| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 760.1 | \ | WARNUT::FIDDLERM | Higher than the Sun | Wed Feb 08 1995 08:01 | 6 |
| I read that the title had to be changed from
"The Madness of George III" because studio bosses were worried that
American audiences might think they had missed parts I and II. I don't
know how true this is.
Mikef
|
| 760.2 | true | SMAUG::LEHMKUHL | H, V ii 216 | Wed Feb 08 1995 09:36 | 14 |
| Playright/screenwriter/etc. Alan Bennett wrote in his account of
the filming (published in last week's "London Review of Books" that
the American distributors approached him rather "shamefacedly" on the
subject of the title. It seems that many of the American audience
of Ken Branagh's "Henry V" were sorry they had missed I-IV. The
brass felt it would be best to avoid confusion by removing the numeral
from the title.
Now Alan Bennett is among other things a comic writer, but I rather
doubt that he would have changed the name of his play without some
sort of justification. He found this one amusing; I find it deadly
depressing (as well as hilarious).
Chris
|
| 760.3 | It works both ways | USDEV::HERRING | | Wed Feb 08 1995 12:31 | 5 |
|
...and then there were those who thought MALCOLM X was about
a king called Malcolm the Tenth.
S.H.
|
| 760.4 | USA Release | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Wed Feb 08 1995 13:03 | 3 |
| Could a film of Henry IV pt2 be released in America?
R. Michael.
|
| 760.5 | | SMAUG::LEHMKUHL | H, V ii 216 | Wed Feb 08 1995 13:45 | 3 |
| What happened to the other 5 films?, they'll all ask.
:-) {who said they have no sense of humour up Norf}
|
| 760.6 | open in UK yet? | SMAUG::LEHMKUHL | H, V ii 216 | Wed Feb 08 1995 13:48 | 4 |
| By the way, this film has gotten universally great reviews over here./
Is it open the UK? I'll have a better chance of seeing it on my
vacation in London than making the trek to one of the few theatres
where it is showing in Boston.
|
| 760.7 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Feb 08 1995 15:09 | 5 |
| Well they could have killed two birds with one stone by making movies about
King George I and King George II before making this film. Of course the movie
about King George I would have had to have English subtitles.
George
|
| 760.8 | ** | TUXEDO::HASBROUCK | | Thu Feb 16 1995 21:29 | 18 |
|
I was entertained, but unimpressed, by this film. First of all, it's pseudo-
history. Nigel Hawthorne's performance is fine, but the theatrical modes of
hysteria, hyperbole and rant feel confining and tedious. It's a
comedy, with a British magnum opus flavor. It's also a drudge. It's about
madness, but there's no informed knowledge, or interesting speculation,
about lunacy, therapy and cure. We're offered up senile manic dementia with
a garnish of potty jokes, both of which are in ample supply already.
The costumes are great. And some good one-liners. For instance:
Said of the Prince - "It takes a strong man to endure the rigors of indolence"
Or something like that.
Brian
|
| 760.9 | ***� | EVMS::HALLYB | Fish have no concept of fire | Mon Mar 13 1995 10:02 | 19 |
| Saw this at the Wilton Theatre Saturday night. The place was packed --
they even opened up the balcony.
With the obvious exception of King and Queen I had a spot of difficulty
identifying who was who. OK, the two guys who won't wave are the Crown
Prince and his younger brother. Mr. Pitt, the P.M. is a good guy. His
opponent is a bad guy. (No spoiler, we're supposed to *know* all this.)
What's worthwhile about this movie is not so much the King's madness
but its effect on everyone else. Not just family but the whole country.
And the political intrigue involved -- I thought the scenes in Commons
were especially well-done.
True, there was more potty `humor' than necessary. The emotional
outbursts need not be so loud or so long. And the language was a bit
foreign to my ears. But I felt I got my money's worth. They even gave
a good hypothesis (in print, at the end) of the nature of the madness.
John
|
| 760.10 | brilliantly transferred from stage to film | SMAUG::LEHMKUHL | H, V ii 216 | Mon Mar 13 1995 11:17 | 24 |
| Alan Bennett wrote both the play and the screenplay, and
having seen both I think he did an extraordinary job
of making the transfer. Nicholas Hynter directed both
stage and film, and I found that his film-modified
vision worked as well.
We were talking about it this morning and I think that
the film lost some of the intensity (fear, anguish)
that we felt in the theatre. I was sorry to see the
Lear scene cut short, although it was still brilliantly
read by John Wood and Nigel Hawthorne. The accomodations
made for film...
While the details of political who's who are interesting,
I don't think they are important to one's enjoyment of
the story. It's pretty obvious that we have the incum-
bents (king and prime minister) and the challengers
(PoW and leader of the opposition), as well as the
sycophants and whoever-wins-how-do-protect-MY-job types.
So don't let the fact that you've forgotten any English
history you might have been taught deter you from seeing
this outstanding film.
Chris
|