's royalty. A popular explanation developed that the change was made because there was a worry that American audiences would think it was a sequel and not go to see it, assuming they had missed "I" and "II". An interview revealed: "That's not totally untrue," said Hytner, laughing. "But there was also the factor that it was felt necessary to get the wordKing into the title."[8]
Principal photography took place from 11 July to 9 September 1994. The film was shot atShepperton Studios and on location at:[citation needed]
The Madness of King George was the second highest-grossing British film of the year, behindShallow Grave, with a gross of £4.6 million in the UK.[9] It debuted strongly at the US box office[10] and went on to gross $15,238,689 in the United States and Canada and $27.4 million worldwide.[11][3]
The film received largely positive reviews. OnRotten Tomatoes, the film has a 94% score based on 47 reviews, with an average of 7.8/10. The site's consensus states: "Thanks largely to stellar all-around performances from a talented cast,The Madness of King George is a funny, entertaining, and immensely likable adaptation of the eponymous stage production."[12]
Reviewing forVariety,Emanuel Levy praised the film, writing: "Under Hytner's guidance, the cast, composed of some of the best actors in British cinema, rises to the occasion... Boasting a rich period look, almost every shot is filled with handsome, emotionally charged composition".[13]
John Simon ofThe National Review wrote, "The Madness of King George III has survived the transfer from stage to screen, and emerges equally enjoyable on film." Simon praised the leading actors and most of the supporting cast, except for Carter's portrayal of Fox, which he said lacked charisma.[14]
Stanley Kauffmann ofThe New Republic wrote, "For those who, like myself, were disappointed in the play, the film contains pleasant surprises, all of them resulting from differences between the two arts."[15]
'It was wonderful that Alan Bennett insisted on Nick and me doing the film after we'd done it as a play,' he said of the playwright.
