It started in 1991 with a stage-play, "The Madness of George III," by Alan Bennett. The play's director, Nicholas Hynter, and its star, Nigel Hawthorne, both returned for the 1994 film. While it's based on the actual history of the King's mental illness, it also takes in the larger issues that so often arise when a monarch struts upon the stage, as when the freshly-deposed Richard II calls for a mirror to see his own face, and find whence from it his majesty has gone:
Give me that glass, and therein will I readAlas, it is not a rival, but himself that threatens to depose George III, and therein hangs this tale. The king's removal from court and from Queen Charlotte, his confinement in a chair, and his long torments are partly fictionalized, but the agony he feels, in Nigel Hawthorne's memorable performance, is real.
No deeper wrinkles yet? Hath sorrow struck
So many blows upon this face of mine
And made no deeper wounds? O flatt'ring glass,
Like to my followers in prosperity,
Thou dost beguile me! Was this face the face
That every day under his household roof
Did keep ten thousand men? Was this the face
That like the sun did make beholders wink?
NB: You can stream the film for free via Tubi, though you'll have to put up with a few advertisements.
Something from the film that specifically stood out to me was King George's madness. Particular actions that he did such as running around in his pajamas, purposely ramming himself into random ladies standing around, and thinking bushes are Americans was all funny to observe but also saddening at the same time. It is clear that King George's health is declining, and instead of assessing that he probably has dementia or a disease of the sort they call him "mad".
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, seeing how his doctors treated him was also saddening as well, because they would try methods such as violent restraint which I do not see fit as treatment. But again, it was the 17th century process so I am not surprised they did not have the proper medicine and treatment for King George. Overall, I felt that the film did an amazing job at portraying illness in the 17th century and how it was assessed and handled.
Something from the film that specifically stood out to me was King George's madness. Particular actions that he did such as running around in his pajamas, purposely ramming himself into random ladies standing around, and thinking bushes are Americans was all funny to observe but also saddening at the same time. It is clear that King George's health is declining, and instead of assessing that he probably has dementia or a disease of the sort they call him "mad".
DeleteAdditionally, seeing how his doctors treated him was also saddening as well, because they would try methods such as violent restraint which I do not see fit as treatment. But again, it was the 17th century process so I am not surprised they did not have the proper medicine and treatment for King George. Overall, I felt that the film did an amazing job at portraying illness in the 17th century and how it was assessed and handled.
-Jessica Fandino (I did this post twice because on the first I did not add my name)
I watched The Madness of King George after reading the Burney entries. I found it particularly interesting that in both “Encountering the King” and in the movie, the King had these moments of lucidness in which people believed him to be completely cured. In the film of course, he does become completely cured and goes on to serve as King again. In Fanny Burney’s entry, she mentions that after she gets over her initial fear of the King, she actually has quite a nice conversation with him. At the end of the entry, Burney includes that the King says “I have lived so long out of the world, I know nothing.” The King was being kept from society for any variety of reasons. His attendants/doctors could have been trying to calm and quiet his mind, it could have been for his safety or societies, or it could be because someone else wanted power (Prince George). In The Madness of King George, his son sends him away as a way to gain power over the government and become the Prince Regent. The King has no idea that anyone is considering Regency until Charlotte shows him the bill that will be voted on the next day.
ReplyDeleteI did a quick Google search of Charlotte during the movie to try to find out more about her reaction to George’s illness. I found articles (however credible they may actually be is another story) that said that she was very supportive of him throughout their whole marriage, including his illness, until he became violent towards her. At this time they were not able to be together for worries of her own safety. This also reminded me of Burney’s thoughts when running from the King– she was afraid that he may hurt her, even though she seemed to have no evidence that he would consider doing so. Unless this had already happened with Charlotte, though this timeline does not seem to match.
Burney also discusses the idea that the King’s attendants allow him to run up to her, grab her by the shoulders, and kiss her cheek. She is appalled by this action, exclaiming that the attendants must think that this is normal. In the film, we see that many of those surrounding the King through his illness did not know him on a personal level before he began to descend into this state. Even Queen Charlotte asks “How can they restore him to his proper self if they do not know that self?” How can someone help another get back to their true self if they did not know it before? Is there truly a way to help someone recover what is lost? Obviously in today’s world, we have more advanced treatment for those with Dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease, but treatment still does not cure all.
After watching the film “The Madness of King George”, I noticed how everyone kept mentioning that the king is ‘mad’. At first, I didn’t understand why everyone kept saying that he was mad, but after reading Fanny Burney’s journal; I found out that his illness was not only mental, but also a physical one. After doing more research, I came across an article that mentioned what illness King George had. He suffered from a disease called porphyria, a group of liver disorders in which substances called porphyrins build up in the body, negatively affecting the skin or nervous system. This disease has many symptoms, but what I noticed with King George is more on the hormonal and mental side. This disease is what caused him to become mad. Throughout, the movie Charlotte is supportive of her husband, and she tries to comfort him where she can. This led me to think what caused his disease in the first place? Also, why did it affect his mental health more than his physical health? And why George was the only one with the disease? After all everyone believed him to be mad.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching The Madness of King George I had a feeling from the very start he was already going mad before anyone knew, I wouldn’t think a king would have eccentric behaviors in this time in history; at least not in front of company. When a woman attempting to assassinate the King may have foreshadowed the events after he had lost his mind, she stated, “...Or the country will be drenched in blood” (7:14). There may not necessarily be blood shed but rather an unrest within the government parties that divide the royal family and their supporters which they so desperately hold on to their status or claim more powerful ones for their own. However, no one paid any mind to the Captain’s concerns on the King’s behavior and excused it as it was nothing out of the ordinary. But it is not just the madness of the king but due to his mental state the government is not at rest either. The King’s son, the Prince of Wales is looking to take advantage of his father’s illness to seize power. The Parliament is also divided on awaiting the King’s recovery or placing the Prince as Regient, to which ultimately the Prince has won the Parliament's favor. By the end the King had recovered making him once again fit to rule and the vote from Parliament irrelevant however. The intensity throughout the film showed what can happen from the illness of a single person whose status is so important it can shake the foundation of family, royalty and government.
ReplyDeleteAgustin Custer
The madness of king george is pretty interesting, the movie demonstrates the scenario quite well. With how fast king george begins to deteriorate and how it was somewhat hinting at him already being a little off. With how he was acting towards everything, like when he had someone try to murder him but showed no aggression. Instead realizing that person was themselves mad. Which makes the film a little more ironic when reviewing it, but it makes the piece that much more enjoyable. They’re are even signs that something is definitely off but everyone is just like “He is the king, do not speak about him like that” and get upset that the king may be viewed as weak.
ReplyDeleteBack then they didn't really have anything to prescribe or a diagnosis to give to the king which makes it even worse for him and his condition.
-Dylan Brazil
Upon watching the film “The Madness of King George,” I thought it was interesting—if that is the right word—to see how mental health and its deterioration were portrayed. For all intents and purposes, King George III was determined to be mad by those around him, including his innermost circles of companions. As a historical figure, and from the American perspective, King George III is demonized as a tyrant and cruelty. In a sense, the people around him throughout the film demonize him in a different regard. They demonize his mental illness as a weakness and make a reason why King George III is unfit to rule. Obviously, no one wants a madman on the throne of England (or anywhere) but it is rather sad to watch this deterioration from a group of people who are supposed to be backing the king.
ReplyDeleteIn the demonization of King George III’s mental deterioration, however, there is a pull for humanity. The man is no longer a ruthless king and untouchable historical figure. His illness makes him more of a man. He is lost and confused and wholly no longer himself as he is consumed by mental illness.
The treatment the king was receiving is no different than what people continue to do to people of power today in age. Any person with common sense or in their right mind can tell the King was not doing good mentally. But what happens when you have the responsibility of a whole country on you? Those types of dilemmas have to be hidden from the public and can't be declared as serious. Not to mention no one will dare to question certain kinds of authorities. By doing this the King wasn't given help or any kind of diagnosis which only hurt him in the long run. Medicine wasn't anywhere near where it is now so getting a diagnosis for the king was probably a far stretch or at least for an accurate diagnosis that can actually help.
ReplyDeleteI found Frances Burney’s meeting with King George quite amusing. It reminded me a lot of that scene from Pride and Prejudice (2005) where Elizabeth is exploring Pemberley, Mr. Darcy’s home, since she believed he would not be there that day. She stumbles upon a girl playing the piano forte, which then is revealed to be Darcy’s sister, and Mr. Darcy himself spots her through the crack in the door, much like the King and Burney seeing each other through the foliage in the supposedly empty garden. Elizabeth and Burney run as fast and as far away as they can from the men that were supposed to be anywhere else, but the men chase after the ladies until they both stop. The moments after both chases are tender, and the confusion turned into joy at finally meeting.
ReplyDeleteUnder the same circumstances as Burney, I might have done the same thing. Whenever I’m not expecting social interaction or just want to avoid a person altogether, I also run away and try to hide from the situation. Usually though, I’m not seen as Burney was, nor chased after. If I had been, I would probably keep running too and try thinking up a good excuse like not being able to hear them or dealing with an emergency. I’m glad Burney stood her ground when she was caught and was able to have a heartfelt conversation with the King.
- Spock Nardone
King George's's madness stuck out to me throughout the whole film because it reminded me of someone I knew. His actions were very concerning, and it was very clear that he had a mental illness and may be sick physically and in other ways. It was pretty sad how he was painted as this demon and horrible person but really, he seemed to really need help. with that being said, even with the paranoia, stress, anxiety, and hallucinations, he still did his part and society and overcame many things.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching “The Madness of King George The Third” I can see how King George The Third becomes a character we can empathize with. Most Kings of England and Monarchs in general are notorious for their abrasive attitudes and gluttony - at least from the perspective of an American. King George The Third is not different in this regard, especially because the American Revolution was during his time of reign. Although Americans may not like Monarchy and King George The Third for his involvement in dragging on a war between Britain and the Colonies, most human beings can empathize with a person dealing with an illness that is seemingly untreatable – especially when it's on screen for everyone to witness with him. The viewer watches his gradual decline in mental and physical health and finds themself sympathizing with him. This is done by simply allowing the viewer to observe, and watch as his urine turns blue, he forgets what he’s doing, and runs around in his pajamas. Potentially comical at first, it turns dark quickly when the viewer realizes we are watching an old man wither away.
ReplyDeleteI found Greville an interesting figure. I initially dismissed him as a background character, and while I suppose that wasn’t inaccurate, he at least receives more focus than say Pembroke or Elizabeth, albeit only slightly. He is a way to humanize the king’s attendants, I’m sure, but I can’t see how his relations to Pembroke play into it. An explanation for the Queen’s visiting of his majesty mainly, but then to what end does his demotion at the end serve? And what about Fitzroy—surely, he could have been excluded, perhaps by a merging of his and Greville’s persons into one character.
ReplyDeleteI feel George, the prince, and Mrs. Fitzherbert were similarly underutilized. I almost sympathized with the prince’s plight during the initial bed scene between them, but after his scoffing at her concerns and her lack of existence for the rest of the movie, I can’t say I found him an interesting antagonist or them a particularly riveting duo. I would have liked to seen him humanized, perhaps some of his “laziness” before his rebellion, or more of his relationship with Fred or even Elizabeth. I felt like the film had all of these characters in order to present a feeling of grandness, or perhaps to acknowledge their historical presence at the events depicted, but I would have preferred a tighter, more developed cast than a bloat of vestiges for the sake of accuracy. Accuracy is not a very noble ideal for a movie, at least not when to be “accurate” means to acknowledge the remote existence of truth without having to depict any of its complexities, and to do so with no other purpose in mind than to "accurately" alienate and dramatize the ones you most fancy.