Mary, Queen of Scots (1971)

Nice castles. Nice scenery. Pity about the phony accents, acting, writing, direction. The story of the wretched and unfortunate Mary is one ghastly never-ending muddle and mess, end to end. I never did manage to sort out the ramifications of her dealings with the Catholics and Protestants, the King of France, Darnley, Bothwell and Rizzio, not to mention her half-brother, and this screenplay is no help. It is talkative, and presumably this is why Mary and Elizabeth are presented as meeting not once but twice, but very little is made clearer by these silly, pointless, fictitious encounters.The actors come across as puppets pulled around by strings, spouting unconvincing artificial dialogue. Vanessa is far too physically angular, and unsympathetic, to play Mary; Glenda looks unwell throughout. McGoohan seems unusually constipated. None of these characters, Darnley, Bothwell, and so on seem at all real, let alone royal. Anyone less likely to go mad than Nigel Davenport is difficult to imagine. This is not a good film. Five Oscar nominations ? Incredible. Trevor Howard wasn't too bad. All the other Tudor film histories are better than this one.

While this is not great movie, it is still an enjoyable one, especially if you have an interest in historical dramas. Despite its title the film is not just the story of Mary Queen of Scots (Vanessa Redgrave) but is also the story of her cousin Queen Elizabeth (Glenda Jackson).The film features a couple of great performances from Redgrave and Jackson who are both Oscar winning actresses. The picture has some good supporting performances from veterans such as; Patrick McGoohan, Trevor Howard, Nigel Davenport as well as such relative newcomers as Ian Holm and Timothy Dalton.In addition to the fine performances I've already mentioned the film also looks very good and features some very nice locations. The film also boasts a very good score from composer John Barry, who won a number of Oscars for his work and his perhaps best known for his numerous Bond scores.Despite these strengths though the film only rates 3 stars for me. Although I can find no glaring faults, I believe my problems lie mostly with the story structure and the inability of the film to build either sufficient emotion or tension. While the inter-cutting of the two stories seems interesting perhaps it was a mistake to structure the story in such a way. Further the secondary characters are perhaps to numerous as many disappear rather quickly without sufficient resolution.As iconic as Cate Blanchett has become of late in her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth, at one time Glenda Jackson virtually owned the role with both this film and an Emmy winning performance in Elizabeth R.

As befits seasoned Shakespearian thesps,Miss Jackson and Miss Redgrave emote at the drop of a hat.Elizabeth,stubborn,toughened by years of enforced absence from Court,backed by wise advisors,Mary,stubborn,weakened by years of sycophancy at the effete French court,surrounded by hotheads.Miss Jackson goes for it as if she was auditioning for a part as Pirate Queen,she is barely restrained from smacking her thigh.Miss Redgrave,pale and dull,a mousy Desdemona. This sort of stuff may have them standing on their seats at Stratford on Avon but is hugely OTT on the screen. This basic error is compounded by the appalling performance by Mr Patrick Mcgoohan as Mary's brother,James.His attempt at a Scottish accent is frankly embarrassing.Mr Nigel Davenport as Bothwell is equally bad but at least he has the good grace to tone it down a bit. Mr Ian Holm seems to have no idea what his accent is supposed to be, a condition I suspect that will be shared by many viewers. It is left to a very young Mr Timothy Dalton to supply what entertainment "Mary Queen of Scots" provides as he pillages Olivier's bleach - blond "Hamlet"and turns that gloomy Dane into a camp aristo. Never a true villain,he is arch when he should be terrifying. Apart from a perfunctory rape which presumably results in King James,his role seems to be as GBF to the Queen. Unfortunately many people seem to see "Mary Queen of Scots" as a great historical movie.In truth it is about as accurate as "Carry on Henry" and nowhere near as funny.

In Ford's movie featuring Katherine Hepburn ,we already attended a meeting between the two queens.And with two actresses as fascinating as Redgrave and Jackson,Charles Jarrot felt compelled to film two scenes with both of them.Historically,they never met.And Bothwell was not a romantic knight but a hairy brute.The Lochleven episode and Mary's escape are passed over in silence and however what a suspenseful story it was! On the other hand,Maurey (James Stuart)'s part is more prominent than in the previous film ,which is a good thing.The prologue in France in Chenonceaux "le Château des Dames " is welcome too:Mary's life in France was sweet ,probably the happiest time in her life although mother-in-law Catherine de Medicis did not like her.With hindsight,it's easy to see why she could not cope with the harshness of her native country where,in spite of her three crowns , she remained a papist.The two great thespians get excellent support from all the male cast:Thimoty Dalton gives a Shakespearian performance as Darnley,Ian Holm is equally good as Riccio.The cinematography is lavish and the story is never dull.I saw the movie when it was theatrically released and every time it's on the telly,I watch it again.Despite Queen Elizabeth's appearance ,the ending seems more historically accurate than in the 1936 version:before her death,the queen did not think of Boswell anymore,she wanted to become a martyr to catholicism.And so she died.