While I read a great deal of history, I don't read enough on this period to comment on the accuracy, but this book certainly FELT accurate. The costumes, scenery, bumbling doctors, scheming politicians and scrambling servants set a historical mood that's half the fun in this very enjoyable movie.

Of course, the screenplay is written for a modern audience, so we would, naturally, see irony in the bumbling doctors. Particularly ironic is one doctor's protestation that a doctor's work is of careful observation and should not be swayed by the color of the King's urine.

The scenes of Prime Minister Pitt in Parliament defending his king certainly reminded me of watching Tony Blair in action on CSPAN. I was also left with the impression that it's a lot more fun to be in British Parliament than in U.S. Congress.

One may expect to dislike the King, but in the end, one can't help but feel great sympathy for the man and not just because of the maltreatment he receives from his doctor's.

Overall, the movie was as enjoyable as I remembered it. Unfortunately, other than the trailer, the DVD did not give us any extras to enjoy.

This causes a political struggle between the Whigs and Tories. Prince George, the future George IV, wants the take advantage of his father's deterioration to be named Regent, translation: "king in all but name and all the power, subject to Parliament... and certainly all the funds." He also wants his secret marriage Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic widow, to be recognized in the open. In this, he has enlisted Charles James Fox, former foreign secretary under Rockingham and now an opposition leader who supports America to the point of saying, "If a few ramshackle colonists can send him packing why can't we?", Doctor Warner, and later, the Lord Chancellor, Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow. Supporting the king is William Pitt the Younger, prime minister (1783-1801), who advocates parliamentary procedure and insists that Parliament has the right to decide who should be regent and under what terms. Queen Charlotte and Lady Pembroke, the king's mistress, are also on the king's side, as is his new equerry, the eager and loyal Captain Greville. The political struggle is another type of madness, as it has torn at the fabric of the government that is the envy of all nations.

The king's contempt for doctors is shown when he rants at Dr. Baker, who has given him senna, a mild purgative. "Mild? Forteen motions and you call it mild? I could have manured the whole palace." His views on sleep are amusing, as he wakes his handlers at four AM. "Six hours is enough for a man. Seven for a woman, and eight for a fool." That places me between a woman and a fool, then.

The role of the royal family as the symbol of England is also an issue. Prince George wants to do something, like handle some things in government. A line from his mother as they wave to their public is telling. "Smile, you lazy hound. It's what you're paid for. Smile and wave." I wonder Prince Charles has heard that from his mum.

The classical music score includes Handel's Water Music, adding to the splendour of the Georgian court. And this is based on Alan Bennett's play, Bennett of course being a collaborator of Dudley Moore, Peter Cook, and Tim Brook-Taylor in the 1960's.

However, the sobering lack of knowledge of porphyria, which is the modern diagnosis of what ailed the king, and is a hereditary metabolic disorder of which George suffered acutely and intermittently, is also a kind of madness of the ignorance of 18th century medicine. Yet, Dr. Willis does the best he can in avoiding the usual pronouncements and recommendations of the court physicians.

Nigel Hawthorne should've gotten a Best Actor award from some ceremony for playing the monarch, displaying the manic ups and downs, and sufferings of George III with great aplomb. Ian Holm gets the next honours as Dr. Willis, who stubbornly defies convention and sees the king nor as the king, but as a patient, and dares to look him in the eyes. Helen Mirren of Prime Suspect is Charlotte and Rupert Everett does a good turn as the Prince. However, Julian Wadham plays Pitt with great dignity and honour. And Geoffrey Palmer (As Time Goes By) is Warner. Also, the petitioner who attacks the king is played by Janine Duvititski (Jane in the Waiting For God series). Interesting look at one of the most misunderstood monarchs of England, what what?

This film also starred such British acting heavy-weights as Helen Mirren as the queen (think of the Prime Suspect series on the BBC/PBS Mystery, among others), Ian Holm as the physician (most recently noted for his performance of Lear, now available on video), and Rupert Everett as the chomping-at-the-bit Prince of Wales.

The drama was intensified by collapsing or conflating actual historical events (alas, the play and movie would have one think that good king George actually recovered his wits and ruled; the truth is more sad, that he had recurring bouts of delirium and hysteria until finally succumbing to a dementia that lasted for years, and thus the Regency was established).

Poor George has gotten a 'bum rap' in America for being the 'tyrant' against whom the colonials rebelled; history shows, however, that far from the being the evil dictator, he was in fact perhaps the kindest and most enlightened monarch in Europe at the time, well loved by the people, and concerned for government more than his own pleasure. Artistic, well humoured and well mannered, George was perhaps the last monarch in Europe who should have been so tarred by the negative history with which he has been saddled.

This movie gives a little insight into that character of man. Set after the war with the colonies, George begins a slow process of deterioration. Seen here are the inhumane treatments prescribed for such people (I wonder if our modern medicine with machines and contraptions will look similarly barbaric 200 years from now?).

Lavish sets and costumes accentuate the film to give a very royal feel. Political intrigue, disfunctional family dynamics, and social class consciousness all arise in differing measure to make this a truly intricate plot; however, much of the politics and psychology are more for modern audiences than are actual re-creations or representations.

My favourite scene has to be the one in which George is reciting, in the gardens at Kew, a scene from Lear, in which Lear is slipping into madness.

'Lear!? Is this wise?'
'I don't know, I'd never read it!' came the doctor's response.

To see the king slip into sanity so subtly as his performance of Lear presents a slide into insanity is a treasure.

The postscript at the end, a direct criticism of the royal family, in which the king pronounces that their main purpose is to be a model family (and the hint in the closing that the disease of porphyria, George's most-likely ailment, is hereditary) is amusing if not entirely appropriate.

In all, a fabulous film.