Lorsque le roi George III devient fou, ses lieutenants essaient d'ajuster les règles pour diriger le pays sans sa participation.Lorsque le roi George III devient fou, ses lieutenants essaient d'ajuster les règles pour diriger le pays sans sa participation.Lorsque le roi George III devient fou, ses lieutenants essaient d'ajuster les règles pour diriger le pays sans sa participation.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompensé par 1 Oscar
- 16 victoires et 19 nominations au total
Avis à la une
It's a fascinating look at the royal court. Nigel Hawthorne is terrific instilling power and energy in the manic regent. Helen Mirren is Queen Charlotte. Mostly this is great acting from interesting Brit actors. And Ian Holm is funny as the clueless doctor. It's a piece of history rarely shown on film.
Most often I watch a movie for the whole experience, taking in the plot, characters, acting, scenes and scenery, ___location, action, intrigue, comedy, tragedy, as a blend of the whole product. All of these weigh in and affect how much I enjoy the film. But half way through this film, I became aware that I was more engrossed in the lead character himself, and the great diversity and excellence of acting on display.
Others have commented that Hawthorne should have won the Best Actor Academy Award for his role in 1994. While I like Tom Hanks as an actor, I agree that his role in Forrest Gump wasn't anything exceptional. Certainly not on the order of "Mr. King" in "The Madness of King George." Indeed, Hawthorne must have had to work on his role -- even as a consummate actor, if not for the variations of mood and portrayals, at least for the vast amount of lines he had to speak in the film. By comparison, the Forrest Gump role had a very small amount of lines, and those were far less taxing to an actor. Hanks' was a role that seemed more fun and easygoing than a challenge or demand.
I'm not one to complain about Hollywood (except for the low quality and volume of attempts at humor in the past 20 years), but once in a while I think that many others who make the same observation are right on. Hollywood flops big time in its Oscar choice of an actor, actress or film once in a while. It seems to me that the California-based Academy at times doesn't look as objectively and honestly at films produced outside the U.S. Nothing else produced in 1994 even came close to the outstanding acting by Hawthorne in this first rate film.
This is far from your usual costume drama (something like THE YOUNG VICTORIA), because it's written by and based on a stage play by Alan Bennett, who immediately brings events closer to home. He focuses on characters, personalities and feelings throughout, and isn't so interested in the pomp and splendour that other directors might have favoured. Instead, this is a glorious rebellion put on film, showing with childlike glee the way one man fought back against the social constraints of his era.
Of course, that's not to say that this isn't an authentic-looking film; the costumes are splendid, the locations even more so, and the cast of British thesps are all very good. Nigel Hawthorne, in particular, gives one of his best-remembered performances (he'd played the same role on stage many times, which is why he's so confident in the part).
How his illness is treated is at the core of this story, when King George III is assigned a doctor (IAN HOLM) to use whatever means are necessary to restore sanity. All the while, court intrigue has everyone in parliament conspiring about appointing a Regent to take over the King's duties. His son, the Prince of Wales (RUPERT EVERETT) is more then willing to replace his father on the throne.
Much of it is played for fine comic effect with many nuances and comic timing in spite of the seriousness of the central character's illness. NIGEL HAWTHORNE recreates his London stage role, playing the part of the mad king to perfection. HELEN MIRREN is highly satisfactory as his wife who wants nothing more than to see him make a complete recovery and RUPERT GRAVES is fine in one of the more low-key roles as one of the King's supportive aids.
As usual in all of these British historical pieces, the settings, costumes, photography, art direction--all are exquisite. The photography is a marvel at suggesting that only candlelight illuminates many of the scenes so that it's like watching a series of fine paintings come to life. Effective use of Handel's music provides solid support throughout.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesMany historians believe that George III's mental state was caused by porphyria, a metabolic imbalance that can cause blue urine. However, recent research into his written correspondence suggests bouts of mania, and a common type of medicine at the time could have caused blue urine, leading some to conclude that he had a psychiatric illness.
- GaffesAt the end of the film, the Royal Family goes to Saint Paul's Cathedral. A view of the front of the Cathedral shows that the clock in the left-hand tower is missing, but this was as a result of German bombing raids in the early 1940s.
- Citations
[Pitt has given the King some papers to sign]
George III: What is this? America, I suppose.
Pitt: No, sir.
George III: Oh, America's not to be spoken of, is that it?
Pitt: For your peace of mind, sir. But it's not America.
George III: Peace of mind! I have no peace of mind. I've had no peace of mind since we lost America. Forests, old as the world itself... meadows... plains... strange delicate flowers... immense solitudes... and all nature new to art... all ours... Mine. Gone. A paradise... lost.
Meilleurs choix
- How long is The Madness of King George?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The Madness of King George
- Lieux de tournage
- Arundel Castle, Arundel, West Sussex, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(Windsor Castle: exterior)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 65 897 768 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 15 238 689 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 65 226 $US
- 2 janv. 1995
- Montant brut mondial
- 15 238 689 $US
Contribuer à cette page
