Plot
The film depicts the relatively primitive medical practices of the time and the suppositions that physicians made in their efforts to understand the human body. After King George III begins to go mad, his doctors attempt cures such as blistering and purges, led on particularly by the Prince of Wales' personal physician, Dr Warren. Meanwhile, another of the King's physicians, Dr. Pepys, analyzes the King's stool and urine believing that body wastes may contain some clue to the Royal malady; of course, none of these attempts to cure the King actually works. Finally, Lady Pembroke, attendant to the Queen, recommends Dr. Willis, an ex-minister who attempts to cure the insane through behavior modification, and who begins his restoration of the King's mental state by enforcing a strict regime of strapping the King into a waistcoat and restraining him whenever he misbehaves. Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales has been scheming to have himself made Prince Regent, at which point he will effectively be King. He allies with the opposition, led by Charles Fox, to Prime Minister William Pitt's increasingly unpopular government. Tensions rise as the day of the Prince's appointment as Regent draws near, but Dr Willis is making good progress with the King, managing to bring him from his raving and violent state of mind back to a level of normality. As he improves, the King becomes less eccentric, and even manages to recite Shakespeare. Once the Lord Chancellor, Baron Thurlow, hears of the King's rapid recovery, the race begins to get the King to Parliament in time to stop the Prince of Wales being appointed Regent. They arrive just in time, the Prince's plans are thwarted, and King George returns to the throne and to the loving company of his wife the Queen.
Read more about this topic: The Madness Of King George
Famous quotes containing the word plot:
“Ends in themselves, my letters plot no change;
They carry nothing dutiable; they won’t
Aspire, astound, establish or estrange.”
—Philip Larkin (1922–1986)
“James’s great gift, of course, was his ability to tell a plot in shimmering detail with such delicacy of treatment and such fine aloofness—that is, reluctance to engage in any direct grappling with what, in the play or story, had actually “taken place”Mthat his listeners often did not, in the end, know what had, to put it in another way, “gone on.””
—James Thurber (1894–1961)
“After I discovered the real life of mothers bore little resemblance to the plot outlined in most of the books and articles I’d read, I started relying on the expert advice of other mothers—especially those with sons a few years older than mine. This great body of knowledge is essentially an oral history, because anyone engaged in motherhood on a daily basis has no time to write an advice book about it.”
—Mary Kay Blakely (20th century)