Read the two links below for some more background on King George III of Great Britain. Having viewed the video (you can review if needed), you should now be able to address the essential questions below. What did you feel where the most interesting, surprising or otherwise noteable scenes from the film? (This is your response element due Friday.) Also take a look at the "To the French Revolution" questions. These should be kept in the back of your mind as we move forward.
King George III: Mad or misunderstood?
The Madness of King George: the only insanity is Nigel Hawthorne losing out on the Oscar to Forrest Gump
The Madness of King George and the Evolution of British Politics.
Essential Questions:
• What is the relationship between the Crown and parliament in 1780’s Great Britain?
• What is the role of the King in British society at this time?
• What actions did Parliament take to increase it’s power and weaken that of the monarchy?
• How were mental health issues perceived and treated at the time? Had healthcare advanced much since the Middle Ages?
To the French Revolution:
• How does Britain as depicted in MKG compare to France in the 1780’s?
• How does the role of the Monarchy in England compare to that of the French King?
• Why do you think revolution takes place in France and not in Great Britain?
45 comments:
In the film “The Madness of King George,” there were many moments to pique the interest of any viewer, and even more when watching the movie from a historical perspective. Two elements of the movie were particularly striking; the first being its insights into the period’s medical practices. One of the most shocking moments of the film must have been the scene in which blistering is applied to try to remove the negative humors from the king’s body. Heating glass containers over candles and then burning rings into a man’s back and legs is horrifying to watch, and even more disturbing to realize that this was the common medical practice as late as the 18th century. Similarly shocking is the declaration by the king’s personal physician that he avoids physical examinations at all costs: a statement that would be considered ludicrous by today’s standards. Other moments serve as further looks into historical medicine, from the gruesome observation of a patient’s surgery (performed with the patient conscious and restrained by assistants) to the nearly humorous fascination of Dr. Pepys with the king’s feces.
The other fascinating thread in the movie was the extreme levels of protocol and reverence following the king, even as his ravings worsened. Dr. Willis is the only person willing to stand up to the king, and the behavior of his attendants trying to appease him stretch into the ludicrous. When his wife and the others try to fetch him back from his morning run into the fields, it is amazing to watch them submit so quickly to his orders for them to pray, even when they know they have to get him back inside. Escalating even further, the king then tries to force himself on Lady Pembroke, and is finally dragged away. Even after all that, the Lady still insists to the king after his recovery that he always acted the perfect gentleman, and she recalls no “improper behavior.” Likewise, it is only the castle staff who did not interact with the king in his madness who were kept on afterwards; those who dealt with him personally were let go. The way that people manipulated and were manipulated in order to preserve the king’s reputation is fascinating, and one of the most interesting aspects of the movie.
The film "The Madness of King George" contains several notable scenes, each contributing to both the powerful emotional appeal of the movie, and the depth of the historical presentation. Perhaps the most painful scene displayed in the movie occurs when King George is first presented with the chair where he will be gagged and restrained, according to the treatment of his physician, Dr. Willis. At this point, I really began to see how brutally the doctor would deal with the King’s madness. This was surprising. To see the king of England run away from the situation, only to dragged back, gagged and tied to the chair was eye-opening. I was also interested in the fact that Dr. Willis used the technique of looking the king in the eye as part of the treatment. This was a clear demonstration of the fact that the King’s dignity had been seriously diminished by the affair.
I was also interested in the scenes displaying Parliament. The men in the group were very animated and committed to their causes. This was clearly shown in the loud, argumentative nature of the crowd, especially in the session where the men voted to create the bill to make the Prince reagent. I was also interested in the more secretive dealings of the group, such as when the Lord Chancellor spoke to Charles Fox about keeping his position in exchange for keeping the news of the Prince’s marriage quiet. When asked of his motive for speaking to Fox, he responded with, “The good of the country. To remain as Lord Chancellor.” Clearly, the priorities of the government were not always perfectly noble.
Finally, I felt that one of my favorite scenes was when King George met the men of Parliament after his condition had improved. At last, he reclaimed what was his, proving to his people that, though perhaps mad, he was still strong, and he would not easily let his throne be taken from him. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. Not only was it educational, it was inspiring and exciting.
Thursday, January 5, 2012 King George the 3rd and His Madness
One scene that was interesting to me was when King George's son the Prince of Whales wanted him to die so he could take over his postion as the king of England. I dont understand why the Kings' son would wish this upon him. Were father son relationships always like that between King and son? Or was this one rare instance? Familial relationships must have been strained in the royal families of England and sheer power controlled greedy rulers.
I believe this film showed how corrupt absolutists or monarchial gov. can be.
Another surprising scene in the film was when the Dr. of King George the 3rd restrained him and kept him silent for half the day. You would think the doctor would try more sane or logical ways of curing the king. This really shows how much knowledge medical sciences were lacking and how much society has learned since this time period.
I still can't believe that King George was pampered and helped so much in the beginning of the movie. The social structure in the movie really showed how corrupt and unjust people were treated.
One of the aspects of this movie that shocked me as well as kept me interested was the corruption within the royal family. As soon as all the royals realize King George is mad and is not fit for ruling, the Prince of Wales decides to take advantage of that fact and works towards being appointed regent. When the King is deemed unfit to rule and a team of “doctors” is called in to perform “medical tests” on the king, the Prince uses this time to campaign politically to try to be appointed regent. I was shocked that instead of feeling bad for King George due to the fact he is forced to undergo many gruesome medical tests, the Prince selfishly uses this window of opportunity to help himself (he already has a high job as a prince anyway)! However, this scamming kept me interested because it’s ironic that royalty would be so selfish and deceiving (even though I’m sure it was very common).
Another part of this movie that shocked me was the gruesome medical tests and examinations King George was forced to undergo. It was extremely surprising to see the trained doctor believed a cure for King George was to gag him and tie him in a chair for a day. It made me wonder how they could actually believe that tying someone to a chair would help them. I was also shocked, yet intrigued, when the doctor believed that burning the King’s skin would cure him. I can’t imagine how painful and humiliating that must have been, but I also can’t imagine why a doctor believed that would help anyone. It made me realize how lucky I am to be living in the 21st century with proper medical care.
After viewing the film called, “The Madness of King George,” I thought that there were many interesting and surprising events that were presented in the movie; however, overall the film was remarkably exciting to watch and learn from. While watching the film, I did learn that during the 18th century many harmful and disturbing medical processes were used in order to cure a person. Moreover, there were many successful and interesting scenes that left me thinking about the pain that people suffered from. One of many of the shocking scenes that were acted was the medical processes that were used during this time period. One of the important actions that I thought was the most harmful was the part when other men surrounded the King George and placed candles over his skin to cause blisters and cure his medical problem.
As mentioned before I thought that the most devastating scene was when the King’s skin was burned by candles. Due to the fact the king had a harmful disease which caused him to experience difficulty in remembering certain situations; many doctors were called in to help him with this very serious problem. At this point in the scene the king was lying down on a bed and he was exposed to the burning of candles on his back, legs, and arms. The burning component caused big blisters to form, which did look painful. Furthermore, while the burning was touching the king’s skin he was screaming loudly, and I could only imagine how bad it actually could have hurt him. I believe that this process that was used to cure the king’s problem was actually interesting, but surprising to think that this medical procedure was used to cure a person. As I was watching this event I could imagine how dangerous and unsafe it would be to use this technique today. Today, if we even tried to put our hands near a candle, we would nearly be whining due to the hotness of the fire, whereas imagining being burned by the fire and having it being put directly on your skin.
All in all, this film was both interesting and shocking to watch, due to the different medical techniques that were used to cure a person. Not only were harmful medical processes used, but it was also sad to watch how the king’s status affected other people.
"The Madness of King George" contained many riveting scenes containing deft actions and motions and clever dialogues. One of these scenes, and my personal favorite, was when the King wakes up in the castle and shows his first symptoms of the disease that begins to affect him. His first strange action was waking up so early as if he had something of utter importance to get done before the day started. The Kind ran around frantically waking up his men, and before even getting dressed, ran out of the castle with his men following him. All through these spontaneous actions, the king was talking jibberish to his men. One of the dialogues in this scene went something like "Sir it's only 10'o'clock!" "Well, then we've got the whole day to do things chap!" I enjoyed this scene because it was well-portrayed and comedic to me as well.
Some other interesting scene that dealt more with the actual history of Great Britain and it's governmental system were the scenes that took place during Parliament's discussion. These scenes showed how open to ideas and opinions Parliament was during the time that King George reigned. These scenes also depicted how much less formal Parliament seemed to be during the 18th century, compared to similar systems today such as our own Congress. At anytime one man could be arguing with another representative, and another representative would but in and add a comment that caused a stir with the entire attendance. These scenes also showed how outgoing and animated the representative in Parliament became during session, especially during stressful domestic affairs such as the King's situation.
All in all, this film showed some truly attention-grabbing and memorable scenes creating a great movie. "The Madness of King George" was not all about the entertainment, however, as the true history and system of Parliament and other governmental factors of Britain during the 18th century were well-depicted.
After watching “The Madness of King George” I was shocked by the way King George was treated when he was thought to be insane. Instead of giving King George the best of care, he was blistered because that was thought to draw out the craziness from your body. Even though this event took place hundreds of years ago, I was expecting that the people would treat an insane king with some kindness and concern, but it appeared that no one was concerned with helping King George in a kind way except for his wife. The government was definitely corrupt. If it hadn’t been, the government would have taken better care of King George rather than taking him away from his wife and family and placing him in a straight jacket. I would think that people would treat the king of their country with respect even if he had a mental illness.
Also, after we watched the movie I was overall surprised by all of the drama that took place in the government. Between the Parliament debating to pass the bill stating that the Prince would be Regent and the controversy because the Prince married Maria, who was Catholic and he married without permission from his father, there was always chaos during this film. Something that surprised me was that the queen actually seemed in love with King George. After reading articles, books, and seeing movies it seemed common that royal couples didn’t seem to love each other they just married for the power gain. But in the movie, the queen actually seemed in love with King George and very concerned and upset about his well-being and when he was sent away. Overall, I found “The Madness Of King George” very interesting. King George’s reign was very interesting compared to other kings before him and the film portrayed him very well.
After watching “The Madness of King George”, there were a a couple key scenes that stood out as interesting to me. One part of the movie that stood out to me was when King George was at the peak of his craziness, was running around in his pajamas but he still had some loyal followers that would go around with him and take part in his immature actions. He reverted back into childish behavior however there were still those few members who were there to at least humor the king in his time of need. It was clear that they had such respect for him that even when he was acting foolish they still answered his every whim and without even hesitating. It really showed the power of connection that the king had with his subordinates.
Another part of the movie that kept me interested was actually the opposite of this first part. When King George III's own son, the Prince of Wales was secretly vying for his father's termination as king, I was immediately engaged. The extent of the corruption in the royal family at this time was shocking to me. Usually when a father is ill the family is concerned about doing whatever they can or taking advantage of any options they have to get him better. It was as if the Prince of Wales didn't even care, he was only out to help himself. This selfishness was quite astounding to me especially when thinking about if I was in the same scenario today. Also, there were many other of the king's subordinates that wanted nothing to do with him when he was in this fragile state. These alleged “loyal” subjects, much like the Prince of Wales avoided the king instead of being there for him. One would think that helping him in his time of need could potentially benefit them once he was okay again, however clearly these people did not think that way and did basically nothing to help him.
Lastly, the rudimentary forms of medical work was intriguing to me. From barely examining the patient by merely looking into his eyes and saying that the doctor, Willis, would avoid physical examinations themselves was dumbfounding. By today's standards, that would be one of the most outrageous statements to make. But evidently at these times it was not as foolish as it sounds. Also the fact they forcibly restrained him for hours and blistered him perplex me. I can understand restraining him until he eventually calmed down but leaving him gagged for upwards of a day blow my mind. Also, the whole idea of blistering to me makes no sense and I'm glad I didn't live during those times because actually thinking that doing this would help someone when they're ill is a bit scary. Overall, this movie was both entertaining to watch, as well as providing some historical background. Sometimes conveying a time period like this is best done through a visual representation and this movie both taught and entertained me.
The film "The Madness of King George" was very interesting and the scenes were very unexpected in that I never knew what ridiculous thing King George or any of the other characters would do next. It is appalling to me the techniques that educated people of the time thought would cure any disease, and the great lengths they would go to to cure it. One scene that really stood out to me while watching the film was when used the technique of blistering to get rid of everything evil and unwanted within your body. Prior to viewing this film I knew of the lack of medical knowledge at this time and of some of the unorthodox ideas that seem strange to us today, but seeing it actually performed on somebody makes it even more insane to me.
Another scene I found to be very interesting was the scene when George was sliding down the railings with his servants and running around playing like a child. It is crazy to think that a king, who is supposed to be extremely sophisticated and reserved at all times would do something so childish and immature. That just attests to how greatly this disease changed how he acted and just about everything about him.
Not only King George surprised me in this movie. The scenes with men from the Parliament and the entire situation involving making the Prince regent were surprising. All of the Parliament men were persuaded extremely quickly and easily just by a quick speech given by one of the other men. Also, the lust to be king and obtain money by the Prince was interesting. I was able to see how power and money can destroy familial bonds and basically take over whomever it comes in contact with. The Prince was a prime example of this.
The list of scenes in this movie that were educational to me and/or surprising and interesting could continue on and on. However, these topics in particular really stuck in my memory.
After watching “The Madness of King George,” my perception of 15th to 18th century politicians has dramatically changed. I thought the stereotypical politician back then was well-mannered, mature, and uncorrupted. King George’s actions were very surprising to me.
One scene that surprised and interested me was when King George slid down the side railings of the stairs. I did not know the king was this “childish” and loved to have fun. I would assume that as a king, King George would be much more mature than what the movie portrayed.
Another part of the movie that changed my view of old politicians was the portrayal of the king’s son. I did not think the prince would be so greedy and selfish that he did not stop the Parliament from taking down his father. Cleary, money and power motivated the prince’s selfish actions. Furthermore, the prince was insane in my opinion because he wanted his own father to be taken down from the throne. The prince clearly had no respect for his father.
In general, “The Madness of King George” clearly showed its viewers that the English Parliament was severely corrupt. Many of the members of Parliament were selfish, greedy, and wanted power. This film did a great job of showing the disturbing truth of politics back then.
"The madness of King George" was a fascinating movie. It had many scenes that came as surprises to me. It was well put together in a cinematic sense as well as a historical sense in my opinion. The most shocking thing to me was the awful medical treatment and care. Besides the medical treatment, I was shocked at King George's mind state and his family betrayl.
Throughout the movie, several different medical techniques are shown in use. What I originally thought was the least cynical medical approach has recently been proven to have been the cause of George's madness; the antimony medicine that he was force fed. Often, the King was shown restrained with a doctor trying to force a spoonful of medicine down his throat. Another medical procedure that was shown was blistering. I had heard of this method before, but I had no idea how intense and unessessary it truley was. It seems to me that the doctors were almost torturing the King instead of healing him. To go along with that, King George was often portrayed restrained in a chair, usually with a gag so he couldn't even speak. This was all a shock to me because I feel that no person should be treated like that, especially royalty.
I had heard that King George had gone crazy, but I had absolutely no idea as to the extent of his madness. It was as if his mind was truley gone. This really surprised me because he was still in power during his illness and after seeing the terrible condition he was in, it was hard for me to understand why Parliament waited so long to replace him. Another shock came when he recovered. After watching most of the movie with him being completely insane it was incredibly shocking to see him make a recovery and come back fully to the throne.
The last shock for me was the matter in which the King's family treated him while he was ill. His own wife betrayed him, in more ways than one. She allowed him to be taken, without warning him and while he was gone, she had an affair with a man of the lesser nobility. However, his son's betrayal is the worst of all. He fought to have his father removed so that he could take the throne. He showed no compassion for his sick father and no love for the man that gave him everything. i couldn't believe how selfish the King's own son was. He was ready to let his father stay mad and die, jsut so he could replace George on the throne.
This was an excellent movie. The acting was great and so was the historical perspective from my understanding. I still can't get over the medical treatment of the King, his overall condition, and the way in which his family abandoned him when he needed them the most.
"The Madness of King George" had many interesting scenes that included an element of entertainment, as well as accurate historical events and characteristics of the time period. The depiction of the gruesome medical practices of the time period was somewhat unsettling. After the King's diagnosis, the physicians believe that the best way to improve his condition is to blister his back as well as his legs. This involved heating glass over candle flames until they are extremely hot, and then pressing them into the King's skin. They believed that this would eradicate all the negative fluids from the King's body, ultimately leading to the improvement of his health. However, after viewing this process in the movie, it seems extremely unnecessary and primitive, as well as damaging to the King's reputation as a leader. I would have assumed that if the King became ill, the people of the kingdom would treat him with the most advanced medical care possible, also causing him the least amount of physical and mental pain. Putting him through blistering obviously caused him physical pain, but also had to be humiliating for him. As an authoritative figure, he probably would prefer not to be viewed as weak and intolerant by his subjects and family members. Another gruesome medical scene in the movie was when a patient was operated on- while still concious, and fully aware of the procedure taking place. The medical knowledge of the time period was obviously not very advanced, giving the viewer a new perspective on the lives of those during King George the Third's rule.
As well as medical practices, I was also intrigued by the portrayal of the Parliament. Prior to viewing the movie, I was under the impression that Parliament was very formal and structured, much like todays system. However, in the movie it was depicted very differently. The atmosphere was very loud and the characters were very passionate about their topics of discussion. People would randomly begin talking without being formally addressed, showing how casual the Parliament meetings actually were during this time. Also, after the King is cleared of his diagnosis, he addresses the Parliament to reclaim his position as the King. I think this scene is significant because it proves his dedication to his job, and his duty to his country. This scene caused the audience to rethink their previous judgements regarding the King's health and his ability to serve his nation successfully, similar to the reconsideration that had to be done by the members of Parliament at this particular time.
The film "The Madness of King George III" effectively displayed the later stages of the reign of King George III. The thing that I found to be the most surprising is the lack of loyalty to the king. Based off of previous knowledge, I assumed that the king is held to highest level of respect. The movie showed the contrary.
What surprised me most was that family values, which should be standard to all people, was something that was not evident in the slightest bit. The children of King George III showed little to no respect for their father, the king. They had become so caught up in becoming the absolutist monarch that they had lost sight of what is truly important, family. It was very surprising because that was a time in which most Englishmen were devout Catholics. One of the commandments directly states that one should "honor thy father and mother". Perhaps their lack of religious foundation on that basis was contrary to the French system where the majority of them are Roman Catholics.
The children were not the only people who failed show respect for their king. The way the king was treated for his insanity was almost nonsensiscal in this manner. The medical system at the time is almost laughable. It is almost as if one cannot understand the root causes of any of the diseases. They did the boil treatment, which is extremely painful and something I thought would be reserved for only lower level citizens. Overall, I thought this movie did a great job in depicting the struggles of the mad king.
Summit Singhaviranon
After viewing “The Madness of King George,” I definitely think it had some interesting scenes. Throughout the movie, they made many attempts to remove the king from power, whether or not he was sane. His son was concerned only with gaining his father’s power for himself. For example, his son forced a vote in parliament to remove his father from power, but in my opinion, his reasons held no water. He said that his father had been proven mad, but there were conflicting sources. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox said 2 different things about the king’s conditions, and one was taken more seriously than the other. I think for the vote to take place, they should have had more people look into the condition that the king was in.
Also, the doctor’s seemed more violent with the king than I would have imagined was allowable. On many occasions, when the king started to fight back against the doctors and their assistants, they would just hit him across the face. I didn’t think that anyone outside of the royal family was allowed even to touch the king, let alone hit him. The physical punishment that the king endured didn’t seem to make much difference either. It wasn’t until the end of the movie that any of the doctors could even make a noticeable difference in the king’s condition, and that doctor used patience more often than violence.
Finally, I was very surprised that the king didn’t punish his son more than he did. In my eyes, the actions that the Prince took against his father were treasonous. He attempted to remove his father from power not for the betterment of the country or its people, but for his own personal gain. I was expecting the king to banish his son or remove his title, but all he did was limit his annual income and annul a marriage that was never actually legal.
Overall, I thought that the movie was pretty good. It explained a lot of the background to the English Monarchy in the time of the American Revolution. I also thought it was interesting that the king was actually suffering from Porphyria, as opposed to being legitimately mad.
Maggie Kulpa
I found the film "The Madness of King George" to be very interesting. Throughout the whole film I was captivated by the realities of the time period with not only government, but family relations as well.
The film very much portrayed the corruptness of the governmental system. From the beginning the king's son planned to over throw him not only to gain power, but to gain the money that came with it. This very fact proves that often times in that time period the drive of some people were in the completely wrong direction. This shows the difficulties of living then because of the corrupt system. Not only this, but also when the king was ill, no one truly tried to help him with his health to get better. Instead of trying to make it so he could continue to rule most people found him irritable and were not helpful towards him.
Another aspect of royal life that this movie portrayed were the family values. It is made clear that many times the family did not get along and fought, whether it be mother and son, father and son, or anyone else. The family tries hard to stick together, but it becomes hard to agree on situations. When one son tries to get rid of his father so he can rule for money his mother is not happy about. When King George begins to go mad and does obscure things his wife gets upset that they don't spend time together and that he is acting weird. The film clearly portrays that it was not easy to stick together tightly as a family as royalty in the time period with all the problems tearing everyone apart.
One of the scenes that stood out to me while watching the movie “The Madness of King George” was the one where the new doctor assigned to treat the King’s “insanity” came in to diagnose and supposedly heal the king. It was evident from the scene and the character attitudes that were so ingeniously portrayed by the actors that this person, although seeming ridiculous, knew what he was doing, and I personally believed that he would be the one doctor that was actually able to make the king “normal” again. Although the doctor’s methods seemed harsh, such as the practice of tying the king to a chair if he misbehaved or acted out of the accepted conduct code for a king, they did seem to be effective. Another related scene that I found important was the one where the king acknowledged that he had acted out of line by yelling and screaming at one of his messengers, and willingly sat down in the chair to be tied up. However slowly, the King did seem to be improving by the doctor’s methods. Coincidental or not (depending on the disease that was actually occurring at the time), there is no question that the King was ultimately healed at the end of the movie from whatever the illness or predicament had been. The turning point of his health for the better came when the King was reading a play that had been written by Shakespeare, out on the countryside with the doctor and two of his servants. Although the King did seem relatively normal throughout this process, it was when the king finally said the words, “what what?” that all his servants and doctors came to the realization that he had finally been healed. These were the words that everyone was used to hearing from the King, and had been a large portion of the king’s dialogue throughout the opening scenes of the movie. The King became his old self again from this specific point on, and there was no further question of his sanity by the doctors or servants. The doctor was also not in charge of the king anymore, because he had finally been healed, whereas beforehand the king had to submit to this doctor, and was not very happy about it. Overall, I think this movie was a good tool for education, and helped our class learn about the government, politics, medical practices, and specific history of England in this time period.
Coming from an American perspective, in watching "The Madness of King George," I was exposed to a view of the King from an extremely differing angle. In the history textbooks the only significant mentions of King George seemed to have been in reference to his management of the American colonies. It had been explained to me how cruel and tyrannical the colonists viewed him but I was never enlightened to any mental illness that he suffered. As a result, the whole movie itself was very interesting to me as it provided a very different portrayal of King George than I was accustomed to. However, a couple elements in the movie were particularly interesting or surprising to me.
Looking back on the movie, the most significant idea that I took from it was how quickly and acutely the treatment of King George changed once he was declared mad. In the beginning when George was in a lucid state, he was authoritative commanding and receiving respect from all. Even when it first became apparent that his behavior had become abnormal and his mental state was deteriorating, the King’s aides and advisors’ actions did not significantly deviate from the norm. However, once the doctors officially deemed the King insane, this all changed. At this point, the guards and aides’ loyalties no longer belonged to the King but rather Dr. Willis as they blindly followed his orders and restrained their King without blinking. This rapid evaporation of loyalty to the King was rather astonishing to me. This may have merely been a product of the time restraints a movie presents and not historically accurate or indeed intentional and a realistic interpretation of how the events played out in actuality.
An additional element of the movie that was interesting to me was Parliament. The scenes depicting the what went on their were quite entertaining to me. The personalities of the British politicians were very extroverted and loud. Each man appeared extremely committed to his side on the issue of appointing the Prince of Wales regent. They all fought for their stances with great passion and apparent disregard for any sort of decorum or restraint. This fiery style was contradictory to what I had expected to see from eighteenth century politicians. These men were quite fervent not only compared to what I expected but also compared to the politicians one observes to today when turning to CSPAN for a moment.
All in all, I thought “The Madness of King George” was a terrific movie. It was valuable not only for its entertainment but also for the education it brings to most Americans to a very different side to the infamous King.
After viewing the film “The Madness of King George”, there were numerous moments that came across as eye opening and astonishing to the viewer as the portrayal of King George III declined quickly from the Royal head and prominent ruler of England, to a 'madman' running around in his bed attire. One of the hardest parts to watch was the heated cups were pressed to his back in order to create blistering, a common medicinal practice. I think a contributing factor to my reaction is that now we know that this technique is useless and inflicts even more damage.
Another notable scene, less of physical pain, was when he ran up the stairs children in arms, muttering to himself. It brought to life the hardship his state of being must have been on to his wife. As the viewer you hoped to see him recover, only to see more ludicrous behavior.
Yet another example is the King going potty outdoors as if it is a normalcy. At this point it seemed as if he would never recover, that is until Dr. Willis takes on the job of healing the King.
I was speechless when this physician bound him to a chair and was so aggressive with the King, although at this point in the movie he seemed no more than a institutionalized mental patient. It made me realize the poor medical knowledge and care that was used during the 18th century, and how much knowledge has been accumulated since that time period.
The movie overall was, to me, a good portrayal of not only King George, but the fashion in which parliament was ran and operated and the corruption that ran wild within it. As always, visual representations of time previous time periods never cease to intrigue while at the same time educating.
In the movie, “The Madness of King George”, there were many interesting and surprising scenes and actions. Two parts of the movie that I found very interesting were the way the royal family got along and the medical treatment that the king was subjected to. Even though throughout history there are many instances of royal family members killing their way to the monarchy position, I thought by the time of King George, that the families would get along better. It surprised me that as soon as the doctors declared that the king was ill, his son, the Prince of Whales, was eager to use his illness to become Regent and lock the king up for the rest of his life. In addition, at the end of the movie when the king has recovered and is talking to his sons, none of them seem to like each other at all. I knew that the family used each other to gain more power, but I didn’t realize how much they disliked each other.
Another aspect of the movie that was surprising to me was the medical treatment used on the king. It horrified me to see the various medical treatments used on the king that would be declared torture today. One of the hardest scenes for me to watch was the scene where the doctors were blistering the king’s skin to help “draw the illness out.” This was extremely hard to watch because of the fact that it was obviously very painful, based on the king’s reaction, and because today we know that this treatment does absolutely nothing to help illness. It also surprised me when the king’s new doctor thought it helpful to restrain and gag the king for half of the day to “treat him.” The brutality that was used to treat the king’s condition astounded me and did a good job of portraying the useless medical treatment used at the time. “The Madness of King George” was a very historically accurate movie and surprised me with both the medical treatment that was used and how the royal family used each other to gain more power.
There were several notable scenes from “The Madness of King George”. The movie was very interesting because it gave the viewer a look into what the medical practices were like in that time period and how the King’s Parliament acted and reacted to the King. It shows us how different certain aspects of life were from that time period to where we are now. That being said, we can see how much more advanced we are today than back then.
One very interesting and surprising element of the movie was how Parliament and the citizens reacted to the King’s madness. In that time period there were rebels and such but most of the citizens would obey the king and look up to him as the ruler of their country. Everyone supported the King when his actions were normal, but as soon as he started acting rather foolishly everyone turned on him. The citizens wanted a new king or regent to take over control. They were afraid that the king was not suitable to run the country if he was acting in such behaviors. No one gave him a second thought though and that is what I found interesting. The minute he started acting strangely everyone opted for a new regent. Not even the Parliament bothered talking to the king to gather some insight into what he was thinking, they immediately declared him mad. The only one that made an effort to save the king was his wife, whom his son forbids from seeing him. When the king made a speech towards the end of the film declaring that he was going to restore his health and that he was getting better, the whole kingdom was immediately overjoyed. They were so against him one minute, then the next they were right back on his side. That was interesting to me that his kingdom was so disloyal.
Another surprising aspect was the way King George’s son acted towards him. First, when King George started getting ill his son would not allow the queen to see King George. He claimed that it was for the good of the king’s health. It just surprised me how the king’s own son could be so quick to turn his back on him for his own greedy pleasure. Also when the King was declared mad, his son quickly tried acting on how to become regent. Once he became regent, he could control his father and the kingdom. So he was doing anything in his power to receive the control he wanted even though it was his own father. The film was very insightful as to how things worked back then.
The film, "The Madness of King George" was certainly an interesting film, made all the better by being of reliable historical accuracy. I found it interesting the degree of power the Parliament had over the king. I had never thought that they would turn so disloyal, voting for a region, the kings own son, to rule for him in his time of sickness. And to not notify the king at all of this change, well, I thought Parliament would have a bit more manners. But then again, it doesn't seem like the King had as much power as mot would believe at the time. While he was not the figure head as the royal family is today, it seems as though parliament did have a good amount of say, keeping the king in check. The king, or at least King George, seemed like he was in charge of keeping the people happy, providing for their wants, and showing how a model man was to be at the time. This was probably aided by the fact that parliament tried to take as much of the king's power as possible, by employing tricks such as voted for him not capable of handling the throne, and attempting to appoint regions they knew they could control. They made many off stage deals to try to secure their power, finding any bit of information against the king possible to try to prove him unfit to rule, so they may rule in his absence.
As for the health care of mental disease, I found this the most interesting topic of the entire movie. Personally, I'm fascinated by the ideas and treatment of disease of the past, and so had a special love of the various scenes depicting his 'torture'. However, it always astonishes me as how sloe medicine is to advance in those times, after all, they were still using methods such as cupping and burning, in attempts to pull the bad blood out-- a technique hardly and more helpful then bloodletting of the medieval periods, both leaving the 'patient' weaker than their original state, and leaving them more open to infection. Not to mention that doctors try to avoid actually touching their patients, so as to give them their privacy, and merely go off a symptom list that may or may not be provided. As for the perception of mental disease and the like, that was still thought to be caused by the four humors, or bad blood, which was thought to be needed to be drawn out in ways that amount only to torture. The victims were often restrained and kept conscious for this treatment, where heated glass was applied to the bare skin over and over, in attempts to draw bad blood out. This, also happened to be my favorite scene in the movie, as I was astounded by the accuracy in displaying a historical cupping treatment, while also slightly disgusted at the brutality of it, and the unperturbed attitude of the doctors at the victim's screams. It made me wonder if actual doctors of the time were so unaffected by the obvious pain of the victims, even those as high in class as the king.
The Madness of King George was filled with scenes that were surprising and really captured my interest. Particularly the scene when the doctors restrained the king. I was surprised that they would be so rough with the king and in a way humiliate him in front of everyone in the room when after they chased him, they grabbed his arms and legs and then carried him over to the chair. I was even more surprised when they strapped him into it and covered his mouth so he couldn't speak. It was weird because I didn't think that under any circumstances could someone do something like that to the king of England, especially without punishment.
Another scene that surprised me was the blistering of the king's back and legs. Not only must that have been incredibly painful but the doctors actually thought it was necessary to help cure the king's delirium. They thought that by blistering certain parts of the body they could draw the humors out of him through the fluids that build up in the blisters. This didn't actually do anything however but it reflects what types of treatments the doctors came up with back then and how medical practice was at the time. One thing I found peculiar about the practice was how much they examined the king's excrement. Surely some information about the king's disease could be gathered from it but how closely they examined it and how serious they were about it seemed kind of silly.
The Madness of King George was a riveting movie that shocked its viewers. There were so many shocking scenes but the one that stood out to me most was the scene where the King has recovered from his illness and is talking to his son, the Duck of York. The way they were talking to each other its as though they are not father and son. Even the Queen talked to her son with a bitter cold tone. I thought their entire relationship was very odd but in that scene I felt as though it was the Kings and Queens fault because they initiate the coldness.
Another interesting scene in the movie was the final scene. They all put on this fake act as though nothing had happened. The way the King talked to his physician was sickening because he was the single man who helped him in his recovery. The King had no respect for anyone but expected everyone to have unconditional respect for him. I do though understand that the King found his illness a weakness and wanted to ensure that everyone in the country feared and respected him as a leader.
“The Madness of King George” was a interesting film on all accounts, however notable moments are incredibly interesting to me is how easily the king is overruled by his parliament. In history there have been numerous “insane” monarchs, such as Ludwig II as well as Juana the Mad.
King George was literally relieved from command, when he was declared insane, which was done so through the power of parliament. In cases such as Juana of Castile, her husband took over the throne and after his death her father served as regent. Juana's claim to the throne was repressed by another king, one that had significantly more power and influence than her. However King George was declared unfit to rule, by the power of parliament, this shows the power of parliament in England during this time. During Ludwig's rule, the king was literally allowed to continue his reign even though he plunged the country into bankruptcy build numerous “pretty” castles. Also during this time period it was not long ago when the Sun King of France was in power, during that time France was governed by an absolute monarchy. This film goes to show how differently England developed as opposed to other European countries at the time. Just in how easily a monarch was put aside, and relieved of all power/rights is truly different from other countries. Parliament, through a simple voting could have removed their king in favor of a new one.
At this point in time, parliament had already gained significant power over the King. But despite this, the courtiers and other ladies of the court will seemingly go to extremes to appease the King despite the face that his power really was only what parliament allowed him. For example, no one would call him out on his improper behavior, not even the queen herself. This leads me to question exactly the amount of power the king had at this time, even in his lunatic state, the nobles would not challenge him directly until they banded together as parliament with the Prince willing to spearhead the bide to remove the King from power. From what I've seen of this portrayal of King George, he was merely a figurehead, made to believe that he had actual power. At the end of the film, the King stated that the family must smile and looked upon as a model for all of England. He must be revered as a representation of the nation, however he also has no significant power which is in actuality carried by parliament. This film really showed the inner workings of court during the era, the real look at court life aside from the usual glamour.
The movie "The Madness of King George", there were a few different aspects that really enlightened to viewers into life back in the 1700's. The first really major theme was the animosity of the son, the Prince of Whales, towards both his parents. He basically shunned his father into a "hospital" and wanted him to die and rightfully take the throne. This one weak familial bond really must have been a microcosm of royal families back in the 17th and 18th centuries, with greedy power-hungry princes and kings ousted their own family for the throne.
On the subject of government, there were many scenes from inside a meeting of Parliament. Everyone was shouting, laughing, and frantically running around. It seemed very insane and hectic. This is odd because most people would picture Parliament, as a bunch of people sitting very orderly and quietly in a small room, taking turns speaking. This was clearly not the case in that it was a mad house, lacking structure. I personally didn't understand how they ever accomplished anything. One particular scene, they said "All the ayes to the right, and all the nays to the left". This is one example of the disarray that Parliament was in.
Another part of the movie that caught my interest was when "King"
George was running around like a child sliding down the railings in the palace with his servants. He was giving them piggy-back rides as well. It is just hard to depict a King of England, whom everyone would think to be sophisticated and mature to be doing such childish things.
Overall, "The Madness of King George" was a very eye-opening movie, and one that i did not necessarily expect. There were a bunch of aspects that i found to be very surprising and really made me question the movie. However, it was a great movie to help me and others gain insight to the very different times of the 18th century.
“The Madness of King George” was an intriguing film. Being both historically accurate and interesting, the movie helped me to get a better sense of the lifestyle of the royal families at the time. The scenes that surprised me the most involved poor treatment of the king. Those who worked beneath him embarrassed the king in public. In one particular scene, the doctors tied the king’s legs and arms as a punishment for his behavior. This scene greatly surprised me, because the doctor’s had completely lost hope in him. Being the king, the best doctor’s had been found in hopes of “curing” whatever was ailing him. But this scene shows a lack of hope, as well as impatience. The doctor’s humiliated the king because they had completely lost patience, regardless of how many people may have witnessed the reprimanding. Furthermore, I was surprised at the public’s reaction to king George’s behavior and treatment. The people were outraged at how their king was acting and would laugh at his behavior. Upon hearing about his “insanity” the people quickly demanded a new regent. This was surprising as the king is a position where many of the citizens look up to him to provide the best for their country. It seemed as if the citizens and parliament gave up on him upon hearing about his condition. Even the parliament seemed to have wanted to oust him as well. Another surprise of the film was the corruption within the family. It seemed that the family was more focused on the politics of their country than familial love. An example of this is the Prince of Wales, who was also the son of the King George. Upon the announcement that the king was ill, the Prince of Wales quickly jumped at the opportunity to become regent. What surprised me the most about this, is the fact that the family members did not even care about their other family members’ well being. Not only was King George his father, but he was the king as well, therefore he should have been treated respectfully.
“The Madness of King George” was a very interesting movie. Many of the scenes in this movie shocked and intrigued me. This movie was cinematic as well as being historically accurate. This movie helped to show the medical practices of this time period. Along with different aspects of life at this time and how the King was treated and respected.
One scene that had a particular influence on me was when the heated cups were placed on the King’s back burning and blistering him. This was a common medical practice at this time but it seemed more like a form of torture than a form of healing. As well the act of restraining the King seemed wrong. I was surprised how aggressive and forceful they were with the King He was also force fed medicine and had no say in how he was being treated.
The family relationship in this movie was not what I expected it to be. Especially the fact that the oldest son, the Prince of Whales, was not supportive of his Father and was waiting for the day he could take over power. His son was truly selfish and had no respect and showed no love towards his own father. Also, how they restricted the Queen from being able to see the King while he was ill. This made it seem like the Queen had no power and had to listen to what her son said, without him even having the title of regent.
I thought it was so surprising how mad the King really was and how he all of a sudden made a miraculous recovery. It was shown in the movie how the people turned against the King because he was “mad” not knowing the extent of his illness. It was also shocking how when the King appeared to be fully recovered and gave a speech the people no longer wanted the regent and started praising the King. This was a great movie, with good acting that showed how King George was treated during his madness. How the people treated the King at this time and the truly archaic medical practices used, that were not helpful in healing patients..
One of the most shocking scenes to me was when King George was given over to his psychotic doctor that would cure him of his madness. However, rather than being treating as the monarch of England (with respect and honor), King George was viciously grabbed and a physically forced to comply to the demands of the doctor. Despite the entire movie opening my eyes to some of the finer details of the 18th century British government, it came as a huge shock to think that such a high ranking political official could be handed over to some strange doctor, and tortured until he feels better. I had always imagined that the king was always safe within the confines of his palace, but that idea was shattered. It made King George appear more human rather than an idol as many of the servants treated him as.
I also had this perception in my mind of a king being posh and elegant, never abberating from an extremely fanciful nature. That however was quite comically disproven to me when George began going mad. He was running around the castle, he was screaming at everyone to listen to an orchestra play a boring tune, and even when he was cured of his illness, George was reading Shakespeare and had one of his advisors give him a peck on the cheek to awaken him from his sleep. Personally, I think that the Shakespeare scene especially gave George III a sense of depth, as well as a charming personality; contrary to the very stiff stuffy stereotype that I had before observing the movie.
One of the most shocking scenes to me however was when the physicians of the palace attempted to cure George of his ailments by blistering him to the point of tears. And to make the situation even worse, George had to put up with a doctor that was obsessed with observing George’s fecal matter. I had known through the readings that Medieval medicine was horrendous, but I had assumed that my the time of the Enlightenment and American independence that medical sciences would be much more advanced than relying on the four humors theory established hundreds of years before.
Having been exposed to the history of royals, notably Kings, for nearly all my life, whether through history class or fairy tales, they had always seemed to be a higher being; one whose power separated him from most mortal men. “The Madness of King George” was the first film I’ve seen that’s painted a more “human” King. The “tyrannical” King George himself nonetheless. Although I had expected the movie to go into internal aspects of King George from reading the title, I was still thoroughly surprised at many scenes in the movie.
Perhaps the most surprising scenes to me were the scenes involving parliament. Though when I think about it I should not have been but when I first watched the scenes the decorum was a little shocking. It’s a common stereotype that British people are proper and whatnot especially back in the day and I would have expect nothing less from the politicians especially. Furthermore, having seen what goes on in congress in the United States, I was forever imbedded with a group of men sitting in a large chamber discussing things politely for the most part. That is why when I saw the British Parliament meet in what appeared to be a very confined room with people yelling, screaming, and cheering I was thrown back a bit. The discussions got very heated and it almost felt like they couldn’t get much work done considering both sides were very firm in their convictions. From these scenes I was able to get a clear and real visual of what Parliament looked like as it conducted its business.
One of the most interesting scenes of the movie in my opinion was King George’s wife running out as they took his away for treatment. I had always learned about the politics behind royal marriages and just the lack of actual intimacy and love in general. The queen in this case was genuinely worried for her husband. Her man was going crazy and she still didn’t want him to leave her side. It’s interesting how love can still appear in the picture even through all the power and money and politics. This scene made me root for King George that much more since it humanized him that much further although he himself didn’t do much to bring it out.
All in all I felt that “The Madness of King George” was a terrific movie. It not only provided a substantial amount of humor and entertainment, it also gave the audience a historical lesson nonetheless. After watching the movie I gained a different perspective on the workings of Parliament as well as the human side of a royal King.
In "The Madness of King George" there were many scenes and aspects of the film that were surprising and very interesting. The concept of a mysteriously mentally ill and emotionally unstable king on a treacherous path of destruction was exciting overall, but I found that the most interesting aspect of the film was the way in which Parliament reacted towards King George's illness. One could say the King was treated completely unfairly (including the reaction of Parliament) without positive support from his wife, his doctors, or his chamber men. One does have to realize that the "gruesome" medical practices King George was subjected to were common during his time; while they are almost barbaric to us they were all that was available so many years ago. The harsh procedures the King went through were vital to a proper recovery, if there were to be one. What is strange to me was how one side of the House was so quick to want to rid George of the throne and hand it over to his son, the Prince of Wales. Why were they so eager to undermine the King of his power?
Parliament also seemed to have a very informal structure - one man would shout over hundreds of others in order to make an announcement which they would often reject loudly. Small comments made by men would gain momentum and cause major disruption, failing to solve any problems at hand. When it was announced that King George's health was improving, one side of the House would not have it. They were eager to suggest a "long-overdue" reform. Was it so brutal for the country during the King's time of illness? There is not much insight into how England suffers from their King's ailments besides indications from Parliament scenes. The indications suggested, in my point of view, that the Prince of Wales was favored above his father.
Of all aspects of the film I believe that the scenes involving Parliament were most notable because they were directly affected by King George's madness, and therefore the rest of England would experience any changes created in their government.
The scenes that I find most notable and interesting in “The Madness of King George” were the ways that they tried to cure King George III of his madness. Their lack for trying to understand the reason for the sickness surprised me. The only thing they wanted to do was cure him of his illness as quickly as possible. Their brutal techniques barely helped the patient; it just put them in a horrible state that scared them so much that they just followed what they were told. This surprised me a lot.
Another scene that was surprising was when the son separated the king and the queen. I was not sure why he had this power. I also believe that this would make it harder for the king to recover due to his separation and stress. The power his son abused was shocking. It was good in the end when the king got back at his son.
Another part of the movie that was interesting was seeing how much the son got pampered when t seemed like he did nothing. It is interesting to me how the royalty was taken care of so well and all they did was fight for power over each other.
Well, the movie in its entirety seemed to be a collection of one shockingly interesting scene after another. Coming to this Euro class after an education on US history, I thought of George III as simply a tyrant, vilified ad nauseum by the Americans. But, in this film we see scenes where the king does seem somewhat endearing (though not always). Furthermore, I had no clue that this king ever had such an illness, which makes him much more interesting than the faceless George I knew. The medical treatments were bad, I'd agree, but after learning about Medieval medicine, the doctors methods didn't cause too much of a shock. I DID find it odd that the English were so readily willing to strap their king to a chair and perform their degrading kinds of treatment. The will of George's son to betray his father wasn't unheard of either, but it provided the movie with a great deal of drama. If anything was really surprising, it the was the style of the time; William Pitt the younger looked like he took his hair from the bride of Frankenstein and the Prince of Whales was strikingly similar in appearance to the Mad Hatter. Despite their differences, however, it was also nice to see that many characters responded to their environment in a way that would be similar to people today. People at that time thought the king was odd when he wasn't insane. Everyone around him poked fun at the king's odd idiosyncrasy of repeating words, what what. And towards the end of the movie, when George III told Pitt that he didn't care about the Americans anymore, saying after, "I once saw a sheep with five legs," Pitt makes a confused face that I probably would have made, too. I was really very pleased with the acting in this movie, as well as the way it was directed. It's too bad that Nigel Hawthorne had the misfortune of starring in this movie in the same year that Forrest Gump was made, or I'm sure he would have won the Oscar.
After viewing The Madness of King George I was surprised by many things. The most shocking thing I found was the corruption of the Royal family. Since there is so much pressure to gain power and become king, royal families will go to any extremes to get what they want. Any other son would be deeply concerned if they saw their father in the condition that King George was in. However the Prince of Wales saw his fathers illness as an opportunity to seize the thrown. The Prince was not the only one who took advantage of King George's illness. While her husband was sick the queen had an affair with someone of lesser nobility. This shocked me. I would have expected the family to stay together in a time like this, however all of the corrupt members of the royal family decided to betray the King.
Additionally I was shocked to see how little power the Queen had. I was aware that women during this time had very little power. However someone as prestigious as the queen to have some decision making power. The scene where they were on top of the roof I could not believe that they forced the queen down and told her she had to stay somewhere else. I felt bad for her because with her lack of power there was no way she could done anything to help King George when he was going crazy. She also had to put up with not only Georges madness but abuse from her son. She had to beg on her knees before him and still when he denied her she had to act cordial and polite. I also did not understand why her son who was only a prince had more say so then she did on the situation when she was the queen.
Finally, one of the most interesting and difficult to watch parts were the ones involving the medical care. The treatment was so medieval and I expected someone like the King to have better doctors in the castle. When King George first became ill they noticed his bed pan was blue. The doctor shrugged this off as if nothing was wrong. This to me seems like a basic sign that something is wrong, The doctor went and took another look at it and seemed to accept that something was wrong, however he did nothing. One of the most painful scenes was when they began to blister him. I don't see the logic in this and how they ever thought that this painful method could do anything but harm.
There were many parts of the movie that I found interesting and shocking. Yet, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was an excellent portrayal of the people and royal family during this time period. I would have never expected all of this betrayal and corruption to have occurred.
The “Maddness of King George” movie we watched in class has significantly changed my perspecive on politics during this period. I had previously assumed the royal family was rather dull and boring without much drama or excitement, after watching this film I can definitely say my assumptions were wrong. One of the most shocking parts of the movie in my opinion was the way King George’s son behaved. He did not seem to care about the well-being of his father whatsoever and only cared about power. This made me wonder if all royal families were like this during this time period and if so, are they still like this today? If so, I think I might want to give up my childhood dream of becoming a princess when I get older. Also shocking was the absurd medical procedure that were done in hopes of trying to cure the King. It made me realize how far we have come today in terms of medical treatment for ailments, as well as how much pain and suffering King George went through in the final months before his death. An example of one of the seemingly most painful treatments was when his skin was burned with candles because people back then believed that blistering would help his insanity. Another part of the movie that I found surprising, in a good way, was the fact that the King and Queen genuinely loved each other. I had previously thought that because most marriages during this period were arranged that the husband and wife wouldn’t care for each other as much as spouses do today. However the fact that the two were happily married made the son’s behavior even more disheartening as it seemed that he had been raised in a happy household where there would be no justification for his selfish behavior. He reminded me of a spoiled child who is never satisfied with what he has been given and his immaturity throughout the course of the entire film never failed to disgust me.
“The Madness of King George” was an extremely interesting, informative and entertaining movie. It consisted of many shocking moments and memorable incidents. A few of which I took particular notice towards, these being about the medical practices of the time period, the organization of parliament, and the relationship between King George and his faithful wife.
Firstly, the practices of medicine when King George ruled England were atrocious. Physicians would merely push aside indications of illness and were completely ignorant to the field of mental illness especially. It was difficult at times to watch King George be restricted to a rigid chair, have hot class cups applied to his back that would suck up his skin, be given blisters on his neck which would be popped and ripped multiple times and many more acts that gave my shivers. One would think that when dealing with a King, no doctor would dare to challenge the wishes of the king, even if he was suspected of being mentally ill. This kind of demeanor was exhibited by the first doctor that visited King George in the beginning of the movie. But the final doctor that King George saw was rigid in his practices and had the nerve to break down the pedestal that the King was held upon and brought him down to simply the level of any other patient. This part of the movie really surprised me and I was shocked to find that the other guards eventually just accepted it as the method of recovery.
Another specific scene that I found interesting and did not expect was when King George was running around the house, jumping on the back of the men who served him. I thought it was interesting to see how when he was considered “mentally ill” he was so open and friendly with them and acted as though he was a young common boy. This being said, I thought it was also tragic how he had just fired them as soon as he recovered. I thought that was extremely unfeeling, yet I have to say it seems more king like than running around playing games with them.
I was also surprised by the organization of parliament. The scenes that depicted the meetings of parliament were very rowdy and seemed to be quite unorganized. Shouts and screams were heard in every direction, and especially when the men lined up to vote, they were pushing and running and looked as though they were a group of elementary students getting in line for lunch. My understanding of how parliament was run was that it included men in stuffy wigs and fancy coats that sat in an orderly fashion and discussed manners in an extremely formal and organized manner, but this did not seem to be the case based on the scenes in this movie.
Finally, I feel compelled to comment on the relationship between the German queen and King George. Many of the relationships between the king and queen of England prior to this marriage were that of two people, a male who was superior and a female who was subordinate to the wishes of the king. While in this film it was clear that the king still held power over the queen, I was shocked to see how influential she was in making the king see reason. When he ran onto the roof of the castle, the queen was the only person able to calm him down and make him see reason. This was impressive to me because I had never had the notion that queens of that era could have such power. Not only did the king listen to the queen and value her advice, but there seemed to be a real love and compassion for one another between them. This I found endearing and quite impressive considering the norm of the period.
“The Madness of King George” was an excellently executed movie. It was very informative and quite entertaining at the same time. I really enjoyed watching the bits of humor and the shocking scenes that made me realize certain things about England in this time period that I had never known before. My notion of King George had originally been shaped and sculpted from my years of studying U.S. history, but now I see there was much more story behind the infamous King George III.
For me, the most surprising scenes in the movie were the scenes with the medical practices of the time. From the diagnosis to the treatment, the king's doctors were doing everything they could to make things as bad as possible to the king. With the knowledge that we have now, they did the exact opposite of what would help the king. What made this even more interesting was the article that we read that explained the irony of their prescriptions. While we all know that the medical practices at the time were far from beneficial, what surprised me even more was that the very medication they were prescribing was causing the entire illness. The "medication" that the doctors were giving the king were causing him to have more fits of insanity.
Another interesting thing about the movie was what people were allowed to say and do around the king. The king was allowed to do whatever he wanted but his doctors weren't allowed to even speak, let alone examine him, without the king's permission. Even his wife had to ask for approval to say and do things. Another things that was surprising to me was the queen's lack of authority. Her son was allowed to forbid his mother from seeing the king, or Mr. King as he was called.
Even though I knew that corruption was common during this time, I did now know how much of it occurred within the royal family itself. It seemed that most of the family members were sleeping with other people, marrying without permission, and worst of all was what "the fat one" was doing. He was taking away his father's pride and power for his own benefit. Even though he was already the duke, he wanted more, so he betrayed his father by telling the public that the king was going mad, so that he would be declared regent. Overall, I would say that the royal family was in need of some serious counseling and medical help.
The movie was very interesting over all because after learning about kings and queens who had no very striking or memorable characteristics, hearing of King George III going mad made him stand out to me. I had never heard of a King going insane in the way that George did. His wild antics were very interesting, even entertaining, and he acted the complete opposite of how a king should have acted. He ran around like a child, acting belligerent when someone told him to act more king-like. What could have caused this is unknown to me although it is extremely odd. Additionally, George’s son’s willingness to betray his father and take his position as king was not very surprising although I could not begin to imagine doing something so disrespectful to my father, even if he was insane. The care takers of George were very willing to tie him to a chair and train him like a child, putting him there every time he acted the least bit strange and un-king-like, and this came as a great surprise to me because I could never imagine someone treating a man of such power in such a degrading way. The medical practices that were seen in the movie were bad, although with the lack of present day medical knowledge and technology that is not too surprising, although putting him under the stress they did seems like it would have had the opposite effect of what it they were hoping, putting him in an even worse condition. The oddest part of the movie for me was the doctor who had a strange obsession with feces, going so far as to examine it every time the king went to the bathroom. When a report on the king’s condition was being written he even said “Could we mention the stool?” Over all the movie was very interesting, and the bit of humor that was added kept it from being too boring.
The most interesting part of the movie for me was the lack of common sense in the medical field. First of all, the medication that the George received to help with his nerves caused him to have bowel breakdowns and periods of hallucinations and to be extremely hyperactive. If the doctors had any brains whatsoever, they would compare George’s state before and after receiving the medication and it would be obvious that they were harming him. George’s second doctor had the right idea. That is, not giving him the medication. He did torture him though, which is usually an ineffective way to get someone to be cured of insanity.
The behavior that the king’s subjects were expected to have around him was astonishing. I mean, a pregnant lady can’t even sit if she’s in his presence. Looking at him is an act of extreme impoliteness, which made it hard for George’s doctors to do their job, even though they were doing it wrong. His wife couldn’t even speak without asking permission (oxymoron).
Another surprising part of the movie was how intimate the relationship between the King and Queen was. On the roof scene, she was the only one who was able to calm his nerves and get him to stop running around in his nightgown, and when the jerkwad doc took George away, she ran after him screaming. History usually teaches that relationships between married monarchs are usually only for political gain and are void of love, but this particular one disproves that myth.
Lastly, the way that “the fat one” abused his father was not truly unexpected, but the matter in which fatty kept his father away from Buckingham was cruel, i.e. sending him off with a madman who locked him up in a chair every two minutes.
When I heard that the film “The Madness of King George” was a historical drama instead of a historical documentary, I believed that it would set aside historical accuracy in favor of exaggerated dramatic events that are clearly fictional. To my surprise, the film was able to masterfully implement drama that actually strengthened the historical accuracy of the film rather than undermine it. Within the first six minutes of the film, the political environment of Great Britain and the true power holders of the Empire are clearly made apparent as the frustrated King George III gives off nonsensical rambles to his subjects and stutters in his own speech to them. All while William Pitt and Charles Fox mock King George’s competency as a leader and see him as a liability for government, making it obvious to the audience that the King has been reduced to a mere figurehead while the members of Parliament are the ones who hold the real power.
The film also depicts the lack of family love in the British royal family. Just as the members of parliament view the pitiable George as a liability, most of his family also views him as a hindrance to their own power. With the integral role the royalty has played for centuries in British politics and power struggles, it likely doesn’t even occur to them that family members are to be loved instead of outcompeted. When King George has been officially declared insane, his son the Prince of Wales views this as opportunity to set his ill father aside, become Prince Regent and effectively become the new King. It doesn’t even occur to him to feel sorrow for his own father. The only member of royalty who felt sympathy for the King was his own wife, who was effectively set aside to make way for the Prince’s rise to power. This lack of love left me astonished throughout the movie.
It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the doctors who were assigned to cure the King’s insanity were partially insane themselves. Their first act was to capture the fleeing hysterical King and restrain him to chair. It apparently did not occur to them that this would only worsen the King’s hysteria instead of calm him. The “treatment” that was truly the most astonishing was the burning of candles over the entirety of his body, resulting in countless blisters. The King was understandably screaming for the treatment to stop but the doctors believed this was only one of the symptoms of the King’s worsening insanity. The lack of intelligence in the King’s head Doctor is made apparent near the end of the movie, when he admits to William Pitt that he never read Shakespeare’s works, claiming that it was too complicated for him to understand.
The film also uses Shakespeare’s King Lear as a parallel to George’s madness. In King Lear, Lear loses his sanity and reason when he was betrayed by his scheming daughters Regan and Goneril who have ambitions of seizing power for themselves. In the end when Lear finally regains his sanity, his family was torn apart and his Kingdom lay in ruin from civil war. This story ties in perfectly to the situation at end as King George has also lost his insanity while his son the Prince of Wales is attempting to usurp his authority. It is when George realizes that Lear’s ending may become a reality that he resolves to overcome his insanity and take back the authority that is rightfully his from the conspiring Prince of Wales.
Overall, I was amazed by the way the King was depicted a troubled man that had righteous intentions and legitimately loved his country, instead of being childishly depicted as an insane tyrant who only vied for absolute power.
In a fantastic stroke of luck, I found myself missing both our first day of watching The Madness of King George and the day of the blog’s assignment. Nonetheless, I certainly saw enough of the film to generate a list of reactions and favorite scenes. The single scene that I personally found the most surprising was the one where the curate is accused of performing an illegal marriage. He is effectively assaulted with the statement “You performed an illegal marriage!” to which he simply replies with “And he only gave me £10,” The scene represented an enigma in its intentions. I initially took the curate’s reply as a serious response to the accusation, but upon looking back, the scene very well could have been one of comic relief, as there were plenty of the like within the film. The true reason that I found this scene to be the most surprising has to do with the curate’s payment. Assuming that Guardian.co.uk does proper research, the £10 payment for the curate’s services could be over fifty times smaller than it was in real life. As far as I could determine, there was no legitimate reason for changing the value, and in such a historically accurate production, such an anomaly seems odd.
To pick an overall favorite scene from a film that is as serious and comical as The Madness of King George is not an insignificant feat. Yet, a specific scene stuck out to me as both a true culmination of a representation of the severity of the issues facing George III, of the general excellence in the acting, and of the slight bits of comic relief seen throughout the film. This scene is where King George has been restrained and Dr. Willis begins to feed him some sort of stew or soup. Though initially reluctant to being fed by Dr. Willis, George finally gives in and willingly eats. Such acceptance of the fact that he is being spoon-fed does not come without drama. Upon the first spoonful entering his mouth, George abruptly spits it out, with the majority of the piping hot liquid contacting the face of Dr. Willis. Instead of the expected writhing in pain and agony, Willis simply stares straight back at George. This response created a situation that could be viewed in various lights. It could be taken as an incredible demonstration of self-restraint and of impeccable acting, or on the contrary, it could be viewed as a very funny scene. In class, there certainly were some giggles by the conclusion of this scene. For those reasons, I can have no other favorite scene but when King George III gets spoon fed while chained to a chair in a straight jacket.
“The Madness of King George” had shocked me on different levels. However, the lack of loyalty that the Royal family showed was definitely the most shocking. Many people in power have proven, through history, to abuse it so it is expected. But what I did not expect was for the willingness and the cruelty that the son of the king would show to his father while his father was ill. Today, most people would be sympathetic to their father and try to help their road to recovery rather that try to sabotage their sick father in order to gain more power for himself. Many times illness of on family members bring families together, but in this case it did the exact opposite. Overall, I was shocked to see how easy it was the royal family to abandon one another and turn on each other so quickly.
I always knew that women had very little power in this time period, however, I thought that the Queen would have much more than in reality she had. Queen Elizabeth had the same power as a king when she ruled so figured after her reign proceeding queens would be granted with more power as well. I had great sympathy for the queen because she had to watch and stand by her husband who went crazy right in front of her and then watch her son try to destroy the same man that she loved and could do nothing about it but watch.
Lastly, the medical care during this time was horrendous. I knew that it was obviously not well developed as modern day medicine but I was not aware of just how primitive it was. The burning of the King’s back seemed more of a torture method than healing one. Also, restraining the King like that was shocking to me. The movie even said that they used it one prisoners. It shocked me that they would the same tools designed to torture en enemy as they would to heal the King. Many of these methods were physical based and I do not understand how such painful methods could have been thought to heal his mind.
It was these shocking factors of the movie that I found the movie to be interesting and historically accurate. It gave a realistic and correct portrayal of the time period and the struggles of not only the King but everyone else in the Kings life.
I think the most notable scene from the Madness of King George would be the scene when he was listening to a concert. This scene was really a turning point I the movie because this is when the audience could really see for the first time "the madness of King George". This is a scene where is starting to act very much out of character and does some innappropriate things. For example, he tells and screams throughout the majority of the performance. He even goes up and plays the harpsichord. This was a very dramatic scene and the actor, I believe, did a very good job of playing this character, especially in this scene.
I knew this scene was a turning point scene because of how the character acted after this scene. He continually got worse in his condition and was acting crazier every scene. There were obviously more turn point scene, such as when his condition starts to get better and his behavior stated to improve. I think all of these types of scene were the most notable, but the one that stuck out in my head the most was the concert performance scene. That scene truly captured the essence of what Kig George was like during his mad state and gave me a reference to know how he acted.
The movie, The Madness of King George, was a very emotional film. It contained many scenes that were suprising, interesting, and shocking. For example, one of the most shocking scene was when the King was blistered. That seems like a horrible way to treat someone. On that note, the whole general attitude of the 'physicians' was that of incompetence. The so-called doctors had crazy and inconceivable ways of treating the King.
As the movie progressed, I felt myself cheering for the king, and against the prince because of the horrible and cruel things the man did to his father. A very notable scene for me was when the King was dragged away from the King to an unknown location, and the Queen was not allowed to see him. I thought that was a stupid and cruel thing to do. Furthermore, I was amazed by the arrogance of the royal family, whether the prince or the king, they did not like people talking to them informally.
Some other scenes that I found notable were the scenes of Dr. Willis' therapy, and the King's recovery. It was heartening to see the king become his normal self again and be able to rule his country capably, instead of the Prince's incapabilities.
The movie had many parts which a thought were quite shocking even to a time period so foreign to our own. For me, the whole idea of an all powerful king falling to his knee’s to those far less superior to him is ridiculous. I understand that he did not willingly asked to be treated but even so, you think the people below his status would be afraid to tie him to a chair and force medicine down his throat. Given the time period I figured that the King wouldn’t hesitate to execute the men who did that to him. Crazy or not, he is the King of England. It isn’t just the kidnapping and forced treatment of the king but the way they treated him throughout the entire film. They basically tortured him with candles, the cure all technique known as blistering and proceeded to separate him from his wife. Its not that they used these practices on someone, its that this someone just happened to be the King. I wouldn’t be brave enough to do that. Now we know that he wasn’t mad but had the rare disease of porphyria which can cause random outbursts of mental illness that the King was suffering from.
Another small part of the film that I thought was a little bit strange was the chaotic nature of decision making in Parliament. Not to mention that they still have a similar system of voting and is still done in the same building we discussed in class. The sheer unorganized chanting of Ney! or Yay! at the end of the film when deciding the fate of the king is nothing short of madness. If the system was truly as chaotic as the film portrayed it then that is very impressive.
All in all the movie was quite interesting and even more so after reading the articles you presented on the blog about the true facts about King George, especially finding out that his antics in the film were not embellished at all. In fact they even left out the true story of King George thinking that an oak tree was the King of Prussia, as stated in the second article posted on the blog. King George was truly an interesting character.
Post a Comment