Une reine qui a perdu trois royaumes. Une femme qui a perdu trois maris. Une femme qui a perdu la tête.Une reine qui a perdu trois royaumes. Une femme qui a perdu trois maris. Une femme qui a perdu la tête.Une reine qui a perdu trois royaumes. Une femme qui a perdu trois maris. Une femme qui a perdu la tête.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 nominations au total
Pénélope Rose
- Mary Livingstone
- (as Pénélope Lévêque)
Avis à la une
'Mary Queen of Scots' is the story of a famous and unhappy queen, a story well-known in the British space where it is part of the respective national histories and in the German-speaking cultural space, especially due to Schiller's play which is taught in schools. The film by Swiss director Thomas Imbach, released on screens in 2013, is the first of three films dedicated to this historical figure made in the last decade. Another one was released in 2018 and the third is still in production. Imbach chose as a source the biography written in 1935 by Stefan Zweig, but starting from a historical book (Zweig is considered the master of narrated history) he made a very personal film, which focuses on the character of a woman who lives her life passionately and loves in the context of the political and religious conflicts in which she is involved. It is a bold cinematic bet, the result of which is destined from the start to please some and to please less others. I confess that I belong to the first category. I liked the film, but I can also understand the arguments of those who ended up watching disappointed.
Queen Mary lived 45 years, out of which the last 20 were spent in the more or less gilded captivity of her cousin Elizabeth I, ending wit the execution of the one who may have had more rights to claim the throne of England than the queen on the throne. The film traces the first 25 years of Mary's life, using flashbacks inspired by the letters she never sent to the queen she never had the opportunity to meet. In these 25 years of active life Mary had time to wear or claim the crowns of three kingdoms (Scotland, France and England), but also to be a widow three times. Above all, however, she had time to live a tumultuous life and to love, to get involved with passion in political intrigues but also to make enough mistakes that she would eventually tragically pay for.
Director and co-writer Thomas Imbach chose to focus his story on the personality and feelings of the woman who was one of the most tragic figures in the history of England. Camille Rutherford's acting performance seemed very inspiring to me. She is an actress that I do not remember from other movies, and this is actually an advantage, because her face is fresh and I am not influenced by other roles. Thomas Imbach's approach is in line with the trends in many British historical films of the last decade ('The Favourite', the series 'The Tudors') to use the historical background as a pretext for reinterpretations of history, with characters who behave and act more like our contemporaries than as characters of their time, and with a minimalism in production that tries to preserve authenticity but does not make of it a goal. In the case of this 'Mary Queen of Scots' the result is a strong personal drama and a feminist plea about the fragile balance between personal life and public duties. However, the events described in the film also had a strong impact on British history, on the power relations between Scotland and England, between Catholics and Protestants. The son of the unfortunate Queen Mary became James I, the first king of England and Scotland. Those who do not know history may be confused, and it is not from here that they will get the information that they are missing, but the tragic figure of Mary Queen of Scots, as it appears in this film, will be hard to forget.
Queen Mary lived 45 years, out of which the last 20 were spent in the more or less gilded captivity of her cousin Elizabeth I, ending wit the execution of the one who may have had more rights to claim the throne of England than the queen on the throne. The film traces the first 25 years of Mary's life, using flashbacks inspired by the letters she never sent to the queen she never had the opportunity to meet. In these 25 years of active life Mary had time to wear or claim the crowns of three kingdoms (Scotland, France and England), but also to be a widow three times. Above all, however, she had time to live a tumultuous life and to love, to get involved with passion in political intrigues but also to make enough mistakes that she would eventually tragically pay for.
Director and co-writer Thomas Imbach chose to focus his story on the personality and feelings of the woman who was one of the most tragic figures in the history of England. Camille Rutherford's acting performance seemed very inspiring to me. She is an actress that I do not remember from other movies, and this is actually an advantage, because her face is fresh and I am not influenced by other roles. Thomas Imbach's approach is in line with the trends in many British historical films of the last decade ('The Favourite', the series 'The Tudors') to use the historical background as a pretext for reinterpretations of history, with characters who behave and act more like our contemporaries than as characters of their time, and with a minimalism in production that tries to preserve authenticity but does not make of it a goal. In the case of this 'Mary Queen of Scots' the result is a strong personal drama and a feminist plea about the fragile balance between personal life and public duties. However, the events described in the film also had a strong impact on British history, on the power relations between Scotland and England, between Catholics and Protestants. The son of the unfortunate Queen Mary became James I, the first king of England and Scotland. Those who do not know history may be confused, and it is not from here that they will get the information that they are missing, but the tragic figure of Mary Queen of Scots, as it appears in this film, will be hard to forget.
An historically honest film, if a painfully dull one. It suffers from the nearly completely lackluster casting. The one bright spot is Sean Biggerstaff as Bothwell, a much better actor than his CV might suggest, which almost makes it worse. The film likely would have been better received had the entire cast suffered from the same quality of dullness, but Biggerstaff is so natural and unaffected that everyone around him appears even more contrived and wooden. He's a diamond against cheap black crepe, easily and unintentionally outshining everyone in any scene he's in, though Edward Hogg comes closest to giving him a run for his money.
His French is atrocious, though.
Worth seeing if you've two hours to kill, low expectations, and/or want to see a clear juxtaposition of masterful acting against mediocre acting.
His French is atrocious, though.
Worth seeing if you've two hours to kill, low expectations, and/or want to see a clear juxtaposition of masterful acting against mediocre acting.
Wonderful movie but suffers severely for the inclusion of 'Rock Music' in a film that takes place in the 16th Century. Really an incredible mistake and I'm just trying to fathom 'why'? It rates so well in all other categories so I just can't quite figure the reason. I saw the series 'The Tudors' and it was just astounding with such attention to every detail including the music. If anyone can 'clue' me into the reasoning then I would be grateful. Possibly the producers felt the rest of the production would be too weak without the inclusion of such inappropriate music but everything else is so obviously up to snuff and then some so I am still left with this question. However, please make this a must on your list of historical series to view just hold your noses when the music is played. Henry the VIII would probably lop the head off of the producer who made this decision.
I really really wanted to like this, but the version I watched had NO subtitles so the first 20 minutes were a complete wash for me not knowing at all what the hell was even being said because the dialogue was completely in French... no comprehensible dialogue, equals no plot, equals no grabbing the viewer, and that needs to happen in the first minutes to keep them. The next bit was hit and miss, so still couldn't get into it. I wanted to, I really really did. I'm a big fan of Aneurin Barnard (since his portrayal of Richard III in The White Queen) but by the time he appeared the whole thing was already lost for me. Sorry! I tried!
A correct adaptation of the novel by Stefan Zweig. Decent performances, beautiful costumes, the wise choice to not transform the story in a melodrama. And a sketch about power and illusions. It is easy to see it as a gray movie - familiar scenes, reasonable reflection of events, facts of a young woman front to huge challenges. But the film has a special virtue - Camille Rutheford . Who knows use her presence for sustain, in nice manner, the plot. And, sure, Mehdi Dehbi as a sort of spice. A film about a known character. Far to be a revelation, convincing or spectacular ,it could represent a decent work.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Mary Queen of Scots
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 10 237 $US
- Durée1 heure 59 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Mary, Queen of Scots (2013) officially released in India in English?
Répondre