User reviews

Brooks Atkinson was a first rate drama critic for the New York Times. He had blind spots. He over enthused on the career of Maxwell Anderson. Anderson wrote some good plays such as "Winterset", but Anderson was enthusiastic of Anderson's pompous attempts to do dramas in blank verse: "Mary Of Scotland", "Elizabeth The Queen", and "Anne Of The Thousand Days".

The problem with these plays is, even if they get the history right they are too stiff. Compare the conclusion of "Elizabeth The Queen" to "A Man For All Seasons". Yes, the loneliness of the elderly Elizabeth is shown as Essex goes to his doom - but in reality Elizabeth knew there were other young men to replace her dangerous, ambitious lover. In "All Seasons" the tragedy of a rotten system crushing the life of a decent, thoughtful man like Thomas More is far more powerful as it's stark tragedy is silently brought to us.

That said, the first of the three Tudor tragedies to be filmed was "Mary Of Scotland". It is above average because it is starring Katherine Hepburn (a distant relative of Mary's third husband the Earl of Bothwell) and Frederic March, and directed wholly or partially by John Ford. It suffers from being black and white, except for one moment of sheer unexpected terror: when Mary sees the Scots nobles who oppose her they are photographed in such light and darkness to look like ogres in a nightmare.

The film follows the reign of Mary from 1560 to her execution in 1587. Most Americans do not understand the great difficulties that Mary (and Elizabeth) both faced in their parallel reigns. While England and Scotland allowed for female monarchs, women were not considered good material for rulers. They were considered governed by their emotions more than by their brains. Those women who ruled well were usually married to capable partners (Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain). More frequently they were dismissed as misfits, like Isabella and Ferdinand's daughter Juana the Mad).

Mary had other problems. From 1400 to 1560 the nobles of Scotland got a great boon. Scotland had a series of minors who grew up to be king, married, and then died before they could cement their monarchic views on the government. The nobles cemented their local powers at the expense of a weak central authority.

Mary had been Queen of France, married to Francis II who ruled for a two year period (1559 - 1560). As Mary was the niece of the Duc De Guise, the king's power-hungry mother Catherine De Medici hated her. When Francis died suddenly, Catherine encouraged Mary to return to rule her own country. Surprised Mary did so, not realizing that she was unprepared to start ruling. She was a Catholic, and she really needed some time to understand the need to compromise and take advice from Protestants. She never did understand this.

Her foes hated her and were fully supported by Elizabeth, who never could see that an attempt to join forces with her cousin might pay back great dividends. But then Mary was ambitious - she wanted to be Queen of England as well as Scotland. Her Catholic supporters felt she was legitimate Queen of England (as Henry VIII had briefly disowned Elizabeth as a bastard when he executed her mother Anne). So the peaceful resolution of their differences was almost impossible.

Elizabeth had only to watch from the sidelines, with only an occasional move on her own part, to see Mary wreck her own position. She encouraged a marriage between another cousin/potential heir Lord Henry Darnley to Mary (Mary almost chose Elizabeth's lover Robert Dudley!). The marriage was a disaster, as Darnley was an ambitious fool and vicious scoundrel. But it cemented a Scottish succession to the British throne from two Tudor heirs instead of one.

Hepburn portrays Mary as a brave woman desperately seeking a way out of the difficult situation she has inherited, especially tied to Darnley by marriage and facing the ghouls who are John Knox (Moroni Olsen) and the Scottish nobles - led by her jealous half brother the Earl of Moray (Ian Keith). Her only allies are the independent Earl of Bothwell (March) and her secretary Rizzio (John Carridine). The murder of the latter (implicating Darnley) is the first step to her loss of the throne, and to the death of her husband. We know today that Kirk'a'Field house was blown up by Bothwell, but to this day we don't know if Mary was implicated. It remains one of the big mysteries of the 16th Century.

Historically Bothwell was no prince, but ambitious in his own right - he killed Darnley in order to marry Mary, and guide her to rule both Scotland and England. But March plays him as a man deeply in love with his Queen, and this enhances the story's tragedy - especially as Bothwell died in exile insane. The reason for this was his ship was captured by a Danish warship. Bothwell was guilty of a rape in Denmark, and was imprisoned. His punishment (which led to his madness) was to stand chained to a stone pillar that was half his height.

The last ten minutes glosses over the road that led Mary to the block in England - her support of a plot by one Anthony Babbington to kill Elizabeth and let Mary take the throne. Elizabeth's spy-master Sir Francis Walsingham sprung this trap - though Elizabeth did not reject the result. Elizabeth allowed a functionary to be blamed for falsely getting her to sign the death warrant - but all she did was briefly imprison the man. Unlike her movie representative (Florence Eldritch) she never met Mary.

A good film - but it is too gentle on Mary's failings, and not deep enough to explain what is going on in the background.

Mary of Scotland is not based on the exact historical record, but on Maxwell Anderson's play. However Anderson was trying to dramatize the difference between Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart. Elizabeth was first and foremost a queen who put her passions on hold when it was a choice between them and the country she governed. Mary Stuart was totally incapable of doing that.

Interesting that Katharine Hepburn played Mary. Hepburn who was probably the liberated woman of the 20th century would have been a natural to play Queen Elizabeth. Too bad in fact she didn't in her career. But she does fine her as Mary. Florence Eldridge plays a cold, calculating Elizabeth. Fredric March as Lord Bothwell is not the hero he's shone to be here.

One thing about Scotland in the 16th century. The kingdom had the unbelievable rotten luck of having a whole succession of minority rulers with regencies for a couple hundred years. The nobles who are depicted here are quite used to having their own way. And when Mary abdicated the throne it went to still another regency when her infant son James became king.

Ian Keith's part as Hepburn's illegitimate half brother the Earl of Moray is an interesting one. In history, I've always thought of him as the real hero. He gave Mary sound advice which had she taken, she would have died on the throne of Scotland.

Vanessa Redgrave's later film shows how the exiled Mary Stuart got tricked into a conspiracy to bring Elizabeth down. I wish that had been done here. She was essentially AbScammed.

Elizabeth and Mary never met in real life, but for dramatic purposes it had to happen here.

It's a good film, not one of the best for any of the principals in the cast or for John Ford. Still it's an interesting piece of cinema although some knowledge of Scottish history might help.

The directors cannot refrain from showing the two queens together in one scene.Charles Jarrot -whose movie is inferior to John Ford's- did the same in 1972.And however,they never met ,not a single time during Mary's captivity.But John Ford's scene is useful for people who know little about the Virgin Queen.It's sure that Mary's childhood in France was a nice one even though her reign was short as king François II's wife.On the other hand,Elizabeth lived in fear when she was a child for her bloody sister wanted to get rid of her.

The first past begins in Scotland ,and France is only evoked in Mary's memories.This first part is the most satisfying historically speaking:Darnley's and Ricci's murders are well directed by Ford,and the town criers who ,every ten minutes announce "It's eight'o clock!All is fine!" shows his sense of humor.Biggest flaw is the little part of James Stuart, aka"the bastard" aka Maurey:This man is really the stringman,who plays a prominent part in the queen's downfall,holding Mary like a puppet on a string,travelling to France when rebellion begins -he was not here when Mary was imprisoned in Lochleven-,just coming back to reap the benefits (regency he had lost when his sister came back).

Frederic March is a fine actor,but his Bothwell is not credible.Bothwell was a hairy brute ,not the romantic chivalrous fair knight we see here.Mary's abduction remains a mysterious part because the historians have no documents of what really happened.Mary's captivity in Lochleven-where she at last understood how James Stuart fooled her -and her extraordinary escape -worthy of Hitchcock's suspense-lasts barely 30 seconds on the screen.

Ditto for Mary's captivity in England.When she arrived,she was in what we would call "under house arrest" today.Only during her last year,when they discovered a plot,she was taken to the fortress of Fotheringay (a wonderful Fairport Convention song by the way),she was really a prisoner in the modern sense of the term.And she had a whole floor for herself though.

The trial is unsatisfying.At the time,Mary did not care for Bothwell anymore,she was longing to become a martyr of the Catholic cause.She did not know that the pope did not take her seriously .The scene with Donald is pure romantic fiction.

All in all ,and even if the things fall apart a bit in the second part,the movie is magnificently enhanced by Hepburn's presence and Ford -they said they had a love affair on the set- lovingly films her.I've been told that the scene between Bothwell and the queen on the tower was filmed by KH herself.

This is a good costume-designing , historic-drama and Katherine Hepburn is well cast in the title role . She plays a tragic , romantic heroine that contends with various treacheries . Mary (1516-1558) inherited the throne of Scotland from Jacob V . She was next in line to the English kingdom , and married Francisco II , king of France , but he died early . Having been in France for thirteen years , Mary returned Scotland , and arrives from France with some misgivings . Then , Mary disembarks in Leith and goes to a castle near Edimburg , along with David Rizzio (a cadaverous John Carradine) , court musician and confidant . There , she's received by his brother , the Earl James Stuart , (Ian Keith) . Later on , Queen Mary married a foppish named Lord Darnley (Walton) . But Mary falls in love with Bothwell (a stylish Fredric March) , a kilted Earl and her supporter in her battle for power . Then , Rizzio was reputed to be the father of Mary's , the future James I of England . Darnley , with some underlings , murdered Rizzio in Mary's presence . But Darnley is killed by an explosion in his refuge , outskirts Edimburg , and the God-fearing Calvinists led by John Knox (Moroni Olsen who played same role in stage) accused to Bothwell as regicide . John Knox and the rebels Lords besiege Holyrood and the Borthwell's stronghold , Dumbar castle . The Calvinists forced her abdication , Mary escapes and asks for protection to Queen Elizabeth I (Florence Eldridge) , but Mary is double-crossed and is taken imprisoned in the Tower of London . Although supposedly Mary and Elizabeth never met face to face , the movie have them doing so and the screen crackle when both have their reunion , because they are strong rivals for power in Tudor dynasty , England . After that , Mary confronts her English accusers at court in a stylized trial . Finally , the film reflects splendidly when Mary goes to beheading block with all due pomp and circumstance .

The motion picture is finely performed by Katharine Hepburn, in spite of this she was in her ¨box-office poison¨ days , the last scenes , where Mary confronts trial is so well played and photographed in a stylized manner -with Mary on the floor and judges in a sort of balcony- by cameraman Joseph August . However , the picture is interminable and overlong and some moments is frankly boring . Writing credits with excessive speeches by Maxwell Anderson (his own playwright) and Dudley Nichols , a Ford's habitual screenwriter . The picture is lavishly produced by Pandro S. Berman , an usual costumer's producer and professionally directed by John Ford . Followed by a remake with the same title (1971) with Vanessa Redgrave as Mary and Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth and directed by Charles Jarrott .

The complicated historical background involved in MARY OF Scotland is such that unless you know something about British monarchs you'll have a hard time knowing where the truth lies in this epic historical romance. But it's clear that KATHARINE HEPBURN gives a radiant performance as Mary, Queen of Scots--the only drawback being that she never ages a bit over a twenty-five year span. When she goes to her execution, she looks just as young as she did in the opening scene.

It's a pleasure to report that FREDRIC MARCH breathes a lot of life into his portrayal of Bothwell. Too bad he didn't exhibit this kind of gusto when he played the title role in ANTHONY ADVERSE the same year. He's all bravado and robust athletic grace and looks good in his period costumes. Maybe we owe his strong performance to John Ford, but whatever it is, he's much better here than he was as Anthony Adverse.

JOHN CARRADINE seemed an unusual choice to play Rizzo, the Italian secretary who happens to be a troubadour of sorts, but it's nice to see him in a more sympathetic role for a change. DONALD CRISP, ALAN MOBRAY, DOUGLAS WALTON and FRIEDA INESCOURT are interesting in supporting roles.

Walton is another actor who shines here, rather than remaining colorless in the background of many a film. He gives a flamboyant performance as Lord Darnley and it's probably among the best roles he ever had.

FLORENCE ELDRIDGE makes an interesting Queen Elizabeth, less showy in the role than Bette Davis or Flora Robson but still with the right amount of regal spirit.

John Ford directs the first half of the film with his usual authority but things get a little too repetitious and slow-moving in the second half when tedium really settles in before Mary's final walk to the execution block.

Summing up: A mixed bag, some strong performances, a few strong scenes but overall result is disappointing. Here's an historical romance that cried out for Technicolor. It manages to look drab in B&W despite the lavish costumes and good photography.

I'm not going to rate how this film follows history, or rather, how it does not, though I will mention it. Instead I rate it on its production values, the acting, and just the overall quality of the production - did it hold my interest? - It did.

The life of Mary Queen of Scots (Katharine Hepburn) is traced from her arrival in Scotland after 13 years in France and the death of her husband, the boy king of France, until her abdication and imprisonment in England by Elizabeth I. Thus the film goes with the popular contrast between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth (Florence Eldridge) - That Elizabeth was powerful, but unmarried and barren; Mary was beset by all kinds of problems in her rule, portrayed as someone who made bad choices for love.

Then the script really turns history on its head and has the Earl of Bothwell (Fredric March) being the true love of Mary's life but has her marrying Lord Darnley, here portrayed as a rather effette nobleman who nobody respects. Mary finds him repulsive in this version of history, but marries him anyway, because of him being close in the line of succession to both her and Elizabeth's thrones. Complications ensue, but most of them are not in the history books. And Elizabeth and Mary never met, but in this film they do, because the English lords tricking Elizabeth into signing Mary's death warrant is just not as dramatically effective as what happens here.

The production values were excellent as well as the performances, even with some over the top moments such as making Elizabeth behave like some venomous high school girl who is jealous of Mary rather than a monarch trying to defend her throne against this rather reckless woman. Also note that this doesn't "feel" like a John Ford film, so be prepared for something totally different from the director.

There was something of a fad for Tudor-period dramas in the late 1930s, although Mary of Scotland is something of an overlooked picture in the careers of Katherine Hepburn and John Ford. The star and director went on to have an on-off love affair, although this was the only occasion on which they worked together.

Mary of Scotland has the look that is typical of Ford's RKO features. It's often forgotten that Ford was a director who liked to work with space, shape and light, usually manifested in a sharp contrast between the indoor and outdoor worlds. Here the contrast is between the palace of Elizabeth – light, open and filled of straight lines and symmetry – and the castle of Mary – small, shadowy and made of rough curves. At first glance this seems to imply that the Scottish setting is grimmer and more confined, but for Ford these cosy spaces with layers of shadows were also about honesty and simplicity – see for example the compositions he makes in The Informer or The Fugitive. Those two pictures were also made at RKO, and their expressive look is testament to the fact that although the studio might not have had much money it did have a strong and open-minded production design team, something Ford took advantage of when he could.

By this point, few Ford films would be complete without the sing-song scene, and there is an especially fine example in Mary of Scotland. Ford never made an out-and-out musical in his career, but the way he uses singing as an emotional backdrop is remarkable. Here, the song sung by the peasants as they march into the castle begins as a simple yet effective expository device – demonstrating where the people's loyalties lie – but then the scene moves onto another level. Ford isolates one singer, then cuts to a rare close-up of Hepburn. The beauty of the music provides a backdrop to her emoting. It is in such moments that Ford's direction is at its strongest.

This was perhaps an important breakthrough role for Hepburn, whose parts until now had mostly been as teenagers or young women. This is her first real adult role and she handles it well, albeit with one or two touches of uncertainty when she is required to act "queenly". She does however manage the task of humanising the queen, more so than the screenplay would seem to allow. Unfortunately her leading man, the normally excellent Fredric March, is rather bland here. It's a real treat though to see John Carradine in a role where he really gets to show his more sensitive side. Because of his looks, not to mention his creepy voice, the character actor generally landed villainous roles, but he was actually at his best playing good guys.

One oft-repeated story regarding this production – although it varies a little depending on who's telling it, so pinches of salt at the ready – is that Hepburn and Ford disagreed over the necessity of Mary and Bothwell's final scene together on the tower top. Ford thought it a pointless bit of soppiness, Hepburn said it was the most important scene in the script. Eventually a flippant Ford challenged Hepburn to direct it herself, which she did. The scene stands out because Hepburn actually shoots it with some romantic tenderness – something Ford hardly ever did – with lengthy close-ups and rhyming angles. You can see why Ford didn't like it; he tended to downplay the love themes in his pictures, and on top of that the scene is rather heavy on dialogue. Hepburn was right though – without this scene the romance between Mary and Bothwell would be little more than a subplot, and without the romance the film wouldn't work. Audiences would find it hard to empathise with a queen clinging onto her throne, but easy to sympathise with a woman separated from the man she loves.

Mary of Scotland was not really Ford's cup of tea, and it was his rather cavalier approach to interpreting a screenplay that spoiled a fair few of his pictures (even though it won him the admiration of the auteurists). This picture is only saved by his use of music, the proficiency of the RKO crew and of course the good judgement of Katherine Hepburn. Nevertheless, I can't help but love Ford's laid-back realism. In one scene, we see a dog barking crazily at men entering a room; in another a moth flutters about John Knox's head. How many other directors of that era would have kept those takes?

"Mary of Scotland" is a historical bio-pic of the ill-fated Mary Stuart, commonly referred to as 'Mary Queen of Scots', who reigned over Scotland from 1542 to 1567 before her arrest and eventual execution for treason against Elizabeth I, Queen of England. The movie shows Mary and her 3rd husband, the Earl of Bothwell (Frederic March) in a sympathetic light, portraying them as star-crossed lovers caught up in the times. The movie implies that Mary was set up and betrayed by a paranoid Elizabeth and condemned based on trumped up charges supported by false evidence. The story is much more complex and the central characters likely not as innocent and noble as the movie suggests (Bothwell is suspected in being complicit in the murder of Mary's 2nd husband and Mary's role in the Babington Plot suggests that she was involved in a plan to assassinate Elizabeth). As far as historical films go, the movie is not particularly extravagant – most of the castles shown are obviously just paintings and much of the action is limited to courtyards and rooms. The director, John Ford is clearly more comfortable shooting westerns in the open expanses of Monument Valley than making historical romances in the confines of a set – many of the shots look very 'stagy' and there is an excess of 'shadow shots', sometimes effective but usually just distracting. Hepburn does not make a very convincing Mary and the dramatic shots of her chin quivering with bottled up emotion get old pretty fast. IMO, "Mary of Scotland" is neither nuanced enough to be 'educational' nor exciting enough to be 'entertaining'.

If you love Katharine Hepburn and can't imagine how she got her nickname "box office poison", you obviously have never seen Mary of Scotland. Do yourself a favor and keep it that way.

In this biopic of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, she's surrounded by those opposing her rise to the throne, including Florence Eldridge as Queen Elizabeth, Ian Keith as her power-hungry half-brother, and Douglas Walton as her effeminate suitor. Not completely alone, Kate has a few allies: Donald Crisp as a loyal Scottish citizen, John Carradine as her secretary, and Fredric March as the love of her life. I'm not well-versed on any of the details, so I don't know how historically accurate Dudley Nichols's script was, but as an audience member, this movie was atrocious. Fredric March was supposed to play someone so incredibly Scottish, he's never seen in anything besides a kilt, but since he's the same actor who notoriously mispronounced his nemesis's name in Les Miserables, could he really have been expected to speak in a Scottish accent? I wasn't the only one who found Fred's lack of accent comedic; Nathaniel Shilkret's music made it clear he thought he was scoring a funny film rather than a dramatic period piece.

Kate's portrayal of Mary—and Nichols's screenplay—makes her seem like perhaps the most incompetent queen in cinematic history. Donald Crisp dares to stand up to her in one scene, criticizing her for letting herself become a woman instead of a queen, and I completely agree with him. Time and time again she's given the ultimatum of keeping either her throne or her true love, and she's unable to decide. She claims to not care about the crown, but she won't sacrifice it to run away with Freddy? She's weak, unlikable, and annoying. Trust me, you don't need to watch this movie.

MARY OF SCOTLAND, caught up in intrigues over which she has no control, finds herself at the mercy of powerful forces that wish her ill.

John Ford crafted this meticulous, thoughtful study into the life of the Scottish Queen and the trials & tribulations which buffeted her. With a complicated plot and a very large cast, the film presupposes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of its viewers, as well as an interest in the history of Great Britain. The film is not easy to watch - this is, after all, an historical drama, not a musical comedy - but the viewer's attention should be paid off in the end. Very fine production values also help greatly in the movie's appreciation.

Katharine Hepburn is luminous & regal in the title role. Continuing in the tradition of formidable actresses of the 1930's who played queens on the screen (Colbert, Garbo, Dietrich, Shearer, Robson, Davis) Hepburn gives a strong portrayal of the stubborn, independently minded Scottish monarch. Kate makes the viewer at once feel an engaging interest in this poor lady, so beset by ‘the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune.' Wisely not speaking in a brogue - the real Mary probably didn't either - Hepburn uses her remarkable face & voice to make this long-dead historical figure come alive.

As the Earl of Bothwell, Mary's 3rd husband, Fredric March provides a sturdy hero worth cheering. Here is a man willing to confront any danger for the sake of the woman he loves. If the real Bothwell was perhaps not quite so noble, no matter. March breathes vibrant, pulsing life into the character and embodies him with real strengths & virtues.

A large & exceptional cast give fine support to the principals. Some deserve special mention:

John Carradine as Mary's tragic Italian secretary, Rizzio; Douglas Walton as Lord Darnley, Mary's repugnant 2nd husband; Ian Keith as her unscrupulous half-brother, the Lord Moray. Florence Eldridge stands out in her portrayal of the conflicted Queen Elizabeth.

Moroni Olsen as a fiery John Knox; Donald Crisp as a loyal old laird; Ralph Forbes & Alan Mowbray as Elizabeth's ambassadors; and dear old Mary Gordon as a baby nurse - all have their brief moments to shine.

Lionel Belmore & Doris Lloyd (with an unbilled Bobs Watson as their son) play poor fisher folk who give Mary much needed succor. Ivan Simpson & Nigel de Brulier play two of the wicked English judges who condemn Mary to death.

But it is Hepburn the viewer remembers longest. Her shining eyes & majestic mien remain in the mind for a very long time

***********************

The circumstances surrounding the murder of David Rizzio are so well documented that it is somewhat surprising that Ford did not stick more scrupulously to the facts. Darnley and his fellow conspirators entered the Queen's apartments via a private, narrow staircase, hidden in the wall, which communicated directly with Mary's rooms. There is no indication that her bodyguard troops were slain as well, as the film depicts.

The script is at pains to keep the Earl of Bothwell a noble hero and uninvolved in Darnley's murder. However, there's little doubt of Bothwell's guilt in the affair. Darnley was not killed outright by the massive explosion - rather he was found, terribly hurt but still alive, lying in a nearby field. He was quickly strangled.

The movie does not make clear that it was in Denmark where Bothwell died in prison in 1578. Mary had divorced him in 1570.

Unlike the relatively short time depicted in the film, Mary was actually a captive of Elizabeth for 19 years, outliving Bothwell by nine years. Elizabeth & Mary never met - it makes good film drama, but it didn't happen.

It's 1561. Mary Stuart (Katharine Hepburn) returns to Scotland to reclaim her throne after the death of her husband King of France. It's a costume drama directed by legendary director John Ford and based on a play. This Mary Stuart is very different from other versions of the historical character. In the first scene, Hepburn is playing her almost as an eager novice. She's giddy. Also she's not putting in any accents. This Mary Stuart wants people to worship as they please. She is very much the hero of this movie and the tragic victim of history. It all feels a little wrong and manufactured. The filmmaking is top level. The production is tops as well. It may be worthwhile to simply complete the John Ford catalogue. I just can't get over this portrayal of Mary Stuart. It's not really Mary Stuart. It's Katharine Hepburn doing Katharine Hepburn.

The life story of Mary, Queen of Scots is a thoroughly engaging one. I recommend anyone who wants to know more about the history while being entertained at the same time to check out the two Jean Plaidy books, ROYAL ROAD TO FOTHERINGAY and its sequel, THE CAPTIVE QUEEN OF SCOTS - two great little novels that tell you all there is to know.

MARY OF Scotland is an all-too Hollywoodised version of the story that suffers from an exceptionally overlong running time, unfortunately. It's strange, because some parts of the production are exceptionally slow and boring, while 19 years of history is condensed into about five minutes. There are a few eventful bits but for the most part this is a drag.

The director is none other than John Ford, but despite the presence of such a cinematic luminary, he seems uninterested in the material which is lifeless as a result. Katharine Hepburn is also a disappointment as Mary herself, singularly failing to make the queen sympathetic in any way. Fredric March does what he can as Bothwell, and there are nice little roles for John Carradine and Moroni Olsen, but it's not enough.

I particularly disliked the way that some good little bits of history are omitted or simplified for no apparent reason. For instance, Douglas Walton's final scene didn't happen that way at all and much more drama could have been made of it. Instead all the focus is on the talk and its incessant and goes nowhere. The definitive story of Mary, Queen of Scots this certainly isn't.

Mary of Scotland (1935)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Historical drama from RKO about the rivalry between Mary of Scots (Katharine Hepburn) and her cousin Elizabeth I (Florence Eldridge). The film follows Mary's fight for justice from 1560 to 1587 and includes her third marriage to Bothwell (Fredric March). This film was a notorious flop when it was originally released and it had a large part in Hepburn being called box office poison. Seeing the film today it's rather amazing to see how good the film actually looks considering RKO was usually just popping out very low-budget films. There were certainly a few exceptions and this here is one of them and I'm sure many will be shocked to see how much actually went into this film. The amazing sets and costumes are one of the biggest selling points to the movie. Ford knows how to make things appear epic and he does that here with these amazing sets that make you feel as if you're at the actual locations. Many times these sets are obviously on some lot but you never get that feeling here. The costumes are another major plus as they help bring a realistic nature to the film. I'm not sure what the actual budget was on the film but it really does look just as expensive as many of de Mille's epics. Another reason the film is worth viewing is the performance by Hepburn. As a devoted atheist she really does a nice job in the role of a Catholic and her religious scenes are quite moving as she's certainly giving it her all. She's very believable in the part as you can tell she's strong enough to lead all the battles that Mary had to. That strong nature of the actress clearly shows up on the screen. March is also very good in his role, although the film could have used much more of him. I was a little Luke warm on Eldridge but after a while she started to grow on me. The supporting cast includes Douglas Walton, Frieda Inescourt, Donald Crisp and John Carradine. Carradine plays the servant Rizzo and does a pretty good job with it. We also get to hear him sing a couple songs, which I'm not sure how many times he had the chance of doing that in his long career. The biggest problem with the movie is that the story is at times hard to follow as it appears like the screenplay wasn't totally sure where they wanted to take all of the events. I think at times the story just seemed to float all over the place.

Dramas based upon British history have always been popular in the cinema, in America as well as in Britain, and for some reason the Tudor period has enjoyed particular popularity. This was as true in the thirties as it is today; other sixteenth-century dramas from the decade include "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" (like this film based on a play by Maxwell Anderson) and the British-made "Tudor Rose" about Lady Jane Gray.

Mary Queen of Scots has long been a controversial historical figure. Indeed, she was a controversial figure even in her lifetime, being forced to flee Scotland with accusations of being a "harlot" and "murderer" ringing in her ears. These accusations referred to the belief that she was guilty of adultery with her Italian secretary David Rizzio and of conniving at the murder of her estranged husband Lord Darnley, although most modern historians take the view that there is no evidence to substantiate either charge. She was a ruler in a very difficult position. She was a Catholic at a time when the majority of the Scottish people were moving towards Protestantism. And she was female at a time when many believed that women, even those of royal blood, should not exercise any form of political power. (Mary's arch-enemy John Knox published a pamphlet with the splendidly bilious title "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women").

Two years after her arrival in England Mary was placed in an impossible position when in 1570 Pope Pius V issued the bull "Regnans in Excelsis", excommunicating Elizabeth I, declaring her a usurper and ordering her Catholic subjects to overthrow her. As Mary was the Catholics' preferred candidate for the throne, the Pope's edict effectively acted as her death sentence; the only surprise is that it took another seventeen years before Elizabeth finally agreed to her execution.

"Mary of Scotland" takes a straightforward line. Mary is unequivocally the heroine of the film, which begins with her return to Scotland from France after the death of her first husband, King Francis II. She attempts to be a just and enlightened ruler, allowing freedom of conscience to both Catholics and Protestants, but is frustrated by the treachery of her illegitimate half-brother the Earl of Moray, who has ambitions to rule Scotland himself, by the baseness and weakness of Darnley, by the fanaticism and bigotry of Knox and by the double-dealing of the Scots nobility. After the murder of the faithful Rizzio, Mary's only loyal supporter is the Earl of Bothwell, the man who became her third husband and who is portrayed here as the one great love of her life. Elizabeth is portrayed as a cold, emotionless woman, hostile to Mary and eager to stab her in the back.

Besides its obvious partiality, the film is also in many ways historically inaccurate. All the Scots nobles, even Lowlanders, wear kilts and tartan, something at this period exclusively associated with the Highlands. Bothwell was something of a bully and a ruffian, not the gallant knight here portrayed by Fredric March. The script conveniently omits his marriage to Lady Jean Gordon, whom he divorced in order to marry Mary; perhaps director John Ford, himself a Catholic, did not want to admit that his Catholic heroine was married to a divorcee. Contrary to what is shown here, Darnley survived the explosion which destroyed the house in which he was staying, only to be murdered when he ran into the street outside. Modern historians generally agree that Mary was implicated in the Babington Plot, which aimed to place her on the English throne after the murder of Elizabeth. And, of course, Mary and Elizabeth never met one another in real life, although playwrights and film-makers, going back to Friedrich Schiller's "Maria Stuart", have never been able to resist inventing a meeting between them.

I also wondered if Darnley really was as screamingly camp as the figure played here by Douglas Walton. Although the film does not actually describe Darnley as gay- the Production Code forbade any direct references to homosexuality- Walton's interpretation of the role leaves us in do doubt as to what is being implied.

Katharine Hepburn is a revered figure today, the only actress to win four Oscars, so it comes as a surprise to learn that most of her films from the mid and late thirties were unsuccessful, so much so that she was labelled "box office poison". "Mary of Scotland" was one of several films which contributed to this label, along with the likes of "Sylvia Scarlett", "Quality Street" and even a film as highly regarded today as "Bringing Up Baby". Yet in my view "Mary of Scotland" is not a bad film- not as good as "Bringing Up Baby", but considerably better than the other two I mention. Both Hepburn and March are good in the way in which they play their roles, and it is not their fault if the way in which those roles are written has little to do with the historical Mary and Bothwell. If you take the film as a historical romance, it is a reasonably good one. Just don't take it as a historical textbook about sixteenth century Scotland. 6/10.

Mary of Scotland's main selling point is it's fabulous black and white photography. John Ford really let Joseph August be as creative as possible. Some of the acting is a little bit artificial and dated. The film is based on a play but it's not bound too much to it's stage origins, however it is quite talk orientated. The story it's self is very much in the Hollywood mold. It's not a history lesson. If it weren't for the photography I'd give this a lower score.

Mary returns to Scotland to claim her throne, much to the concern of Elizabeth I. A ponderous prestige production from RKO in which conversations take the form of a sequence of speeches. Katharine Hepburn's initially softer face grows tougher as the movie progresses, perhaps as a result of biting back the laughter each time her co-star Fredric March attempts a Scottish accent. John Carradine sings as he plays the lute, and Freddie - whose exits and entrances always seem to be accompanied by a dragoon of bagpipe players - warms his sporran in front of the fire. It's handsomely mounted, and Hepburn delivers a passionate performance, but it's deathly dull.

Seems John Ford was really more of an outdoorsman, this movie is ghastly. It looks like a von Sternberg movie for Marlene Dietrich with its claustrophobic sets but without von Sternberg's ability to compose beautiful shots or create a layered mis-en-scene. Even worse the sounds is ghastly, every speech echoes off the walls, the worst sound in a movie that I can recall except maybe "Rebecca" which also suffers from terrible sound. This may be a mercy as most of the actors come in and out of a Scottish brogue that would offend even Groundskeeper Willy.

Poor Katherine Hepburn seems to have no idea what she is doing, or who she is playing. Ford must have been more comfortable directing men or perhaps he didn't give a damn. At least she doesn't try a Scotch accent, which is historically correct as Mary was raised in France, and if I recall correctly did not speak English when she arrived in Scotland, the country she left at age 5.

Even funnier is the portrayal of Elizabeth I who remarks seriously "Ya know what it's like to be born illegitamate? Ta have royal blood in ya veins?" of course Elizabeth I was not illegitimate except in the eyes of Catholics. Supposedly Ginger Rogers wanted to play Elizabeth and it's hard to imagine she would have been any worse. If RKO denied her the part it must have been for non-artistic reasons. Ah well, there is a reason Hepburn (and Dietrich) were labeled box-office poison around that time. Both came back though Hepburn with "The Philadelphia Story" and Dietrich with "Destry Rides Again."

I write this at the time they are celebrating Katherine Hepburn's 100th Birthday with an onslaught of many of her very early films on a popular channel that deals with Classic Movies. As I have never seen these, I have to say that I am actually very impressed, entertained, even irritated by her.

There was something about Katherine Hepburn. She had Sharp Edges, or did she? Like Brando, she does not act, she behaves. But in her case unlike Brando who just seemed to be "born with it," it has been shown that Hepburn developed her talent by sheer force of will: Which she imposes on you, like it or not, in the entire body of her work.

Of all of those early films from the 30's- Maybe I did not enjoy this as much as some of the others from that time, but I was forced to stand up and give notice. This was certainly an appropriate role for her, and magnificently portrayed. As she would drawl... "How Marvelous!" Now to get down to the specifics of this film starting with the ironies: Frederick March portrays The 4th Earl of Bothwell, James Hepburn. I wonder if this was an ancestor? However, there were no living offspring between Bothwell and Mary Stuart.

I have not researched all of the events this film was based upon, some historical accounts obviously paint Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart in various lights. Florence Eldridge is an excellent Elizabeth - Almost as good as Bette Davis' version but not so much over the top as Davis. March's portrayal of the person named Bothwell in the film... The impression is given that he would have used the flat of his blade to spank Douglas Walton/Lord Darnley, who plays the role of Henry Stuart/Lord Darnley in a very effeminate manner. John Carradine is superb... Even his coarse singing, and the manner of his demise in the film is fairly similar to what historically occurred. I also have to point out that David Carradine did not inherit John's singing voice (Refer to the film, "Bound for Glory" http://imdb.com/title/tt0074235/). There is greatness, is that small part of David Rizzio: A future Black Hat in development, and one of the best, as seen in John Ford's "Stagecoach" Which brings us to Alan Mowbray, as a very slimy Throckmorton, Ambassador to Scotland/Puppet and stooge to Elizabeth. Excellent: The Perennial bad guy. Moroni Olsen as a very Rasputin-ish John Knox, very Lionel Barrymore-ish, emitting a malevolent evil, and I will not go into how much like Television Evangelists of s certain stripe he is like: Not all of them, but some of them. And just about every character actor in Hollywood had a role in this film, which in typical Ford style, is Epic.

And of course finally we have to acknowledge Donald Crisp as Lord Huntley, a very brief role, and not quite accurately portrayed: Mary actually joined with the Earl of Moray to destroy the man in real life. The way it sets on film, does not explain Mary's lack of support in the last part of her life: But it seems she upset the Catholic Church quite a bit. I want to say this this part was slightly miscast... I do not see one of the future owners of Lassie as a Scottish "Laird" However complicated the story of Mary Stuart is, this film tries to deal with some of the convolutions of that life. Bothwell actually did rot away in Denmark, and Darnley, if not shown directly to have an illness in the film, does indeed deteriorate- And also is shown "Playing King" a couple of times and the real Darnley was known to do.

It has been said that John Ford did not consider that this was the kind of movie he was used to making, and maybe handed over the directing of some of the scenes to Hepburn: In fact in one documentary Hepburn admits that Ford walked out of the studio and let her direct the scene with March in the Tower.

All of these items being case or not, this is still a great film, and an important film, with great acting. It has to be considered that the 1930's were the Hollywood in it's infancy- Or at least adolescence. Many kinds of stories were made into film, some done justice and some not.

Even if this particular story of Mary, Queen of Scots is not being told correctly, and of course in this film there was the Hollywood-isation of the story: I would say that the real life and Reign of Mary Stuart is one of the most interesting historical topics and itself reads like a James Michener book, and as a platform for Katherine Hepburn to display her multiple talents, suits her well indeed.

I'm not sure how much whisky the studio bosses must have had before alighting on the choice of Katherine Hepburn and Fredric March for this telling of the story of Mary, Queen of Scots - but it was either too much, or not enough! Beginning after her return to her kingdom following the death of her French husband, Francis II, it tells the tale of her battles with her nobles; her hapless drunken husband Darnley (Douglas Walton); her lover Bothwell (March) and of the plentiful court intrigues that mired her reign. There is no disguising the strong accent of the former, nor the drawl of the latter. And there is virtually no chemistry between them - particularly as the story evolves and the precarious nature of Mary's grip on power becomes evident. John Ford creates an image that uses the sets and interiors to convey the rather basic existence of both the Scottish court and of the country in general, but that's about all I can say in it's defence. The opportunities to capitalise on some of the most famous and notorious events in history is really wasted - and we even get a maudlin song for good measure from a disappointing John Carradine as the ill-fated "Rizzio". Plenty of rousing bagpipe music, though...!

"Mary of Scotland" (RKO Radio, 1936), directed by John Ford, stars the queen of RKO, or at least one of the movie queens for that studio, Katharine Hepburn, in the role of Mary Stuart, "Queen of Scotland," or better known in latter-day terms as "Mary, Queen of Scots." With screenplay by Dudley Nichols, and taken from the 1933 stage play by Maxwell Anderson, as produced by The Theater Guild (starring Helen Hayes), the movie itself reportedly strayed from the play in favor for acting technique/style of Katharine Hepburn. For being a lavishly produced production with a cast of thousands, and under the direction of the recently Academy Award winning director John Ford (for "The Informer"), "Mary of Scotland" should have been an astounding success, but it wasn't. While earlier screen efforts of movie royalty as "The Private Life of Henry VIII" (United Artists, 1933), "Queen Christina" (MGM, 1933) and the outlandish life story of Catherine the Great in "The Scarlet Empress" (Paramount, 1934) being worthy considerations, the failure of "Mary of Scotland" might have been due to Hepburn's recent flop of "Sylvia Scarlett" (1935) or the fact the movie itself was simply, to many, a 123 minute bore.

FORWARD: "Like the fateful stars, Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor appeared in the Sixteenth Century, to reign even two great nations in the making … thus were doomed to a life-and-death struggle for supremacy, a lurid struggle that still shines across the pages of history … but today, after more than three centuries, they sleep side by side at peace, in Westminster Abbey." The story, set in 1561, opens in England where the temperamental Queen Elizabeth Tudor (Florence Eldridge), daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, learns that her cousin, Mary Stuart (Katharine Hepburn), is returning to her native land of Scotland after 13 years in France where she is to re- establish herself as monarch. Elizabeth plots with Throckmorton (Alan Mowbray), the Scottish ambassador, to use her half brother, James Stuart Moray (Ian Keith) go against her. After a rousing reception for her return to Leith, Scotland, accompanied by David Rizzio (John Carradine), her personal secretary and only true friend, Mary is denounced as "wicked" by the bearded radical, John Knox (Moroni Olson). Although loved by The Earl of Bothwell (Fredric March), Mary decides to marry Lord Darnley (Douglas Walton), a young drunk who lacks courage. Giving birth to a baby boy, and following Darnley's murder, Mary marries Bothwell, but their marriage is cut short as Holyrod Castle is soon attacked by troops hired by Queen Elizabeth to prevent Mary's claim to the English throne.

Under the direction of another director as Rouben Mamoulien, for example, "Mary of Scotland" might have turned out rather differently, possibly better. John Ford, best known for his work in westerns or war dramas, seemed to be in foreign territory here. His visual style, ranging from shadowy images on walls and low-key lighting used for his previous success of "The Informer" (1935), repeats his visual style for "Mary of Scotland," but not so much with the same results. The acting, however, is superb, especially by John Carradine for his stand-out performance as Rizzio. Robert Barrat, Donald Crisp, Frieda Inescort and little Bobs Watson can be seen in smaller roles. While one might have wished for British born actress, Flora Robson, to have played Elizabeth Tudor, Florence Eldridge (Mrs. Fredric March) is given the honor as the spiteful queen. Although Fredric March, whose role is somewhat secondary, might seem miscast at first glance. Once he gets into character, one tends to forget that sort of initial reaction. Memorable highlights include the confrontation between Elizabeth and Mary; Mary's trial and her climatic closing segment. Also notable is the singing of "We Will Fight for the Queen" heard during the story and closing credits.

Not historically accurate by any means, "Mary of Scotland" is what it is. The story of Mary Stuart would be retold later as the British- made "Mary, Queen of Scots" (Universal, 1971) starring Vanessa Redgrave. Redgrave had one distinction over Hepburn, that being nominated as Best Actress for her performance. However, this original edition, formerly distributed to video cassette and later onto DVD, has enjoyed frequent broadcasts on cable television, notably American Movie Classics (prior to 2001) and Turner Classic Movies. (***1/2 crowns)

Being Scottish myself and somewhat familiar with the historical personnel and events depicted here, I was curious as to how the great John Ford would depict the life of a famous personage in my country's history. Well, the answers are inaccurately and boringly I'd have to say.

Firstly, for every other actor's inaccurate attempt at the accent there's another who doesn't even try at all, Katherine Hepburn's title character least of all. Reversing the trend of Britain colonising America, here in Hollywood's version of the 17th Century we have Kate setting foot proclaiming and declaiming in her barely watered down native Philadelphia accent.

That said, she does put a lot into her role with much handwringing and top-lip trembling as Mary's woes increase throughout the film until her execution at the end. However her end is a long time coming and while Ford tries to cover all the main incidents of her life in Scotland, including her ill-fated alliances with the drunken sot Lord Darnley, her noble champion and her doomed servant David Rizzio, her pawn like usage by her council if Scottish lairds and of course the enmity borne her by Queen Elizabeth, but it's all very done haphazardly and disjointed,y giving no real flow to proceedings.

In support Fredric March at least attempts a Scottish accent although it gets stuck half way across the Atlantic although hs wife as Elizabeth does better in her role. Ford famously lost interest in the movie during filming even allowing Hepburn to (very obviously) direct a lengthy love scene with March, but the artist in him still wins through occasionally with some impressive set constructions, high perspective shooting views and atmospheric chiaroscuro lighting effects, plus the final scene of Mary ascending to the guillotine is genuinely powerful.

All together though there are too many characters and not enough action for the film to flow so that it seems longer than its already lengthy running-time. To the best of my knowledge Ford never attempted historical biography again in his long career which shows if nothing else his self-awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses.

Rumours that he later referred to this outing as "The Scottish film" are however unfounded.

Katharine Hepburn plays the young queen in this John Ford version of the rivalry between Mary of Scots and her cousin, Elizabeth I (played by Florence Eldridge; whose husband Fredric March plays a jaunty Lord Bothwell). Cut back to the bare bones, and squarely on the differences between the two women, it isn't altogether successful.

John Knox rants his Protestant spiel, Bothwell appears with a retinue of pipers (at several points); Darnley's murder is glossed over, as is his smallpox. John Carradine has a well-defined role as the ill-fated David Rizzio, while Mary's parasitical court of Lords are quirkily represented and dismissed.

Hepburn isn't as bad as one would fear, but it wasn't really a suitable role for her, nor, one would expect, was the material enough for tough director Ford to make much of. So this film remains a misfire, with some interesting sequences and some strong performances, but as a whole, it just doesn't work.