‘Mary Queen of Scots‘ (2018) is the latest of the historical films that go back to the roots of the connection between England and Scotland and the conflict between the queens of the two kingdoms in the second half of the 16th century. The attraction exercised by this story is also due, of course, to the fact that the relations between the two British countries do not seem to have been definitively consolidated even today, but also to the copious literary, theatrical and cinematographic treatment it has enjoyed over time. Josie Rourke‘s film can be considered a remake of the 1971 production that was ennobled by the presence of Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave in the lead roles. I will avoid philosophizing in this case about the usefulness (or uselessness) of remakes. There are enough interesting aspects of the 2018 film to merit viewing and discussion by cinephiles and history buffs, but there are also some glaring aspects of Hollywood politics (the film is a British-American co-production with Chinese participation) and allusions to contemporary world issues rather than the 16th century’s.
Unlike the 1971 film version, Josie Rourke‘s ‘Mary Queen of Scots‘ takes place between 1560 and 1567, i.e. between the return to Scotland of the princess dowager of the King of France, her ascension to the throne of Scotland, her love life including marriages which eventually produced the offspring that would found the Stuart dynasty, the mistakes and fall that ended in the captivity of the English. The period after 1567 and until the execution of the woman who had become a queen too many for the kingdoms of England and Scotland is almost entirely omitted. Deviations from documented history abound, including the inclusion of a scene of the meeting between Queens Elizabeth I and Mary, which never took place but which is also included in Schiller’s play, Donizetti’s opera, or the 1971 film version. I have no problem with this kind of approach, after all Shakespeare didn’t write his historical dramas with the history textbook open in front of him either. The vision of the film is feminist and feminine. The presence of two women on the thrones of England and Scotland in the 16th century is a phenomenon whose explanation is still debated by historians. She also contradicts some feminist mantras according to which the world would be better, or at least less violent, if it were led by women. The film parallels the conflict between the two sister countries with that between two women who call each other sisters (in reality they were just cousins) and between two female destinies in a world dominated by male power. However, the script is intelligent and complex enough not to put important decisions solely on feminine whims or motivations. The most authentic scenes seemed to me precisely those in which Queen Mary discusses with her ladies-in-waiting in the bedroom the intimate aspects of life and the fate of kingdoms at the same time.
The fact that Josie Rourke comes from the theater world is also felt in the scenes that take place at the two royal courts, but also in the hunger for scenery and fresh air that we feel in the outdoor scenes. The set design and costumes are highly detailed, which contrasts with the multi-ethnic cast. The cinematography is also adapted to the scenery, with the cold and metallic hues of the landscapes, the corridors and gloomy rooms of the Scottish castles contrasting with the warmer light and colors of the scenes that take place at Elizabeth’s court. Text fails to completely avoid feminist rhetoric and political undertones that belong to our century rather than history like marital violence or LGBT relationships acceptance. These kinds of updates are common and accepted in theater, but less common on screens. Saoirse Ronan creates an extremely complex and well-defined portrait of Queen Mary – in which the woman and the politician go hand in hand, propel the character to the height of power and the achievement of dynastic goals, but also lead to the fall and the well-known denouement. Margot Robbie‘s Elizabeth I is overshadowed by the script rather than by her own acting, which I also thought was very good (and a galaxy away from what she would achieve a few years later in ‘Barbie’) . There are many good male performances in this film, but as in history, the two women dominate. I can’t say that Ronan and Robbie managed to make me forget the performances of Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson, but I think they’re not much lower either. In a few decades, these interpretations and the two films may be seen as much closer than they seem to us today.