MovieChat Forums > Mary, Queen of Scots (1972) Discussion > Over rated and (thankfully) Forgotten

Over rated and (thankfully) Forgotten

posted 12 years ago by alg11297
8 replies | jump to latest

After seeing this film that was so praised when it came out, I'm glad I didn't see it back then. I can't decide if it's the screenplay or the oer-acting that got me. The direction is no better....there are times when you can't figure out who is talking to whom and about what. Nothing like a jump cut without an establishing shot first.
You'd have to be totally familiar with the history to even make sense of this film. Characters come and go and with no clue to their background. The clipped way of speaking makes it look like they were reading it fast to get rid of the scene. More importantly, there is no defining moment. The characters just act without emotion, without reason, without a human character.
Next time you watch it, see how many times you see horses galloping over plains and people walking in and out of hallways and doors. Then try to remember which was which.

[–] Jason_Radley 12 years ago

If you don't call the eponymous heroine getting her block chopped off a defining moment, I really can't help you.

[–] gittes98 12 years ago

How can something be over-rated if its forgotten

[–] sirjeremy 11 years ago

I think it's the turgid and overlong screenplay that's the main problem here and I agree that the screenwriter assuming knowledge was frustrating. I was hardly surprised to find out recently that Trevor Howard hated the script and Glenda Jackson didn't like the film either. Timothy Dalton's performance was another debit.

On paper this had the potential to be so much more. Such a lumbering film.

[–] EJverh 11 years ago

I think that it is dated, yes. But at the time it wasn't. I think that the only thing overrated about this film, frankly, is Vanessa Redgrave`s performance. That's about it Imo.

[–] Sphinxara 11 years ago

I don't think anyone 'familiar' with the story would like the film. It takes such bizarre liberties that history buffs would probably be angry with how many things are completely off the wall in terms of what actually happenend. I don't really mind that with films, but when the films are also over-long, un-moving, compress important things at the expense of unimportant ones, and have pretty dull performances (yes, Ms Redgrave looked radiant but her Mary was just boring) then I take exception. The Katharine Hepburn movie was also awful. I think either Mary's story needs a miniseries treatment, an excellent leading lady (Mary was supposed to be extremely charismatic to the point that Elizabeth was frightened to meet her, and numerous jailers ended up falling in love with her!) or just a good screenwriter!

Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.

[–] EJverh 11 years ago

I think your last point hit the nail. The secret of a successful film about Mary would probably be in focusing on one particular major incident of her life and in it touch up on the times, the period and her personality. That's usually where period bio films fail: you cannot successfully encompass all of person`s life into one sitting. Take Nicholas and Alexandra, for example, Elizabeth (the first Blanchett movie),The Young Victoria and Mrs. Brown. They succeeded because they concentrated on one period of the celebrated figures.

[–] Sphinxara 11 years ago

Well the Americans are making a new series about the young Mary Stuart's life in France, set to air this autumn. It promises to be a Tudors-style romp aimed at the teenage market. It's being made by CW, the network behind Gossip Girl, America's Next Top Model and The Vampire Diaries. Here is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zFbgY3psw

Je despair.

Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

A 'series' might work, where a 2 hr film might not. I detest when they condense.

Carpe Noctem!