A One Mann’s Movies review of “Mary Queen of Scots” (2019).
It’s an unbelievably turbulent story, but as it’s a true story the late 1500’s were clearly turbulent times. I mean, there weren’t even any Starbucks.
Bob the Movie Man’s Rating:
Certification:
UK: 15; US: R.
The plot.
After a brief Fotheringay flash-forward (#spoilers!) it’s 1561 and the widowed catholic Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan), ex-queen consort of France, arrives on Leith beach to assert her right as queen of Scotland. Indeed, she feels she has succession rights to the English throne too after her protestant first cousin, once removed, Elizabeth (Margot Robbie) passes. She’s not exactly welcomed back to Scotland since she is muscling in on the rule of her half brother (James McArdle).
But Mary is playing a dangerous game on multiple fronts, and her life – as I’m sure you’re aware – is not going to be a smooth one.
Taking liberties.
What was life like in the court of Mary? As painted here, it was a fairly louche affair, with casual – but never penetrative – sexual encounters that (as portrayed) had a significant impact on Scottish history. This might have been accurate… who knows. What seems to almost certainly be a fabrication is Mary and Elizabeth’s dramatic meeting (in what appears to be a laundry!). The film attempts to smooth over the cracks with dialogue about ‘This meeting must never be documented’. Nice try!
Was this necessary? It certainly adds an opportunity for Ronan and Robbie to bounce off each other directly, but there is a certain attraction in a film where the drama is purely played out in communication through letters. There is an interesting discussion of the topic on the historyextra.com web site here.
What’s also mooted in the film – “I’m more man than woman” – is that Elizabeth’s reason for not marrying and not bearing children was that she was a lesbian. I’m not sure of the historical provenance of this.
The turns.
This is clearly the Ronan and Robbie show. Both deliver star turns that impress. From the trailers you would think that the screentime of the pair would be about 50:50. Actually, it’s more like 80:20 in Ronan’s favour.
As if last year’s Oscar nomination wasn’t enough to stamp her place in the list of the acting greats, Saoirse Ronan here IS Mary Queen of Scots, with a fierce and determined stare that would put the fear of God into most men. Margot Robbie, under ugly make-up reminiscent of Charlize Theron in “Monster”, is impressive in a much quieter and more mannered way. Both must feel a little aggrieved at being overlooked for Oscar nominations.
Elsewhere there is a plethora of acting talent, most of it hidden behind big bushy growths. The biggest and bushiest of these belongs to David Tennant as the hellfire preacher and rabble-rouser John Knox. (He’s so well-endowed in the facial hair-area that the lady next to me exclaimed to her friend at the end-titles “David Tennant? Who was he??”).
Other familiar faces are Downton’s Brendan Coyle as the Earl of Lennox; Jack Lowden as his son and Mary’s second husband Henry Darnley; Adrian Lester as Lord Randolph; Guy Pearce as William Cecil, Elizabeth’s right hand man; and rising star Joe Alwyn as Robert Dudley… the nearest Elizabeth ever got to a husband. Another actor I spent ages trying to recognise was Mary’s third husband (she sure got through them) Lord Bothwell; he is Martin Compston, star of TV’s excellent “Line of Duty” series.
Is it any good?
Big, broad historical epics at the cinema are few and far between, so in the vein of “a change is as good as a rest” it’s a welcome release. The cinematography (by John Mathieson) is glorious: the external shots (great drone work!) makes me immediately want to go hill-walking again in Scotland. And some of the internal shots are beautifully lit: a scene of the Scottish lords ganging up on Robert Dudley for a signature is like a Vermeer painting.
As you might expect from a historical epic, the costumes (by Alexandra Byrne) are great and the hair and makeup team (Jenny Shircore, Marc Pilcher and Jessica Brooks) did a great job. They are all in fact Oscar nominated.
And of course from a great British ensemble cast the acting is great.
But the story chugs along rather turgidly, and even the moments that you think herald a monumental action sequence – like an attack down a wooded hillside at a bridge, reminiscent of “Gladiator” – end in a curious damp squib. There is nothing here of the great battle sequences of “Braveheart”.
More tellingly, when the axe finally fell I felt curiously unmoved: nothing like the stirring I felt with the disembowelment of Mel Gibson in that Scottish classic I just mentioned. So something in the movie just didn’t connect with me at an emotional level. It feels like it’s falling between two stools of a retelling of history and a deeply involving drama. The direction was by first timer Josie Rourke and the screenplay as a second time outing by Beau Willimon (“Ides of March”).
In summary, my view would be that it’s worth seeing for its epic spectacle, but it’s not a film I will be rushing to see again.
Trailer:
The trailer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnqjSgMU36U .
