Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Mary of Scotland

Mary of Scotland (John Ford, 1936) The film, written by Dudley Nichols from Maxwell Anderson's play, begins with an odd preamble, giving an overview of the whole Mary, Queen of Scots/Elizabeth R situation, and ending with the hopeful suggestion that they are "all equal now," buried close to each other in Westminster Abbey. Cheery thought, and, despite what the play and movie say, the only time that Elizabeth and Mary were in the same room together.*

It's a problematic film. betraying its stage roots (the speeches are very formal, stylized, and performed theatrically, with no overlap and AT THE TOP OF EVERYBODY'S LUNGS, as if trying to reach the last row of the balcony) although Ford works overtime to find interesting angles to shoot from. So much Hollywood gossip swirls around this film**part of Hepburn's "box-office poison" cycle (she'd just bombed with Sylvia Scarlett and more were on the way)—that one is hesitant to bring it up as sources for the film's problems, which are many. 

But the main fault lies with Anderson's play, which lionizes Mary (Katherine Hepburn) while demonizing Elizabeth, and the production goes right along with it—Mary's first lines are a prayer to God for returning safely to Scottish shores, while Elizabeth's is ordering people around and played (by Florence Eldridge) as if she were Edward G. Robinson. It would have been nice if this subject were a little more nuanced, as it involves two strong women in positions of power with men as being subjective, if constant irritants. One wishes that the two could have gotten together and agreed that all the men surrounding them were jerks and done something about that, rather than engaging in power plays for England's throne.
But, that's not how history went, and the play plays fast and loose enough with the facts as it is. And this is Mary's movie, to the point where Hepburn is the only cast member with close-ups—jarring close-ups that have the feel of insert shots as the lighting changes dramatically from the establishing shotsElizabeth is only seen in full shots that emphasize costume over performance.
There are joys to be had, though. Ford's penchant to use unruly horses is much in evidence, and the animals are particularly out of control on the sound-stages that dominate the film. And Frederic March is something of a revelation, boisterous and accented, his is the best performance in the film. And Ford's presentation is never less than spectacular, as has been mentioned, giving the film a scope that it wouldn't have had in other's hands.
 
 
A not-altogether successful film, but interesting to see.


* This is a problem with most of the films dealing with Mary, Queen of Scots—historically, they never did appear (that we know—something Lucy Worsley might some day let us in on it) in the same room, although there were letters sent back and forth. It might have something to do with studio politics and ginning up the drama. Traditionally, the two have been played by stars (Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson in 1971's Mary Queen of Scots, and more recently Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie in 2018's Mary Queen of Scots) and so there must be some re-writing of history in order to get Acting Queens to spar off each other, even if the real Queens did not.
 
** Ford was unhappy making it, and—as he occasionally did—walked off the film in the midst of shooting on day. I can't be sure, but when I read Hepburn's autobiography, I seem to recall her saying that she directed for the rest of the day and seemed to think nothing of it. And...take a look at this scene on YouTube. There is a portion where Mary addresses James Stuart, Earl of Mowbray, where the conversation is at cinematically clashing angles, perhaps to favor a flattering angle...well, let's face it, of both actors. It's an odd choice by Ford if he, indeed, did make it.

No comments:

Post a Comment