Wow, was the dialog for this film bad--bad especially since this is considered a prestige picture--a costume drama in which RKO had a lavish budget and a nice cast. All too often, the characters tend to talk through exposition--in an effort to explains things to the audience by having the characters stating things that they SHOULD have known. As a result, what they say often just sounds dumb. For example, Mary doesn't just greet her brother but announces his full name and calls him her brother! No one talks like this! And, occasionally the characters do little explanations about what has happened in the past--but again, who talks that way?! Part of the problem was that to understand the movie and the chess-like maneuvers, you either needed a VERY lengthy prologue, some exposition (but not THIS much) or you should be a history teacher--as I am.
Now let's talk about the film historically. The film makers had an obvious bent in that they portrayed Mary Stuart in a very, very favorable fashion--even if history shows her as a bit of an idiot and conniver...and probably an accomplice to the murder of her first husband as well as having involvement in various plots to kill her cousin, Queen Elizabeth of England! I have never understood the notion of portraying Mary in any manner that is favorable--though films often have! However, one thing they did get right in this film are the divisions within Scotland--many loved her because she was their rightful queen (even if she was raised in France) but many hated her because she was Catholic and the country was rapidly converting to Presbyterianism. She and John Knox (head of this church) truly did have an acrimonious relationship as her as her reign progressed.
As far as actors go, the choice of the very proper Connecticut-born Katharine Hepburn to play a woman raised in France is odd to say the least. And, Frederic March with his very, very Midwestern-American accent is cast as a Scot! Such happenings were pretty common in Hollywood, but it sure makes it hard to believe these actors are playing real-life characters. Still, despite the bad casting, this might have worked--had the dialog been better. I already talked about it some, but found it laughable that Mary always seemed to talk as if she was angry and speechifying--and rarely seemed like a human being. Throughout the film, you also see Elizabeth and her manner is oddly unlike this--and she seems a bit weak and willing to allow her advisers to talk about her illegitimate birth. Considering that Elizabeth had a nasty habit of killing nobles with the slightest provocation, this sort of characterization seemed odd.
So what you have are some nice costumes and pageantry but bad history and dialog. The film must have done pretty well at the box office, as more films about the Stuarts and especially the Tudors proliferated during the subsequent decade. Despite this, I can't see these films working at all today--they're just too stilted and unreal to be of much interest. I guess my problem with this movie and most other historicals of this era is that they seldom tried very hard to get the facts straight. And, as a historical purist, I find myself unable to enjoy the films very much because there are so many flaws. You probably won't notice this, but you undoubtedly will notice how dull the film is!
Now let's talk about the film historically. The film makers had an obvious bent in that they portrayed Mary Stuart in a very, very favorable fashion--even if history shows her as a bit of an idiot and conniver...and probably an accomplice to the murder of her first husband as well as having involvement in various plots to kill her cousin, Queen Elizabeth of England! I have never understood the notion of portraying Mary in any manner that is favorable--though films often have! However, one thing they did get right in this film are the divisions within Scotland--many loved her because she was their rightful queen (even if she was raised in France) but many hated her because she was Catholic and the country was rapidly converting to Presbyterianism. She and John Knox (head of this church) truly did have an acrimonious relationship as her as her reign progressed.
As far as actors go, the choice of the very proper Connecticut-born Katharine Hepburn to play a woman raised in France is odd to say the least. And, Frederic March with his very, very Midwestern-American accent is cast as a Scot! Such happenings were pretty common in Hollywood, but it sure makes it hard to believe these actors are playing real-life characters. Still, despite the bad casting, this might have worked--had the dialog been better. I already talked about it some, but found it laughable that Mary always seemed to talk as if she was angry and speechifying--and rarely seemed like a human being. Throughout the film, you also see Elizabeth and her manner is oddly unlike this--and she seems a bit weak and willing to allow her advisers to talk about her illegitimate birth. Considering that Elizabeth had a nasty habit of killing nobles with the slightest provocation, this sort of characterization seemed odd.
So what you have are some nice costumes and pageantry but bad history and dialog. The film must have done pretty well at the box office, as more films about the Stuarts and especially the Tudors proliferated during the subsequent decade. Despite this, I can't see these films working at all today--they're just too stilted and unreal to be of much interest. I guess my problem with this movie and most other historicals of this era is that they seldom tried very hard to get the facts straight. And, as a historical purist, I find myself unable to enjoy the films very much because there are so many flaws. You probably won't notice this, but you undoubtedly will notice how dull the film is!