The twentieth century saw the creation of motion picture, a medium of entertainment that transformed the cultural landscape across the globe. Motion pictures have continued to thrive even in the twenty-first century and have become a way for audiences to immerse themselves into new realms, whether it is a blast to the past or a thrust into the future. Motion pictures have created a whole new experience for viewers to escape from reality, to a more entertaining life. As motion pictures grew in popularity, filmmakers utilized familiar historical narratives to create on-screen visualizations of the past to present to the modern audience. This is especially true with Mary Stuart. Her tragic story told by her nineteenth century predecessors followed into the twentieth century. This blog will look at two films: Mary of Scotland (1936) and Mary, Queen of Scots (1971) as well as Elena Woodacre's chapter titled "Early Modern Queens on Screen: Victors, Victims, Villains,Virgins and Viragoes" to analyze the way these films depict Mary Stuart and the effect it has on Mary Stuart's historical narrative.
Woodacre's chapter discusses the way that Early Modern queens are displayed in popular culture in stereotypical and patriarchal ways. She argues that deceptions of Mary, Queen of Scots on film are classic examples of queens who have been undone by love and tragedy. She explains that Mary is, "a queen who lost her throne after three marriages ended in tragedy: with Francois II's early death, Darnely's murder, Bothwell's exile and death in prison. She is repeatedly portrayed as an example of a ruler who put the woman before the queen 'privileging the idea that a woman's real happiness lies in the private realm, with husband and child.'"¹ Mary Stuart is also often defined by her vastly different personality and reign compared to her cousin Queen Elizabeth I of England, and their differences are exploited in movies through depictions of the two women meeting -- which never occurred in real life. This can be seen with the films Mary of Scotland (1936) and Mary, Queen of Scots (1971).
(Trailer for movie Mary of Scotland (1936), found on Youtube.com)
Mary of Scotland (poster for the film shown below) was released in 1936 and directed by John Ford. The movie, directed in black and white, stars Katherine Hepburn as Mary Stuart, Fredric March as the Earl of Bothwell and Florence Eldridge as Queen Elizabeth. The film begins with Mary Stuart assuming her throne in Scotland after the death of her first husband. There are clear tensions between Queen Elizabeth and Mary Stuart from the start. The Scottish lords are suspicious
of Mary Stuart due to her Catholic beliefs, and there is much debate over who she should marry. In the end, Mary Stuart is forced to marry Lord Darnley, despite being in love with Lord Bothwell. The movie focuses much on their romance. Bothwell kills Lord Darnely, and Mary reunites with Bothwell, exclaiming that she "belonged" to him from the beginning. This lead to a coup to overthrow her, where she escapes and flees to England. The movie depicts the two women meeting face-to-face and ends with the Mary's execution after the Babington Plot is revealed.²
The film focus on costume design and setting is clear. The women are shown in typical Renaissance dresses, consisting of the high-neck line and and large skirts, as well as the classic hairstyle that mimics the recognizable hairstyle of Queen Elizabeth in portraits. The setting is decorated beautifully. The rooms are full of Renaissance style heavy drapes and wooden furniture and the set designers take the liberty to design the stone castle look that lets the audience
(Images: Scenes from film Mary of Scotland)
know this film takes place in the past. Director John Ford expertly uses recognizable iconography that places the film in a time period that is associated with Kings and Queens to build the movie's authenticity. It is clear that this film is more of a costume drama, rather than a historical film.
However, the film poses problems to historical accuracy within the plot. Mary Stuart is limited to her relationship with the men around her. She essentially gives up her throne for Bothwell to murder her husband in order for them to finally be together. The relationship between Mary and Bothwell is controversial. There is no historical fact that Mary had a consensual relationship with Bothwell after the murder of her husband. The film, however, represents Mary to have been in love with Bothwell from the beginning. The poster for the film (shown above) emphasizes the film's focus on Mary and Bothwell's 'forbidden' love with the passionate embrace of the couple accompanied with Katherine Hepburn's portrait as Mary Stuart. It also emphasizes the main characters to be Mary Stuart and Lord Bothwell through only showing the two actors names on the poster. Overall the film appeals to the audiences emotionally, as one cannot help but feel sorry for Mary's situation. She sacrifices her throne for love, thus limiting herself to a man, rather than focusing on gaining power that comes from the English throne. She is labeled as a helpless victim, especially with the emphasis on her execution. Woodacre explains, "Yet no matter how the rivalry between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I is staged or filmed, Mary remains the victim, losing first her heart, then her crown, and ultimately her head, while Elizabeth emerges the victor from their rivalry."³ This film continues the emphasis on her tragic imprisonment and execution that was also seen within the nineteenth century cultural mediums. Because this film poses as authentic, the historical narrative of Mary Stuart continues to be highlighted with tragedy and death, especially for the average audience. Her narrative is continuously limited to her husbands and betrayal to Queen Elizabeth well into the twentieth century. This can be seen the 1971 film, Mary ,Queen of Scots.
(Trailer for Mary Queen of Scots (1971) found on YouTube.com)
Mary, Queen of Scots was released in 1971 and directed by Charles Jarrott. The movies stars Vanessa Redgrave as Mary Stuart and Glenda Jackson and Queen Elizabeth I. Much like the 1936 film, this film focuses on Mary returning to Scotland after the death of her first husband. However, this film focuses on the contrasting personalities and character of both Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth, as well as Mary's claim to the English throne. Mary's Catholic religion plays a huge role in her court that is full of Protestant Scottish lords. Elizabeth is shown sending Robert Dudley to Mary's court in order to weaken her claim to the English throne, as well as Catholic Lord Darnley as a ploy to upset her Protestant lords. Upon meeting Darnley, she impulsively agrees to marry him. Mary banishes Lord Moray who is a prominent Protestant leader in her court for his rejection of their marriage. Elizabeth seems satisfied that impulsive Mary's marriage will keep her preoccupied in Scotland and give Elizabeth less to worry about. Mary's relationship with Darnley is short lived, as it is revealed he has a childish temper and Mary turns to David Riccio for comfort. Darnley becomes jealous because Riccio was once his lover and he accuses Mary of an affair.
(Image: Poster for Mary, Queen of Scots (1971) via IMDb)
The Scottish lords use Darnley's jealous tendencies to persuade him to kill Riccio in front of Mary. After his murder, Mary convinces Darnley to flee the castle and live with Lord Bothwell. While residing with Bothwell, Mary negotiates peace between her Scottish lords and Darnley as well as give birth to her son James, who will take the English throne after childless Elizabeth. Darnley is seen on the verge of dying, but still vying for power. Mary seeks to comfort in Bothwell and they fall in love. This results in a plan to murder Darnley. After he is killed, Bothwell and Mary marry and spend a few romantic nights together. The Lord Moray, who discovers their marriage, organizes a coup against Mary and she flees to England. In England, Mary requests money and an army to help her regain her throne, but instead she is kept prisoner in a remote castle. Elizabeth's advisor, William Cecil, advocates for Mary's death but Elizabeth is reluctant to kill her, fearing a rebellion from her Catholic subjects as well as France and Spain. However, her advisors Walsingham and Cecil discover Mary is a conspirator in the Babington plot, which prompts the dramatic ending.
The movie ends with a confrontation between Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth offers mercy if Mary will publicly ask for forgiveness from the Queen. Mary refuses, saying she will not publicly beg for mercy or submit to Elizabeth's power. Mary is forced to go to trial and is executed, however she finds comfort in knowing her son James will one day take the English throne.⁴
Mary, Queen of Scots (1971) dramatically attempts to re-tell the story of Mary Stuart as she reigns over Scotland and seeks asylum in England after her abdication. The film, much like Mary of Scotland, utilizes costume design and setting to it's advantage to build authenticity with it's audience. Both the women are dressed in extravagant Renaissance clothing and easily recognizable. Both Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth I is dressed in her stereotypical large gowns, with a high neckline and famous hairstyle. The men are dressed in bright clothing, with large pantaloons that mimic the typical Renaissance style. Great detail also went into the setting of the
(Left Image: Vanessa Redgave as Mary Stuart in Mary, Queen of Scots via IMDb.com)
(Right Image: Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth I of England in Mary, Queen of Scots via. IMDb.com)
Both women sport traditional Renaissance style
setting of the movie. Both Queens are seen living in a large stone castle, similar to those seen in the Early Modern period and easily associated with kings and queens. The rooms are full of expensive Renaissance style furniture and the creators utilize the Renaissance coloring and style of reds and golds, with incinerate designs. This movie, however, is full of inaccuracies which diminishes its claim as a historical bio-pic to one of an entertaining costume drama.
The fiction in the film is done for entertainment value. Mary's husband Darnley is assumed to be homosexual in the film with his relationship with Riccio, however there is no evidence of Darnley ever being homosexual. The character Riccio is based on the actual David Rizzio, who was Mary's confidant during her reign in Scotland. Though Riccio/Rizzio was murdered by Darnley in real life, Darnley did not have an affair with him. The director added this to create a tension-filled love triangle between the three characters as well as add a tragic element to the story through Riccio's murder. This film also implies that Mary Stuart was in love with Bothwell and that they organized the murder of her husband, much like the film Mary of Scotland. Once again, the meeting between Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth never happened. There is a distinct contrast in the depiction of Mary in Mary, Queen of Scots and her counterpart Queen Elizabeth. There is a clear religious difference between Mary and Elizabeth and that distinction is made at the very beginning of the film. Mary, a Catholic, struggles with ruling next to her Protestant lords which shows her inexperience. She is also seen as impulsive through her quick marriage to both Darnley and Bothwell. Elizabeth, on the other hand, is shown as rigid, as well as practical ruler who understands political relationships and how to work them.
The poster of the film (shown above) highlights this contrast further. Mary is shown in a girlish-pink gown, shyly hiding her face with the statement: "Mary, Queen of Scots who ruled with the heart of a woman!" Elizabeth is shown in a bright yellow gown (a non-binary color), sternly facing the viewer with the statement: "Elizabeth, Queen of England, who ruled with the power of man!" Here, the historical narrative of Mary being a young naive girl and a ruler of love continues to be emphasized. She is constantly being limited to her marriages and association with Queen Elizabeth. Her nature, as well as her execution, serve as a tragic ending for Mary and a new pivotal moment for the powerful Queen Elizabeth. Woodacre describes this, stating "The execution of Mary Queen of Scots has also been a feature of most biopics of the Scottish queen as a key scene in many films on Elizabeth I due to the pivotal nature of Mary's trial and death in Elizabeth's reign." This film re-enforces the historical narrative that limits Mary Stuart's agency as a Queen and places it as a woman of love and tragedy. Her reliance on men and her lack of ability to rule in both films reiterates the historical narrative that Mary Stuart is the antithesis of Queen Elizabeth.
Woodacre expertly describes Mary, Queen of Scots as the perfect example of the world's "victim queen."⁶ In the twentieth century cinematic world, Mary Stuart is just that: a victim. In both Mary of Scotland (1936) and Mary, Queen of Scots (1971), Mary is shown as the victim of tragic love affairs and imprisonment. She is the victim of naivety, and the foil of Queen Elizabeth who rules strongly over England. Her desire for a passionate romance leads to her demise as Queen of Scotland and the victim of execution. This narrative, cultivated in the nineteenth century through novels, plays, and operas, is further emphasized in the twentieth century through the rise of the motion picture industry.
Endnotes:
¹ Elena Woodacre,"Early Modern Queens on Screen: Victors, Victims, Villains,Virgins and Viragoes" in Premodern Rulers and Postmodern Viewers Gender, Sex, and Power in Popular Culture (Cham, CH: Palgrave Macmillin, 2018) 31.
² John Ford, dir., Mary of Scotland (1936; Burbank: CA, Warner Bros.,2006), Online.
³ Elena Woodacre, "Early Modern Queens on Screen," 31-32.
⁴ Charles Jarrott, dir., Mary, Queen of Scots (1971; Universal City: CA, Universal, 2010), DVD.
⁵ Elena Woodacre, "Early Modern Queens on Screen," 34.
⁵ Elena Woodacre, "Early Modern Queens on Screen," 31.
Comments