I’m “biast” (con): nothing
I have not read the source material
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Is the worst thing about Mary Stuart that she is a woman, or that she is a Papist? I speak of how she is seen in the eyes of the men who are doing their damnedest, in Mary Queen of Scots, to keep her from usurping Elizabeth I from the English throne in the mid 16th century. And naturally, this is a trick question: they hate and fear her for both reasons. They aren’t too crazy about Elizabeth, either, what with her also being female.
You don’t need a degree in English or Scottish history to appreciate that what looks like (and is!) pretty thrilling movie-movie internecine spycraft and occasionally outright warfare between the two thrones — Mary’s in Scotland and Elizabeth’s in England — is, in fact, the undermining of two reasonable women trying to unite their nations, their efforts thwarted by men with their own agendas and fueled by some very big, very angry misogyny. Gender is as much a tribe as religion is in the smart, sly script by House of Cards’ Beau Willimon, sometimes both at once: The Catholic Mary “is a servant of Satan,” snarls Calvinist minister John Knox (David Tennant [Ferdinand, Doctor Who] at his evil oiliest), who plots to eliminate the threat he thinks she represents to Elizabeth.
British stage director Josie Rourke makes her film directing debut with this delicious anti costume drama, one with an ethos far earthier than we might expect: the smells of sweat and sex practically waft off the screen, and female pleasure is a priority. Rourke also brings a color-blind spirit from her theater experience: the brilliant cast features multiple actors of color — including Adrian Lester (As You Like It, The Day After Tomorrow), as Elizabeth ambassador to Mary’s court, and Gemma Chan (Crazy Rich Asians, “Revolting Rhymes”) as a companion to Mary — which lends additional gorgeous depth to a tapestry of politics and culture that only makes the whole endeavor feel more human and accessible.
But it is the commanding central performances — from Saoirse Ronan (On Chesil Beach, Lady Bird) as Mary and Margot Robbie (Slaughterhouse Rulez, Peter Rabbit) as Elizabeth — that elevate Mary Queen of Scots to a must-see feminist parable that resonates for us today: their struggle as women to be heard in a world in which men are willfully deaf to them is shockingly modern.
Sounds like I’ll have to get over my knowing-too-much-history issues and watch this. Mary spoke with a French accent, not the Scottish one i’m hearing in the trailer, and she and Elizabeth never met in person, again, unlike what I saw in a trailer. If I’m wrong and these things are not in the movie, I’ll be relieved!
Yes, Mary speaks with a Scottish accent. All I can think is that too many people would be too confused by a Scottish queen who spoke French. Maybe Ronan was more comfortable with Scottish than French!
As for the meeting in the trailer… Yes, that happens in the film. Not a spoiler, but it happens in secret and Elizabeth tells Mary that this “never happened” and that if Mary talks about it, Elizabeth will deny it. Really, isn’t the best that history can say is that we don’t think that they ever met, or that there’s no concrete evidence that they ever met? Neither of which rules out a meeting that we don’t know about.
I hope you won’t be upset by actors of color portraying characters who, some of whom, we definitely know were as white as can be.
I’m sorry, the laughable gimmick casting and historic liberties aside (they all do that). This movie was embarrassing to see. Especially after viewing “The Favorite” last week. This director should go back to the theater where this shit may work. I’d compare it to “Alexander” but that was sort of fun to watch.
What’s the “gimmick casting”?
First of all, I won’t go down the list but a Chinese woman playing Lady Hardwick is pathetic in film, I’ll stop there. 2nd, you seem to be the only person I’ve ever fucked with online which is lame. Can I be a paying member or make a donation by credit card? I honestly will. This is the only site I’ve ever sort of trolled, even if it was only once or twice.
You’re banned.
Why? I was sincere about paying even though who pays for movie reviews? Tell me how I can just put in a cc # and I’ll send $100.
Who pays for movie reviews? Are you for real?
You can PayPal me your $100 here. You don’t need a PayPal account, you can use your credit card:
https://www.paypal.me/MaryAnnJohanson
Personally I think any discussion of this issue that doesn’t mention the example set by Elizabeth I’s half-sister Mary Tudor and the Marian persecutions is kinda missing the point of that period of English history.
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England
I’m sure there were a lot of Englishmen who undoubtedly had issues with the two queens because of their gender. But pretend that the example set by Mary Tudor had nothing to do with that fear is just silly. One might as well argue that because so many people disliked Margaret Thatcher because of her gender and the class she was born into, all people in England who had an issue with Thatcher were obviously little more than misogynist snobs.
Have you seen the movie?
Not yet.
But then the last movie I remember seeing that was set in the Elizabethan era was Shakespeare in Love — when it was still a new release. So it might be a while.
So you really have no basis for deciding what the movie is about and how you disagree with its framing of what it’s about, do you?
No. Not yet.
But my issue was not with the movie. It was with your interpretation of it.
However, I won’t say any more on the issue till the movie comes on cable — which appears to be how I see most theatrical releases nowadays. (Of course there’s always library rentals but I don’t rent DVDs from the library as much as I used to.)
Which. You. Haven’t. Seen. So how can you possibly know that her interpretation of it wasn’t on-point?
Once more with feeling: COME ON, TONIO!
Fair enough.