Home

The Madness of George III – review

31.08.11

Bennett admittedly flirts with some fascinating notions. At times he offers a neo-Shavian take-off on the absurdity of doctors who seek to cure the king's madness with a prescriptive rigidity. Bennett also aims some perceptive blows at 18th-century politicians: not least William Pitt, who says the nation is "sick" and overstates the omen of bankruptcy in order to claim credit for the presumed recovery. And there are provocative aperçus, such as the suggestion that "the royal of monarchy and the state of lunacy share a frontier". But the play lacks a big, governing idea; and, although Christopher Luscombe's putting out sensibly trims the text, I find it hard to forgive the omission of the crucial coda in which a latest doctor reminds us that the king was really suffering from a metabolic disorder. Without that, we get an almost sentimental, happy-ever-after ending.

But there is always Haig, who miraculously challenges memories of Nigel Hawthorne in the christen role . What Haig, our leading exponent of farcical mania, brings out superbly is the monarch's inherent cunning: he affects a rustic, Farmer George simplicity while relishing the power of sovereign control. And it is precisely because he is so in love with ritualistic pomp that we find his humiliation so moving: strapped to a restraining-chair with his forefront cocked to one side and mouth slightly agape, Haig suggests one of Bacon's tortured potentates . But there is also a copiousness of humorous humanity in Haig's performance: informed by the queen's seductive companion that, even in madness, he has treated her with immaculate decorum, Haig cries, "Have I?" in a voice aching with infinite regret.

Source: The Guardian