Monday, April 04, 2011

Once Again On The Question Of Abolishing The British Monarchy- “The Madness Of King George”- A Film Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for The Madness Of King George.

DVD Review

The Madness Of King George, Nigel Hawthorne, Helen Mirren, 1994

Frankly, I like my kings (or queens, for that matter), especially 18th and 19th century kings, to be villainous and inept. And, of course, we descendant American rebel supporters of the revolutionary war against King George III of England have more than a few unkind things to say about his use of Red Coats and Hessians to deny our forebears their right to an independent state. However, apparently good King George had an afterlife, well except a little fetish about still calling us his colonies (which Prime Minister Pitt insistently, if futilely, reminded him was not the case any longer), guiding Britannia and the empire to rule the waves, being a good and gentle husband, a fine father (cough) and all-around jack-of-all trades in his tidy island kingdom. Except that little question of his madness (temporary though it was). And the maneuvers, by family and political foes, to get him out of the way, are what drive the core of this film. Oh, and a very disturbing inside view of the norms of medical practice in those days, as well.

Since nobody, or at least nobody shown in the film, had a serious clue as to the king’s malady (except those telltale urine samples).least of the “doctors” the old tried and true try anything and everything, quack or sound, to see if the king can recover was the order of the day. However not everyone was committed to that recovery, or a safe and speedy recovery, and that is where the family and political plots thicken. Son George (the heir apparent) was linked with the so-pictured nefarious Whigs (led by Mr. Fox) to declare a regency on his behalf. The Tory Mr. Pitt was linked with keeping his job and that depended on the king’s speedy recover. Pitt moved might and main to insure that recover, and to insure a delay in a parliamentary vote on the regency question. All of this is done with a certain wit, including by the king in his lucid moments. But all’s well that ends well, the king recovered, his family is reconciled with his longevity, and he continued to rule those Britannia waves.

A word on the acting here. Nigel Hawthorne shines as the lucid, reflective, just momentarily mad, witty farmer King George. Except, again, on that little buggy issue of the colonies. His performance here is the best public relations the old king has had in a couple of centuries. And, of course, Helen Mirren (who else?) as his steadfast queen and main champion (beyond Mr. Pitt) is well, queenly. Apparently she has the lock on playing British queens, and playing them with a certain style. Finally, since everybody and their brother weighed in on the nature of the king’s malady, I will give it a parting shot. I am convinced, and I believe all reputable sources will confirm this diagnosis, that old King George suffered from advanced imperialitis and those “colonists” who formed these United States caused him his reflex attack. By the way is it not about time for starters, among other things, to abolish that deadweight monarchy over there in Great Britian. This film is prima facie evidence for that proposition,

No comments:

Post a Comment