Dramas based upon British history have always been popular in the cinema, in America as well as in Britain, and for some reason the Tudor period has enjoyed particular popularity. This was as true in the thirties as it is today; other sixteenth-century dramas from the decade include "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" (like this film based on a play by Maxwell Anderson) and the British-made "Tudor Rose" about Lady Jane Gray.
Mary Queen of Scots has long been a controversial historical figure. Indeed, she was a controversial figure even in her lifetime, being forced to flee Scotland with accusations of being a "harlot" and "murderer" ringing in her ears. These accusations referred to the belief that she was guilty of adultery with her Italian secretary David Rizzio and of conniving at the murder of her estranged husband Lord Darnley, although most modern historians take the view that there is no evidence to substantiate either charge. She was a ruler in a very difficult position. She was a Catholic at a time when the majority of the Scottish people were moving towards Protestantism. And she was female at a time when many believed that women, even those of royal blood, should not exercise any form of political power. (Mary's arch-enemy John Knox published a pamphlet with the splendidly bilious title "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women").
Two years after her arrival in England Mary was placed in an impossible position when in 1570 Pope Pius V issued the bull "Regnans in Excelsis", excommunicating Elizabeth I, declaring her a usurper and ordering her Catholic subjects to overthrow her. As Mary was the Catholics' preferred candidate for the throne, the Pope's edict effectively acted as her death sentence; the only surprise is that it took another seventeen years before Elizabeth finally agreed to her execution.
"Mary of Scotland" takes a straightforward line. Mary is unequivocally the heroine of the film, which begins with her return to Scotland from France after the death of her first husband, King Francis II. She attempts to be a just and enlightened ruler, allowing freedom of conscience to both Catholics and Protestants, but is frustrated by the treachery of her illegitimate half-brother the Earl of Moray, who has ambitions to rule Scotland himself, by the baseness and weakness of Darnley, by the fanaticism and bigotry of Knox and by the double-dealing of the Scots nobility. After the murder of the faithful Rizzio, Mary's only loyal supporter is the Earl of Bothwell, the man who became her third husband and who is portrayed here as the one great love of her life. Elizabeth is portrayed as a cold, emotionless woman, hostile to Mary and eager to stab her in the back.
Besides its obvious partiality, the film is also in many ways historically inaccurate. All the Scots nobles, even Lowlanders, wear kilts and tartan, something at this period exclusively associated with the Highlands. Bothwell was something of a bully and a ruffian, not the gallant knight here portrayed by Fredric March. The script conveniently omits his marriage to Lady Jean Gordon, whom he divorced in order to marry Mary; perhaps director John Ford, himself a Catholic, did not want to admit that his Catholic heroine was married to a divorcee. Contrary to what is shown here, Darnley survived the explosion which destroyed the house in which he was staying, only to be murdered when he ran into the street outside. Modern historians generally agree that Mary was implicated in the Babington Plot, which aimed to place her on the English throne after the murder of Elizabeth. And, of course, Mary and Elizabeth never met one another in real life, although playwrights and film-makers, going back to Friedrich Schiller's "Maria Stuart", have never been able to resist inventing a meeting between them.
I also wondered if Darnley really was as screamingly camp as the figure played here by Douglas Walton. Although the film does not actually describe Darnley as gay- the Production Code forbade any direct references to homosexuality- Walton's interpretation of the role leaves us in do doubt as to what is being implied.
Katharine Hepburn is a revered figure today, the only actress to win four Oscars, so it comes as a surprise to learn that most of her films from the mid and late thirties were unsuccessful, so much so that she was labelled "box office poison". "Mary of Scotland" was one of several films which contributed to this label, along with the likes of "Sylvia Scarlett", "Quality Street" and even a film as highly regarded today as "Bringing Up Baby". Yet in my view "Mary of Scotland" is not a bad film- not as good as "Bringing Up Baby", but considerably better than the other two I mention. Both Hepburn and March are good in the way in which they play their roles, and it is not their fault if the way in which those roles are written has little to do with the historical Mary and Bothwell. If you take the film as a historical romance, it is a reasonably good one. Just don't take it as a historical textbook about sixteenth century Scotland. 6/10.
Mary Queen of Scots has long been a controversial historical figure. Indeed, she was a controversial figure even in her lifetime, being forced to flee Scotland with accusations of being a "harlot" and "murderer" ringing in her ears. These accusations referred to the belief that she was guilty of adultery with her Italian secretary David Rizzio and of conniving at the murder of her estranged husband Lord Darnley, although most modern historians take the view that there is no evidence to substantiate either charge. She was a ruler in a very difficult position. She was a Catholic at a time when the majority of the Scottish people were moving towards Protestantism. And she was female at a time when many believed that women, even those of royal blood, should not exercise any form of political power. (Mary's arch-enemy John Knox published a pamphlet with the splendidly bilious title "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women").
Two years after her arrival in England Mary was placed in an impossible position when in 1570 Pope Pius V issued the bull "Regnans in Excelsis", excommunicating Elizabeth I, declaring her a usurper and ordering her Catholic subjects to overthrow her. As Mary was the Catholics' preferred candidate for the throne, the Pope's edict effectively acted as her death sentence; the only surprise is that it took another seventeen years before Elizabeth finally agreed to her execution.
"Mary of Scotland" takes a straightforward line. Mary is unequivocally the heroine of the film, which begins with her return to Scotland from France after the death of her first husband, King Francis II. She attempts to be a just and enlightened ruler, allowing freedom of conscience to both Catholics and Protestants, but is frustrated by the treachery of her illegitimate half-brother the Earl of Moray, who has ambitions to rule Scotland himself, by the baseness and weakness of Darnley, by the fanaticism and bigotry of Knox and by the double-dealing of the Scots nobility. After the murder of the faithful Rizzio, Mary's only loyal supporter is the Earl of Bothwell, the man who became her third husband and who is portrayed here as the one great love of her life. Elizabeth is portrayed as a cold, emotionless woman, hostile to Mary and eager to stab her in the back.
Besides its obvious partiality, the film is also in many ways historically inaccurate. All the Scots nobles, even Lowlanders, wear kilts and tartan, something at this period exclusively associated with the Highlands. Bothwell was something of a bully and a ruffian, not the gallant knight here portrayed by Fredric March. The script conveniently omits his marriage to Lady Jean Gordon, whom he divorced in order to marry Mary; perhaps director John Ford, himself a Catholic, did not want to admit that his Catholic heroine was married to a divorcee. Contrary to what is shown here, Darnley survived the explosion which destroyed the house in which he was staying, only to be murdered when he ran into the street outside. Modern historians generally agree that Mary was implicated in the Babington Plot, which aimed to place her on the English throne after the murder of Elizabeth. And, of course, Mary and Elizabeth never met one another in real life, although playwrights and film-makers, going back to Friedrich Schiller's "Maria Stuart", have never been able to resist inventing a meeting between them.
I also wondered if Darnley really was as screamingly camp as the figure played here by Douglas Walton. Although the film does not actually describe Darnley as gay- the Production Code forbade any direct references to homosexuality- Walton's interpretation of the role leaves us in do doubt as to what is being implied.
Katharine Hepburn is a revered figure today, the only actress to win four Oscars, so it comes as a surprise to learn that most of her films from the mid and late thirties were unsuccessful, so much so that she was labelled "box office poison". "Mary of Scotland" was one of several films which contributed to this label, along with the likes of "Sylvia Scarlett", "Quality Street" and even a film as highly regarded today as "Bringing Up Baby". Yet in my view "Mary of Scotland" is not a bad film- not as good as "Bringing Up Baby", but considerably better than the other two I mention. Both Hepburn and March are good in the way in which they play their roles, and it is not their fault if the way in which those roles are written has little to do with the historical Mary and Bothwell. If you take the film as a historical romance, it is a reasonably good one. Just don't take it as a historical textbook about sixteenth century Scotland. 6/10.