The Madness of King George (1994)

If Ismail Merchant ever produced a Derek Jarman film, it might have turned out to be "The Madness of King George." The crisp, clean, elegant stateliness of the film, however, overpowers any style the actual director, Nicholas Hynter, might try to inject into it. The king of England circa the late 1700's goes batty in this film and it is neither interesting nor harrowing. Aside from a rather surprising look at torturous device and techniques used by health professionals at the time, which the film foists on us with the most underhanded methods, there is little of interest here. We could easily find out these historical footnotes by watching a special on PBS. The film then attempts to act as some sort of a historical reference point as to when, exactly, the monarchial system of England changed from a political infrastructure into a rather demented form of hyper-celebrity. It fails on this level as well.

To set up this second point, the film has Nigel Hathorne, as King George III, constantly grouse about the colonies becoming the United States. It's rather a sore subject with him, really. The statesmen in Parliament allude to it as well. I guess we are supposed to notice the rather precarious situation England was in politically at this time but the film's script by Alan Bennett, based on his stage play of almost the same name (see notes), is so subtle in this aspect that it completely eludes us until the final moment of the film. To punctuate this sub-text, Bennett throws in a line to point to this new territory for the royals to be uttered by Hawthorne. It finally sinks in, unfortunately, a little too late.

The film enlists several British thespians to bring the film to life. Hawthorne could be engaging as George III but we don't see him before he goes mad. Although we realize his actions to be rather insane, we have no context, other than our own 20th century lives, in which to place his actions. We really don't see enough of George before the madness to know exactly how far he's slipped. The medical community, primarily personified by Ian Holm as Dr. Willis, is so hopelessly inane that we do not have any reason to trust any of their diagnoses or presumptions. It's maddening. In the supporting cast, Helen Mirren is wonderfully subtle as Queen Charlotte. But her character in the film seems so reminiscent of the female lead in "The Lion in Winter," with the male and female roles reversed here, that we get confused. Mirren's character has only one chance to show us her strength and it's barely enough. We can't blame Mirren for history's mistreatment of her character but we can blame Bennett. There should be more for her here. Rupert Everett is interesting as the slightly wimpish Prince of Wales, (also called George) the heir to the throne. Forced to play the bad guy here, Everett only has his odd looks to aid him. At least he doesn't overact. Again, we know little of his history or his motivations here. We also do not learn of his eventual fate, so it's hard to judge his performance. Worse yet is the foppish Fred, Duke of York, played by Julian Rhind-Tutt. Looking powdered and feminine, Rhind-Tutt's only purpose here seems to be to appear effeminate. This is used to, once again, show us an evil character as a gay, reaffirming that old cinematic adage: "homosexuality bad." It's irritating. Finally, there is Rupert Graves as the cute neophyte Grenville. Thrown into the film to be our counterpart, he is new to this lifestyle of servitude to Royals. At least Graves is always interesting to look at. Eventually, even with no character to rely on in the heart of the film, he wins us over. His fate is cruel however and one hates it's message at the end. Bennett uses him as an exclamation point to spew hatred and venom upon the Royals.

Why Bennett thought this an interesting story is easy to see. But the scripter cannot focus here on his messages long enough to prove any of them. The madness, which permeates the film, disappears miraculously at the film's end and is eventually, through the use of title cards, explained away medically after the climax. The turning of the tide for the Royal family's place in the world is hinted at but not fully realized until the final line of dialogue in the film. The bitter look at the heartlessness of Royals comes late into the film and seems harsh and misplaced as well. The film ends upon being mainly about nothing. It's a weak movie when compared to "The Lion in Winter" and it acknowledges itself as an Anti-"King Lear" within it's own dialogue and presentation. Bennett tries to be clever here with a literary allusion that seems as hollow and as contrived as any Hollywood production. It's totally unbelievable.

The sets and the music are highly appropriate here, with authentic castles and Eton college being used for backdrops and G. F. Handel's works being adapted. Still, like the rest of the film, the watered-down style adds little to the film's almost non-existent substance. This film is bland and diluted. Eventually one sees it as mean-spirited as well. Holm's character is set up to be a savior only to be proved a monster right before our eyes. We feel cheapened and tricked. When the final attack on the Royal's comes, it is Bennett who seems small-minded and bitter and not his literary subjects. "The Madness of King George" is simply a rather dull headache.

Note: Director of Photography is Andrew Dunn. Costumes designed by Mark Thompson.

A funny, perhaps true story: Bennett's play was titled "The Madness of King George III." The "III" was dropped because it was feared that American's would think it a sequel and wouldn't view it because they hadn't seen the first two. The play was originally produced by the Royal National Theatre.

Hawthorne, Mirren and others received Oscar nominations for their work in the film.

Handel's music is adapted by George Fenton for the film.

Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London with numerous other scenes shot at various locales including Eton, Broughton Castle, Arundel Castle, St. Paul's Cathedral and others.

Bennett surely warped reality and twisted the truth here to make a drama out of history. While George had bouts of madness, it is only his illness in his final years that have left history blank. There may be little truth to George IV interest in the throne. However, the later regent's marriage to a Catholic and his subsequent abandonment of her is true. He later married, on the condition his debts be paid, Princess Caroline of Brunswick. After she bore him a daughter, he abandoned her as well. He was not popular with his subjects. When his only daughter died in childbirth, he had no descendants. His brother William succeeded him upon his death and took the moniker William IV.

Review written in 1996

Report Card

Script: C-

Acting: A-

Cinematography\Lighting: B+

Special Effects\Make Up: B+

Music: B+

Final Grade: C-