Mary, Queen of Scots (2018)

The Godmother
or
"They Are Sisters" (In a World Without Love)

It seems that every decade has to have their own movie about Mary, Queen of Scots and her struggle with the reigning Queen Elizabeth I, her cousin. She has been portrayed by Katherine Hepburn, Vanessa Redgrave, and recently (in Cate Blanchett's "Elizabeth" films) by Samantha Morton. The various films sway between sides being taken, finding Mary either a bold, presumptive opportunist, or a wronged legitimate heir to the throne (and Elizabeth portrayed as a calculating shrew). It all depends on whether you're Protestant or Catholic, Anglophile or Spec-Historian, "Team" Tudor or "Team" Stuart. There are a lot of sides, just as there were at the time things were going down in "The Isles" in the 16th Century.

The latest "take" on the saga is based on historian John Guy's book "My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots" and it, judging by the film based on it—the latest Mary, Queen of Scots—seems to want it both ways, emphasizing more of what the women had in common than in what separated them.

They may have had their differences but but both shared uneasy paths due to their sex. Henry VIII (Elizabeth's father by Anne Boleyn, wife #2) had only one male heir, (by Jane Seymour, wife #3)—who would become King Edward VI at the age of nine(!)—and the older half-sisters Mary (by Catherine of Aragon, wife #1) and Elizabeth—due to Henry's many wives and his way of dealing with the Church to attain them—were considered, by decree, illegitimate. Edward died at the age of 25 and named the Lady Jane Grey, the daughter of Henry VIII's sister, his successor. The reason? Mary was a Roman Catholic, and Henry and Edward had spent a lot of time and effort getting out from underneath the Pope's robes to go back to The Church. Lady Jane didn't last long, Mary claimed the throne and lasted five years trying to return Catholicism to the primary faith, and was succeeded by Elizabeth, who didn't like it and reversed it.

Now, bear with me here: Mary was the daughter of King James V of Scotland, the son of James IV and Mary Tudor, who was Henry VIII's sister, thus making Mary and Elizabeth cousins (I'll give you a moment...). James V died when Mary (Queen of Scots, his daughter) was six days old and she—at that age—became Queen of Scotland.* There weren't many things she could do regally at that age, of course, so the leadership of Scotland was done by regents, all male and all probably bitter that their Queen was a baby. A female baby, at that. Anyway, Henry VIII's finagling caused a lot of trouble for his relations' when they got to The Big Chair. For both Mary and Elizabeth, the toughest part of their job was being the female rulers of men. The monarchy has always had a history of men in the shadow of the throne trying to thrown their own shade, and Mary and Elizabeth both had to deal with leading reluctant dance-partners, who wanted to decide the moves themselves.

Josie Rourke's film details the issues that Mary Stuart (played here by Saorise Ronan) had to contend with—a viable claim to England's throne, her Catholic faith when England had turned Protestant (after flirting again with Catholicism), recent widowhood and the desire for an heir apparent. Her probably too-quick decision to marry a cousin, Henry Darnley (Jack Lowden) who was not only a drunkard, a would-be usurper of the crown, but also gay (or at least bi-sexual), creating in one nuclear family, all the larger issues she had to deal with. Her regents resented her forthrightness, her taking her own counsel rather than theirs, her alignment with the Pope rather than a devotion to Christ, and her own ambitions to be Queen of England, not just Scotland.  

Her marriage to Darnley did produce one heir, James (who did ascend to the throne after Elizabeth's death), but men were only too willing to take her as wife to try to take her authority as Queen away from her. 

Watching Mary's trials and tribulations across the way must have had a large influence on Elizabeth (played by Margot Robbie), who, famously, never married—was it due to a fear that her authority would be usurped?—and adapted a stance that, given the wrangling among the roosters of her own court, she had to adapt a male attitude id she was to maintain her authority. She had been denied the throne once, and incarcerated for part of that time, so she knew how quickly fortunes could change, even without mis-steps that might hasten it. It was the very nature of Nature, being a part of the Empire's rule of succession.

The movie traces both women's struggles to keep power in a male-dominated world, while they also eyed each other across the way, admiringly but acquisitively, each seeing the threat the other poses. They posture and correspond, their meanings hidden between the lines of their prose. Being cousins, and female, they take more diplomatic means rather than direct words and actions than they do against their male challengers.

It is inevitable (at least, in the movies) that they meet, although they never did in real life. And Rourke stages it obliquely—Mary travels to England for safe-keeping, as she's under threat from her own people—and, in a plain laundry-house, they hold a conversation through layers of hanging sheets (metaphors, anyone?), Mary moving them, Elizabeth cloaked, hiding behind them, until the veils are removed and the conversation becomes more direct and revealing, with Elizabeth summing up Mary thus: "Beauty—bravery—motherhood—you seem to have surpassed me in every way (but) your gifts are your downfall.

And Mary spits out the threat: "Should you murder me, remember—you murder your sister and you murder your Queen."

If you know history, you know how THAT turned out.

Rourke's film is sumptuous in location-work, costumes and hair and make-up—it takes quite a bit of masterful work to make Margot Robbie look unattractive—and the performances are incredibly detailed and lived in (it's also quite fun to see David Tennant play a villain, but he has a lot of company among the Scottish characters).

One appreciates all the work involved, but Mary, Queen of Scots feels a bit stale, despite raunching it up with a couple sex scenes that feel unnecessary. The film opens up a bit when Mary and Elizabeth are not embroiled in fights with the conniving men in their lives, showing them at peace with themselves and with others. It's in those places where Mary, Queen of Scots feels best. One must assume that the two queens would agree—that their jobs would be so much easier without men.

"England does not look so different from Scotland."
"Aye, they are sisters..."

* It is probably at this time that you're thinking the American idea of democracy and voting for your country's leader might not be a bad idea, despite recent turns of events.

As You Like It (2006)

It is the quadri-centennial of William Shakespeare's death and the Bard is still going strong. Not marble, nor the gilded monuments of princes shall outlive his powerful rhymes. Oh, there will be set-backs. Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins can't seem to get their respective productions of King Lear to be produced, but that's only because Ian McKellan cut such a wide swath through the role a couple years ago. But no, as long as Kenneth Branagh or Patrick Stewart draw breath, there will be a Shakespeare film made, and even if not under his name or title, he can be found as dependable source material—The Lion King is Hamlet, Forbidden Planet is The Tempest, Kurosawa made versions of MacBeth and King Lear in feudal Japan. Whether you believe Shakespeare wrote the plays or not—and scholars seem to be basing their theories on correspondence and bills (what, authors didn't consider their audience back then?) the entity that created the works in those folios was a dramatic genius, one who still enthralls, confounds, and moves in this step-step-step-step-step-step-generation and into the conceivable future.

This week, we'll look at a handful—a sampling—of Shakespeare films. Most of them will have to wait 'til we get that "Now I've Seen Everything: Orson Welles" piece done (and that's a film or two away). But, for now, we will brush off our Shakespeare...reviews.

As You Like It (Kenneth Branagh, 2006) Branagh's films run hot or cold--his Henry V and Hamlet and Dead Again being good, and over-heated messes like his version of Frankenstein and 2007's Sleuth being where he just can't manage the material, or, in an attempt to light them up a bit, he starts being a bit too fusty with them, bringing in a swooping camera amid histrionic performances. Those are the Branagh movies where you want to grab him by his ascot and say, "why don't we call it a night, let everyone get some sleep and think things over."

Happily, As You Like It is not one of those over-baked Branagh's, but it feels a bit underdone as well, where the setting and the text don't seem to mesh as well as the director thought they might.

This Shakespeare comedy is set, by the director, in feudal Japan where a warlord sets another Duke and entourage out into the forest--a classical japanese garden--to talk over matters and wait until the complications abate and everyone can get married and live happily ever after in a nice frothy frolic, very much like his ending for Much Ado About Nothing. A lot of Branagh's past collaborators are here--Richard Briers, Adrian Lester, and Brian Blessed (playing both Dukes--and far less boisterously than one is accustomed to seeing him), Kevin Kline gets the "All the World's a Stage" speech, Alfred Molina plays Touchstone (looking like Brian Bolland's Mr. Mamoulian), and the lead of Rosalind is played by Opie's kid, Bryce Dallas Howard. Now, Howard has previously been cast in roles where she was merely meant to be frail or other-worldly, so to see her in full command and making As You Like It her own is something of a great triumph, acknowledged by Branagh by giving Howard the afterword, as she strolls through the trailers, bottled water in hand, and takes her bow, before going to her trailer.

Now that's updating Shakespeare.

This film never saw a release in America, but instead went directly to HBO, no doubt due to the poor performance of Branagh's Love's Labours Lost in theaters. Too bad. Branagh seems to be at his best adapting Shakespeare and breathing some life into it for modern audiences, and at his worst doing something else.