Of course, although the playwright Alan Bennett is undoubtedly a graduate of Oxford University's history major, he has a good historical literacy, but he is facing modern audiences and foreign audiences after all. Besides, his purpose is probably not just to tell the story. A special historical event at the end of the 18th century is related to a series of entanglements that have affected the reputation of the royal family since the late 1980s because of the Prince of Wales and his princess.
It is a common way for Chinese literati to use the past to satirize the present, and it is normal to compare the royal family of the 18th century with the royal family of the 20th century. The theme of the film is quite clear, and it is revealed in the repeated teachings of the King and Queen to the Prince of Wales: the royal family should abide by their responsibilities, do not do so many things, set an example for the people in their behavior, and show unity and harmony in public. Demeanor, always smiling, "That's what we get paid for". The modern royal family has no political rights. It is only a symbol of the country and dignity, and it is also a bond to maintain the British Commonwealth. Of course, the lines and events in the film greatly deconstruct the dignity of the royal family and show the chaotic side of the royal family. Although the modern people know that the king also wants to eat and drink, the Prince of Wales may not be in harmony with the king, and he does not want to marry legally, but likes his mistress; but if the king is not the image of a king in a modern constitutional monarchy, for example, he intervenes in the management. The government's government affairs, and the government's personnel arrangements are controlled, so the audience may have an opinion on the royal family. In fact, although the movie takes George III's madness as a counter-example that the royal family can't abide by reason, it was under the influence of the disease, and in the end he was cured. Historically, George III's intervention in politics has been completely screened, because otherwise, it would contradict the theme.
But it is still impossible to completely cover up this contradiction in the film. Because one of the central events in the movie is that because of the king's madness, Parliament is going to introduce a motion to make the Prince of Wales regent. According to today's constitutional monarchy system, the change of the king will not cause the change of the government, and the king has no say in the change of the government, and can only accept it. But the events in the movie are whether the Prince of Wales is regent or not, and whether or not the government of William Pitt the Younger goes or stays. The movie simply explained: the king said to little Pete, I chose you to be the prime minister, and you have to step down when I step down. Of course, the king would not speak like this to little Pete. First, there is no need to say things that everyone knows, and a person who is observant like the king would not say such straightforward and rude words. This is just the author's reason to explain the regent bill to the audience. . But according to the current political system, how can the king choose the prime minister? When Queen Victoria was young in the 19th century, Lord Melbourne, who had lost a parliamentary majority, remained in office because she could not accept the conditions put forward by Robert Peel to replace the Whig handmaiden, but she never did it again. Such a thing has happened. Today's British monarchs are certainly less likely to do so. But at the end of the 18th century, George III had such an influence.
At the beginning of the film, when members of the House of Commons go to the House of Lords to hear the King's parliamentary speech, Fox (Charles James Fox) says that the King's manuscript was not written by himself. Little Pete replied that the king just did as we said. Fox said: "Then why don't we get rid of the royal family like the Americans do?" You think beautifully! George III is not a puppet at the mercy of others. If it weren't for the intervention of George III, the coalition government of Fox and North would not have been forced to dismantle, and the little Pete's statement in the movie only reflects the modern model. For Pete to do anything, he must have the king's approval, or at least the king must remain neutral. Of course, the Regency Crisis itself reduced George III's later intervention in politics. According to one historian, one is that he thinks little Pete is of one mind with him, and he can rest assured; the other is that he is also afraid of fatigue Relapse of old disease.
George III was a more popular king in his time, as reflected in the movie: he would visit the farmhouse himself and meet the people. Unlike his great-grandfather and grandfather, he was a king who was born in England, admitted that he was British, and was affectionately called "Farmer George" by the people. The Prince of Wales had a bad reputation. He lived a loose life and was quite fat at a young age. He was frequent friends with Fox and Sheridan (Richard Brinsley Sheridan) of the Whig Party (this is also an important reason why George III hated Fox, he thought Fox had brought the Prince of Wales bad), but this does not mean that he is like a Whig Party members are so fond of the idea of freedom and equality, because although he has a close relationship with Fox and others, he is with Fox for gambling, and with Sheridan is for drinking. So from the perspective of the people, they prefer to choose George III over George IV. When George IV first came to the throne, his concubine returned from abroad (like the concubine of the modern Prince of Wales, she also had a foreign lover and was widely known) and asked to be crowned queen. The attitude of the people is to support the princess and oppose the new king. The Prince of Wales also likes a married Catholic mistress in the movie, which is historically true. The lover of the modern Prince of Wales at the time was also divorced.
But it's the king who goes mad and is disciplined by Doctor Willis in the movie. Of course, there is no way to change this, because this is the case in history. However, judging from the relevant historical materials, the king is not so crazy. A typical case that is widely spread is that the king speaks to a tree and thinks it is the king of Prussia. He looked out from the palace and claimed to have seen Prussia. And these are just rumors. After the king moved to Kew Palace, he also wrote to the Prime Minister to continue discussing state affairs. In the movie, the king is playing the harpsichord randomly, and he is chasing the Prince of Wales in public, which is supposed to be adapted to strengthen the dramatic conflict. The eccentric doctor Willis's binding therapy was criticized by historians, but it was in line with the film's theme of royal self-restraint, so it was treated as a positive image.
The George III in the movie is played by Nigel Hawthorne. His acting skills are very outstanding, and he shows the king's stubbornness and warmth very well. The biggest regret is that the appearance is quite different from that of George III. George III is very tall, and he was not too old at that time - the king was 50 years old in 1788 - of course, this is out of the actor's control. And because Nigel played George III in the stage play, he played it so well that Alan Bennett specified that he would continue to play the king in the movie.
The queen is Helen Mirren, who won Best Actress at Cannes for the role. The queen doesn't have as many roles as the king, but she doesn't have as much room for performance. It's a pity that Nigel didn't get the award. But the queen's performance is still very good. The warm passage between her and the king is quite touching. For example, she and the king call each other "Mr. King" and "Mrs. King", which can reflect their tacit understanding.
View more about The Madness of King George reviews
