What do you think?
Rate this book
La pazzia di re Giorgio
È raro il caso di uno scrittore di teatro estremamente sofisticato e complesso che raggiunge in pochi anni una vasta popolarità e vede addirittura una sua commedia, piena di sottili riferimenti storici, diventare un grosso film prodotto da una major di Hollywood. Ma è accaduto ad Alan Bennett con La pazzia di Re Giorgio. Prendendo spunto dalla apparente follia di Giorgio III (temporaneamente risolta da un acuto medico di provincia e nel nostro secolo reinterpretata come un caso di porfirìa, malattia rara che nulla ha a che fare con lo squilibrio psichico), Bennett ha dato voce agli intrighi comici e sinistri che in quegli anni si svilupparono rigogliosamente attorno al re. Non vi è traccia, in queste pagine, della penosa cartapesta che di solito contrassegna il teatro di ricostruzione storica. Da Pitt a Fox, da Giorgio III al suo malevolo primogenito, il Principe di Galles, tutti parlano e agiscono con una vivezza che lascia stupefatti e ci fa subito riconoscere l’impronta di uno scrittore vero e quanto mai inusuale. Mentre la vicenda finisce per disegnare un perfetto apologo sul delirio non solo dei potenti, ma innanzitutto di coloro che gli vivono accanto. La pazzia di Re Giorgio è apparso per la prima volta nel 1992.
153 pages, Paperback
First published February 10, 1992
15 people are currently reading
766 people want to read
About the author
Alan Bennett
272 books1,109 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Alan Bennett is an English author and Tony Award-winning playwright. Bennett's first stage play, Forty Years On, was produced in 1968. Many television, stage and radio plays followed, along with screenplays, short stories, novellas, a large body of non-fictional prose and broadcasting, and many appearances as an actor. Bennett's lugubrious yet expressive voice (which still bears a slight Leeds accent) and the sharp humour and evident humanity of his writing have made his readings of his own work (especially his autobiographical writing) very popular. His readings of the Winnie the Pooh stories are also widely enjoyed.
Alan Bennett is an English author and Tony Award-winning playwright. Bennett's first stage play, Forty Years On, was produced in 1968. Many television, stage and radio plays followed, along with screenplays, short stories, novellas, a large body of non-fictional prose and broadcasting, and many appearances as an actor. Bennett's lugubrious yet expressive voice (which still bears a slight Leeds accent) and the sharp humour and evident humanity of his writing have made his readings of his own work (especially his autobiographical writing) very popular. His readings of the Winnie the Pooh stories are also widely enjoyed.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
September 6, 2018
"Monarchia e follia sono due stati che hanno una frontiera in comune"”
"La pazzia di Re Giorgio" è un testo teatrale messo in scena per la prima volta nel 1991.
Il grande successo riscosso portò alla versione cinematografica del 1994.
Si tratta di una satira assolutamente esilarante.
Re Giorgio storicamente dichiarato pazzo viene riabilitato dalla storiografia degli anni '80 quando s'iniziò a supporre la comparsa di una malattia metabolica (porfiria).
Si cominciò così escludere una patologia psichica a favore di una debilitazione fisica di tipo ereditario.
Nell'introduzione al testo vero e proprio Benett spiega tutto ciò sostenendo come questo risvolto giocò a favore di una messa in scena coinvolgente laddove re Giorgio diviene vittima di medici arrivisti ma incompetenti e si guadagna in questo modo il favore del pubblico.
A ciò si unisce lo scenario politico: la malattia del re, di fatti, è motivo di movimentati intrighi di corte.
Per far funzionare al meglio il copione Bennett lo ha rimaneggiato più volte e per sua stessa ammissione alcuni elementi sono andati a discapito della verità storica. Fra tutti vi è il personaggio del figlio, il Principe di Galles, che in realtà non era proprio così subdolo come il quello portato in scena.
Da leggere perché diverte ci allontana nel tempo facendoci comunque riflettere sui raggiri dell'uomo politico che nel tempo rimangono i medesimi.
Imprescindibile l'ascolto della "Musica per i reali fuochi d'artificio" di Handel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwef56...
"La pazzia di Re Giorgio" è un testo teatrale messo in scena per la prima volta nel 1991.
Il grande successo riscosso portò alla versione cinematografica del 1994.
Si tratta di una satira assolutamente esilarante.
Re Giorgio storicamente dichiarato pazzo viene riabilitato dalla storiografia degli anni '80 quando s'iniziò a supporre la comparsa di una malattia metabolica (porfiria).
Si cominciò così escludere una patologia psichica a favore di una debilitazione fisica di tipo ereditario.
Nell'introduzione al testo vero e proprio Benett spiega tutto ciò sostenendo come questo risvolto giocò a favore di una messa in scena coinvolgente laddove re Giorgio diviene vittima di medici arrivisti ma incompetenti e si guadagna in questo modo il favore del pubblico.
A ciò si unisce lo scenario politico: la malattia del re, di fatti, è motivo di movimentati intrighi di corte.
Per far funzionare al meglio il copione Bennett lo ha rimaneggiato più volte e per sua stessa ammissione alcuni elementi sono andati a discapito della verità storica. Fra tutti vi è il personaggio del figlio, il Principe di Galles, che in realtà non era proprio così subdolo come il quello portato in scena.
Da leggere perché diverte ci allontana nel tempo facendoci comunque riflettere sui raggiri dell'uomo politico che nel tempo rimangono i medesimi.
Imprescindibile l'ascolto della "Musica per i reali fuochi d'artificio" di Handel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwef56...
December 20, 2018
KING: Stock. Good husbandry. Do you know what they call me?
PRINCE OF WALES: What do they call you, father?
KING: Farmer George. And do you know what that is?
PRINCE OF WALES: Impertinence.
KING: No, sir. Love.
A brilliant play which left me devasted twice - having watched it and having read it - but in the most beautiful way.
June 15, 2021
نمایشنامه جنون جورج سوم بسیار بسیار پسند من بود. از شخصیتپردازیها و طنز کار حسابی کیف کردم. خصوصا خود جورج سوم رو خیلی عالی پرداخته بود. اشارههای ظریف و عالی میون گفت و گوها جریان داشت.
لذت بردم.
ترجمه روان و مناسب با حال و هوا بود.
طرح روی جلد رو هم دوست داشتم.
پیشنهاد میکنم بخونید، بخندید، و لذت ببرید.
لذت بردم.
ترجمه روان و مناسب با حال و هوا بود.
طرح روی جلد رو هم دوست داشتم.
پیشنهاد میکنم بخونید، بخندید، و لذت ببرید.
August 7, 2017
Doc save the king!
compatto e splendido lavoro teatrale che unisce l'inimitabile humour inglese con la riflessione satirica ma non solo sul gioco del potere. Giorgio III rimane nella mente, ma il lavoro di Bennett nel delineare in poche pagine una fisiognomica degli uomini del potere e di quanto possono fare per conquistarlo o mantenerlo... molto godibile anche la sfilata degli uomini di medicina, torturatori, maniaci delle feci e autoritari psicoterapeuti ante litteram che sfidano l'autorità regale per rimetterla in piedi. cercherò di recuperare il film sceneggiato dallo stesso Bennett.
compatto e splendido lavoro teatrale che unisce l'inimitabile humour inglese con la riflessione satirica ma non solo sul gioco del potere. Giorgio III rimane nella mente, ma il lavoro di Bennett nel delineare in poche pagine una fisiognomica degli uomini del potere e di quanto possono fare per conquistarlo o mantenerlo... molto godibile anche la sfilata degli uomini di medicina, torturatori, maniaci delle feci e autoritari psicoterapeuti ante litteram che sfidano l'autorità regale per rimetterla in piedi. cercherò di recuperare il film sceneggiato dallo stesso Bennett.
September 5, 2014
Spur-of-the-moment decision to read this. I liked the film and can only picture Nigel Hawthorne in this. Alan Bennett's introduction puts the play in its historical context and it's a short read that entertains in its plot and characterisation.
George III is a wily and committed king. Deeply taken with his wife (whom he calls Mrs King), it affects his family, Parliament and country when he inexplicably shows symptoms of madness and those around him vie for the favour of the Prince of Wales whilst attempting strange and horrific 'cures'.
It's both terrible and hilarious, watching politicians scuttle, the Prince of Wales plot, the king insult everyone in his delirium. And daily stool samples be examined.
I won't pretend to understand the politics of the time but fence-sitting bureaucrats never go out of fashion. Even if leeches and bleeding do.
It's a funny blend of the ridiculous, the comic and the painful. I wanted more actually, more scenes with Queen Charlotte. More of the mad king. More of the historical context.
Engaging writing, and a fascinating little read.
George III is a wily and committed king. Deeply taken with his wife (whom he calls Mrs King), it affects his family, Parliament and country when he inexplicably shows symptoms of madness and those around him vie for the favour of the Prince of Wales whilst attempting strange and horrific 'cures'.
It's both terrible and hilarious, watching politicians scuttle, the Prince of Wales plot, the king insult everyone in his delirium. And daily stool samples be examined.
I won't pretend to understand the politics of the time but fence-sitting bureaucrats never go out of fashion. Even if leeches and bleeding do.
It's a funny blend of the ridiculous, the comic and the painful. I wanted more actually, more scenes with Queen Charlotte. More of the mad king. More of the historical context.
Engaging writing, and a fascinating little read.
September 17, 2015
Il lungo regno di Giorgio III (dal 1760 al 1820), sovrano di Gran Bretagna e Irlanda, fu certamente denso di avvenimenti: basti pensare alle due rivoluzioni, quella americana e quella francese, e alla conseguenze che ebbero per il regno inglese. Sembra naturale che un regno così lungo non possa godere di un giudizio unanime, e in effetti gli storici sono piuttosto divisi nel valutare Giorgio III, anche a causa del complicato alternarsi dei governi, presieduti da esponenti Whigs o Tories, nel regime parlamentare inglese (la Gran Bretagna era allora una delle poche nazioni rette da una monarchia realmente costituzionale). Verso gli anni Ottanta del XVIII secolo, Giorgio iniziò a soffrire di disturbi mentali sempre più incapacitanti, da alcuni studiosi oggi attribuiti ad una malattia di natura genetica, la porfiria. Il partito whig tentò allora di far nominare un reggente allo scopo di esautorare i Tories di William Pitt, allora al potere.
Il dramma di Bennett inizia proprio quando il re comincia a dare segni di cattiva salute che preludono ad un rapido alterarsi del suo equilibrio mentale. Inizialmente Giorgio si comporta in modo bizzarro e sconveniente, parlando in modo sconclusionato e mettendo in imbarazzo gli astanti, che ovviamente non possono fargli notare niente (è il re, dopotutto!). Poi la malattia si aggrava facendolo sprofondare in una follia violenta e autolesionista. I medici non sono d’accordo sulla terapia, o forse è meglio dire che non hanno da proporne una valida, preferendo affidarsi ai soliti rimedi tradizionali (salassi, purghe, vescicanti etc.) che ovviamente non fanno altro che peggiorare la situazione. Intanto l’evolversi negativo della salute mentale del re condiziona pesantemente il governo e la stabilità del paese: anche se siamo in una monarchia parlamentare, il re è comunque la sorgente del potere e deve firmare i provvedimenti perché vengano poi tradotti in atto dal governo. La sua indisposizione rischia di causare una crisi molto seria. Il serioso Pitt e i suoi alleati Tories attualmente al potere cercano in tutti i modi di disinnescare la crisi giungendo a negare che il re sia uscito di senno. All’estremo opposto i Whigs di Fox e Sheridan tentano di far saltare il ministero Pitt, di dichiarare il re incapace e far nominare reggente il fatuo Principe di Galles, in cattivi rapporti con il padre. Pochissimi sono coloro a cui interessa davvero la salute del sovrano e fra questi la devota moglie Carlotta, che però viene tenuta forzatamente lontana da lui. La situazione cade presto in stallo: Pitt riesce a resistere ai tentativi whig di sfiduciare il governo, ma nel contempo non è in grado di muovere la complessa macchina burocratica statale perché manca la firma del re. Giunge a corte il dottor Willis, uomo di chiesa ed esperto di malattie mentali, ma disprezzato dai medici londinesi per le sue origini provinciali: Willis decide di procedere con la forza e, fra le proteste dei paggi, impone la sedia di costrizione per “punire” il sovrano ogni volta che si comporta in modo scorretto (terribile la scena che marca la fine della prima parte, con il sovrano che, immobilizzato dalle cinghie, urla disperato di essere il re d’Inghilterra, mentre il medico gli risponde che è solo un paziente). Nonostante la brutalità dei metodi di Willis, a poco a poco il re riprende il controllo di se stesso: nella sua follia sembra farsi strada una piccola luce, come dimostra la sua recita di Re Lear che sblocca la situazione. La crisi è scongiurata e Giorgio si ristabilisce riconciliandosi con la regina, mentre Pitt tira un sospiro di sollievo.
Quello di Bennett è un vero e proprio dramma storico, per comporre il quale l’autore, da sempre affascinato dal personaggio di Giorgio III, ha consultato numerose fonti storiche e letterarie, come racconta nella lunga introduzione in cui spiega alcune sue scelte sceniche. Il tema centrale del dramma è certamente il problema della follia di un individuo da cui dipendono i destini di milioni di persone: non la follia sadica e amorale di Caligola e Nerone, né quella lucida e demoniaca di Hitler, ma quella di un sovrano, piuttosto mite, un po’ limitato, di indole contadina (da savio, Giorgio dimostra di intendersi di economia rurale), fedele alla sua compagna, ma non indifferente alle grazie femminili di lady Pembroke, e fondamentalmente allergico all’esercizio del potere, soprattutto nei suoi aspetti più spietati (è sufficiente vedere la sua reazione all’attentato di cui è vittima all’inizio della storia): in ciò diversissimo dal figlio e dai suoi ministri, il conservatore immobilista Pitt, gli ambiziosi Fox e Sheridan e l’ambiguo Thurlow, tutti assetati di potere. Le domande che i personaggi si fanno sono le stesse che incuriosiscono il lettore, facendolo meditare sul ruolo del sovrano in quel periodo. Come giustificare l’indisposizione del sovrano in modo che l’opinione pubblica non venga scossa dalla notizia? Come impadronirsi del potere, dichiarando folle un re che lo è solo temporaneamente? Come curare un malato che l’etichetta vieta anche solo di toccare o di interrompere mentre (stra)parla? Se il trono del re diventa la sua sedia di costrizione e i paramenti regali la camicia di forza, che cosa ne è dell’eccezionalità del sovrano?
Dramma complesso con moltissimi personaggi, forse troppi – difficile distinguere chiaramente i paggi del re e alcune figure di contorno – ha i suoi punti di forza nell’ironia tipicamente britannica che colpisce la corte, i medici, e soprattutto i politicanti corrotti, e nel taglio dato all’evoluzione della vicenda: se inizialmente le bizzarrie del re fanno sorridere e poi ridere il lettore (o lo spettatore), il progredire della follia conferisce pathos alla storia, provocando compassione per le sofferenze sopportate dal sovrano, sempre più solo con il suo male. Il ristabilirsi della salute non riporta la completa serenità, solo quel tanto che basta per tirare avanti: come dice Giorgio a Carlotta, “ogni vita ha i suoi rimpianti. Ma ognuna ha le sue consolazioni”.
Consigliato a chi ama recitare Re Lear.
Sconsigliato al principe Carlo.
Il dramma di Bennett inizia proprio quando il re comincia a dare segni di cattiva salute che preludono ad un rapido alterarsi del suo equilibrio mentale. Inizialmente Giorgio si comporta in modo bizzarro e sconveniente, parlando in modo sconclusionato e mettendo in imbarazzo gli astanti, che ovviamente non possono fargli notare niente (è il re, dopotutto!). Poi la malattia si aggrava facendolo sprofondare in una follia violenta e autolesionista. I medici non sono d’accordo sulla terapia, o forse è meglio dire che non hanno da proporne una valida, preferendo affidarsi ai soliti rimedi tradizionali (salassi, purghe, vescicanti etc.) che ovviamente non fanno altro che peggiorare la situazione. Intanto l’evolversi negativo della salute mentale del re condiziona pesantemente il governo e la stabilità del paese: anche se siamo in una monarchia parlamentare, il re è comunque la sorgente del potere e deve firmare i provvedimenti perché vengano poi tradotti in atto dal governo. La sua indisposizione rischia di causare una crisi molto seria. Il serioso Pitt e i suoi alleati Tories attualmente al potere cercano in tutti i modi di disinnescare la crisi giungendo a negare che il re sia uscito di senno. All’estremo opposto i Whigs di Fox e Sheridan tentano di far saltare il ministero Pitt, di dichiarare il re incapace e far nominare reggente il fatuo Principe di Galles, in cattivi rapporti con il padre. Pochissimi sono coloro a cui interessa davvero la salute del sovrano e fra questi la devota moglie Carlotta, che però viene tenuta forzatamente lontana da lui. La situazione cade presto in stallo: Pitt riesce a resistere ai tentativi whig di sfiduciare il governo, ma nel contempo non è in grado di muovere la complessa macchina burocratica statale perché manca la firma del re. Giunge a corte il dottor Willis, uomo di chiesa ed esperto di malattie mentali, ma disprezzato dai medici londinesi per le sue origini provinciali: Willis decide di procedere con la forza e, fra le proteste dei paggi, impone la sedia di costrizione per “punire” il sovrano ogni volta che si comporta in modo scorretto (terribile la scena che marca la fine della prima parte, con il sovrano che, immobilizzato dalle cinghie, urla disperato di essere il re d’Inghilterra, mentre il medico gli risponde che è solo un paziente). Nonostante la brutalità dei metodi di Willis, a poco a poco il re riprende il controllo di se stesso: nella sua follia sembra farsi strada una piccola luce, come dimostra la sua recita di Re Lear che sblocca la situazione. La crisi è scongiurata e Giorgio si ristabilisce riconciliandosi con la regina, mentre Pitt tira un sospiro di sollievo.
Quello di Bennett è un vero e proprio dramma storico, per comporre il quale l’autore, da sempre affascinato dal personaggio di Giorgio III, ha consultato numerose fonti storiche e letterarie, come racconta nella lunga introduzione in cui spiega alcune sue scelte sceniche. Il tema centrale del dramma è certamente il problema della follia di un individuo da cui dipendono i destini di milioni di persone: non la follia sadica e amorale di Caligola e Nerone, né quella lucida e demoniaca di Hitler, ma quella di un sovrano, piuttosto mite, un po’ limitato, di indole contadina (da savio, Giorgio dimostra di intendersi di economia rurale), fedele alla sua compagna, ma non indifferente alle grazie femminili di lady Pembroke, e fondamentalmente allergico all’esercizio del potere, soprattutto nei suoi aspetti più spietati (è sufficiente vedere la sua reazione all’attentato di cui è vittima all’inizio della storia): in ciò diversissimo dal figlio e dai suoi ministri, il conservatore immobilista Pitt, gli ambiziosi Fox e Sheridan e l’ambiguo Thurlow, tutti assetati di potere. Le domande che i personaggi si fanno sono le stesse che incuriosiscono il lettore, facendolo meditare sul ruolo del sovrano in quel periodo. Come giustificare l’indisposizione del sovrano in modo che l’opinione pubblica non venga scossa dalla notizia? Come impadronirsi del potere, dichiarando folle un re che lo è solo temporaneamente? Come curare un malato che l’etichetta vieta anche solo di toccare o di interrompere mentre (stra)parla? Se il trono del re diventa la sua sedia di costrizione e i paramenti regali la camicia di forza, che cosa ne è dell’eccezionalità del sovrano?
Dramma complesso con moltissimi personaggi, forse troppi – difficile distinguere chiaramente i paggi del re e alcune figure di contorno – ha i suoi punti di forza nell’ironia tipicamente britannica che colpisce la corte, i medici, e soprattutto i politicanti corrotti, e nel taglio dato all’evoluzione della vicenda: se inizialmente le bizzarrie del re fanno sorridere e poi ridere il lettore (o lo spettatore), il progredire della follia conferisce pathos alla storia, provocando compassione per le sofferenze sopportate dal sovrano, sempre più solo con il suo male. Il ristabilirsi della salute non riporta la completa serenità, solo quel tanto che basta per tirare avanti: come dice Giorgio a Carlotta, “ogni vita ha i suoi rimpianti. Ma ognuna ha le sue consolazioni”.
Consigliato a chi ama recitare Re Lear.
Sconsigliato al principe Carlo.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 3, 2008
Truthfully, I wasn't really in the mood for this. I got fired up about Bennett after reading and seeing The History Boys, and obviously this was the next readily available title. It's like The West Wing in the nineteenth century. It seems to take royalty as more of an ingrained staple than a Yank like me can grasp, so maybe I just need to wallow in the annals of Bourbon Palace a while longer or something. I'll give it another whirl some other day. It's obviously about George III's problems with porphyria, and how his physicians didn't know how to handle it, and how his political bedfellows used it to further their own careers. Hmm. I'm already getting interested again. Look for another review in a few weeks.
December 6, 2011
La pazzia di re Giorgio è una commedia teatrale storica. Alan Bennett aveva studiato storia durante il periodo universitario per cui le sue conoscenze in materia sono ricche di spunti interessanti sulla corte inglese alla fine del XVIII secolo. Durante la lettura si ride molto perché Bennett non perde mai il suo spirito sarcastico,ma ci sono anche delle fini analogie con il shakespiriano Re Lear e sul tema della follia e della ragione che nel teatro, e in fondo nella vita, sono sempre in bilico. Ottimo libro che consiglio a tutti.
February 10, 2012
I think this is one of Bennett's better plays - I think he wittily ties George's descent into madness to Britain's recent loss of the American colonies. The King Lear scene is fantastically clever. There's currently a splendid revival of The Madness of George III starring David Haig in London's West End that I would highly recommend booking tickets to.
May 22, 2017
Boring, boring, boring, oh, man, so boring. I could hardly bring myself to feel outrage about the treatment of the mad king, how he was slapped about and tied up and everything, because it was all so horribly boring. It was like slogging through muck just to make it to the end.
December 1, 2015
Scritto per il teatro, è molto divertente.
E' piacevole fin dall'introduzione dell'autore.
E' piacevole fin dall'introduzione dell'autore.
June 13, 2020
Bennett at his most witty. The relationship between king and constitution, between a monarch and his humanity, between old and new medicine.
August 12, 2025
Well, this must be one of the strangest things I have ever read! But if it's meant to make me curious about King George III than it certainly has been successful! Because now I am wondering why he was acting this way (and a quick search on Google says that he really was "mad" - although there are questions about what the madness actually was)...
And may I be bold to say in my opinion King George III wasn't the only mad one in this book? Read this and I think you may agree...! Those so called doctors in here are a true nightmare (but it was the time period you know).
So what did I think about this? The story is just so peculiar it's hard to say. It could be classified as a mystery I think, if you concentrate on what is actually wrong with the king. He repeats words and has tons of energy. It was almost like a second childhood or something? Makes me question his diet or if someone slipped him something.
My first impression of meeting the king and his echolalia was "what's up with him?" And from there it got a bit stranger. But I really didn't have any problems with the king, queen or the prince.
But! I did think there were too many other characters. All of those fancy officials. It was hard to keep track of who was who. I kept getting them confused with each other. They would introduce one of them with an odd job title and then I had thought maybe this guy would be a main player in the story only to find out he wasn't at all.
But I mainly focused on the king and his illness.
The end of the book does offer a possible explanation for his illness. But a quick search online gives other possibilities as well. I guess after reading this one can decide for themselves what he may have had.
And may I be bold to say in my opinion King George III wasn't the only mad one in this book? Read this and I think you may agree...! Those so called doctors in here are a true nightmare (but it was the time period you know).
So what did I think about this? The story is just so peculiar it's hard to say. It could be classified as a mystery I think, if you concentrate on what is actually wrong with the king. He repeats words and has tons of energy. It was almost like a second childhood or something? Makes me question his diet or if someone slipped him something.
My first impression of meeting the king and his echolalia was "what's up with him?" And from there it got a bit stranger. But I really didn't have any problems with the king, queen or the prince.
But! I did think there were too many other characters. All of those fancy officials. It was hard to keep track of who was who. I kept getting them confused with each other. They would introduce one of them with an odd job title and then I had thought maybe this guy would be a main player in the story only to find out he wasn't at all.
But I mainly focused on the king and his illness.
The end of the book does offer a possible explanation for his illness. But a quick search online gives other possibilities as well. I guess after reading this one can decide for themselves what he may have had.
September 2, 2020
I've never given a great deal of thought to the personal aspects of King George III's madness or of the familial impact of the regency. Bennet's screenplay drove home the utter tragedy of a situation that it's so easy to gloss over as we are distracted by other historical events.
After the first few pages, I was planning to watch the movie, but by the time I made it to the middle of the screenplay, I was less certain. I've never expended much emotional energy on the British monarchy, and I'm not entirely sure this is a great time to be reduced to a puddle of tears over a long-dead King and his wife.
After the first few pages, I was planning to watch the movie, but by the time I made it to the middle of the screenplay, I was less certain. I've never expended much emotional energy on the British monarchy, and I'm not entirely sure this is a great time to be reduced to a puddle of tears over a long-dead King and his wife.
Read
January 1, 2025An entertaining mix of comic and tragic, scatological and elevated, political and polemical. The ultimate resolution for George III is simultaneously engaged and avoided in a decidedly postmodern ending to a play that does not insist on historical accuracy but nonetheless uses a lot of history.
December 5, 2018
Fascinating look at England’s king being reduced to personhood and at medical treatments of the day.
January 8, 2015
Leggo così pochi testi teatrali che non avevo, finora, il tag appropriato: è giunto il momento di crearlo, visto che l’ultima lettura di settembre è stata questa commedia di Alan Bennett, La pazzia di Re Giorgio, cioè Giorgio III (1760-1811). In effetti con questo titolo fino a qualche tempo fa conoscevo solo un film del 1994, e non sapevo che fosse tratto da quest’opera: all’epoca vedevo spesso Videomusic, e a intervalli regolari c’era un breve programma con i trailer dei film in uscita, e io ricordo una scena di questo in cui Nigel Hawthorne (Giorgio III) correva come un matto per i corridoi di Windsor… Questo per dire quali strade tortuose portano alla lettura di un libro (tra l’altro la cosa buffa è che a tutt’oggi quel film, il cui trailer mi aveva colpito così tanto, non l’ho ancora visto: potrei ora fare, come per
Quel che resta del giorno
, un confronto libro/film).
È possibile (come si legge nell’interessante Premessa di Bennett) che quella di Giorgio III, più che pazzia, fosse una conseguenza di una malattia ereditaria, la porfiria, all’epoca non diagnosticata. In ogni caso, negli anni 1788-1789 in cui è ambientata la commedia, l’incapacità del sovrano di governare alimentò le speranze dell’ambizioso Principe di Galles, suo figlio, di assumere il potere con qualche anno di anticipo facendosi proclamare reggente, e con lui quelle dell’opposizione al primo ministro Pitt, mentre quest’ultimo a sua volta poteva solo augurarsi che il re guarisse in fretta per sperare di poter conservare la sua poltrona. Infatti è sulle lotte politiche e sulle alterne fortune dei vari schieramenti, con i relativi cambi di casacca e trasformismi dell’ultimo minuto, che si concentra il testo, più che sulle classiche “scene di follia”, regalando qualche battuta graffiante di tipico humour inglese.
La Premessa dell’autore, che ricordavo sopra, contiene interessanti informazioni sull’ispirazione per questa commedia, sui tratti dei vari personaggi, sulle piccole libertà storiche che Bennett si è concesso, nonché sui preparativi e le prove per la prima messa in scena (Londra, novembre 1991).
Per la cronaca, anche se nel 1789 Giorgio III si ristabilì e il figlio dovette tornare al suo posto, nel 1811 la salute del vecchio sovrano peggiorò di nuovo e stavolta fu davvero necessario ricorrere alla Reggenza: è il classico periodo della “Regency” di austeniana fama. Alla morte del padre, nel 1820, il Principe di Galles divenne finalmente Giorgio IV.
3/5
http://moloch981.wordpress.com/2013/0...
È possibile (come si legge nell’interessante Premessa di Bennett) che quella di Giorgio III, più che pazzia, fosse una conseguenza di una malattia ereditaria, la porfiria, all’epoca non diagnosticata. In ogni caso, negli anni 1788-1789 in cui è ambientata la commedia, l’incapacità del sovrano di governare alimentò le speranze dell’ambizioso Principe di Galles, suo figlio, di assumere il potere con qualche anno di anticipo facendosi proclamare reggente, e con lui quelle dell’opposizione al primo ministro Pitt, mentre quest’ultimo a sua volta poteva solo augurarsi che il re guarisse in fretta per sperare di poter conservare la sua poltrona. Infatti è sulle lotte politiche e sulle alterne fortune dei vari schieramenti, con i relativi cambi di casacca e trasformismi dell’ultimo minuto, che si concentra il testo, più che sulle classiche “scene di follia”, regalando qualche battuta graffiante di tipico humour inglese.
La Premessa dell’autore, che ricordavo sopra, contiene interessanti informazioni sull’ispirazione per questa commedia, sui tratti dei vari personaggi, sulle piccole libertà storiche che Bennett si è concesso, nonché sui preparativi e le prove per la prima messa in scena (Londra, novembre 1991).
Per la cronaca, anche se nel 1789 Giorgio III si ristabilì e il figlio dovette tornare al suo posto, nel 1811 la salute del vecchio sovrano peggiorò di nuovo e stavolta fu davvero necessario ricorrere alla Reggenza: è il classico periodo della “Regency” di austeniana fama. Alla morte del padre, nel 1820, il Principe di Galles divenne finalmente Giorgio IV.
3/5
http://moloch981.wordpress.com/2013/0...
July 12, 2016
I bought this actually intending to get the stage play (entitled The Madness of George III) rather than the screenplay (entitled The Madness of King George), because I rarely read screenplays. However, it was quite interesting to read this one, in part because I really liked the film. I find that when I see a film version of a play and then read it, I visualize what's going on more easily, which can be a really nice help with some plays. However, this is a fairly straightforward screenplay without many directions that would give one difficulty in imagining the filming.
One thing I do think is interesting--and I'd like to read the stage play to see how the two compare--is that this screenplay has a lot more breaks. Whereas a break in a stage play generally requires changing the set, in a film the viewer simply experiences a cut scene, so it is possible to provide more camera angles, more sets, and more breaks, leading to generally shorter bursts of dialogue. Whereas in a 70 page stage play, a single scene might go 25 pages without a break, here few of the scenes go more than a page.
One thing I do think is interesting--and I'd like to read the stage play to see how the two compare--is that this screenplay has a lot more breaks. Whereas a break in a stage play generally requires changing the set, in a film the viewer simply experiences a cut scene, so it is possible to provide more camera angles, more sets, and more breaks, leading to generally shorter bursts of dialogue. Whereas in a 70 page stage play, a single scene might go 25 pages without a break, here few of the scenes go more than a page.
June 27, 2025
The Madness of King George, written by Alan Bennett, based on his play
10 out of 10
The Madness of King George is one of the best films ever made; indeed, you can find it on The New York Times’ Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made list - https://www.listchallenges.com/new-yo...
It has also won an Academy Award, having been nominated also nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role – category in which the stupendous Nigel Hawthorne has won the BAFTA –, Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Helen Mirren – who has won the grand prize for The Queen – and Best Writing for Alan Bennett.
More important, the phenomenal motion picture has been listed for the most relevant cinematic prize, the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1995, where Helen Mirren has won the Best Actress award.
About the play on which the same brilliant author has based his screenplay, you can find some notes here - http://realini.blogspot.com/2016/08/t...
King George III is depicted as an amusing – at times ridiculous – smart, with an excellent memory – when Prime Minister Pitt aka the excellent Julian Wadham is asked by the monarch some details on an appointment, he states that he does not know anything about the low ranking official and is then impressed by the fact that his majesty remembers in this and other cases about the marital status, the person this and others have married and the connections between many different people.
This admirable mind is good for as look as it is not deranged and alas, after a period during which we admire the monarch who cannot refer to the “colonies” – he repeats that this is what must not be mentioned, to which the prime minister replies that they are now called The United States – the public looks at a sovereign that is decaying, attacks the rather repulsive, preposterous, feeble prince of Wales with zest, only to descend into a state of nearly absolute confusion.
Helen Mirren has the role of the faithful, brave, loyal Queen Charlotte – she has given birth to fifteen children, as her consort points out when an expecting woman in the royal entourage asks for the favor to sit in the presence of the monarch, for she is not feeling well and the rather hilarious king is satirical over this frailty.
The Prime Minister Pitt and Queen Charlotte are among the most determined, stout allies of the Mad King, who is under attack by his own son, the prince of Wales aka Rupert Everett – who is much better here than in the part of Oscar Wilde, which he has played recently – and the politician who leads the opposition, Mr. Fox aka the excellent Jim Carter – who has gained more popularity with his role in Downton Abbey, although you can see him also in one of the best comedies ever, Top Secret.
The doctors that treat the sovereign are ridiculous and dangerous, for they recommend outrageous cures – the king is aggravated by one of them and his majesty mentions the fourteen motions he has had in the day, with which he could have fertilized an entire crop, to which the silly physician replies that his majesty should have taken only three spoons and the king answers that three spoonful’s never did anyone any good…
During a musical performance, the monarch misbehaves, interrupts the concert – a splendid Handel Water Music – walks to the orchestra and starts playing the piano or clavichord, whatever the instrument was – later he would abuse his own wife, the one he loves, admires and treasures when he is in his right mind, but with porphyria affecting his judgment, he seems to want to get intimate with lady Pembroke.
The sovereign has an admirable young man assigned to his entourage, Greville aka the formidable – like all the rest of the cast – Rupert Graves, even if unfortunately, the man who has to watch over the royal person while he just sits down near a fence and defecates and in other embarrassing situations, would be eventually sent away when the superiors think that what he knows can affect the image of the king.
Ian Holm is the formidable actor who plays Willis, the strange innovative for the age doctor who takes on the burden of treating the ailing sovereign, using force when necessary, which is in stark contrast with the other “professionals” – who strongly contest the one they call a charlatan – who keep the distance for the king cannot be approached except with extraordinary care and timidity.
Indeed, one of these comical figures, when Greville mentions the urine of the monarch – the “blue water” is an indication for the experts of today that suggests that some of the royals suffered from porphyria – he explains that only his majesty can ask for a diagnosis and they do not interfere.
Willis demands the sovereign to behave and when this does not happen, he has men in his employment that tie the monarch up, which seems an act of lèse-majesté and the entourage of the king opposes this abuse, up to the point where it becomes clear that his majesty could be helped to recover.
Meanwhile, political machinations are under way and the Prince of Wales seems to be on his way to become regent and then gain the power – controlled by parliament, Mr. Fox declares �� albeit he has married a “common” woman and this was against the rules then.
Indeed, now with Meghan Markle joining the royal family, this antiquated rule seems to be disappearing, albeit as recently as near the middle of the last century, a monarch had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorced commoner – it could be added and indeed it should, that that royal failure was a Nazi sympathizer and as such Britain was better off without him.
Eventually, the Mad King George III seems to be on the way to a complete recovery – one indication is the return of his amusing use of “What, What” in his speech and the élan, the vivacity, the intelligence, wit and energy which he had possessed before his affliction had taken the better of him.
The Madness of King George is an outstanding, glorious film.
10 out of 10
The Madness of King George is one of the best films ever made; indeed, you can find it on The New York Times’ Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made list - https://www.listchallenges.com/new-yo...
It has also won an Academy Award, having been nominated also nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role – category in which the stupendous Nigel Hawthorne has won the BAFTA –, Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Helen Mirren – who has won the grand prize for The Queen – and Best Writing for Alan Bennett.
More important, the phenomenal motion picture has been listed for the most relevant cinematic prize, the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1995, where Helen Mirren has won the Best Actress award.
About the play on which the same brilliant author has based his screenplay, you can find some notes here - http://realini.blogspot.com/2016/08/t...
King George III is depicted as an amusing – at times ridiculous – smart, with an excellent memory – when Prime Minister Pitt aka the excellent Julian Wadham is asked by the monarch some details on an appointment, he states that he does not know anything about the low ranking official and is then impressed by the fact that his majesty remembers in this and other cases about the marital status, the person this and others have married and the connections between many different people.
This admirable mind is good for as look as it is not deranged and alas, after a period during which we admire the monarch who cannot refer to the “colonies” – he repeats that this is what must not be mentioned, to which the prime minister replies that they are now called The United States – the public looks at a sovereign that is decaying, attacks the rather repulsive, preposterous, feeble prince of Wales with zest, only to descend into a state of nearly absolute confusion.
Helen Mirren has the role of the faithful, brave, loyal Queen Charlotte – she has given birth to fifteen children, as her consort points out when an expecting woman in the royal entourage asks for the favor to sit in the presence of the monarch, for she is not feeling well and the rather hilarious king is satirical over this frailty.
The Prime Minister Pitt and Queen Charlotte are among the most determined, stout allies of the Mad King, who is under attack by his own son, the prince of Wales aka Rupert Everett – who is much better here than in the part of Oscar Wilde, which he has played recently – and the politician who leads the opposition, Mr. Fox aka the excellent Jim Carter – who has gained more popularity with his role in Downton Abbey, although you can see him also in one of the best comedies ever, Top Secret.
The doctors that treat the sovereign are ridiculous and dangerous, for they recommend outrageous cures – the king is aggravated by one of them and his majesty mentions the fourteen motions he has had in the day, with which he could have fertilized an entire crop, to which the silly physician replies that his majesty should have taken only three spoons and the king answers that three spoonful’s never did anyone any good…
During a musical performance, the monarch misbehaves, interrupts the concert – a splendid Handel Water Music – walks to the orchestra and starts playing the piano or clavichord, whatever the instrument was – later he would abuse his own wife, the one he loves, admires and treasures when he is in his right mind, but with porphyria affecting his judgment, he seems to want to get intimate with lady Pembroke.
The sovereign has an admirable young man assigned to his entourage, Greville aka the formidable – like all the rest of the cast – Rupert Graves, even if unfortunately, the man who has to watch over the royal person while he just sits down near a fence and defecates and in other embarrassing situations, would be eventually sent away when the superiors think that what he knows can affect the image of the king.
Ian Holm is the formidable actor who plays Willis, the strange innovative for the age doctor who takes on the burden of treating the ailing sovereign, using force when necessary, which is in stark contrast with the other “professionals” – who strongly contest the one they call a charlatan – who keep the distance for the king cannot be approached except with extraordinary care and timidity.
Indeed, one of these comical figures, when Greville mentions the urine of the monarch – the “blue water” is an indication for the experts of today that suggests that some of the royals suffered from porphyria – he explains that only his majesty can ask for a diagnosis and they do not interfere.
Willis demands the sovereign to behave and when this does not happen, he has men in his employment that tie the monarch up, which seems an act of lèse-majesté and the entourage of the king opposes this abuse, up to the point where it becomes clear that his majesty could be helped to recover.
Meanwhile, political machinations are under way and the Prince of Wales seems to be on his way to become regent and then gain the power – controlled by parliament, Mr. Fox declares �� albeit he has married a “common” woman and this was against the rules then.
Indeed, now with Meghan Markle joining the royal family, this antiquated rule seems to be disappearing, albeit as recently as near the middle of the last century, a monarch had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorced commoner – it could be added and indeed it should, that that royal failure was a Nazi sympathizer and as such Britain was better off without him.
Eventually, the Mad King George III seems to be on the way to a complete recovery – one indication is the return of his amusing use of “What, What” in his speech and the élan, the vivacity, the intelligence, wit and energy which he had possessed before his affliction had taken the better of him.
The Madness of King George is an outstanding, glorious film.
December 15, 2012
I am currently in my second year of 6 form, in which i study English language and literature. the course work requires students to chose one shakespeare play, and a different play/movie to compare it with. I have chosen to study King Lear (which is one of my favourite shakespeare plays) and will be comparing the element of madness in King Lear with that portrayed in the Madness of King George.
i enjoyed the film version of King George but was required to read the screenplay of it.
it is a short and easy read, with excellently drawn and thought out characters. overall a rating of 3.5 stars.
a extended review will be completed later, but if anyone would like to know or recieve my personal opinion on anything feel free to ask. xxx
i enjoyed the film version of King George but was required to read the screenplay of it.
it is a short and easy read, with excellently drawn and thought out characters. overall a rating of 3.5 stars.
a extended review will be completed later, but if anyone would like to know or recieve my personal opinion on anything feel free to ask. xxx
October 24, 2014
prima di dedicarsi alla regina elisabetta con la sovrana lettrice alan bennett si dedica a re giorgio con questa divertente satira e sceneggiatura.
non si pu�� dire che lo tratti con i guanti bianchi, ma soprattutto mette in ridicolo tutto il sistema di corte che, senza accorgersi che il re �� malato, cerca di abituarsi a tutte le sue stranezze.
non si pu�� dire che lo tratti con i guanti bianchi, ma soprattutto mette in ridicolo tutto il sistema di corte che, senza accorgersi che il re �� malato, cerca di abituarsi a tutte le sue stranezze.
June 9, 2010
Bennett wonderfully deconstructs here power and manipulation. While making you laugh.
Would so much like to see it on stage now.
Would so much like to see it on stage now.
August 2, 2011
Bloody fantastic. Why couldn't Bennett have stopped here? Then we wouldn't have the confusing mass that is called The History Boys.
June 9, 2015
Strangely poignant portrait of the mad, syphillitic king George III.
October 28, 2013
Sconsigliato (e non avrei mai pensato di dirlo di un'opera di Bennett).
June 19, 2014
Det er første skuespil jeg læser. Jeg ved ikke om jeg synes det var godt. Men det var i hvert fald en interessant oplevelse at læse det.
July 8, 2014
Interesting story - interesting author.
DD@Phila
DD@Phila
March 6, 2014
Brilliant read and I also enjoyed the film.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 20, 2016
I listen to this on CDs. Great reading done by multiple actors. Very dramatic.
April 20, 2023
King George III suffered from some sort of breakdown which prevented him from effectively ruling three times during his reign. The first attack was in 1788. In those days the King appointed the prime minister and was essential to the business of government. If the King was incapacitated, the Prince of Wales would take over as Regent and the government would change. But, given the power of the King, how could the Crown Prince take over? Did Parliament have the power to choose who was King? This illness therefore precipitated a constitutional crisis.
To a large extent, this is a play of ideas. Bennett is trying to explain to an audience presumably not well versed in the complexities of Georgian politics that the government run by Prime Minister Pitt the Younger is dependent on the continuing health of the King, in particular on his ability to confirm appointments and so ‘bribe’ MPs and those who control parliamentary seats. When madness rendered the King incapable of doing this, the opposition demanded that the Crown Prince became Regent; there was every likelihood that if this happened the King would never recover (or at least be deemed to recover) because the Prince Regent would not want to cede power back to his dad.
So it's about power and this story is mirrored by the story of who controls the King. At the start of the play no-one can sit in his presence, or talk directly to him, or look at him, but once he has become the patient he is blistered, strait-jacketed and gagged without his permission.
These are complicated ideas and I doubt I would have understood them without having read the author's introduction beforehand.
And the fact that the play is about ideas makes it harder for the actors to develop characters and therefore harder for them to emotionally connect with the audience.
Bennett makes this more difficult. Because he wants to show the King before, during and after his illness, he has to extend the timescale. I would have started in media res, with the King already ill, with the new-fangled treatment by outsider Dr Willis battling with the old-fashioned remedies of the establishment quacks, with Pitt and Fox at loggerheads over whether there should or shouldn't be a regency, with the Prince of Wales arguing with his mother as to what is the best thing for his father.
I would also have drastically cut the cast. In the Bennett version the King has five attendants (three pages and two ensigns). I would have had two (you need two in a play so they can conflict with one another, otherwise it is a lot of should-I-shouldn't-I soliloquies). There are three members of the government and three members of the opposition; again, only two are needed (in fact, if the Prince of Wales counts as the opposition, you'd only need one other, especially if the Lord Chancellor who flipflops can be counted in both camps). There are three establishment quack doctors, only one is needed (although this might have lost the humour of the preposterous quackery). The Duke of York was no more than sidekick and foil to the Prince of Wales.
What good would this have done? It would have meant that the audience would have needed to spend less time wondering who was who and more time getting involved with each character. It would have meant that each actor would have had more lines and therefore more time to develop the characterisation of the role.
It might be argued that this is a historical drama so Bennett has to stick with the historicity. Except he didn't. One of the pages of the King is called Fortnum and there are a couple of lines, designed to elicit laughs, about Fortnum leaving the palace to start a grocery business in Piccadilly. But the real Fortnum left the court of Queen Anne in 1707, 71 years and three monarchs before the action of this play. His grandson was an attendant of George III's Queen but his service started in 1761, still 27 years before this play started. So Bennett is being ahistorical here. Like Shakespeare was with his histories. Drama don't need to stick to the truth.
Who am I to think that I can rewrite a play that is perennially popular? But why is it popular. Is it because Alan Bennett already has a name for writing great theatre? Or is it because it is about royalty and the typical British theatre audience loves royalty (and the typical British actor loves all that dressing up).
I don't think this is a well-written play.
To a large extent, this is a play of ideas. Bennett is trying to explain to an audience presumably not well versed in the complexities of Georgian politics that the government run by Prime Minister Pitt the Younger is dependent on the continuing health of the King, in particular on his ability to confirm appointments and so ‘bribe’ MPs and those who control parliamentary seats. When madness rendered the King incapable of doing this, the opposition demanded that the Crown Prince became Regent; there was every likelihood that if this happened the King would never recover (or at least be deemed to recover) because the Prince Regent would not want to cede power back to his dad.
So it's about power and this story is mirrored by the story of who controls the King. At the start of the play no-one can sit in his presence, or talk directly to him, or look at him, but once he has become the patient he is blistered, strait-jacketed and gagged without his permission.
These are complicated ideas and I doubt I would have understood them without having read the author's introduction beforehand.
And the fact that the play is about ideas makes it harder for the actors to develop characters and therefore harder for them to emotionally connect with the audience.
Bennett makes this more difficult. Because he wants to show the King before, during and after his illness, he has to extend the timescale. I would have started in media res, with the King already ill, with the new-fangled treatment by outsider Dr Willis battling with the old-fashioned remedies of the establishment quacks, with Pitt and Fox at loggerheads over whether there should or shouldn't be a regency, with the Prince of Wales arguing with his mother as to what is the best thing for his father.
I would also have drastically cut the cast. In the Bennett version the King has five attendants (three pages and two ensigns). I would have had two (you need two in a play so they can conflict with one another, otherwise it is a lot of should-I-shouldn't-I soliloquies). There are three members of the government and three members of the opposition; again, only two are needed (in fact, if the Prince of Wales counts as the opposition, you'd only need one other, especially if the Lord Chancellor who flipflops can be counted in both camps). There are three establishment quack doctors, only one is needed (although this might have lost the humour of the preposterous quackery). The Duke of York was no more than sidekick and foil to the Prince of Wales.
What good would this have done? It would have meant that the audience would have needed to spend less time wondering who was who and more time getting involved with each character. It would have meant that each actor would have had more lines and therefore more time to develop the characterisation of the role.
It might be argued that this is a historical drama so Bennett has to stick with the historicity. Except he didn't. One of the pages of the King is called Fortnum and there are a couple of lines, designed to elicit laughs, about Fortnum leaving the palace to start a grocery business in Piccadilly. But the real Fortnum left the court of Queen Anne in 1707, 71 years and three monarchs before the action of this play. His grandson was an attendant of George III's Queen but his service started in 1761, still 27 years before this play started. So Bennett is being ahistorical here. Like Shakespeare was with his histories. Drama don't need to stick to the truth.
Who am I to think that I can rewrite a play that is perennially popular? But why is it popular. Is it because Alan Bennett already has a name for writing great theatre? Or is it because it is about royalty and the typical British theatre audience loves royalty (and the typical British actor loves all that dressing up).
I don't think this is a well-written play.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews