Books, Arts & Manners: History, Right and Wrong

ALAN BENNETT’S delightful play The Madness of King George III has survived the transfer from stage to screen, and emerges equally enjoyable on film. When you consider how very few stage works make it in the movies, and how very few of those have any artistic merit, this is happy news indeed.

Something must, by definition, be lost in such a sea change. The Madness of King George (the film title jettisons the numeral) concerns the dementia that affected England’s King George III, which is now believed to have been caused by porphyria, a metabolic imbalance that produces all the symptoms of mental illness. It was a curious business, what with the King reigning from 1760 to 1820, losing and regaining his senses until the final ten years of total obnubilation. It is helpful to read Alan Bennett’s Introduction to the stage version, in which he discusses exactly what departures he made from historical fact, and gives his personal opinions on many of the personages involved. The play and the movie, though not strict history, then, remain for the most part faithful to the spirit of the story.

JS

About the Author

John Simon

Featured Tags

ALAN BENNETT’S delightful play The Madness of King George III has survived the transfer from stage to screen, and emerges equally enjoyable on film. When you consider how very few stage works make it in the movies, and how very few of those have any artistic merit, this is happy news indeed.

Something must, by definition, be lost in such a sea change. The Madness of King George (the film title jettisons the numeral) concerns the dementia that affected England’s King George III, which is now believed to have been caused by porphyria, a metabolic imbalance that produces all the symptoms of mental illness. It was a curious business, what with the King reigning from 1760 to 1820, losing and regaining his senses until the final ten years of total obnubilation. It is helpful to read Alan Bennett’s Introduction to the stage version, in which he discusses exactly what departures he made from historical fact, and gives his personal opinions on many of the personages involved. The play and the movie, though not strict history, then, remain for the most part faithful to the spirit of the story.