Whereas most actors and actresses have to work hard to gain recognition for themselves, a select few are lucky enough to be the children of famous actors and have big budget films custom made to launch their Hollywood careers (with the clear expectancy of bagging the appropriate Oscar nomination at the end of it). This is a clear example of this, and it's painfully obvious before, during, and after watching the film.
It's a bizarre case of Mary Queen of Scots being chosen as the subject of Vanessa Redgrave's sweeping epic, rather than finding the best choice to play Mary and this leads us to the first problem - the casting of the main star. Historically, we're told that when Mary first arrived in Scotland, she got off the boat as a beautiful, impetuous young woman full of confidence and determination to triumph over the challenges that lay ahead.
When Vanessa Redgrave gets off the boat, she looks exactly what she is - 30odd years old, gaunt, pale, and a bit funny-looking with ash-blonde hair. There is NO resemblance between her and Mary, and almost instantly she starts behaving like a moron with no control over what's going on. It would have been so much better if they'd hired someone younger and gutsy, with a bit more oomph and presence. As it is, Redgrave's neurotic, wailing portrayal is unsympathetic, and she allows Mary's fatal flaws (which could have been confined simply to the character's instances of bad judgement) to be ever-present by behaving like an imbecile, always wavering and incompetent. To the audience, this babyish Mary looks as though she could never rule in a million years and it's difficult to rally round her when she gets booted off her throne as she quite frankly doesn't seem fit to sit on it.
The highly anticipated confrontation between those 'two titans' Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson (ermm... Mary and Elizabeth was it?) fails, basically because one character is so childlike she's no match for the other, while Glenda Jackson plays Elizabeth with a general lack of seriousness or depth, carelessly overacting and making the most of her comedic turns. The scenes in which they appear together are not particularly memorable and add nothing of value to the film. They also effectively reduce the two queen's relationship (which has so far been comprised of suspicion and fear of their distant rival) to nothing. Moreover, the fact that they do meet (when so famously they didn't) seriously affects the film's historical accuracy and is probably the most commonly criticized part of the film.
The depiction of Lord Darnley as a secret homosexual, complete with a repulsive femininity (another invention in the script) I found to be a cheap way of not bothering with the necessary character development to explain his awful personality and the failure of his marriage to Mary. Moreover, I found the negative depiction of homosexuality to be a bit politically incorrect (after Darnley, Mary gets herself a REAL MAN), and although the film is hardly radical in any of its views, it did bother me.
While most of the character depictions are all to hell, the script does follow the general flow of history and is at least watchable it's not nearly as silly as most modern historical dramas and has some measure of plausibility. Being a major film, the production values are good, there being some fantastic scenery and settings with very good, accurate costumes. The music is very spirited and atmospheric, somewhat spurring the film along and adding feeling in areas where script and acting fail.
All in all it is a shame because the subject matter is so rich in material, full of vibrant characters just waiting to brought to life but instead of utilizing this, the script writer just has the entire supporting cast tip-toeing around Redgrave as she hogs the screen. Although it is by far superior to Jimmy McGovern's very bad 'Gunpowder, Plot and Treason' (2003), 'Mary, Queen of Scots' hardly stands out as a work of any great ingenuity or greatness (especially considering how many great films came out in 1971) and, set against the backdrop of other historical epics, the film is easily swamped and very easy to surpass.
It's a bizarre case of Mary Queen of Scots being chosen as the subject of Vanessa Redgrave's sweeping epic, rather than finding the best choice to play Mary and this leads us to the first problem - the casting of the main star. Historically, we're told that when Mary first arrived in Scotland, she got off the boat as a beautiful, impetuous young woman full of confidence and determination to triumph over the challenges that lay ahead.
When Vanessa Redgrave gets off the boat, she looks exactly what she is - 30odd years old, gaunt, pale, and a bit funny-looking with ash-blonde hair. There is NO resemblance between her and Mary, and almost instantly she starts behaving like a moron with no control over what's going on. It would have been so much better if they'd hired someone younger and gutsy, with a bit more oomph and presence. As it is, Redgrave's neurotic, wailing portrayal is unsympathetic, and she allows Mary's fatal flaws (which could have been confined simply to the character's instances of bad judgement) to be ever-present by behaving like an imbecile, always wavering and incompetent. To the audience, this babyish Mary looks as though she could never rule in a million years and it's difficult to rally round her when she gets booted off her throne as she quite frankly doesn't seem fit to sit on it.
The highly anticipated confrontation between those 'two titans' Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson (ermm... Mary and Elizabeth was it?) fails, basically because one character is so childlike she's no match for the other, while Glenda Jackson plays Elizabeth with a general lack of seriousness or depth, carelessly overacting and making the most of her comedic turns. The scenes in which they appear together are not particularly memorable and add nothing of value to the film. They also effectively reduce the two queen's relationship (which has so far been comprised of suspicion and fear of their distant rival) to nothing. Moreover, the fact that they do meet (when so famously they didn't) seriously affects the film's historical accuracy and is probably the most commonly criticized part of the film.
The depiction of Lord Darnley as a secret homosexual, complete with a repulsive femininity (another invention in the script) I found to be a cheap way of not bothering with the necessary character development to explain his awful personality and the failure of his marriage to Mary. Moreover, I found the negative depiction of homosexuality to be a bit politically incorrect (after Darnley, Mary gets herself a REAL MAN), and although the film is hardly radical in any of its views, it did bother me.
While most of the character depictions are all to hell, the script does follow the general flow of history and is at least watchable it's not nearly as silly as most modern historical dramas and has some measure of plausibility. Being a major film, the production values are good, there being some fantastic scenery and settings with very good, accurate costumes. The music is very spirited and atmospheric, somewhat spurring the film along and adding feeling in areas where script and acting fail.
All in all it is a shame because the subject matter is so rich in material, full of vibrant characters just waiting to brought to life but instead of utilizing this, the script writer just has the entire supporting cast tip-toeing around Redgrave as she hogs the screen. Although it is by far superior to Jimmy McGovern's very bad 'Gunpowder, Plot and Treason' (2003), 'Mary, Queen of Scots' hardly stands out as a work of any great ingenuity or greatness (especially considering how many great films came out in 1971) and, set against the backdrop of other historical epics, the film is easily swamped and very easy to surpass.