IMDb > Mary of Scotland (1936) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Mary of Scotland (1936) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 14 comments in total 

24 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
The Queen Who Was Too Contrary - And What Happened at Kirk'a'Field?, 22 April 2006
7/10
Author: theowinthrop from United States

Brooks Atkinson was a first rate drama critic for the New York Times. He had blind spots. He over enthused on the career of Maxwell Anderson. Anderson wrote some good plays such as "Winterset", but Anderson was enthusiastic of Anderson's pompous attempts to do dramas in blank verse: "Mary Of Scotland", "Elizabeth The Queen", and "Anne Of The Thousand Days".

The problem with these plays is, even if they get the history right they are too stiff. Compare the conclusion of "Elizabeth The Queen" to "A Man For All Seasons". Yes, the loneliness of the elderly Elizabeth is shown as Essex goes to his doom - but in reality Elizabeth knew there were other young men to replace her dangerous, ambitious lover. In "All Seasons" the tragedy of a rotten system crushing the life of a decent, thoughtful man like Thomas More is far more powerful as it's stark tragedy is silently brought to us.

That said, the first of the three Tudor tragedies to be filmed was "Mary Of Scotland". It is above average because it is starring Katherine Hepburn (a distant relative of Mary's third husband the Earl of Bothwell) and Frederic March, and directed wholly or partially by John Ford. It suffers from being black and white, except for one moment of sheer unexpected terror: when Mary sees the Scots nobles who oppose her they are photographed in such light and darkness to look like ogres in a nightmare.

The film follows the reign of Mary from 1560 to her execution in 1587. Most Americans do not understand the great difficulties that Mary (and Elizabeth) both faced in their parallel reigns. While England and Scotland allowed for female monarchs, women were not considered good material for rulers. They were considered governed by their emotions more than by their brains. Those women who ruled well were usually married to capable partners (Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain). More frequently they were dismissed as misfits, like Isabella and Ferdinand's daughter Juana the Mad).

Mary had other problems. From 1400 to 1560 the nobles of Scotland got a great boon. Scotland had a series of minors who grew up to be king, married, and then died before they could cement their monarchic views on the government. The nobles cemented their local powers at the expense of a weak central authority.

Mary had been Queen of France, married to Francis II who ruled for a two year period (1559 - 1560). As Mary was the niece of the Duc De Guise, the king's power-hungry mother Catherine De Medici hated her. When Francis died suddenly, Catherine encouraged Mary to return to rule her own country. Surprised Mary did so, not realizing that she was unprepared to start ruling. She was a Catholic, and she really needed some time to understand the need to compromise and take advice from Protestants. She never did understand this.

Her foes hated her and were fully supported by Elizabeth, who never could see that an attempt to join forces with her cousin might pay back great dividends. But then Mary was ambitious - she wanted to be Queen of England as well as Scotland. Her Catholic supporters felt she was legitimate Queen of England (as Henry VIII had briefly disowned Elizabeth as a bastard when he executed her mother Anne). So the peaceful resolution of their differences was almost impossible.

Elizabeth had only to watch from the sidelines, with only an occasional move on her own part, to see Mary wreck her own position. She encouraged a marriage between another cousin/potential heir Lord Henry Darnley to Mary (Mary almost chose Elizabeth's lover Robert Dudley!). The marriage was a disaster, as Darnley was an ambitious fool and vicious scoundrel. But it cemented a Scottish succession to the British throne from two Tudor heirs instead of one.

Hepburn portrays Mary as a brave woman desperately seeking a way out of the difficult situation she has inherited, especially tied to Darnley by marriage and facing the ghouls who are John Knox (Moroni Olsen) and the Scottish nobles - led by her jealous half brother the Earl of Moray (Ian Keith). Her only allies are the independent Earl of Bothwell (March) and her secretary Rizzio (John Carridine). The murder of the latter (implicating Darnley) is the first step to her loss of the throne, and to the death of her husband. We know today that Kirk'a'Field house was blown up by Bothwell, but to this day we don't know if Mary was implicated. It remains one of the big mysteries of the 16th Century.

Historically Bothwell was no prince, but ambitious in his own right - he killed Darnley in order to marry Mary, and guide her to rule both Scotland and England. But March plays him as a man deeply in love with his Queen, and this enhances the story's tragedy - especially as Bothwell died in exile insane. The reason for this was his ship was captured by a Danish warship. Bothwell was guilty of a rape in Denmark, and was imprisoned. His punishment (which led to his madness) was to stand chained to a stone pillar that was half his height.

The last ten minutes glosses over the road that led Mary to the block in England - her support of a plot by one Anthony Babbington to kill Elizabeth and let Mary take the throne. Elizabeth's spy-master Sir Francis Walsingham sprung this trap - though Elizabeth did not reject the result. Elizabeth allowed a functionary to be blamed for falsely getting her to sign the death warrant - but all she did was briefly imprison the man. Unlike her movie representative (Florence Eldritch) she never met Mary.

A good film - but it is too gentle on Mary's failings, and not deep enough to explain what is going on in the background.

Was the above comment useful to you?

17 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Majestic Hepburn Takes The Throne, 16 June 2002
10/10
Author: Ron Oliver (revilorest@juno.com) from Forest Ranch, CA

MARY OF SCOTLAND, caught up in intrigues over which she has no control, finds herself at the mercy of powerful forces that wish her ill.

John Ford crafted this meticulous, thoughtful study into the life of the Scottish Queen and the trials & tribulations which buffeted her. With a complicated plot and a very large cast, the film presupposes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of its viewers, as well as an interest in the history of Great Britain. The film is not easy to watch - this is, after all, an historical drama, not a musical comedy - but the viewer's attention should be paid off in the end. Very fine production values also help greatly in the movie's appreciation.

Katharine Hepburn is luminous & regal in the title role. Continuing in the tradition of formidable actresses of the 1930's who played queens on the screen (Colbert, Garbo, Dietrich, Shearer, Robson, Davis) Hepburn gives a strong portrayal of the stubborn, independently minded Scottish monarch. Kate makes the viewer at once feel an engaging interest in this poor lady, so beset by ‘the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune.' Wisely not speaking in a brogue - the real Mary probably didn't either - Hepburn uses her remarkable face & voice to make this long-dead historical figure come alive.

As the Earl of Bothwell, Mary's 3rd husband, Fredric March provides a sturdy hero worth cheering. Here is a man willing to confront any danger for the sake of the woman he loves. If the real Bothwell was perhaps not quite so noble, no matter. March breathes vibrant, pulsing life into the character and embodies him with real strengths & virtues.

A large & exceptional cast give fine support to the principals. Some deserve special mention:

John Carradine as Mary's tragic Italian secretary, Rizzio; Douglas Walton as Lord Darnley, Mary's repugnant 2nd husband; Ian Keith as her unscrupulous half-brother, the Lord Moray. Florence Eldridge stands out in her portrayal of the conflicted Queen Elizabeth.

Moroni Olsen as a fiery John Knox; Donald Crisp as a loyal old laird; Ralph Forbes & Alan Mowbray as Elizabeth's ambassadors; and dear old Mary Gordon as a baby nurse - all have their brief moments to shine.

Lionel Belmore & Doris Lloyd (with an unbilled Bobs Watson as their son) play poor fisher folk who give Mary much needed succor. Ivan Simpson & Nigel de Brulier play two of the wicked English judges who condemn Mary to death.

But it is Hepburn the viewer remembers longest. Her shining eyes & majestic mien remain in the mind for a very long time

***********************

The circumstances surrounding the murder of David Rizzio are so well documented that it is somewhat surprising that Ford did not stick more scrupulously to the facts. Darnley and his fellow conspirators entered the Queen's apartments via a private, narrow staircase, hidden in the wall, which communicated directly with Mary's rooms. There is no indication that her bodyguard troops were slain as well, as the film depicts.

The script is at pains to keep the Earl of Bothwell a noble hero and uninvolved in Darnley's murder. However, there's little doubt of Bothwell's guilt in the affair. Darnley was not killed outright by the massive explosion - rather he was found, terribly hurt but still alive, lying in a nearby field. He was quickly strangled.

The movie does not make clear that it was in Denmark where Bothwell died in prison in 1578. Mary had divorced him in 1570.

Unlike the relatively short time depicted in the film, Mary was actually a captive of Elizabeth for 19 years, outliving Bothwell by nine years. Elizabeth & Mary never met - it makes good film drama, but it didn't happen.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
A Romantic Look at the passion of two female rulers, 5 July 2005
7/10
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

Mary of Scotland is not based on the exact historical record, but on Maxwell Anderson's play. However Anderson was trying to dramatize the difference between Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart. Elizabeth was first and foremost a queen who put her passions on hold when it was a choice between them and the country she governed. Mary Stuart was totally incapable of doing that.

Interesting that Katharine Hepburn played Mary. Hepburn who was probably the liberated woman of the 20th century would have been a natural to play Queen Elizabeth. Too bad in fact she didn't in her career. But she does fine her as Mary. Florence Eldridge plays a cold, calculating Elizabeth. Fredric March as Lord Bothwell is not the hero he's shone to be here.

One thing about Scotland in the 16th century. The kingdom had the unbelievable rotten luck of having a whole succession of minority rulers with regencies for a couple hundred years. The nobles who are depicted here are quite used to having their own way. And when Mary abdicated the throne it went to still another regency when her infant son James became king.

Ian Keith's part as Hepburn's illegitimate half brother the Earl of Moray is an interesting one. In history, I've always thought of him as the real hero. He gave Mary sound advice which had she taken, she would have died on the throne of Scotland.

Vanessa Redgrave's later film shows how the exiled Mary Stuart got tricked into a conspiracy to bring Elizabeth down. I wish that had been done here. She was essentially AbScammed.

Elizabeth and Mary never met in real life, but for dramatic purposes it had to happen here.

It's a good film, not one of the best for any of the principals in the cast or for John Ford. Still it's an interesting piece of cinema although some knowledge of Scottish history might help.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
An utter bore, 15 November 2000
Author: SkippyDevereaux from Parkersburg, West Virginia

Don't let my summary get you upset, I would never mean to do that--but although I do love this film--in short it is a bit boring. I loved the period costumes and sets and the acting, but the storyline lacked any real excitement!! Hepburn was fine but any real passion in the acting department has to go to Fredric March. The supporting players were also very good in their parts, especially Florence Eldridge as Queen Elizabeth. I saw somewhere that Ginger Rogers tried out secretly for the role of Elizabeth and almost had it until she was found out by the director!! Would have loved to have seen that one--LOL But it is a nice film, but just a tad too long and boring!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Mary meets Elizabeth!, 13 November 2002
Author: dbdumonteil

The directors cannot refrain from showing the two queens together in one scene.Charles Jarrot -whose movie is inferior to John Ford's- did the same in 1972.And however,they never met ,not a single time during Mary's captivity.But John Ford's scene is useful for people who know little about the Virgin Queen.It's sure that Mary's childhood in France was a nice one even though her reign was short as king François II's wife.On the other hand,Elizabeth lived in fear when she was a child for her bloody sister wanted to get rid of her.

The first past begins in Scotland ,and France is only evoked in Mary's memories.This first part is the most satisfying historically speaking:Darnley's and Ricci's murders are well directed by Ford,and the town criers who ,every ten minutes announce "It's eight'o clock!All is fine!" shows his sense of humor.Biggest flaw is the little part of James Stuart, aka"the bastard" aka Maurey:This man is really the stringman,who plays a prominent part in the queen's downfall,holding Mary like a puppet on a string,travelling to France when rebellion begins -he was not here when Mary was imprisoned in Lochleven-,just coming back to reap the benefits (regency he had lost when his sister came back).

Frederic March is a fine actor,but his Bothwell is not credible.Bothwell was a hairy brute ,not the romantic chivalrous fair knight we see here.Mary's abduction remains a mysterious part because the historians have no documents of what really happened.Mary's captivity in Lochleven-where she at last understood how James Stuart fooled her -and her extraordinary escape -worthy of Hitchcock's suspense-lasts barely 30 seconds on the screen.

Ditto for Mary's captivity in England.When she arrived,she was in what we would call "under house arrest" today.Only during her last year,when they discovered a plot,she was taken to the fortress of Fotheringay (a wonderful Fairport Convention song by the way),she was really a prisoner in the modern sense of the term.And she had a whole floor for herself though.

The trial is unsatisfying.At the time,Mary did not care for Bothwell anymore,she was longing to become a martyr of the Catholic cause.She did not know that the pope did not take her seriously .The scene with Donald is pure romantic fiction.

All in all ,and even if the things fall apart a bit in the second part,the movie is magnificently enhanced by Hepburn's presence and Ford -they said they had a love affair on the set- lovingly films her.I've been told that the scene between Bothwell and the queen on the tower was filmed by KH herself.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Academic biography based on tragic figure of the sixteenth century, Mary Quen of Scotland, 29 October 2007
7/10
Author: ma-cortes from Santander Spain

This is a good costume design historic-drama and Katherine Hepburn is well cast in the title role. She plays a tragic, romantic heroine that contends with various treacheries. Mary(1516-1558) inherited the throne of Scotland from Jacob V. She was next in line to the English kingdom, she married Francisco II, king of France, but died early. Having been in France for thirteen years she returned Scotland, and arrives from France with some misgivings. Then, she disembarks in Leith and goes to a castle near Edimburg, along with David Rizzio(a cadaverous John Carradine), court musician and confidant. There, she's received by his brother, the Earl James Stuart,(Ian Keith).Later, Queen Mary married a foppish named Lord Darnley(Walton). Mary falls in love with Bothwell(a stylish Fredric March), a kilted Earl and her supporter in her battle for power.Then, Rizzio was reputed to be the father of Mary's, the future James I of England. Darnley, with some underlings, murdered Rizzio in Mary's presence. But Darnley is killed by an explosion in his refugee, outskirts Edimbug, and the God-fearing Calvinists led by John Knox(Moroni Olsen who played same role in stage))accused to Bothwell. John Knox and the rebels Lords besiege Holyrood and the Borthwell's stronghold,Dumbar castle .The Calvinists forced her abdication Mary escapes and asks protection to Queen Elizabeth I(Florence Eldridge), but she is double-crossed and is taken imprisoned in the Tower of London.Although supposedly May and Elizabet never met face to face, the movie have them doing so and the screen crackle when both have their rencontre, because they are strong rivals for power in Tudor, England. After, Mary confronts her English accusers in court in a stylized trial.Finally, the film reflects splendidly when Mary goes to beheading block with all due pomp and circumstance .

The motion picture is finely performed by Katharine Hepburn, in spite of this was in her ¨box-office poison¨days, the last scenes, where Mary confronts trial is so well played and photographed in a stylized manner- with Mary on the floor and judges in a sort of balcony-by Joseph August. However, the picture is interminable and overlong and some moments is frankly boring.Writings credits with excessive speeches by Maxwell Anderson(his own playwright) and Dudley Nichols, a Ford's habitual screenwriter .The motion picture is lavishly produced by Pandro S. Berman, an usual costume's producer and professionally directed by John Ford. Followed by a remake with the same title(1971) with Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson and directed by Charles Jarrott.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
I liked this a lot more than I expected, 10 May 2007
10/10
Author: XweAponX from United States

I write this at the time they are celebrating Katherine Hepburn's 100th Birthday with an onslaught of many of her very early films on a popular channel that deals with Classic Movies. As I have never seen these, I have to say that I am actually very impressed, entertained, even irritated by her.

There was something about Katherine Hepburn. She had Sharp Edges, or did she? Like Brando, she does not act, she behaves. But in her case unlike Brando who just seemed to be "born with it," it has been shown that Hepburn developed her talent by sheer force of will: Which she imposes on you, like it or not, in the entire body of her work.

Of all of those early films from the 30's- Maybe I did not enjoy this as much as some of the others from that time, but I was forced to stand up and give notice. This was certainly an appropriate role for her, and magnificently portrayed. As she would drawl... "How Marvelous!" Now to get down to the specifics of this film starting with the ironies: Frederick March portrays The 4th Earl of Bothwell, James Hepburn. I wonder if this was an ancestor? However, there were no living offspring between Bothwell and Mary Stuart.

I have not researched all of the events this film was based upon, some historical accounts obviously paint Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart in various lights. Florence Eldridge is an excellent Elizabeth - Almost as good as Bette Davis' version but not so much over the top as Davis. March's portrayal of the person named Bothwell in the film... The impression is given that he would have used the flat of his blade to spank Douglas Walton/Lord Darnley, who plays the role of Henry Stuart/Lord Darnley in a very effeminate manner. John Carradine is superb... Even his coarse singing, and the manner of his demise in the film is fairly similar to what historically occurred. I also have to point out that David Carradine did not inherit John's singing voice (Refer to the film, "Bound for Glory" http://imdb.com/title/tt0074235/). There is greatness, is that small part of David Rizzio: A future Black Hat in development, and one of the best, as seen in John Ford's "Stagecoach" Which brings us to Alan Mowbray, as a very slimy Throckmorton, Ambassador to Scotland/Puppet and stooge to Elizabeth. Excellent: The Perennial bad guy. Moroni Olsen as a very Rasputin-ish John Knox, very Lionel Barrymore-ish, emitting a malevolent evil, and I will not go into how much like Television Evangelists of s certain stripe he is like: Not all of them, but some of them. And just about every character actor in Hollywood had a role in this film, which in typical Ford style, is Epic.

And of course finally we have to acknowledge Donald Crisp as Lord Huntley, a very brief role, and not quite accurately portrayed: Mary actually joined with the Earl of Moray to destroy the man in real life. The way it sets on film, does not explain Mary's lack of support in the last part of her life: But it seems she upset the Catholic Church quite a bit. I want to say this this part was slightly miscast... I do not see one of the future owners of Lassie as a Scottish "Laird" However complicated the story of Mary Stuart is, this film tries to deal with some of the convolutions of that life. Bothwell actually did rot away in Denmark, and Darnley, if not shown directly to have an illness in the film, does indeed deteriorate- And also is shown "Playing King" a couple of times and the real Darnley was known to do.

It has been said that John Ford did not consider that this was the kind of movie he was used to making, and maybe handed over the directing of some of the scenes to Hepburn: In fact in one documentary Hepburn admits that Ford walked out of the studio and let her direct the scene with March in the Tower.

All of these items being case or not, this is still a great film, and an important film, with great acting. It has to be considered that the 1930's were the Hollywood in it's infancy- Or at least adolescence. Many kinds of stories were made into film, some done justice and some not.

Even if this particular story of Mary, Queen of Scots is not being told correctly, and of course in this film there was the Hollywood-isation of the story: I would say that the real life and Reign of Mary Stuart is one of the most interesting historical topics and itself reads like a James Michener book, and as a platform for Katherine Hepburn to display her multiple talents, suits her well indeed.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
"I prefer to stand, symbolically", 7 February 2009
8/10
Author: nora_nettlerash from Ruritania

There was something of a fad for Tudor-period dramas in the late 1930s, although Mary of Scotland is something of an overlooked picture in the careers of Katherine Hepburn and John Ford. The star and director went on to have an on-off love affair, although this was the only occasion on which they worked together.

Mary of Scotland has the look that is typical of Ford's RKO features. It's often forgotten that Ford was a director who liked to work with space, shape and light, usually manifested in a sharp contrast between the indoor and outdoor worlds. Here the contrast is between the palace of Elizabeth – light, open and filled of straight lines and symmetry – and the castle of Mary – small, shadowy and made of rough curves. At first glance this seems to imply that the Scottish setting is grimmer and more confined, but for Ford these cosy spaces with layers of shadows were also about honesty and simplicity – see for example the compositions he makes in The Informer or The Fugitive. Those two pictures were also made at RKO, and their expressive look is testament to the fact that although the studio might not have had much money it did have a strong and open-minded production design team, something Ford took advantage of when he could.

By this point, few Ford films would be complete without the sing-song scene, and there is an especially fine example in Mary of Scotland. Ford never made an out-and-out musical in his career, but the way he uses singing as an emotional backdrop is remarkable. Here, the song sung by the peasants as they march into the castle begins as a simple yet effective expository device – demonstrating where the people's loyalties lie – but then the scene moves onto another level. Ford isolates one singer, then cuts to a rare close-up of Hepburn. The beauty of the music provides a backdrop to her emoting. It is in such moments that Ford's direction is at its strongest.

This was perhaps an important breakthrough role for Hepburn, whose parts until now had mostly been as teenagers or young women. This is her first real adult role and she handles it well, albeit with one or two touches of uncertainty when she is required to act "queenly". She does however manage the task of humanising the queen, more so than the screenplay would seem to allow. Unfortunately her leading man, the normally excellent Fredric March, is rather bland here. It's a real treat though to see John Carradine in a role where he really gets to show his more sensitive side. Because of his looks, not to mention his creepy voice, the character actor generally landed villainous roles, but he was actually at his best playing good guys.

One oft-repeated story regarding this production – although it varies a little depending on who's telling it, so pinches of salt at the ready – is that Hepburn and Ford disagreed over the necessity of Mary and Bothwell's final scene together on the tower top. Ford thought it a pointless bit of soppiness, Hepburn said it was the most important scene in the script. Eventually a flippant Ford challenged Hepburn to direct it herself, which she did. The scene stands out because Hepburn actually shoots it with some romantic tenderness – something Ford hardly ever did – with lengthy close-ups and rhyming angles. You can see why Ford didn't like it; he tended to downplay the love themes in his pictures, and on top of that the scene is rather heavy on dialogue. Hepburn was right though – without this scene the romance between Mary and Bothwell would be little more than a subplot, and without the romance the film wouldn't work. Audiences would find it hard to empathise with a queen clinging onto her throne, but easy to sympathise with a woman separated from the man she loves.

Mary of Scotland was not really Ford's cup of tea, and it was his rather cavalier approach to interpreting a screenplay that spoiled a fair few of his pictures (even though it won him the admiration of the auteurists). This picture is only saved by his use of music, the proficiency of the RKO crew and of course the good judgement of Katherine Hepburn. Nevertheless, I can't help but love Ford's laid-back realism. In one scene, we see a dog barking crazily at men entering a room; in another a moth flutters about John Knox's head. How many other directors of that era would have kept those takes?

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Poor History - Fine Film, 15 October 2007
7/10
Author: krdement from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

As a history buff, I understand many commentators' criticism of this film because it strays often and far from the facts - as, indeed, most "historical" films made in Hollywood do. If that kind of disregard for history bothers you, then this is probably not the movie for you. Other commentators have provided excellent historical "correction" and delineated the movie's plot; I refer you to their comments for such matters. I will only address the movie, itself, in my remarks.

If you require plenty of action in a film to entertain you, this one will probably fail to satisfy you. But if you enjoy costume dramas featuring political intrigue and ensemble acting then I highly recommend this movie. Although modern movie-goers expect verisimilitude in a film's sets and locations, I do not fault old films for being produced on studio sound stages and back lots. In 1936, when this movie was made, films retained a stronger connection to their roots in the theater, and were much less the modern art form into which they have evolved. This is not the least bit bothersome to me.

That said, I enjoyed the exterior scenes more than the interiors. When I watch depictions of Medieval and Renaissance times in old films such as this, I am constantly aware of 2 aspects of interior palace shots. The ceilings are incredibly high and never shown - they are nonexistent, of course. Also, the floors are so shiny - seamless, highly polished expanses! I bet a lot of spills occurred during filming! The palace scenes in this movie are no exception. Mary's apartments are suspiciously ornate and sumptuous for an old Scottish castle. Again, this doesn't detract from the movie, it is just an observation about the sets.

By contrast, the exteriors are more convincing. The set where the Scots people are harangued by John Knox (Moroni Olson) as they gather to welcome home their queen has the feel of an authentic castle (especially by comparison with the interiors). The nighttime setting and smoky torches create a very gloomy atmosphere in the castle courtyard. The same set is equally convincing during the clash between the conspiratorial Scots nobles and Lord Bothwell (Frederic March) who has come to Mary's timely rescue.

I admit (heresy of heresies!) that I am not a big fan of Kate Hepburn. However, here she is prettier and more radiant than ever. She delivers a nicely nuanced performance that evoked my sympathy.

Frederic March, however, demonstrates why he is one of the greatest actors in American cinema. Before I saw this movie the first time, I never would have believed that he could be convincing as a dashing, romantic hero in a historical costume drama. But he pulls it off superbly - what a remarkably versatile actor! The costumes, which he wears comfortably and convincingly, show off his broad shoulders to great effect. He is a very robust presence on screen. I loved seeing him in a role that was as big a change of pace as this one.

Likewise, I give extremely high marks to John Carradine. In his later career, he was more or less typecast as a cold, sinister bogeyman. But, along with his role in the classic, Stagecoach, this role shows that he had a much broader range. I enjoyed seeing him portray a much more emotional character than usual in this role. Like Hepburn, he portrays an interesting, conflicted character that evoked my sympathy.

Alan Mowbray also delivers a surprisingly superb performance that is very different from the roles he typically played - either a comic foil or a sophisticate in films depicting contemporary society of the '30's and '40's. His is not a large role, but it is important, and he comes across as a real sneak. I loved it.

I was disappointed by the fictitious meeting between Elizabeth and Mary. Unlike several commentators, I did not think it at all necessary. In addition, it is very predictable. I would have been much more satisfied if the movie had reflected that Mary was Elizabeth's captive for many years. During that time each may have fretted in her own way about a possible encounter. No doubt, contemplation of the ultimate fate of Mary of Scotland weighed heavily on many people for many years - including Mary, herself, and Elizabeth.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Playing fast and loose with history, 15 October 2006
3/10
Author: catuus from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Mary of Scotland" (1936) is presently not in print save for used copies (which are of good quality). The film stars a luminous Katharine Hepburn and a powerful Frederick March, a combination that ought to guarantee a good film. Yeah. Well -- -- -- The fact is, "Mary of Scotland" is in many ways not a good film. Considered as pure storytelling, it's fairly OK. As a biography of Mary Stuart, in the words of Jay Sherman ("The Critic"), it stinks. The actual life of Mary Stuart is all but lost in a melodramatic plot, over-ripe dialogue, and inexplicable gaps.

The film opens with Mary's (Hepburn) return from her long stay in France -- with nary a trace of a French accent. Well, be that as it may. Opening at this point makes sense, one of the few good choices made by its writer and director. Mary arrives in Scotland despite the intention of Queen Elizabeth I of England (Florence Eldridge) to prevent her. A niece of Henry VII, Mary's claim to the throne of England is even better than Elizabeth's (whose legitimacy has always been a matter of debate). Mary's assertion (in the film) that she "did it all for love" would, if she actually said it, have been a self-serving lie. Mary may have liked love, but she loved power.

Eldridge as Elizabeth: There may have been less effective portrayals of the Virgin Queen, but this one is right down there near the nadir. Aside from her tepid portrayal, she just doesn't have the height. It's a good thing she isn't required to appear in scenes with (or against) Hepburn, as the comparison would be too awful to contemplate. They appear together only once, in a phony pre-execution tête-a-tête that reduces the motivations of both queens to petty spleen. Droll, but the meeting never took place. By the time of this alleged interview was in a deep state of denial, believing that although she had signed an order of execution her people would know she didn't want it carried out.

The film follows Mary's attempt to establish her rule in fractious mid-16th Century Scotland. The Scots, generally, are half Pict and half Irish, so fractiousness was the leading personality characteristic. In her efforts she's supported by the Earl of Bothwell (March). He loves her and she loves him, but the marriage of queens is way more complicated than that Mary instead marries Lord Darnley, an English lord whose claim to the English throne is at least as good as hers. This marriage is part of Mary's hope to replace Elizabeth as Queen of England. It also results in the birth of the future James VI of Scotland and later James I of England. Darnley is played with earnest foppishness by Douglas Walton. Walton had a lot of minor roles in almost 60 films, oddly uncredited in many of them. He does pretty well in this one. The film, however, ignores most of the complex machinations that lay behind Mary's decision to marry Darnley.

Mary's attempt to rule as well as reign is opposed by a number of Scottish lairds -- particularly her half-brother James Stuart, Earl of Moray, the former Regent of Scotland. Moray is played staunchly by Ian Keith, a Broadway fixture who also played a large number of "B" roles in major and minor pictures. Mary was also opposed by John Knox, the voice of Calvinism in Scotland, a pompous bigot with a big mouth and a very narrow intellect. He is played here very effectively by Moroni Olsen, a talented actor who did well playing self-important idiots of that sort.

Mary's mainstay early on was David Rizzio, an Italian troubadour with a talent for politics and intrigue. Although he has a reputation as rather a pretty boy, he's played here by the great John Carradine -- an excellent Shakespearean on the stage whose stentorian voice eventually landed him in a lot of "B" (and worse) horror films. Rizzio's assassination marks the beginning of Mary's fall from the Scottish throne.

Mary's final defiant marriage to Bothwell leads to her final defeat. Soon after, she flees to England to seek Elizabeth's protection. The latter is too wily to let Mary run loose in England, and quickly converts refute into house arrest. The film then cuts immediately to Mary's trial for treason, skipping over years of her plots and machinations to escape her prison, overthrow Elizabeth, and make herself Queen of England. In fact, the implication of the film is that Mary was innocent. Fat chance. The important (nay, central) character of Sir Anthony Babington is barely mentioned.

The film ends at the scene of Mary's execution, which is not shown. She is finally shown mounting the scaffold. This whole scene is the most laughably stupid in the film. Although the photography is in black/white, it seems clear that Mary isn't wearing the red dress she is known to have worn. Hepburn's Mary is still young and radiantly beautiful ... although Mary at the time was old and worn and reduced to wearing a wig. The dog is missing. Before mounting the scaffold, Mary removes her ruff (as would be necessary), but retains a high collar. Had she worn such a thing, it would have taken more than 2 or 3 strokes of the axe to take her head. Of course, in fact, her neck had to have been laid bare. (Yep, Mary gets beheaded. If anyone is stupid enough to consider that a "spoiler", I checked the little "spoiler" box.)

As a biographical study of Mary Stuart, this film is wholly unsatisfactory. It says damn little in reality about Mary and even less about her great rival, Elizabeth. The final scenes in the film present events in such an inaccurate and fragmentary manner as to amount to a complete fiction. All that we are left with is a fine performance by Hepburn in an expensive -- yet cheap -- melodrama.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history