Mary, Queen of Scots
Tags: historical, murder

Plot synopsis:
Mary, Queen of Scots, awaits her execution by order of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Mary composes a letter to Elizabeth, to whom she feels a close kinship as her cousin and a fellow female monarch. Through flashback, Mary narrates to Elizabeth the events of her life, starting from her birth in Scotland to the French Mary of Guise, who sends her to France as a child for her protection.
Mary is raised in French court, where she had for companions her Scottish ladies Mary Beaton, Mary Seton, Mary Fleming and Mary Livingston, as well as the Italian musician David Rizzio. Upon reaching adulthood Mary is married to the Dauphin, Francis, who becomes King of France when his father dies. News arrives that Queen Mary I of England has died and her sister, Elizabeth, has become Queen despite her official status as a bastard. Mary is aware of her own legitimate claim to the English throne; although she writes to Elizabeth promising not to challenge her, she insists on using the English coat of arms and the title "Queen of France, Scotland and England".
After Francis's early death, Mary returns to Scotland with her ladies and Rizzio. There, she is treated with suspicion and skepticism by her half-brother, Lord Moray, the Protestant clergyman John Knox and other Scottish lords. Mary struggles to ingratiate herself to them, but ends up isolating herself further by relying on Rizzio for political advice, marrying Englishman Darnley without the Lords' consent, and supporting the controversial Scottish border Lord Bothwell. Mary's love for Darnley fades when she learns of his extremism in pursuing the English throne; Mary has strong affection for Elizabeth, and wants to be her heir instead of usurping her.
Darnley conspires with Moray and the Scottish Lords to murder Rizzio in cold blood in front of a heavily pregnant Mary. Afterwards Mary begins to see visions of Rizzio, who warns her of worse things to come. Mary gives birth to her and Darnley's heir, James, but she is effectively separated from Darnley and has a new passion for Bothwell, with whom she has an affair. Soon afterward Darnley is killed in a gunpowder explosion, and Mary marries Bothwell because she is pregnant with his child. The marriage is heavily protested, with the Scottish Lords taking up arms against Mary and Bothwell. Eventually Mary and Bothwell are outnumbered, and Bothwell flees from Scotland while Mary travels to England in the hopes of getting protection from Elizabeth. Instead, Elizabeth has Mary incarcerated, and decades later Mary is executed by order of the cousin she has never met.

Review: The casting gets better with Trevor Howard as William Cecil, Ian Holm as David Rizzio and Patrick McGoohan as the half-brother James Stuart.
It's been quite some time since I saw this movie, so have forgotten many of the details, but quite enjoyed this portrait of the clash between Mary Queen of Scots and her rival Tudor cousin, Elizabeth I.
The movie chronicles the struggles of Mary Stewart, who returns from France, where she had been wife to the sickly (now deceased) king Francois II, to Scotland, where her Protestant half brother, Jamie, is acting as Regent.
The most devastating enemy proves to be her royal English cousin, Elizabeth I, who sees Mary as a threat, especially when Mary produces (with Darnley) a son while she (Elizabeth) remains unmarried and childless.The main asset of the movie lies in its two female leads, who portray the warm, emotional Catholic Mary and the cool, calculating Protestant Elizabeth.
Others in the star studded cast include Patrick McGoohan as James Stewart (Mary's brother), Timothy Dalton as Lord Darnley (Mary's weak, conniving second husband), and Nigel Davenport as Bothwell (Mary's true love and third husband).
Two of Elizabeth's ministers are portrayed by Trevor Howard as Sir William Cecil, and Daniel Massey as the queen's devoted Dudley.Beautiful Oscar nominated Tudor period costumes and scenes.
This is true: the major characters remain Mary herself (played by Vanessa Redgrave), and Elizabeth I of England (played by Glenda Jackson).
The story progresses through her time as Queen to the sickly Francois of France, to her return to a Scotland dominated by Protestantism and regented by her brother Jamie (played by Patrick McGoohan), through her unfortunate marriage to the weak and selfish fop Lord Darnley (Timothy Dalton) and her eventual deposition following marriage to Lord Bothwell (played with charm by Nigel Davenport).
Vanessa Redgrave, although a bit too old for the role of Mary in the earlier part of the movie did a good job at capturing Mary's character as well.
Vanessa Redgrave portrays an excellent Queen of Scots in this film; Mary Stuart's frivolity, passion for life, religious devotion, and emotion-stirring conscience is perfectly captured by this talented actress.
Glenda Jackson, as Elizabeth of England, has completely captured the hearts and imaginations of the audience as the best actress to ever play the Virgin Queen, and as I watched her manipulate her Catholic enemies and rise above the snares of danger that her fellow Queen blindly stumbled into, I was amazed at her complete understanding of the role.
Along with massive doses of romance, the film provides an interesting depiction of the long-distance tension between Mary and her Cousin, Elizabeth I of England, and the forces at work in the courts of continental Europe and of England and Scotland that made Mary's life hazardous from the moment she set foot on Scottish soil.
This is above all a vivid portrait of the interrelationships of fascinating personalities--none more so than those of the Queen, played with riveting and unselfconscious elegance by Vanessa Redgrave, and her great love Lord Bothwell--in which role the gifted and compellingly attractive Nigel Davenport is perfectly cast..
Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson are thrilling as rival queens in this movie.
This is the contrast that so many writers have been fascinated with, the contrast between her cousin and rival Elizabeth of England.Mary, Queen of Scots has the story start where it properly belongs in France where the Queen Consort of the sickly Francis II has two deaths happen to her which forever alter her life.
Her mission was bring back the old religion.Like John Ford's Mary Of Scotland the film turns on the performances and rivalries Vanessa Redgrave as Mary and Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth.
Katharine Hepburn and Florence Eldridge played Mary and Elizabeth in the Ford film and Redgrave and Jackson are every bit their equal.
Glenda Jackson is quite the calculating machine, her scene with Trevor Howard as her chief minister William Cecil where she sends both Dalton and her lover Daniel Massey as Robert Dudley later Earl Of Leicester to Mary and explaining how if Mary chooses either, she Elizabeth will wind up a winner.
Queen Elizabeth I has been the central figure of many movies and has been portrayed by many great actresses, and now Mary, Queen of Scots gets her turn in the spotlight.
But Vanessa Redgrave was truly exquisite as Mary, fleshing her out and making her a naive and vulnerable person who was ruled by her heart and her passion instead of her reason and her mind, which would lead to her downfall.Sidebar: I love Bette Davis and all (who was Queen Elizabeth I in "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" and "The Virgin Queen"), but as of this writing, I consider at least two actresses to be better at portraying Elizabeth: #1 Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth" and #2 Glenda Jackson here in this film.
Vanessa Redgrave is "Mary, Queen of Scots" in this 1972 film which stars Glenda Jackson, Patrick McGoohan, Timothy Dalton, Ian Holm and Nigel Davenport.
These two women are powerhouses playing two completely different types of women - Elizabeth (Jackson) is powerful, distrusting and manipulative, while vulnerable, sensitive Mary is in way over her head.The story covers the death of Mary's husband in France and her arrival in Scotland to be their Queen.
With the birth of her son, James (who became James I of England and James VI of Scotland), Mary fights as best she can so that her son will one day rule.The acting is magnificent from all of the stars; it would be impossible to choose one as better than the other, though certainly McGoohan, as Mary's brother, and Ian Holm, as Riccio, had excellent roles that showcased their abilities.
I love a historical film...hmm...because after watching the movie, you can research online or in a book and compare differences between the film and what really happen back then.This film is about one of my favorite royal women Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, who claimed the Scottish crown from her mother upon her death.
Elizabeth, whose own reign is shaky (given a strong Catholic presence in her country), is nervous about her Catholic cousin -- and made more so by Mary's seeming inability to appreciate the political niceties of the period.In the film, the ever-luminous Vanessa Redgrave (Camelot) takes on the role as Mary, and the sharp-edged Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth, who knew a thing or two about palace intrigue.
This lush and well-photographed movie hits all the right notes yet only skims the surface.Vanessa Redgrave makes a lovely Mary and Glenda Jackson a fiery Elizabeth, yet neither actress really taps into the deeper contrast between the two queens.
Even the way Vanessa Redgrave hugs the pillow with both arms is a sly, knowing comment on Mary Queen of Scots and her French love of luxury and comfort.Later in the film, when Mary is Elizabeth's prisoner, it's noticeable that Elizabeth comes to visit her in secret, and literally catches Mary dozing, this time with armed guards standing just outside her chamber.
Although the figure of Mary Stuart has always been distorted by Hollywood, this is a good movie which is actually an attempt at giving us a glimpse at the women, not the Queens, in their historic context.Unfortunately, even this one is a bit sweet with Mary and goes on hard on Elizabeth.The players are all first class, starting with a Clash of Titans between Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson.
Noooooh, the Gentlemen went on producing other insignificant stuff, but never cared on re-releasing this one in Letterbox format.Second: although I liked it when it was released, especially for its cast and more than beautiful music scored by John Barry, why wasn't an attempt made at remaking it in a more true to history perspective?After all Mary was not as innocent as depicted by Katie Hepburn or even Vanessa Redgrave.
And they all fell for her.The reasons for her mad conviction of being the only true Queen of England were inculcated into her by her family due to some contentions they had already back when Henry VIII reigned.All this though was certainly not enough to make her the legitimate Queen of England and she should have contented herself by already being Queen of the Scots.Anyway, she remains a pathetic and sad figure in History and well deserves a movie such as this one as a remainder that at times it is better to be happy with what one already has, rather than wanting the whole pie.In this instance Mary truly was too immature and too arrogant to admit defeat even if it loomed right in front of her eyes.
After all, it is seldom they make movies like these.And if you're interested by more Tudor Lore, try also "Henry VIII and his Six Wives", "Anne of the Thousand Days", the filmed Play by Robert Bolt "A Man For All Seasons".The King is dead, long live the Queen....
The myth of the tragic Mary Stuart is further tangled by imagined meetings between herself and her unwilling nemesis, Elizabeth I.Somewhat episodic, it reminded me of another Vanessa Redgrave vehicle, also involving Patrick McGoohan: "Three Sovereigns for Sarah".
As that film also did, this movie attempts to tell a thirty year long story, this time starting with Mary's beginnings as a widowed teenager and not ending until her execution twenty-seven years later.
Vannessa takes great command of her role and the film, despite being upstaged at times by the absolutely wonderful Glenda Jackson.
A case in point is the scene where she receives the news that Mary has been delivered of a baby boy and quotes literally Elizabeth I with `The Queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son, while I am but a barren stock' Generally speaking the viewer of the movie should not take the `historical' events portrayed as true historical accuracy.
In Ford's movie featuring Katherine Hepburn ,we already attended a meeting between the two queens.And with two actresses as fascinating as Redgrave and Jackson,Charles Jarrot felt compelled to film two scenes with both of them.Historically,they never met.And Bothwell was not a romantic knight but a hairy brute.The Lochleven episode and Mary's escape are passed over in silence and however what a suspenseful story it was!
On the other hand,Maurey (James Stuart)'s part is more prominent than in the previous film ,which is a good thing.The prologue in France in Chenonceaux "le Château des Dames " is welcome too:Mary's life in France was sweet ,probably the happiest time in her life although mother-in-law Catherine de Medicis did not like her.With hindsight,it's easy to see why she could not cope with the harshness of her native country where,in spite of her three crowns , she remained a papist.The two great thespians get excellent support from all the male cast:Thimoty Dalton gives a Shakespearian performance as Darnley,Ian Holm is equally good as Riccio.The cinematography is lavish and the story is never dull.I saw the movie when it was theatrically released and every time it's on the telly,I watch it again.Despite Queen Elizabeth's appearance ,the ending seems more historically accurate than in the 1936 version:before her death,the queen did not think of Boswell anymore,she wanted to become a martyr to catholicism.And so she died..
I love period films, I love late legendary John Barry's music and I like Glenda Jackson, Vanessa Redgrave and Patrick McGoohan a lot.
Mary, Queen of Scots was a truly wonderful film, true some of the history is suspect but I was past caring because everything else was done so brilliantly.
The acting is a marvel, Vanessa Redgrave is a very convincing and regal Mary, and Patrick McGoohan an excellent James, but Glenda Jackson who embodies Elizabeth is a revelation.
The same events had been previously filmed in Hollywood by John Ford as MARY OF Scotland (1936) with Katharine Hepburn (as Mary Stuart), Fredric March (as Bothwell) and his real-life actress wife Florence Eldridge (as Queen Elizabeth I); here these same roles are played by Vanessa Redgrave  who had already appeared (as Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn) in the magnificent A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966), Nigel Davenport (ditto) and Glenda Jackson (who was currently starring as the same English monarch on British TV) and, like its above-mentioned predecessor (albeit to a lesser extent), the film found favor at awards ceremonies of the day with both Redgrave and Jackson being up for Oscar (the former) and Golden Globes (both).
Still, where the film impresses most is in the performances of the ensemble cast: apart from those already pointed out, we also have Patrick McGoohan (who just died at 80 as Mary's devious half-brother James), Trevor Howard (as the English Queen's wily chief adviser), Timothy Dalton (as Mary's second and tyrannical husband), Daniel Massey (as Elizabeth's ambitious lover), Ian Holm (as Mary's link to the Vatican) and Andrew Keir (as a Scottish lord).
"Mary, Queen of Scots" falls neatly into this profuse dramatic line, telling the story of the rivalry between Mary (Vanessa Redgrave) and Elizabeth I (Glenda Jackson).
It is difficult to think of a movie or play dominated by two such powerful and splendid actresses, and there's no point to arguing who is better in this film because each dominates the scene when alone and the sparks when the two appear together are like fireworks in the sky.
The historicity of the script is questionable but the rivalry between Mary and Elizabeth was real and the successful plot to dethrone Mary by her bastard brother, James Stuart (Patrick McGoohan), is likewise accurate.
Although Elizabeth I has been portrayed many times in recent years by many great actresses, Glenda Jackson more than holds her own in the role.
This basic error is compounded by the appalling performance by Mr Patrick Mcgoohan as Mary's brother,James.His attempt at a Scottish accent is frankly embarrassing.Mr Nigel Davenport as Bothwell is equally bad but at least he has the good grace to tone it down a bit.
Unfortunately many people seem to see "Mary Queen of Scots" as a great historical movie.In truth it is about as accurate as "Carry on Henry" and nowhere near as funny..
Vanessa Redgrave is excellent as Mary, the Scottish queen who married the King of France only to be drummed out his country by his rotten family...unwelcome in England, she returns to Scotland intent on remaining on the throne.
Redgrave's performance is matched by the great cast: Patrick McGoohan, Timothy Dalton, and Ian Holm (who steals his scenes as the "little Italian").
Glenda Jackson plays Queen Elizabeth and she's dynamite.
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.
Mary Queen of Scots is directed by Charles Jarrott, has a screenplay by John Hale, has music by John Barry and stars Vanessa Redgrave, Glenda Jackson, Trevor Howard, Nigel Davenport, Timothy Dalton, Raymond Massey, Patrick McGoohan and Ian Holm.The young Queen consort of France Mary(Vanessa Redgrave),is taken from France to Scotland to become Queen there after her husband dies.Mary is aided by an Italian spy David Riccio(Ian Holm)and the Scottish Lord Bothwell(Nigel Davenport).
Bothwell is very blunt and is a man of action, he becomes totally loyal to the Queen and falls in love with her.Mary poses a threat to the English Queen, Elizabeth Tudor (Glenda Jackson).
Elizabeth's friend and adviser Lord Cecil (Trevor Howard)urges her to have Mary killed because she is too great a threat, Elizabeth won't do that and insists another way be found to stop her.The entire cast are excellent with Vanessa and Glenda giving the standout performances.
These things are made with gusto and they sound natural within the movie.So,it is this cinematographic intelligence that pleases.Mary, Queen of Scots (1972) was released in '71 and was filmed on location at Chenonceaux,and in Scotland,Northumberland, Sussex and at Shepperton studios.In the previous decade,the '60s,several British historical dramas were made with big success: Becket (1964), A Man for All Seasons (1966),The Lion in Winter (1968),Anne of the Thousand Days (1969),Cromwell (1970), etc...
I watched this after viewing Howard's End a few time, which is a movie I like despite a problematic, mechanical supporting performance from Redgrave.
Despite its title the film is not just the story of Mary Queen of Scots (Vanessa Redgrave) but is also the story of her cousin Queen Elizabeth (Glenda Jackson).The film features a couple of great performances from Redgrave and Jackson who are both Oscar winning actresses.
Further the secondary characters are perhaps to numerous as many disappear rather quickly without sufficient resolution.As iconic as Cate Blanchett has become of late in her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth, at one time Glenda Jackson virtually owned the role with both this film and an Emmy winning performance in Elizabeth R..
Basically in 1560, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Vanessa Redgrave), returns to her native land following the death of her husband.
Queen Elizabeth I of England (Golden Globe nominated Glenda Jackson) fears that Mary has ambitions to to the throne of England, so she sends ambitious Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Daniel Massey) to distract her, by wooing her.
Redgrave and Jackson are both terrific as the monarchs at loggerheads, it is fact that Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth did not meet in real life, but the scene created for them to do so does work well, and the performances of supporting cast members Dalton (young, with blonde hair?), Holm, Davenport and Howard are also well done, what I did understand worked well, it is written well, and the period detail is splendid, all together it is a worthwhile historical drama.