Historical Drama 'Mary Queen of Scots' (2018)

Gorgeous poster.

And another.

Pure Oscar bait and glad we still have some. I won't go near a theatre until Oscar season again. This and "The Favourite" (from the nicely odd "Lobster" guy) both look great. The antidote to all the goddam comic book movies.

Isn't Beau Willimon the House of Cards guy who covered for Spacey?

I am not a fan of Mary Queen of Scots. Bitch got what she deserved.

No cameo for Megan Follows in this, as she’s usually involved in everything Mary Queen of Scots related?

The "diversity" casting is insanely Orwellian. So English history can no longer be depicted as it actually was because the new God of Diversity supersedes it. In their zeal to indoctrinate young Britons of whatever ethnicity, the filmmakers feel no obligation to depict their own cultural inheritance in a vaguely realistic way. They want to ensure that the audience is always thinking of "diversity' as opposed to the story. This is ahistorical madness. If they insist on doing this then they shouldn't touch the past.

meh.

Go meditate on your blonde eyed, blue haired Jesus, R7.

r7 Are the actual story and "cultural inheritance" really ruined if there are a couple of black and brown people standing in the background? Why does the Irish woman playing Mary not faze you the same way? Is it just the melanin levels in the skin that gets you going or what? Oh, forget it, I know the answer already.

[R8] Idiot.

When Blanchett's Elizabeth came out, a large number of reviewers used the word "lush" to describe it. I thought that was idiotic. But, it was, indeed, lush, as advertised.

This movie looks like it might also be rather lush.

Yeah, the only things that annoy me about the trailer are Mary's accent - she was born in Scotland, but she was raised in France, in the French Royal court. She didn't have a Scottish accent, being someone who spoke Old French. I suppose they have to do something to say "oh look, that redhead has a Scottish accent, that one's Mary!"

The other is something that I'm *hoping* is some sort of cinematic flourish - Mary and Elizabeth never met. All of their communication was done by letter or through ambassadors and courtiers.

As for the ethnic diversity troll - fuck off, dear. The English court was known to be diverse, as was London back in the Elizabethan era (after all, how else would you explain Shakespeare writing about a Moor in Othello, etc etc. Take your racebaiting arse back to Virginia or Tennessee or whatever hellish cum-laden anus of a state you hail from, you cunt.

The trailer is underwhelming. Can you hear the Aussie accent?

Robbie did a horrible attempt at an upper crust English accent in Goodbye Christopher Robin

[quote] how else would you explain Shakespeare writing about a Moor in Othello

By his using his imagination, because he was a writer of fiction? Or did William Shakespeare also meet magical fairies everyday in the streets of Elizabethan London, otherwise how could he have written "A Midsummer Night's Dream"? And lets not get into the three witches.

But I agree with R12 that having the queens meet is more flagrantly erroneous than the misplaced but well-intentioned diverse casting.

This is the datalounge, where people complained that having black extras in Beauty and the Beast was "unrealistic" but didn't think it was unrealistic for a guy to turn into a beast.....

The odd background character sn't really a problem, but it is gratuitous, gesture-casting. The Elizabethan court wasn't remotely diverse, apart from the extremely unusual visit from ambassadors of Muslim states (though even here the famous one whose portrait is well-known was completely European in appearance, being descended from Spanish exiles, like many of the elite in the kingdom of Morocco - which is why they hated the Spanish as much as the English did). Elizabeth initially allowed some released Moorish galley-slaves from ships captured in joint Moroccan-English raids of Spain to stay in London, but expelled them quickly after Londoners protested and rioted.

[quote]This is the datalounge, where people complained that having black extras in Beauty and the Beast was "unrealistic" but didn't think it was unrealistic for a guy to turn into a beast.....

lol

I love how skin color raises outrage, but the weight, hair styles, costumes, accents, and all the other historically inaccurate stuff that pulls us out of the period story, is somehow okay.

If you are going to pick and choose what "historical accuracy" to care about, why would you pick skin tone?

Mary got a bad rap. It's anti-Catholic bias.

Those poor girls have to compete with Vanessa Redgrave's and Glenda Jackson's 1971 movie.

I want to know if we’ll see Mary running around with her head dangling before it was finally chopped off.

Mary was massively incompetent; she didn't get a bad rap.

David Tennant. I'm in.

it's DL, OP, so the proper phrasing of the thread should be:

HIstorical Drama Queen, MARY!

How many centuries later and we are still treated to pro-Elizabeth propaganda. Now it has a feminist bent - the two women would have gotten along marvelously if it weren't for the meddling priests!

They were dynastic rivals, R26: there's no way they would have got on. And Mary made a string of poor decisions and lost everything - historical fact, not propaganda

Her husband, Lord Darney, was a bisexual twink.

Are people really complaining about black and brown people being in this movie? Black and brown people existed during this time in history ya know....

"Mary got a bad rap. It's anti-Catholic bias"

Mary was a carp in a pond full of piranhas

Margot PLEASE give me an Oscar Robbie.

The Oscar campaign for this film will be intense. Do you guys think Margot Robbie will still be able to film Birds of Prey early next year?

Like many of us, Mary made BAD decisions when it came to men.

I think the person is trying to say that there would not have been any people of color in positions of power or at court in Elizabethian England. Based on the trailer, I’m not sure if this movie is going for total historical accuracy.

I don't think the people of color are in positions though? They're just extras in crowd scenes mostly

There would have been a very small black community...but come on we all know shoe Horning them in is just box ticking. I'd like to see films set in 12th century Zimbabwe with a few white tribesman.

There is not one single piece of contemporary evidence that Darnley was either gay or bisexual, R28. Literally nothing.

Mary, Queef of Cunts

17th and 18th century paintings of the aristos occasionally depicted a cute young blackamoor in the scene, but that was the extent of it.

R36, hardly anyovies are set in Zimbabwe or anywhere in Africa- and those that are are usually about white characters. Look at Out of Africa.

R37, what evidence would you expect - a sex tape?

R17, There is evidence of black people in early modern England. Miranda Kaufmann has just published her research in "Black Tudors."

What this film evidently does, like all other movies and operas about Mary Stuart is a scene where the two queens meet. They never laid eyes on each other! Never. No evidence. Nada!

There were no blacks in any positions at court, in either England or Scotland, in the mid 16th century.

How ludicrous.

And they picked an Irishwoman & an Aussie to play a Scottish-French, and English queen, respectively.

How....modern....

That book looks really interesting, but she found ten people across a century and a half (despite the title it seems she goes well into the Stuart period, when you would expect more). Dramatizing one of their stories would be a strong project. Randomly scattering non-white extras in crowd scenes is still ridiculous and gratuitous.

Elizabeth hated the Catholic faith. She had Mary executed. It's really that simple

Elizabeth had Mary executed because she was conspiring to kill her, again. You can say, fair enough, given she kept Mary in prison, but there was nothing else to be done. Elizabeth was being harried for years by all her advisers and parliaments to get rid of Mary and eventually cracked. She tried several times to work out an arrangement to ship her back to Scotland for some sort of power-sharing arrangement with her son James, but the Scots always refused.

There’s no dramatic payoff if the two ladies don’t meet, dunces. It’s Screenwriting 101.

Shouldn't Saroise play the less pretty Queen Elizabeth? She looks awful

I want to see a whole movie about Mary's mother, Marie de Guise. She was a ferocious bitch-goddess in her little scene at the beginning of the Cate Blanchett "Elizabeth."

UGH. S RONAN AS THE CHARISMA OF A GNAT

PASS.

R42, history lesson:

The Romans built an empire. They used slaves, free people, and citizens to do it.

Where do you think they got all those soldiers to invade England? See Claudius, for example.

In fact Caesar was famous for conquering Gaul. Guess what? Conquering armies impregnate the conquered.

And what happened in 1066?

never ever read a book, your brain will break.

R47 Another instance where many Hollywood actresses, (and perhaps British actresses) must be furious. Once again, one of the most beautiful currently working actresses is cast to play a historical figure/real person that was known to be plain or even ugly. And the second time in a row for Margot Robbie, (after Tonya Harding). I'm sure Emma Stone was available, or any number of British actresses. What about Carey Mulligan? Yes Mulligan is attractive, but not known for her beauty the way Robbie is, and she's just as good if not better an actress. Just sayin'

Hey asshole at R51, you like those kneecaps?

sairose is dull as fuk in every thing ive seen.

who do she know to git all these roles?????

It's always interesting to see how people interpret Mary Stuart's story. I'll be waiting for it to hit Netflix....

I feel Margot is out of place here, her looks don't translate to period piece. They are uglying her up, but her accents are bad and another actress would have fit the role better. I thought she was wrong for I, Tonya before I saw her in it, so maybe I will be proven wrong.

The only version of this movie people need to see.... Timothy Dalton is perfect as the bitchy Darnley (and not afraid to show he was fucking Rizzio) and Glenda Jackson basically hands Vanessa Redgrave her bony ass!

r56, and that magnificent John Barry score.

Has anyone read the book they used as the basis?

This looks fun. I do wonder why we always have to tell the same 10 or 12 historical stories over and over and over again in movies, but what the hell. I'll probably love it when I do see it.

You just beat me to the punch, r 59. Like there are no other historical stories of interest than those of Henry VIII, his progeny and their enemies. The usual lack of ideas and poverty of imagination in MovieLand.

Oh for fuck's sake, here's another article about black people in Tudor England, specifically at the king's court.

So no, a few diverse extras are not a problem, start bitching about more important historical inaccuracies, such as all the face-to-face meetings that never happened and the fact that Mary QoS was reportedly beautiful.

I agree with r55. Margot seems horribly miscast. She comes across as so weak in the trailer and Elizabeth was anything but.

I'll probably see it because I do like a historical bitchfest with really great costumes, but I can tell in advance that it'll annoy me.

Not just because of all the historical inaccuracies mentioned above, but because of the pro-Mary slant. Mary Queen of Scots was like Ludwig II of Bavaria, a really terrible monarch who was forced off the throne by any means necessary because they were incompetent. And if they take the tack that Mary was the better person because she fucked around and married a bunch of guys while Elizabeth never married, that will annoy me as well. Mary should have done what Elizabeth did and put the monarchy ahead of her feelings, instead of saddling the country with series of hot losers who screwed up the government. That's why Elizabeth died on her throne and was regarded as a great ruler, and Mary spent most of her adult life in prison, sheer goddamn dedication to the job.

The face-to-face meetings are a given in any Mary-Elizabeth movie. They will always be done. They're irresistible. If only they'd met, what would they say? Every movie will do it, and every historian will bitch about it. It's the circle of life.

Exactly, [R64]

Exchanging letters isn't exactly cinematic.

Mary QoS, the most famous victim of dickmatization [R63]

Yeah, Darnley was a pretty face, but oooh, that Bothwell dick was not be BELIEVED, bitches.

Why another Mary Stewart movie, so soon after "Reign"?

Oh great, another Elizabeth I variant. Maybe next they can do another Queen Victoria movie, and then Winston Churchill movie.

When am I going to get the Eleanor of Aquitaine biopic I've always wanted?

oh, I would love that, R69. I did of course love Lion in Winter, but it's been a hell of a long time, and besides, not exactly a biopic.

Also would love to see Hollywood tackle Theodora and Justinian. Future emperor marries a prostitute, she becomes one of the most powerful women in world history. It's like her whole life was a Hollywood invention, but they never go near it.

reality has a pro-Mary slant

Elizabeth was a tyrant

Mary was a queen a a few days old. She married the King of France and was Queen Consort. She really was a bit more royal and chic than QEI. QEI kept Mary in comfortable prisons for 18 years, before deciding to chop off her head. How do you make drama out of that long passage?

You turn it into a CW soap!

Now you white people feel the same pains that Hollywood whitewashes the characters of colors

Mary was no saint either (and Elizabeth was no more tyrannical than any other monarch of the time). I don't think Mary would have felt too much conflict in disposing of Elizabeth and taking the throne. She felt from a young age that she was the rightful ruler. She was pretty impulsive and really made a number of mistakes due to arrogance or foolishness that led to her eventual beheading, both in decisions that led her being rejected by the Scots and having to flee and her miscalculations with Elizabeth.

Most dramas compress those years of imprisonment down, but there was some drama and thwarted attempts to organize an escape which led her to being downgraded to less comfortable housing. A lot of manipulation in Scotland (her son, who never really knew her, was taught to despise her) and Elizabeth had people around her trying to force her to execute Mary years before she actually did.

I like the Monty Python version, the radio drama serial.

'Humans' Season 4: a synth travels back in time to the 1500s in an attempt to rewrite human history.

Why didn't they cast Lupita Nyong'o as Mary or Elisabeth with no comment whatsoever. Whenever the media would raise the controversy the producers could just say "she gave the best audition. If it bugs you, don't pay to see the movie."

Ha! That's the way any sort of color blind casting will finally happen. Some director and money men will just say "meh, we liked her in the role, deal with it or don't, who cares?"

I hope this flops because Beau Willimon covered up for Spacey for years.

Look at R78 working himself up over hypotheticals.

Margot Robbie has a modern face

R78 is going be shocked! Shocked I tell you R80, to learn tidbits like Dumas was black or Muslims have lived in Vienna since 800 AD,

Book learning is hard.

Yeah, I think I buy Robbie the least out of what we've seen so far.

But QEI was not black, which was my suggestion, doradumbfucks. Guess I got my PhD with no fancy book learning duh

I personally don't care for inclusive casting in historical productions. But if you want to do it, just do it and tell everyone no comment, fuck off.

Couldn't a MtF play Elizabeth?

R84, you didn't make a suggestion about casting. U make a dumb ass comment about stunt casting. To prove a point about how there were no Black people in England, and parenthetically Europe. Which, of course is bs.

Casting a Black or Asian actress as a European monarch would be stunt casting and so what? That's the point of diversity casting. Its trying to get 21st century audiences to be a bit meta in their viewing and perhaps enjoy an entertainment that is not "authentically cast". I am neither arguing for or against it, simply discussing how it might work in show biz.

There are probably some good films to be made about the centuries of Moorish rule in Spain. Fabulous court life. Plenty of opportunities for non-stunt yet diverse casting.

r86, not exactly an MtF.... but a queen nonetheless:

R88, listen and repeat: people of varied pigmentation have lived in Great Britian since at least the time of Caesar.

So, to have extras of various hues in this movie is neither inaccurate nor poor history.

Now to cast as Black actor as Elizabeth 1 would be both poor history and inaccurate.

But please, continue your temper tantrum.

How many versions of this story do we need??

Nobody is having a temper tantrum, except for your bitter queeny subaltern hissy fit.

[R91] No one is claiming "people of color" never set foot in Britain at that time. But Asians and Blacks were certainly not members of the royal court - that's ridiculous, political and cynical.

[quote]oh, I would love that, [R69]. I did of course love Lion in Winter, but it's been a hell of a long time, and besides, not exactly a biopic.

Yes, but The Lion in Winter was only a tiny moment of a rich and interesting life.

And unlike the Tudors, which are well-documented, there's much more room for embellishment, so we don't know 30 seconds into the trailer that these 2 characters having an argument never actually met.

R93, that's your phd intellect, name-calling? Do you.

Trying to make Mary heroic is kind of ridiculous. She made a series of errors that led to her downfall, whereas Elizabeth consistently made wise moves. Mary may or may not have plotted the death of her second husband, but we know for certain she plotted Elizabeth's death. She also betrayed her religion in her third marriage. While she might be sympathetic, she was certainly not heroic, as the trailer tries to depict her to be. And, as has been noted, she certainly did not have a Scottish accent, having been reared in France.

QE1 was a polyglot on the level of Melania Trump. Fluent in French, Flemish, Italian, Latin and Greek, not to mention conversational Welsh, Scottish, Cornish and Irish.

Just saw the trailer. This is so horribly miscast it’s not funny.

Just can't with that hilljack face Comes from cheap pedigree. Not even a decent great great grandparent for this one. Just can't.

R9, Theron will be playing a NIGERIAN princess..Why not? Let's do a reshoot of ROOTS, this time Alec Baldwin takes on Lavarre Burton's pivotal role as a tortured slave. I'm good to go.

R9, Theron will be playing a NIGERIAN princess..Why not? Let's do a reshoot of ROOTS, this time Alec Baldwin takes on Lavarre Burton's pivotal role as a tortured slave. I'm good to go.

R91. Please die while you're behind. Fareak .

I agree R88. I believe they should cast Lindsay Lohan in the sequel to Raise The Red Lanterns or Hidden Tiger Dragon Crouching 2

Yeah, the miscasting seems strong.

Ronan is a good actress, but she's small and plain, and Mary was six feet tall and was regarded as a beauty and a charmer. And Robbie actually IS beautiful, and seems determined that uglying herself up will make her a real actress. And I gather from the trailer that Elizabeth is supposed to be losing her looks as the film goes on and Mary keeps hers... which doesn't really work when the "ugly" actress is so much more beautiful than the "beautiful" one. Mary should have been played by Emily Blunt or fuck it, I can't think of an good names. But someone good-looking.

Yes this story has been done too many times (and better )and there are too many inaccuracies ; it is disappointing to see more of this in the dumbed-down- Internet -make-anything-up-and- say -it's -true age.

I think the two leads are wrong too

Looks wise the actress playing Mary looks more like Elizabeth. The actress playing Elizabeth is very striking, more so than Mary, which makes Elizabeth being insecure about their looks not make a lot of sense. I suppose the early scenes are pre-small pox which did alter her looks enough where she wore heavy make-up and wigs afterwards. Hopefully they are not going to boil Elizabeth's issues regarding Mary about appearance.

They make it sounds like the two queens were friends initially, but flowery letters they wrote to each other at times aside, weren't they always wary of each other? I think Mary mentioned something about having a claim to the throne while still in France which set the tone early on although the might have exchanged pleasantries via letter, I am not sure either of them ever believed the words they were reading or writing.

The heavy Scottish accent is a bit distracting. Not only because of it not being accurate, but it just heightens the feeling they are going to try to make her a tragic, romantic heroine who is the bravest most valiant woman ever. In a lot of ways she was more of a pawn between different factions in Scotland who was manipulated because of her arrogance, her inexperience and how the Scottish way of life and royal court was foreign to her.

Robbie is too beautiful to play Elizabeth.

Even though they’ve obviously tried to ug her up, the exquisite facial features shine through. She’s an excellent actress but not all actresses are physically right for every role.

If you look like Robbie there’s no NEED to put white plaster all over your face. Ridiculous.

Off physical casting can undermine a story. Chloe Grace Moretz is the girl in class all the high school boys go home and masturbate to, not ratty little Carrie.

The whole appeal of Mary Stuart was not that she was some feminist hero, like this film is hoping to impart, but that she was a tragic romantic heroine who was the architect of her own demise. There's nothing empowering about her... the poster claims she had to fight for her throne which she is bullshit... she was born to rule.

Lookswise, Robbie would have been better casting for Mary, and Ronan better casting for Elizabeth. However, Robbie really has no business anywhere near this film.

But I agree with everyone who says ENOUGH with the Tudors. The Plantagenets ruled a lot longer, and there are so many interesting stories to tell about them.

It's clear why they cast Ronan, because it was too easy for them. The Scottish accent. Even though anyone with an 11th grade grade education could tell you that Mary, lived in France.

I never cared for her. I mean Mary! Her claim was spurious and she did nothing but plot and scheme and fail for years. Elizabeth didn't want to kill her but shit, at some point it gets tedious. I thought Samantha Morton was a wonderful Mary! Determined, obsessive and stupid.

At least we've been spared Keira Knightley.

Mary was a real cunt, tried to have her cousin killed. Very rude!

Yeah, I'd much rather see a good movie about Eleanor of Aquitaine than Mary QoS, Mary was a damn fool and Eleanor was the most brilliant woman of her age! And her husband Henry II was a very interesting man as well, he brought the rule of law to England, or tried to.

Or if they want movie drama, what about Mathilda vs. Steven, or Richard II being deposed? Or York vs. Lancaster in the War of the Roses, which inspired "Game of Thrones"? Or some of the insane kings, like Henry VI? Or gay kings like Edward II or James I?

Marry me R116!

Agree Eleanor has never been properly done, she was the most famous woman in Europe while she lived. And almost certainly the richest. Ruled a thid of France in her own right.

The Empress Maude vs Stephen would also be incredible.

I'm waiting for Edaward II and his wife Isabella

I'll join you too R116 and R117, and add that I'm still waiting for a Richard III film from Richard's point of view. I've been waiting since at least the early 90s, when I wished for Gary Oldman to star in it.

me too, R116! R117, R118!! Now, Pillars of the Earth was about Maud and Stephen. I enjoyed it. And The White Queen was well done even if it didn't necessarily tell the story of the War of the Roses from Richards point of view, it definitely showed Richard as a tragic figure unprepared for politics, and Rupert Graves was marvelous as the treacherous Buckingham. So if you haven't been either one of those they're definitely worth watching. As for Eleanor and Henry II, the only historical dramas I can recall were Becket, and the Lion in Winter, both with Peter O'Toole as Henry II. Becket was very unkind to Eleanore and Maud. Katherine Hepburn played an aging Eleanor in Lion in Winter.

"If you haven't SEEN either of these..."

Long before the advent of social media, how did one become famous in 1100? Potraiture was fairly new but there were no museums. I guess likenesses appeared on coins but only the very rich had coins.

R121 Writing was developed enough in Europe that is was common and easy for nobles to have letters sent to each other (they didn't write them themselves of course but it wasn't prohibitive expensive to hire someone you could dictate letters too anymore). Eleanor was queen of two of Europes largest and richest countries and an influential duchess herself. She was spoken about by everybody

Additionally monks, and to a far lesser degree nuns, wrote what was basically fan fiction about old kings and queens. Eleanor was one of the most used characters because her life was so exciting. Stories about her were sill being written hundreds of years after she died.

In one of my favorite over the top, campy ones she was openly a witch. Her husband once asked her to stay in church for an extra few hours on Sunday and she shrieked, grabbed their children and flew threw the roof. Then dropped John who broke his arm and cried

She also did things considered scandalous in her day. Like becoming engaged to King Henry II of England two or three weeks after getting her marriage to King Louis annulled. That would have been stunning

And Henry was a hot 18 year old whilst Eleanor was his MILF.

There were rumours she was unfaithful to her husband the king of France with her own uncle, while on crusade. Talk about shameless.

How can it ever top this?

Eleanor also lead armies during the Second Crusades, man what a gal.

It is pretty hilariously pathetic they're boiling the whole thing down to "Which one is the prettiest?" the two never actually met in real life, but that's never stopped Hollywood.

R128 I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of what you said. Hollywood is the the worst at this sort of thing.

But I think Elizabeth did visit her once when she was imprisoned in England

R127 Eleanor lead an army and chased the King of France out of her Duchy when she was nearly 80 years old!

Not really, R'130. She was besieged in a castle by her teenaged grandson Arthur of Brittany, supported by the king of France, but was relieved by her last son King John turning up in the right place at the right time for once in his life. Arthur and Philip of France then had to retreat.

Why not a film about the romance of Richard the Lionheart and King Phillip of France? Or was that just made up for The Lion in Winter?

R132 It was made up. People make a big deal about the that they shared a bed one night. But that wasn't unusual for the time. Kings would let their barons do it as an expression of closeness and trust. Just was somewhat rare for two Kings.

Edward II was the only openly gay English king. William Rufus and Aethelstan may have been gay

Do I understand R103, you are still name calling? That's your big response? Not, I don't know, reading a little history? I know, reading is hard ;)

I bet those blackamoors in the court of Henry were keen basketball players and payed hip hop on the loot. Chilling with they bitches all day long. Blacks in Tutor England. ...how horrific

Next they'll be saying good queen Bess was a Moor.

Lizzy was MTF!

This film looks terrible. Over stylised rubbish....oh and diversity...why does everything need to be ethnically diverse?

For a great period piece with a splendid anything goes orgy scene, over the top acting, AND a famous massacre you can't go wrong with Queen Margot. Verna Lisi as Catherine de Medici. Isabelle Adjani in the title role. Vincent Perez as the wooden eye candy.

[quotre] Or was that just made up for The Lion in Winter?

I think Lion in the Winter has a lot of stuff that somewhat speculative, but is not out of left field. Like a lot of potential same-sex relationships there is nothing definitive, but there is potential smoke. I think even more so of Richard in general having same-sex liaisons. From the little I have read about Elinor, Lion and the Winter seems to capture the family dynamics at the time. The events and the arguments in the play/movie are all speculative, but seems to reflect what could have happened. In the later years of her house-arrest, she and Henry did start to spend more holidays and time together. They may have had a stormy marriage and she might have tired to have her sons overthrow him, but I do think they enjoyed each other's intellect and challenge at the end.

The one book I read of Elinor said, considering how big of figure she was for both France and England there is not a lot of primary source material on her. Partially because she was a women (much of the material they found was primarily about her husbands) and partially due to the times and the sparsity of written material during her era.. The author said even if she would have lived a generation or two later, there would have been a much better written historical record of her.

It is universally acknowledged that Bette Davis was the definitive Queen Elizabeth in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex. It’s a wonder that any other actress even attempted to portray her after that.

Thank you, r139. QUEEN MARGOT is a stunning film and, yes, the St Bart's massacre is overwhelming.

r141, no it is not. Glenda Jackson is universally acknowledge as the definitive Elizabeth.

Is it true the Kardashian's are producers?

It was Mary's son who becomes King when Elizabeth I dies. (She agreed to this before she died.) So Mary did get a victory there.

yes r145

A Real Game of Thrones

Still have a fond place for the movie with Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave, despite the historical inaccuracies.

[quote] It was Mary's son who becomes King when Elizabeth I dies. (She agreed to this before she died.)

Actually, it's not exactly clear she did. When she was in the last stages of dying, Sir Robert Cecil, her secretary, came to her and asked her who her successor would be. She said nothing, so he said, "The King of Scotland?" She [italic]seemed[/italic] to make a physical sign of assent (or so it seemed to him), so James VI of Scotland (Mary Stuart's son) was invited down to take the English throne as well.

Genealogists seem to agree he had the best claim to the throne with her death. But it was hugely disputed at the time and has been so since.

What differnse does it make???Huh???They're all dead!

some would assert Queen James

cant stand the fug that plays da queen.

she soils every movie she in...WITH SHEER BOREDOM

GLENDA BEST QUEEN EVER 1!!!!!

Why on earth would MARY! Queen if Scots have a thick Scottish accent? She was raised in France.

Because the audience will be idiots Fraus.

and others who expect a scottish accent from a Scottish queen, that's why

[quote] But I think Elizabeth did visit her once when she was imprisoned in England

No. She didn’t. They never met.

Mary was surrounded by conspirators who took their orders from William Cecil, Elizabeth’s master spy. He was like Putin — the head of a secret service that is all about defeating the enemy by conspiracy. Her life story is harrowing to me. Imagine your closest advisors wanting to destroy you and you have no idea.

R149 So did Sir Robert Cecil then serve James I? And why was James I a protestant? King James Bible and all that?

There is a three part docu about Elisabeth's "secret service". I'm watching it now. Very interesting.

R19 Don't downplay my fabulousness!

Changing the color of my skin won't make me as politely insipid as you whiteys.

My skin, my cock, my culture, my language is infinitely superior to you mealymouthed, submissive pale-skins!

Bow down!

[quote]And why was James I a protestant? King James Bible and all that? r Scotland had become protestant or was largely protestant, which is one of the reasons Mary ran into trouble when she arrived as a papist raised in France. James was a baby when Mary went into exile and became imprisoned and was raised as a protestant by people who were not big fans of Mary's. James grew up thinking his mother was not a good person.

Mary's Catholicism was what made her such a huge danger to Elizabeth, as long as she was alive every disgruntled Catholic in England and other countries associated with England wanted to replace Elizabeth with her Catholic cousin. Mary wanted it too, thought that was a fine idea.

Mary really was useless. She wanted to convert England from Protestantism to Catholicism, and she couldn't even convert her own son. He because the good Protestant king of England and Scotland, and BTW, there were a lot of gay rumors about him and his court.

R9 the so-called Irish American actress playing her is a problem as well.

People always oversell Cecil and Walsingham's spy network. It did ok, but was basically three men and a dog.

Thank goodness, my oscar is safe!

R9 Bess of Hardwick isn’t a “background figure” she was an immensely wealthy woman who played a major part in that period. She’s being played by Gemma Chan. She most definitely wasn’t Chinese nor did she look Chinese. It is absolutely ridiculous.

...who cares r167? As others have said every movie, including this one, has many inaccuracies. Is it that big of a deal they wanted some non-white people in the cast? Having them meet is much more flagrant.

Anyone who knows history cares r168. It’s ridiculous pandering. Why not just have accurate portrayals instead of quota filling? If you’re watching a movie and a Chinese person suddenly pops up in 15th century Yorkshire you will be jolted out of the story. It is demonstrably wrong, like having a sheep playing Lassie - they’ve both got four legs so who cares, right?

Just interesting that you obsess over that, and not the 1000 other things aren't completely historically accurate. I wonder why.

There’s no defending such an obvious glaring inaccuracy r170. You have NO idea of what I think about anything else.

All I know is when I watched the trailer the most glaring inaccuracy that can't be overlooked is having them meet, when they famously never did. The color of some background people is small potatoes compared to that.

A Chinese Bess of Hardwick would be like Elizabeth riding in on a Harley-Davidson. It kicks suspension of disbelief to death and blasts it beyond the orbit of Pluto.

Gemma Chan was in Yellow Face, a play about race issues. She was there specifically because of her race. Would it be OK for Jennifer Lawrence to have taken that part? No, of course not. This isn’t interchangeable. There are portraits of Bess, we know exactly what she looked like, Gemma Chan isn’t it.

[quote]There are portraits of Bess, we know exactly what she looked like, Gemma Chan isn’t it.

There are portraits of Mary, the actress in this looks nothing like her and speaks with a heavy Scottish accent which Mary never did.

Chan is barely in the trailer - I had to rewatch it, because I did not even recall seeing her. There were so many things about the trailer that kicks in the suspension of disbelief, that I did not even notice the actress you were talking about. This movie looks like it is more about style than historical accuracy, if Chan is a good actress, I don't have an issue with her in the role.

Hardly anyone in the general audience will know Mary didn't have a Scottish accent, so it won't impact. However, they will be knocked back by the image of Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, as a dragon-lady..

So long as you admit this is fantasy and bears no relationship to history then r175. Just out of interest, would you be OK with a white actress playing Chan’s part in Yellow Face if she was a good actress? After all Yellow Face isn’t eve;n based on historical figures so there isn’t even a picture available telling you it’s wrong.

[quote]mage of Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, as a dragon-lady..

That you described her as a dragon lady because she is of Chinese descent is pretty telling.

I suspect a significant number of people wanting to see this movie will be somewhat familiar with Mary's story, so the accent might be more of an issue than you think.

Tick....tick....

Is it just 'telling' R178? surely it's full-on 'problematic'. Don't be a twat.

[Quote]That you described her as a dragon lady because she is of Chinese descent is pretty telling.

It's almost like this is so important to them because they are racist. I'm *shocked*

If she's in full 16th-century aristo costume, she's going to look like a dragon lady. All of them do. But I give up. You've played the racist card, so there can be no more interaction.

What a dump....

It's a movie, not a re-enactment. It's a far cry from the real story. It should be judged as the 2018 take on the Mary/Elizabeth story. Every generation will retell it differently.

It's always a story that makes for box office poison, from Katharine Hpeburn to Vanessa Redgrave.

No, R129. They never met. This is something that EVERY historian agrees on.

As a person of color, I have no problem with color blind casting. But if you're going to do a historical piece and you want to be inclusive, then there are some subjects you are going to need to stay away from. I love it and respect it when producers want to be diverse and inclusive. However, you don't solve that problem with colorblind casting in historical pieces and already established works, you solve the problem by supporting and nurturing projects written, produced, and directed by creatives who are people of color.

Now that I've got that out of the way, this movie has clearly thrown all historical accuracy out the window so who the fuck cares who's in the cast. I'm gonna watch it, because I love this stuff, but if the trailer is any indication Showtime's The Tudors was more historically accurate.

The idea that Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor once met goes back to Friedrich Schiller, who had a scene where they secretly met in his play "Mary Stuart" from 1800. The two women were so deeply obsessed with one another (since thye had competing claims to the English throne, and Mary was Elizabeth's most likely heir) and had exchanged so much correspondence that it seemed a pity they never actually met for dramatization purposes, so Schiller showed them interacting. Many plays and films and television stories about Mary ever since have had scenes where the two women meet, including the 1971 Vanessa Redgrave/Glenda Jackson film. But in real life they never once met.

I don't see how it could be a problem that the Irish and American Saiorse Ronan is playing the Scottish Mary if it's okay that the Australian Margot Robbie is playing the English Elizabeth. This gets ridiculous after a while.

They never met in life, but they are buried nearby each other.

The series Elizabeth R with Glenda Jackson is historically accurate and the two queens never meet. Vivian Pickles plays Mary for exactly what she was: a flighty, unstable idiot:

Glenda Jackson is the definitive Elizabeth in both Elizabeth R on PBS and Mary Queen of Scots on the big screen. Blanchett was good in the first movie but the second was a clusterfuck. She never touched Jackson.

Pickles was excellent as Mary, Vanessa Redgrave was also excellent as Mary. In both portrayals everyone knew Elizabeth was right and Mary was a fool. Ronan's a decent actress, I don't know about Robie although she's definitely too beautiful to play Elizabeth. I really don't know if either is capable of handling the age range required.

I don't care where the actresses are from or whether or not there are Black people in the movie. There were Moors at Elizabeth's court, I've never heard of them at Mary's in Scotland but it's possible.

Its a chick flic. And you men getting your panties in a bunch over historical accuracy.

[quote] There is evidence of black people in early modern England. Miranda Kaufmann has just published her research in "Black Tudors."

Genuine question: Does that mean that people of African descent were generally treated much better under Elizabeth I (in the Tudor court in the 16th C) than they were in the 19th - 20th C?

Was Elizabeth I and her dad, Henry VIII, much more tolerant and supportive of people of different races (compared to politicians in the early 20th C)?

Because people didn't just show up at Royal Court whenever they fancied - they were only permitted to enter if specifically invited by the King / Queen or their circle to be a "member" of their Court.

I guess the question is: was Elizabeth I a very tolerant, colour-blind and progressive ruler (by inviting PoC to join her Court, as the Hollywood movie implies via its casting)? Or was Elizabeth I more conservative / reactionary / bigoted / supremacist, in terms of racial views? Is Hollywood wrongly portraying a potential bigot as progressive?

I mean, was she more like the Confederates? In a movie about the Confederacy we are free to cast PoC to play Generals or high-ranking officers in the Confederate army - but that would send the wrong message that the Confederates were racially tolerant (when in reality they were mostly the opposite).

Elizabeth allied with the king of Morocco against Spain, which they both hated. In a joint attack they capture some Spanish galleons and Elizabeth gave permission for any of the released Moorish galley-slaves who wanted to stay in England. However, the Londoners protested and rioted, so they were expelled. There were no known long-term 'Moors' (whatever they meant by that - it was a vague term in the 16th century) resident at her court, and the only relevant visitors were on the one or two occasions when she received ambassadors from Morocco.. (There's a book, J Brotton, 'This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic world').

Thanks, R195. The reason why I ask is I suspect Elizabeth I (and most of the elitist Elizabethan Court) were most likely either casually or virulently racist:

[quote] The Guardian: "There was a strong tradition on the Elizabethan stage of black characters being played as snarling villains, as in the anonymous revenge tragedy "Lust’s Dominion" and Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus".

[quote] Anxiety about black immigration into Britain was such that Elizabeth I issued several proclamations ordering the expulsion of “blackamoores” from her realm."

And I think it's important to remember that problematic racist history, rather than pretend that PoC were treated fairly by Elizabeth's Court or freely admitted to Court. A rose-tinted, diversity-fantasy portrayal of Elizabethan times simply covers up the reality of common racism back then and what many PoC had to really go through.

It would have been more honest if they actually showed Elizabeth in a more unsympathetic light - when she unfairly persecuted 'blackamoores', pushing them out of the country. That could solve both the casting and historical accuracy issue, as well as shed more light on Elizabeth's morally controversial character.

Sorry, R197 - we have to show the past as acceptingly multi-ethnic. These are the rules.

To be fair to Elizabeth, she was initially prepared to let the 'blackamoores' stay, but not in the face of popular hostility. One thing people today don't really get is the miniscule size of state apparatus then. A Tudor monarch's security network was probably no more than a couple of hundred people in and around the court and government. Everything rested on consent and a vague sense of general respect for order and the person of the monarch. Incidentally this was a large part of Mary Queen of Scots' downfall in Scotland - she ended up, for good or bad reasons, totally losing the respect of her subjects.

Why is skin color the one thing you are all concerned about the historical accuracy of?

Every other anachronism or ahistorical element, you let go. But skin color is the one that you fixate on.

I mean, was she more like the Confederates?

It is such a visually jarring anachronism r200. The everybody-must-be-included schtick is bullshit when it comes to factual based movies. There weren’t any Chinese people in Britain, much less running around marrying endless wealthy husbands and becoming the richest woman in England. That will stick out a mile. May as well have Whoopi Goldberg playing Elizabeth and Margaret Cho as Sir Walter Raleigh.

[quote]Every other anachronism or ahistorical element, you let go. But skin color is the one that you fixate on.

No, people also talked about having an Irish girl play Mary, and an Australian playing Elizabeth, and how one was too short and one was too beautiful. And how they never met in real life.

R199 - she was prepared to let them stay in Britain in general, but was she prepared to let them into her Royal Court / inner circle?

R200 - other significant anachronisms were already noted too. Like Mary Stuart's wrong accent (it had to be French, not Scottish). And the fact that the 2 women likely never met in person (though that error might be explainable at least - because without it there's probably no movie). Most people don't know enough about these 2 Queens to spot any other anachronisms. Which ones (that weren't yet mentioned on this thread) did you spot?

If they wanted to show a successful story of ethnic equality and tolerance – there are actually better (real) historical examples. An interesting story for Hollywood to adapt to screen would be that of Emperor Peter I and Abram Gannibal (early 18th C).

Peter I received an African slave boy (the kidnapped son of an African prince from present-day Cameroon) as a ‘gift’. But instead of keeping him as a slave, Peter I and his daughter Empress Elizabeth I made the boy their godson, sent him off to receive an exclusive, elite education (in one of the best universities in the world) and eventually granted him a noble title with lots of land (and many Caucasian peasants who were effectively his property).

The African boy (who took the surname Gannibal) had 2 wives (bigamously). His 2nd wife came from nobility, so he effectively married into nobility too.

Gannibal’s biracial descendants were therefore all nobles and became world-famous writers, navy commanders and even include a Mountbatten cousin of Queen Elizabeth II.

It's a fascinating story really - it defied all odds.

Meh. She received Black people (and other PoC) at Court at various times during her reign. That's historically accurate and I don't see any reason to pretend it never happened.

Which African people did she receive in Court, R206?

Not sure she received ambassadors from Africa r206 but even so why have a Chinese actress playing Bess of Hardwick?

R197 QEI was next to God, rarely did anything "immoral", and to ban Africans wasn't immoral at all.

QEI was an active slave trader.

Look. I put up with the fucking Wolfgang Petersen version of the damned Iliad so you can put up with this version of Mary! Queen of Scots. In Petersen's version Brad Pitt's Achilles falls in love with Briseis and Patrocles is his younger cousin. In Homer's version that wasn't the case. At all. In Petersen's version, Menelaus is slain by Hector when in fact that never happened. Menelaus was not killed. He survived the Trojan War and got Helen back.

r210, the excellent Glenda Jackson series Elizabeth R shows all facets of the Queen and her later life tyranny. It's worth checking out. Particularly interesting are the post Spanish Armada scenes where the Queen is unphased by starving sailors who have returned home and accuses her advisors of ruining the celebrations by bringing it up.

R211, Homer's The Illiad is a mostly mythological work (with some roots in the half-unknown history of the fall of the Trojan Empire). It's the Greek version of Harry Potter. If the screen version of Harry Potter changes some of the book's narrative - it doesn't really matter, it's mostly all a myth anyway.

Whereas Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart were definitely real power-brokers. And their policies and inner circle were real too.

The reason posters are up in arms about the multi-ethnic casting is because they have eyes and can see it. Whereas they know nothing of Tudor history, manners or costuming so those digressions don't phase them at all.

It's really very simple.

R214, you are right. Variations in pigment have been the standard in Britain at least since Roman times.

And people know nothing about history.

that is really interesting about the "blackamoors" in merry olde England, though I suspect popular hatred was more about religion than skin color. Everyone was jest a bit touchy about religion right about then. I don't think hard core racism had set in yet. It was still kind of early for the African slave trade, though it had obviously started already. And yes, a lot of those fine old English Sea Dogs were slave traders. But black people would be so rare in England, I can't imagine there being some being thing about race like modern America.

Not that it means random Africans were coming and going through the palace gates day and night.

"some big thing about race"

Two more specifications about Mary Stuart (Stewart) Mary Stuart is the last personification of the Auld Alliance (military alliance between France and Scotland against England-1165).Kings of France for a long time kept a Scottish guard. Mary Stuart was raised by her maternal grand mother Antoinette de Bourbon a fanatic catholic the mother of the de Guise siblings. As an example, Antoinette put her casket in the chamber leading to the chapel and there she went every day of her life. Mary Stuart was not prepared by her brilliant and advanced education to confront people such as Bothwell and Knox. I think too the cast should have been more faithfull to history by swaping Maroc Robbie (dying her hair auburn) and casting her as Mary Stuart and Saoirse Ronan as Elisabeth.

For the posters who like Aliénor d'Aquitaine the best book ever written about her is the Aliénor d'Aquitaine by Régine Pernoud. Don't know if it has been translated in English.

The 'African' ambassadors Elizabeth received were from Morocco - the main one is shown in the link below. Like many of the Moroccan elite, and especially those who hated Spain and lobbied for alliance with England, he was basically European, descended from Spaniards of Islamic ancestry expelled from Spain in the 16th century. Presumably he had people of North African ancestry with him; whether there was anyone of sub-Saharan ancestry as well, we have no idea.

"I think too the cast should have been more faithfull to history by swaping Maroc Robbie (dying her hair auburn) and casting her as Mary Stuart and Saoirse Ronan as Elisabeth. "

Robbie seems determined to do an "ugly" Oscar-bait role, they'd have to pry this script out of her cold dead hands. And while Ronan isn't a bad fit for a young Elizabeth physically, being skinny and having angular features, I have no idea if she can play a role that big. She's excelled in quiet, subtle, small-scale roles up until now, and Elizabeth was flamboyant and tempermental, given to grandstanding and showboating as well as subtlety. Ronan's never attempted anything of the kind, and who knows if she'd want to.

Honestly, I can't think of a young actress who can do that kind of bravura, they don't seem to teach that kind of acting any more.

R221 i'm sure you are right. I never saw Ronan acting. I was only alluding to their respective look.

Glenda Jackson's portrayal of Elizabeth was intelligent (as were the scripts and the direction in Elizabeth R). She showed the contradictions, the needs, the ego, and the genius of Elizabeth. She was fearless in her acting.

Margaret of Anjou, one of the She Wolves of England.

Oh look, she's being played by a black actress!

R221 - JLaw can pull it all off here and there.

And it was ridiculous r224.

There's been a bit of a tendency recently in tv Shakespeare to make French characters black - Margaret of Anjou here and the king of France in the recent Anthony Hopkins King Lear. There's a sort of logic at work, at least.

you know, i could see that logic r227. There actually was a time before everyone thought in terms of race first and foremost. Before race and skin color were the ultimate question in human interactions. But since we're here, it does give you a sort of sense of how the English and French might view each other, as different, as hostile, as upsetting. A French Queen, especially one showing independence and power, might be thought of the way all too many Republicans saw the first black First Lady: some kind of intruder.

sheesh many of youz is dumb.

Actors of color like Riz Ahmed were bitching about Britain’s historical dramas. “We can’t get enough work to support ourselves and we have to go to America because, among other things, the UK makes too many movies & TV shows set n the past when there weren’t people of color living in Britain.”

That’s why the uk is throwing poc into every tv show and movie. One thing that is kind of disturbing is all the mixed marriages shown in contemporary TV shows. In order to include poc, they cast the spouse of the white star as a poc. It’s kind of depressing that I haven’t seen a poc couple on British tv in years, almost as if poc have to be married to white people in order to be on television. The last poc couple I can remember was in Luther and his wife got killed early on.

And actors like Riz Ahmed would be talking bollocks, R230. The number of period pieces in regular production in the UK is tiny and probably no more than in the US. At the moment it's pretty much Poldark. They go to America for the same reason white British actors do - it's a bigger market and the financial rewards are potentially better. Being a quirky tech support guy in a US procedural for 5 years with 5 minutes on screen per episode is probably much better rewarded than the newest junior doctor on Casualty or whatever, but there's no shortage of diversity in UK tv.

R228 I am fascinated how many historical figures there are whom we do not know the skin color of. I think everyone know that we do not know if St Augustine or Hannibal would be classified as white or black if we saw them today. But even in the middle ages and renaissance there are a number of people we do not know the skin tone of.

Some tv show a few years back showed the death mask of Mary Queen of Scotts. After her head was chopped off they did the whole plaster thing. It was very eery.

*Mary Queen of Scots. I was concentrating of the spelling of eery!

Mary had a very poor command of English. She expected high born Scots who were fluent in French to speak only French to her at her Scottish court. Letters written between her and Elizabeth were at first in English and sometimes Latin, but later Mary asked Elizabeth to write to her only in French. Elizabeth agreed to the request. Mary and Darnley spoke mostly French to each other. I read somewhere that when they wrote to each other, Mary's letters to him were in French and Darnley's letters to her were in English. Mary's correspondence with her in-laws was in English, although her mother-in-law (a half-sister to Mary's father, James V) was fluent in French.

When Mary went to France as a baby, the Scottish government tried to make sure she had speakers of her native Scots English around her so she would be able to speak her own language, but it didn't really work.

R231 You mean he aspires to such a gig? "Being a quirky tech support guy in a US procedural for 5 years with 5 minutes on screen."

I've always fancied Benjamin Franklin as a transgender Latina, r 202.

he has the hair and glasses that fit

"I bet those blackamoors in the court of Henry were keen basketball players and payed hip hop on the loot. Chilling with they bitches all day long. Blacks in Tutor England. ...how horrific"

Gotta love the racists here.....they complain about blacks in "tutor" England but not other crazy inaccuracies in Hollywood movies.

Oh give it up r240. It’s bullshit to place Chinese or black people in positions of power in1500s England. Give it a rest.

Too many people now think Alexander Hamilton was Puerto Rican.

Why the fuss? I'm honouring the history of cultural diversity in the royal courts of Northern Europe.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about an actor's skin color or ethnicity, I care if they can do a good job.

Anyone who is going to keep harping on that day after day is a tiny-minded asshole, if not a racist.

If an actor is good, I'm going to be captivated whether they look like I think the character ought to look or not.

If an actor isn't good, I'm going to sit there wondering who they fucked to get the role, because they don't even look right and what the hell was the casting director thinking?

As it should be, R26.

The Catholic Church then was corrupt as fuck — even moreso than today.

And Mary was hardly worthy of governing her betters.

Take your Catholic blinders off and take a look at the lies, the simony of the period along with all the child rape, why don’t you?

r241 It's really not, especially for secondary and tertiary characters. For one single reason: No. One. Cares. We all know these are actors in the first place. Or do you imagine extremely small kids who can't yet distinguish reality from fiction will stand up in the theatre and protest over the PoC extras because they're intimately familiar with the racial composition of 16th century Britain?

And just like other sane people, I'll "give it a rest" and stop calling out the racists the day I die, thank you very much.

Can we talk about me again? I was white.

In fact, I'm kind of bleached these days

[quote] Variations in pigment have been the standard in Britain at least since Roman times.

I don’t think they were “standard”, R215. In the late 1500s (Elizabethan times) – how many “very dark pigment” nobles and court officials were there? How many nationally celebrated inter-racial marriages were there?

The issue is not about alternative casting per se - it's about creating a dangerous fantasy that certain historical white royal bigots & their regimes were tolerant. They mostly were not. Elizabeth I at first seemed merciful, but then did a 180 turn and started persecuting blackamoors.

For example, should Admiral Robert E. Lee be played by an African-American? Should African-Americans play Third Reich officers? They could of course. But that would give the wrong impression about those historical periods and portray racists as 'tolerant'.

[quote] I suspect popular hatred was more about religion than skin color. Everyone was jest a bit touchy about religion right about then. I don't think hard core racism had set in yet. It was still kind of early for the African slave trade, though it had obviously started already. And yes, a lot of those fine old English Sea Dogs were slave traders. But black people would be so rare in England, I can't imagine there being some being thing about race like modern America.

Good point, R216. Most people from Africa in the 1500s would have been either Muslim or pagan – which means there would generally be a religious bias / persecution against them by the Catholic / Protestant Europeans.

However, racism also existed – because racism isn’t based solely on the slave trade, but more generally on simple tribalism and the mistrust of foreigners who hail from a different country / continent (skin tone would often give that away). E.g. there was never a widespread European slave trade in Chinese people – and yet there’s often racism against the Chinese, because they (or their recent ancestors) come from a very different continent and culture.

I think most people don't understand the roots of racism. Yes, racism is about one race feeling superior to another. But scholars will tell you that a lot of that is based on skin color because "dark things" have long been associated with evil and bad and cursed by God. There are still people, even today, who believe that dark skinned people are cursed and evil. Google the Curse of Ham.

Again, there is nothing wrong with colorblind casting. The problem occurs when you apply colorblind casting to historical works. And yes, many of us are aware that history, especially American, history gets whitewashed. But if you're going to put a person of color, even as an extra, in Elizabeth's or Mary's court, I want to see the historical receipts to back it up.

Oh for chrissakes, will you just shut up about the race of the actors? It's a trivial issue, we've heard what everyone has to say about a trivial issue, and what the fuck is the point of continuing to go on about this trivial issue when the fucking film has already been shot and it's too late to change any casting decisions.

Let's get back to vitally important issues, like Darnley's dick size.

I know racism has always existed, because every tribe always defines itself against other tribes. What I was talking about is the time before the whole dreary, stupid, braindead thing we have done in the past 500 years or so where skin color is some huge, huge, huge factor in human relations. What came out of the African slave trade was this need to justify that slave trade by elaborate bullshit about how white skin means one thing and black skin means something else. Before that stupid fantasy was a whole lot of other bullshit about how Greeks or Romans or Egyptians or Syrians or Assyrians or Angles or Saxons or Normans or Castilians or Mongols or Turks or a million other options were the "best of the best." It was actually less destructive because it was so obviously random and ever changing. Today we are stuck with the braindead idiocy of skin color and hopefully we will get over that shit sometime in the very near future.

R253, we tend to idealise the past and our ancestors. The truth is skin colour was often a "huge, huge, huge factor in human relations" even before modern times. It didn't simply "come out of the African slave trade" - it predates it by far. In fact, it was an even bigger problem since it went much deeper than continental race - skin tone (or its visual appearance) was a symbol of status within society (high ruling society & their close demi-monde vs. 'lowly' working class / peasants / servants / slaves).

For example, Geishas in old Japan wore white makeup. European aristocrats (especially the French and even Queen Elizabeth II) also painted their faces white. So did the high-society Romans, using chalk powder to 'whiten' their faces. So this trend wasn't "random" and "ever changing" - it continued through different eras across many countries. Because it was a common, universal differentiator between the 'fair-faced' ruling elite (mostly carrying out intellectual tasks indoors / under a tent) and their indentured peasant workers / serfs, who had to toil and do physical labour underneath the burning sun, aging prematurely.

IMHO, that historical trend wasn't "less destructive" - it was very socially divisive and destructive in its own right. Since fair skin tone was a rather widespread, persistent benchmark for social looks & status across Eurasia, it created inherent challenges for naturally dark-pigmented people to be accepted as equals - for high-society marriages (which had to be arranged & pre-approved back then) and for high positions. There was social discrimination in play based on these visual aesthetics / optics - dark pigment gave the impression of working class / field peasant roots, which was looked down upon.

If anything, modern society was one of the first to partially reverse that historic trend (everywhere except East Asia as they still hold on to more traditional aesthetics). Because our lifestyle changed completely after the industrial revolution. Now most people work indoors with artificial lights (factories, offices) - and taking a plane for a long 'sun-drenched' beach holiday is the benchmark for social aspirations.

There would have been a few black people in England, especially London. Silly to suggest otherwise.

England engaged in significant trade and even some intermarriage with span where there were many black people. Absurd to think some traders didn't make their way to England. Just probably not too many

R254, people always look for ways to distinguish themselves from others. And light makeup has been used many in many eras because of its light reflective properties and mimicry of skin not exposed to the sun.

But it is also true that a many times in history, no one thought enough of natural complexion to note the color of specific individuals.

That is not to say they were not as tribal as we are. They just used other markers to exclude.

if you go back far enough in Britain

R256, "markers to exclude" were very similar back then. Across Eurasia fair skin (or the appearance of fair skin) was more often prized over darker skin. That's why people didn't cover their faces with charcoal paint instead. Reflective properties didn't matter - the Eurasian ruling class wore white-enhancing makeup even for indoor public events and state dinners.

And people weren't blind - they noticed discrepancies in skin tone (which they recorded in written accounts) that suggested either foreign (a.k.a. 'not one of our own') origin or lower-class working roots. Unfortunately, they did mostly discriminate on that basis - otherwise we'd have more Eurasian royal, aristocratic and otherwise notable families inter-marrying with their African or Asian counterparts. But it was more a very rare exception than the general rule.

R255, tradesmen and merchants were generally not considered a high class. They were ca. one level above peasants and far below nobles / landed gentry and the court entourage / royal inner circle. Therefore tradesmen could be (and often were) Jewish, Roma Gypsy and other minor (somewhat oppressed) ethnicities - their circle was different from the noble / royal circle.

R257, if we go back far enough, all Asians and Native Americans were black too. All different ethnicities originated on one continent, but have since migrated to very different continents / climates many millennia ago and via evolution adapted to those specific climates, developing different phenotypes.

R258 most of what you said was true, there was very little intermarriage with other ethnic groups at the upper echelons of society (and not just FOREIGN ethnic groups, a Norman baron wouldn't be caught dead with a native Briton wife)

However not all nobles or landed gentry were wealthy. It was not out of the realm of possibility for exceptionally rich merchants to marry into recently impoverished noble lines. Trading a cash infusion for a status booster. Some poorer nobles would have needed it to maintain their estates. And that practice is extremely common across all civilizations

Though I acknowledge a foreigner who isn't even a noble would probably have been a bridge too far

Blasphemous white homos!

fuck off deplorable. Go start a Hillary thread i can ignore

It's brain washing plot by powerful jews in showbiz!!! The man goes up into the man, and the man becomes a lady and the lady becomes a man and its all a plot by homosexual jews!

Good point, R260. Though I question how such a marriage (impoverished noble's heir to rich merchant's offspring) would go down in society back then in the 1500s. Would that lead to ridicule and social ostracism of that family? There was an almost rigid caste system back then - nobles admitted to Court were expected to marry within their 'respectable' social group and lineage (often with the Monarch acting as matchmaker for the arranged marriage). Many nobles ended up marrying their cousins, just to abide by society rules and consolidate family estates.

[quote]It's always a story that makes for box office poison, from Katharine Hpeburn to Vanessa Redgrave.

Chicks shading each other is not exactly box office blockbuster material.

Oh dear god in heaven!

I agree with most of that r254, but it has nothing to do with "idealizing" our ancestors. They had different priorities, which were stupid in different ways. But they had not yet developed this poisonous philosophy that melanin has all these other factors: intelligence, servitude, cowardice, backwardness, etc. That poison is what I wish we could do away with. I think you raise interesting points about the difficulty of seeing darker skin as not inferior, when it was married to class, but I think it would have been a whole lot easier if not for the African slave trade and the psychological needs that went along with it.

And I would add what they didn't have was any sort of skin color solidarity. I don't think ancient Romans or Greeks felt any affinity for Celts or Germans or Britons or Slavs. If anything, they'd feel closer to Egyptians and North Africans and really any Mediterranean peoples rather than those crazy, awful, deeply inferior northern tribes.

or Scots, like Mary, the onetime star of this thread.

[quote] Let's get back to vitally important issues, like Darnley's dick size.

By today's standards men of that era had small penises. By DL standards, men of the Tudor period would have had micropenises.

Well, R267, Anne Boleyn, Lizs mom was described by contemporaries as "swarthy" "rather dark complexion" "olive skin".

Her eyes were black, and she had black hair.

Words such as pale, white, alabaster, creme, peal were known, but not used to describe Anne's skin.

Queen Mary's mom, Catherine of Aragon, of Spain, was pale and had red hair.

"By today's standards men of that era had small penises. "

How do you know THAT?

I mean, I know some of our posters are on the senior side, but I didn't think anyone here was quite that old...

R258 I guess what you say makes sense if you thow logic out the window.

A minor point, but you put it first and it showed how this was going to go. Light toned makeup has been preferred because it reflects light. You claim that this would be less important indoors---but that is of course where it would be most important to reflect light (since there is less of it).

Then somehow you try to disprove the idea that people in other times (ancient and medieval) paid less attention to skin tone by saying if that were true, then today's aristocracy would marry people of other races today. That would make sense if times, customs, beliefs, etc did not change over time. But they do. That is the whole point.

Intermarriage is not really a good indicator anyway, since in ancient times Roman and Greek aristocrats rarely married foreigners of any type. As time went on, Africa and the closer parts of Asia were separated by religious conviction and differing types of political structure (between Asia, Europe, and Africa).

R271 The Greeks were a pretty insular people for sure but that was far less true of the Romans who made a big show of granting Roman citizenship to wealthy or otherwise prominent members of practically any culture. Rome embraced immigration and cultural integration at level we haven't seen again until modern times

My assumption is that the court circles in Mary and Elizabeth's age were quite small, less than 200 for Elizabeth? Fewer for Mary. Outside of these bubbles did 'regular' folk emulate the court? Given distances and lack of mass communication were common folk more or less rigid in their attitudes and behavior?

When Henry VIII's daughter Mary (Bloody Mary) became queen, England had been Protestant less than a decade! She was married to the King of Spain. Of course she tried to revert back to hundreds of years of Catholicism. She must have been a shitty ruler to have failed, really.

verificatia, please r268

The trailer looks terrible. Margot Robbie Aussie accent keeps popping in and oht. She can’t do a British accent without that happening. She does a perfect American accent, though.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Many sailors were Black. If you watched the movie Amistad, it was historically accurate in many respects. Very well researched.

Margot Robbie says being ‘ugly’ for Queen Elizabeth I role made her feel ‘lonely and alienated’

Mary, Queen of Scots film 'problematic' says historian

Mary Queen of Scots Poster #3

How many versions of this story does the world need?

More nasty history from the most brutal people in the world. Who fucking cares anymore about what these people are like?

Agreed R283 this is the most played out story of all time while so many other British historical stories are untold. But all studios want to do is this cat fight

Agree that this material is played out - why so many Tudor movies?

R286 The Tudors' lives revolved more around sex which is all Hollywood cares about.

[quote] Her husband, Lord Darney, was a bisexual twink.

There is not one single piece of contemporary evidence that Darnley was either gay or bisexual, [R28]. Literally nothing.

"Mary Queen of Scots" screenwriter Beau Willimon explains "“There’s a fair amount of history that points to this,” Willimon told TheWrap. “We do know that Darnley had sexual relationships with other men, but there was no notion of ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ in the 16th century.”

Guy has said that Rizzio and Darnley having a sexual relationship is true to history, and in British historian Anna Whitelock’s book “Elizabeth’s Bedfellows: An Intimate History of the Queen’s Court,” she writes that Rizzio and “Darnley himself ‘would lie sometime in one bed together.'”t

To me the movie portrayed him as being gay not bisexual. It presented it as if he only seduced Mary to further his ambition.

R281, interesting article in that it goes on and on about the various historical inaccuracies of the film but not one mention of black courtiers or an Asian playing Bess of Hardwick. Are people really that afraid of Twitter backlash and being labeled a 'racist' for pointing out the obvious?

BTW: Love this shade from one of the historians:

[quote]"As long as we allow Americans to tell our stories we are always going to get a distorted view of history, entertaining as that may be."

r15 is an idiot. Literature is not all the product of fancy, you fucking retard. The best writers always try to keep a link with HISTORICAL reality, and the best works of literature are always, in truth, about a real issue in the real world, not just something a solipsistic genius wanted to write about merely because he wanted to write about something.

Elizabeth was a huge, murderous cunt. The British have made hundreds of books and movies portraying her otherwise. Since a brit wrote this, I'm guessing this will be more of the same, and will portray one of her murder victim's as the cunt.

The attempt to turn Mary into some sort of feminist icon is rather ridiculous given that the facts don't remotely support that position.

What in anyone's opinion is the most historically accurate portrayals of the Tudors?

BBC series from 1972: The Six Wives of Henry VIII and Elizabeth R.

R294, Elizabeth R starring Glenda Jackson is both compelling and historically accurate. It’s very much in the style of a play, though, and the characters may not seem relatable or sympathetic in a the current context.

Mary of Scotland’s story is truly fascinating. She was used as a political pawn for the first 18 years of her life, and just lacked the shrewdness to be a successful queen of Scotland. That marriage to Darnley (who was unstable and violent) was the beginning of the end for her.

[quote] Black and brown people existed during this time in history ya know....

I watch classy England history movies to forget about the blacks. White lives matter too!

I can't wait to see this so I can find out what happened to Mary's half-brother-in-law's werewolf-killing mission that morphed into a Druid adventure culminating in l'affaire Rizzio!

[quote]This is the datalounge, where people complained that having black extras in Beauty and the Beast was "unrealistic" but didn't think it was unrealistic for a guy to turn into a beast.....

and, instead of discussing naked James Purefoy and Tobias Menzies, bemoaned that "Rome" was not broadcast in Latin.

[quote]Katherine Hepburn played an aging Eleanor in Lion in Winter.

This movie has almost no buzz & received meh reviews; this year's costume drama receiving awards will be The Favorite

[quote]Black and brown people existed during this time in history ya know....

Of course, there were black/brown people back then, but there weren't many in Tudor England and they certainly weren't courtiers nor was Bess of Hardwick Asian.

The whole thing is just stunt casting, anyway, to get people of color interested in the movie, even though the filmmakers want it to seem like they're woke or something.

R302, the people of color are only in small roles, the leads are white people. No one is going to see this or not see this based on actors in small supporting roles

R303 that may be, but the POC got enough screen time in the trailer, so obviously they were targeting them. Sheesh.

On my first trip to London I was most impressed by Westminster Abbey. So beautiful and full of history.

Elizabeth 1 and Mary Queen of Scots are entombed there, one on each side of the abbey.

What struck me was how much these women resembled each other. The reclining figures on their tombs are taken from their death masks so they are very accurate. No artistic license.

Rumor has it that they could have been biological sisters. Henry was capable of anything. That's the piece of this puzzle that interests me.

Just a thought.

There is also an astounding theory that exists that when Elizabeth was a teenager and exiled to a country estate (because her dead mother Ann Boleyn's reputation was reviled and her half-sister Queen Mary was in control of the palace), she became gravely ill and died.

But to keep power within their hands, Protestant courtiers who were against Mary, substituted a teenage boy, wigged to look like Elizabeth. This boy then came to power as Queen Elizabeth after Queen Mary died.

And that's the reason "she" never married, wore wigs and elaborately padded costumes that armored her appearance and why her private life has remained shrouded in mystery after all these centuries.

She also refused to let her corpse be autopsied.

Like the remains of the 2 children found recently under those stairs at The Tower of London, only DNA testing will solve these mysteries.

Was Elizabeth a man? Were Elizabeth and Mary sisters? Are the skeletons under the stairs the two princes?

DNA proved Richard the 3rds' remains were real. Buried and forgotten under a parking lot. And he was not a deformed hunch back after all.

Anything is possible.

And when... R305 would Henry VIII have been able to slip into Scotland and knock up his nephew's wife? Plus, Henry was already a human boulder when Mary was born.

I visited London this summer and I agree with you it's magical. I snuck some photos in Westminster. It's interesting that, despite abandoning his mother to Elizabeth, James eventually had her body brought to Westminster and gave her a more ornate tomb.

I hate how early all the tourist sites closed.

R305, Mary and Elizabeth were first cousins, once removed, and did strongly resemble each other. Mary might have been considered better looking simply because she didn't have Elizabeth's weird redhead coloring. The two even shared many personal traits; Elizabeth may have been more boy-crazy than Mary. Elizabeth had better advisors, though, and she had the "advantage" of having had a relatively deprived childhood. That made her more cautious, more aware of how dangerous the world was.

Ms. Amos as Mary, Queen of Scots by Kevyn Aucoin.

Richard III had severe scoliosis.

"Rumor has it that they could have been biological sisters. Henry was capable of anything. "

Well he wasn't capable of refrigerating his sperm and air-mailing it to Scotland, not in 1542.

we already had this dump argument months ago r12, and you are full of shit. I am all for diversity casting because who gives a SHIT, but it is NOT historically accurate

There are ALWAYS liberties taken with historical dramas, to make things more cinematic. Elizabeth and Mary MUST meet (in fiction) because letter writing is dull. They've been doing it that way for 50 years.

Not to mention the liberties of having 30-something Vanessa Redgrave play 18-25 year old Mary.

I love you, R312. Marry me.

Republicans will whine about color blind casting because it's "unrealistic"....but they won't complain about the many other liberties that the movie takes (Let's pretend they actually met! Let's pretend Elizabeth looked like Margot Robbie!)

[quote]the liberties of having 30-something Vanessa Redgrave play 18-25 year old Mary.

Who cares how old she was, she looked fabulous. God, I love that movie.

If a movie shows a character aging from late teens until their forties, such as in "Mary Queen of Scots" and "Isadora", there's nothing to be done but hire one actor and have them spend most of the movie acting older or younger than they really are.

So until the invention of CGI, biopic fans had to willingly suspend disbelief on that front.

Just checking back.

In 1541 Henry Vlll and his court traveled to York to meet with James V and the Scottish court. While the court arrived, James was claimed to be absent. This may or may not be true. What was true was that Henry and Mary of Guise were in the same place one year before the birth of Mary Queen of Scots.

Second cousins are not identical unless your Patty Duke. No "slipping in to Scotland" or "refrigerated, airmailed sperm" would have been required.

Also, although quite fat, Henry Vlll was still quite vital in 1541. He executed his then wife Catherine Howard the next year.

Mary was born in December 1542.

It's basically a ridiculous idea. If it were true, Mary would be a bastard and have no claim to either throne.

R319, Henry VIII could kill wives in his sleep by that point. That doesn't prove he was very lively at that point. In any event, it's a crazy idea, no one at the time suggested it.

Of course, even if there had been rumors, Mary would not have had a legitimacy problem. Her mother was a married woman; Mary would have been conclusively presumed to be fathered by her mother's spouse. Elizabeth was the one who was declared to be illegitimate by her own father, but, as she proved, if you have popular support, it really doesn't matter.

"Also, although quite fat, Henry Vlll was still quite vital in 1541. He executed his then wife Catherine Howard the next year. "

He was rumored to have been impotent with Catherine Howard, he was obese and ulcerated by that point.

As for his being in the same room as the Mary's mother, well, Mary was born in December 1542 so she couldn't have been conceived in 1541, it would have to be March 1542. And of course everyone is welcome to give the date of Henry's 1541 visit to Scotland, but I'm assuming it wasn't made during the winter. There was no such thing as a paved road back then and most roads were muddy and impassable during the winter months, so much so that wars were generally suspended during the winter and resumed again in the spring and summer, during the "campaigning season".

So, we are to suppose that Marie de Guise was so smitten by the obese, ulcerated Henry that she somehow ditched her ladies in waiting, other courtiers, and put her crown at risk to sneak off and fuck around?

If you play the game of thrones, Mary, you win or you die.

Elizabeth's advisors HATED Mary. If there was a whiff of her being a bastard, they would've used it.

Not to mention, when they were both between spouses, Marie de Guise was approached to be Mrs. Henry #4. She emphatically declined. So it would make absolutely no sense for her to turn down being THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND only to agree to be Henry's whore a few years (and many pounds) later, risking her own life with none of the perks.

Marie supposedly turned down Henry's marriage offer by saying to his ambassador that though she was a tall woman, she had a tiny neck.

Mary and Elizabeth didn’t meet in the Elizabeth R movies with Cate Blanchett, did they? I thought the way it was handled in that movie was plenty compelling. (I do realize much about the story was fictionalized...I’m just specifically responding to the person who said that Liz and Mary “MUST meet in the movies.”)

I thought I read that her execution didn't go very 'cleanly'. That is, they kind of had to saw through towards the end.

We really were, and are, a fucked up society.

Isn’t this like, the third remake? What else can they add to the story?

Dragons, R329

I saw this today and was pleasantly surprised, having gone in expecting to be very disappointed. The sets, costumes, and makeup were well done - not too flashy but opulent enough when the scene called for it. The story was well told, what they chose of it to tell, andThere are a few things to quibble about, among them the fictional scene of the meeting of queens, and the rather unlikely oral sex scene. (People didn't really wash too well back then, did they?). I have to say in all honesty and not meaning to offend anyone, that the casting choices do have a jarring effect. Some above have mentioned this. It might not distract everyone in the audience, but there IS a reason that movie producers normally put a lot of thought into casting decisions. Wouldn't it take most viewers out of a movie a bit if an Inuit were playing servant to a Zulu prince, or if they had a blond, blue-eyed northern European cast as a chief advisor to a Chinese emperor? It's my feeling that a historical drama, especially one where it's pretty well known what the people looked like, more effectively immerses the audience in the story when they get the look of the actors right. For any other movie genre this doesn't really apply, so who cares. Anyone agree?

Sorry - I should have proofread.

Absolutely, r331. If an Inuit is looking to "identify" (the contemporary narcissistic scourge), he/she can watch NANOOK OF THE NORTH.

R331, but, as people keep pointing out--indeed, as you have pointed out--many things in this film are historically very inaccurate, and the two actresses look nothing like the real Mary and Elizabeth. It's fantasy.

Fantasy it may be---but one would hope within the realm of reason. Verdi's score for AIDA may be pure 19th century bel canto, but its exoticism and flavor SUGGESTS ancient Egypt--and that makes all the difference in the world.

Um, no, Elizabeth didn't look like Margot Robbie, that's not "within the realm of reason"

r333 sounds like a reactionary, and a pretty clueless one. Why would a gay person bash minorities? Can we relate to having few characters to identify with?

Please, R335, not only is Aida fantasy all the way, it's not bel canto.

Of course it's a fantasy...if you used actual monophonic music from antiquity, audiences would flee the opera house. But the score reasonably approximates an IDEA of antiquity through the prism of Verdi's musical vocabulary, just as Miklos Rozsa's well-researcjed scores did for all sword-and-sandal epics in the 1950s.

While I find it strange to cast an Asian in the role of a British, Caucasian person, Hollywood doesn't seem to have an issue casting whites as Asian (I'm looking at you Emma Stone & Scarlett Johansan). So at least Hollywood is now consistent.

Movie was boring and didn't get in the head of either queen. Found myself rooting against Mary who I think was supposed to be the heroine. I thought it was funny that Mary told her gay best friend something to the effect of it's OK that he fucked her husband because he was loving in the way he was born to love. Wouldn't have happened in the 16th century.

On the point of the diversity casting, I wasn't bothered by it to the point that some on this thread are, but it does look silly and, worse, pandering on screen. If they are going to do the diversity casting, why not go all out and cast a black Mary? A black Darnley (the first husband of Mary)?

Darnley was Mary's second husband; her first was Francis II of France.

Saoirse Ronan couldn't speak French pour merde on Seth Meyers. She's charming and quick but doesn't seem well educated.

It was just silly to give MQoS an Scottish accent. Fanny Ardant playing Marie de Guise in French was pretty classy.

"On the point of the diversity casting, I wasn't bothered by it to the point that some on this thread are, but it does look silly and, worse, pandering on screen."

Bet you didn't care when Angelina Jolie played a black woman in A Mighty Heart

Here's what the rehearsal looked like

Casting England as solely white, especially in metropolitan areas like London is far more common and as wrong. Trading cities like that would have had Moors, Arabs, and a few other scattered minority groups.

But I highly doubt any of you trolls have complained about the historicity of all white castings. Because historical accuracy isn't the real problem you have with it

R345, I don't have a problem with it, but you're also not representing history accurately. either The movie has people of color in roles that they would not have been in. I can't think of an apparently high-ranking emissary who was black, or a lady in waiting of Mary or Elizabeth who was Asian, and so on as it's portrayed in the movie. I think it's fine to self-consciously get a diverse cast, but then just accept it for what it is, don't try to claim that it's historically accurate.

I'm going to see this movie later this week.

Until then, I'm just going to ask if Margot Robbie was any good?

"Bet you didn't care when Angelina Jolie played a black woman in A Mighty Heart"

Of course not. She was excellent in a difficult, reactionary role.

R347, she was fine, nothing too special but also not weak. It's a thankless role.

Loved Antonia Frasier's biography of Mary. What a time! Elizabeth's court were truly evil and Mary died a horrible and unnecessary death. Glad Elizabeth I ended as a pained, lonely, frightened, and paranoid soul. MQoS was a legit heir.

Queen Victoria was a fan of MQoS and spent her life collecting memorabilia...see Mary's apartments at Holyrood in Edinburgh.

Just because Mary was the legitimate heir didn't mean that she wasn't a genuine threat to Elizabeth, intentionally or unintentionally. As long as the Catholics wanted to depose Elizabeth and put a Catholic on the throne, Mary's existence was a threat to Elizabeth.

And that's why the Tudor dynasty died out. Any relative who was a sufficient threat to the monarch got the chop, and after a few generations for that they ran out of relatives.

Mary was only the legit heir IF you were a Catholic. Regardless, if Mary had taken the English throne it would have been a disaster for the country. She was a horrible ruler and couldn't even hold onto her own throne. She spent more time in prison as she did running Scotland into the ground.

If they had gotten rid of Liz I and put Mary on the English throne, she would've been no more successful than the last Mary. Probably even less so as she had no power base. Being raised in France crippled her, especially since it was all for nothing

"Of course not. She was excellent in a difficult, reactionary role."

So it's wrong for Asians to play white people but okay for white people to play black people? Mmkay, nice Trumpster logic there. Btw, you have shit for taste, Jolie is overrated.

I saw this today and was pleasantly surprised. I actually preferred it over The Favourite, the other royal costume drama out this Christmas. Yes, the story is jammed packed with his historical inaccuracies but nothing new as most historical dramas are. The diversity casting didn't bother me since, as others have pointed out, Hollywood has white washed films for ages. My only question about the casting in historical dramas like this one is that does it not somewhat gloss over how shitty life was for non-white people in Europe during this period?

I disagree with R110 that the film tries to portray Mary has a feminist hero. I think the take a balanced approach of how Mary and Elizabeth attempt to retain their positions as Queen regents. Mary gave in to her passions and the charms of men (as Elizabeth points out to Mary near the end of the film) and that is her downfall, while Elizabeth in a sense sacrifices her womanhood and never marries in order to retain power.

I personally felt Margot Robbie's portrayal of Elizabeth was more interesting than Saoirse Ronan's as Mary. The actor who played Darnley, Mary's second husband and father of james I, is damn hot!

Neither Mary nor Elizabeth were 'queen regents', R356. They were queens regnant, i.e. ruling queens. Regents just stand in for a ruler who is away or a minor.

[quote] The actor who played Darnley, Mary's second husband and father of james I, is damn hot!

Saoirse thought so as well. They're dating.

Darnley was a mincing fairy according the John Ford/Kate Hepburn version of this story

R239 is directed at R37.

The preview with the voiceover saying "Mary's power is growing!" is ridiculous. She never had power in Scotland. She didn't bother to even learn what the political/religious climate was in Scotland before she arrived. She thought as an anointed queen, everyone would just bow and scrape before her. Instead her subjects thought of her as foreign and Catholic and wanted nothing to do with her. One of her first acts was to send an envoy to Elizabeth asking to be named her successor. Mary couldn't have been any less astute if she tried.

[quote] Darnley was a mincing fairy according the John Ford/Kate Hepburn version of this story

In this version Darnley is a masc top and Riccio/Rizzio a femme bottom.

Ruling monarchs really can't marry just anyone, even kings. Look at all the trouble Henry VIII caused by divorcing the rightful queen so he could marry his unpopular mistress, and Edward IV's marriage to the nobody Elizabeth Woodville was one of the factors that kept the War of the Roses brewing for so many decades. Of course if the ruler was a woman in those days, the issue of marriage was extra-super-problematic, a problem that neither Elizabeth nor Mary solved as long as they lived. Mary's ill-advised marriages cost her her throne, and even the brilliant Elizabeth couldn't work out how to marry without losing power.

Anyway, I saw the first half of the movie in question, before being dragged away against my will. Should I bother to go again and see everything that happened after Rizzio was murdered and Mary lost her throne for the first time?

[quote] What a time! Elizabeth's court were truly evil and Mary died a horrible and unnecessary death. Glad Elizabeth I ended as a pained, lonely, frightened, and paranoid soul. MQoS was a legit heir.

Mary was a colossal idiot.

The movie made it sound like Mary thought of Scotland as nothing but a springboard to the English throne.

If that was true, the Scottish lords were right to depose her. Scotland deserved a rule who cared about it.

This looks like it’s completely historically inaccurate but I want to see it anyway.

What people forget about Elizabeth, is that she didn't want to become a tyrant. When she ascended the throne she wanted to do away with the religious turmoil of her brother's Protestant reign and her sister's Catholic reign. She famously said she would not make windows into men's souls, and was willing to tolerate various religious views as long as people remained loyal to her in her secular capacity. However, once the Pope announced that all good Catholics owed her no allegiance and should work to remove her from the throne she could no longer tolerate dissent without endangering her life and the sanctity of her kingdom. And, Mary was the focal point for almost all Catholic rebels. Also, most people forget that Elizabeth didn't want to kill Mary and agonized over the decision for a long time.

[quote]the liberties of having 30-something Vanessa Redgrave play 18-25 year old Mary.

^ Obviously, hasn't seen Glenda Jackson in Elizabeth I.

Correction: Glenda Jackson in Elizabeth R.

R165, if that's what eh movie is saying, then they are spot on. Mary was obsessed with getting her rights to succeed in England accepted - it literally did damage Scottish interests, as she wouldn't ratify a mutually beneficial Anglo-Scottish treaty unless Elizabeth recognised her as her heir, and Elizabeth was repeatedly categoric that she would neve recognise anyone that way.

It was made for the CW generation. I’m surprised they didn’t have modern music in it.

In the Golden Age with Blanchett, Mary is depicted as definitely plotting Elizabeth’s assasination.

[quote]It was made for the CW generation. I’m surprised they didn’t have modern music in it.

You know CW did this story for four seasons, right? With modern music.

Yep, this was the CW version

I love the Tudor/Stuart era and the Mary Queen of Scots story could be filmed fifty times and be fascinating.

Other than the always dopey-as-fuck "color blind casting" it's a wonderful film, and both lead actresses are compelling. There's no real hero, Margot Robbie is excellent and Saoirse Ronan is absolutely compelling. It's bizarre what fantastic presence she has on-screen, but on Broadway in "The Crucible" a few years ago gave what I thought to be an almost amateurish shouted performance.

The production is operatic and lavish, and of course the likely fictional meeting of the two Queens must be added. It's a fucking movie! The country of origin of ANY actor is irrelevant if they can PLAY a character believably. I think all this, "No, she NEEDS to be English/Scottish/Jewish/Openly gay/Hispanic" bullshit is Millennial SJW artistic terrorism. It's called "acting", you're just supposed to PRETEND to be the character, not submit to a 23 and Me test first! What the fuck is wrong with people?

Dear Mary, I'll get you Liz's throne in exchange for a night with your husband and brother.

I'll probably see this at some point but I'm in no hurry. Ronan seems interesting as an actress, Robbie less so.

I'm not a Mary fan, definitely Team Elizabeth I. Mary plotted to kill Elizabeth and take her throne so off with her head and Bye Felicia.

It does have some hot men it.

R376, I'm on Team Elizabeth I all the way, but Mary was entrapped. Yes, after everything else that had happened to her, she should have known better than to endorse the idea of killing Elizabeth, but she was set up--Elizabeth was never in any real danger. Mary's execution was inevitable, but Elizabeth was right to feel remorse (or at least claim that she did).

Mary should have never fled to England.

She should have bought a nice condo in Boca Raton

There really weren't a bunch of POC in Tudor England, there weren't even after England became a big colonial power. Even now, the percentage of people of African descent in Great Britain is a whopping 3 percent. I find it funny how many black actors the Brits have on their shows, while ango-Indians, who comprise a much larger percentage of the population, are still underrepresented onscreen.

One big reason there weren't more is that the cold, grey climate was damn hard on anyone who wasn't ghost-pale. There was no Vitamin-D fortified milk. One of the reasons that slavery of Africans never became a thing in New England or Canada is that the Africans didn't survive the climate. (They could and did, however, survive terrible, but sunny conditions in Brazil.)

And no one was wandering over from East Asia, which required either getting around Africa or crossing both the Atlantic and the Pacific or trekking across the deserts, steppes and mountains of Asia, to set up shop in London.

So, yeah, the historical inaccuracy is glaring. And for the person who keeps saying--oh, but what about . . . yeah, those historical innaccuracies *also* bug me. A mixed-race actress should have played Marianne Pearl. The live-action Ghost in the Shell flopped, in part, because people *were* ticked at ScarJo playing the Major. My own feeling was that ScarJo could play the Major, but if you were going to go that route you had to truly Americanize the script--in the same way Kurosawa made a truly Japanese version of Macbeth with Throne of Blood.

Color-washing is a cop-out--I'd rather see reasonably believable casting of characters like Bess of Hardwick AND a wider range of stories told. There's a real laziness about all of this and people can see straight through it.

I wish, for example, someone would do a good biopic of Josephine Baker--she was a remarkable woman who lived a fascinating life. Or, if you're feeling French, something on the Dumas father and son (mixed race). There are plenty of real stories that don't get told.

[quote]One of the reasons that slavery of Africans never became a thing in New England or Canada is that the Africans didn't survive the climate.

Think about that for a minute and get back to us on glaring historical inaccuracy.

R382, they had slaves, but plantation slavery of Africans in New England and the mid-Atlantic states didn't last. And, yes, I'm introducing Canada early.

So, do you have a bigger bone to pick or do you want to acknowledge that, no, you wouldn't have seen POC in Elizabeth's court?

"Mary should have never fled to England. "

She has a rare gift of compelling stillness on film. Put her in front of a movie camera and have her stand still and look around for a minute, and when other actors try that you've got some dead space, and when she does it it's compelling and revealing of character. That is not a gift that's likely to transfer to a stage performance.

As for the color-blind casting,I don't give a rat's ass. If I can watch white actors in blackface and yellowface in old Hollywood films, and watch Chinese actors playing white people in Hong Kong films... this is nothing by comparison!

Damn! I was trying to respond to R374's comments about Ronan's performance in a Broadway play!

But yeah, Mary should never have fled to England. Elizabeth knew damn well that Mary couldn't be trusted, if Mary had had a brain in her head she should have sold her jewels and her pussy to get to France instead of running to England, she had friends and in-laws there, and the support of the Catholic church. But Mary didn't have a brain in her head.

Mary was the classic case of someone born to power and pampered privilege being over-impressed by their own personality. She was convinced if she could meet Elizabeth, she would easily persuade her to basically give her an army and restore her to power in Scotland. There was the famous occasion when she met the ghastly protestant leader John Knox, expecting to easily charm him, but bursting into tears of frustration when this didn't happen. Imagine Elizabeth doing that.

"There's a real laziness about all of this and people can see straight through it."

LOL, you're wrong. People have no problem with inaccurate movies as long as they are entertaining. Most popular historical epics get the history wrong.

Mary likely didn't flee to France because her former mother-in-law loathed her. Even though her son was on the throne, Catherine still pulled the strings and had no interest in aiding a member of the House of Guise.

I thought it was a fine PBS / Masterpiece thing. Acting was fine, had an earthy grit (not lush) & that's about it. The muff eating scene made me think about hygiene.

Catherine de' Medici may not have liked Mary, R388, but she would have treated her with solidarity as a dowager queen of France, like herself, and as a symbol and instrument of the ancient Franco-Scottish alliance. It was also important for France, given Mary's claim to England, to keep her well away from Spain. Mary would have been fine in France. Catherine, like Elizabeth, wrote Mary to give her extremely sensible advice after Darnley's murder - a waste of ink, of course.

Catherine was a pragmatist. France would have gained nothing by taking in Mary. They had enough problems of their own and weren't about to go to war to put Mary on the English throne, especially since Mary was such a disaster in Scotland.

r383, I’m just astonished and mystified by your belief that black people can’t survive colder climates without modern milk or whatever. Millions do.

R392 and this is someone who claims historical accuracy is why he doesn't like the casting LOL

She would have been okay with Catherine de Medici, she would have been even better off with the Pope.

I've never understood why she didn't run to Italy, unless the mess with Bothwell soured the Pope on her? They pretended it had been rape, the Church could have gone with that story.

I'm obviously not Mary, but, oh, mary, she seemed to always believe whatever she did was right and it would work out. God's anointed and all that.

Someone with that mindset probably doesn't even consider retreat to France or Italy, because, you know, next gig's gonna work out for her. :)

Definitely on my must see list for next year.

R383, Oh, so that's what has you dumbfounded. Look up Vitamin D deficiency--it's an ongoing issue for darker-skinned immigrants to areas that don't get much sun. What we call "race" is pretty much an adaptation to environment. 80 percent of African-Americans have a Vitamin D deficiency--and that's with the majority living in the southern part of the country.

In the case of colonial New England, there was also an issue of cold weather (it was the time of the little Ice Age)--people from Africa were more severely affected than people from Northern Europe.

Meanwhile, pale people have health issues when they live in areas with lots of solar radiation--i.e. the high rates of skin cancer among white Australians. One of the reasons, the slave trade was so prolific between Africa and the Caribbean and Brazil was that Africans had a stronger resistance to diseases like malaria than Europeans.

[quote] Trading cities like that would have had Moors, Arabs, and a few other scattered minority groups

Not in the royal retinue. Down near the docks, maybe. But moors & Arabs were not trusted. Spain & Portugal had only recently liberated themselves from moorish rule and were trying to expel the remaining moors & Jews. England & Scotland weren’t going to let them in. Jews were expelled from England in 1290 and really didn’t make a comeback until 1656.

Muslims were very unpopular in Europe as they were kidnapping Europeans from as far north as Iceland and selling them as slaves from the 1400s through the 1800s. Crimean Tatars ran a very profitable slave trade kidnapping Russians, Poles and Baltic people while ottomans made war in the balkans & captured a great deal of territory. So it’s doubtful anything more than a few emissaries were allowed in the UK. Hell, Catholics were not allowed in the royal retinue for hundreds of years.

On a side note, the soundtrack for this film is fabulous! The incorporation of parts of Zadok the Priest was really clever.

Bothwell had a cute rump when he was doing the pump.

I love musical sophisticates like r399!

R119 Eleanor of Aquitaine got short shrift in 'Becket'; just 12 sentences of dialogue and no close-ups

I used to love this movie with its colour, costumes and such a roll-call of English theatre stars.

But now in my maturity I realise it's an overlong two hours of monotonous ranting by the two leads. The editor Anne Coates has stated the film was very frustrating to cut as the director didn't provide enough establishing shots or reaction shots. She says the two leads were constantly drunk and I suspect the director was too. There's no blocking of the scene.

I talked to someone who saw it. She said it was the first time that she heard that Elizabeth had, had the pox.

R401 Musical sophisticates know that 'Zadok the Priest' would be much less popular if Handel called it 'Cardinal O’Malley the Priest'.

Return to your first true impressions, r402. Becket is a fine film of a very fine play, with stellar performances by its leads and supporting players. The ranting? It's called drama, on a theme of great profundity.

The problem is the screenwriter is Beau Willamon who is absolute shit as a writer. This was like two drag queens screeching at each other. It's terrible.

Spielberg says there's nothing worse than two drag queens screeching at each other.

He says there has to be a story arc, an ebb and flow of ideas as well as emotion, and most importantly there had to be a moral we can take home and ponder upon.

R403, Elizabeth's near death from smallpox fairly early in her reign sparked the first great succession crisis of the reign - her advisors had to start thinking about this seriously. They weren't to know she'd end up outliving all of them.

Beau Willimon covered up Spacey's abuse on House of Cards

R403 It's well documented that Elizabeth I contracted the pox (what we would now refer to as smallpox) in the early 1560s. There was a period of about a week that those around Elizabeth feared that she might die. As the Queen began to recover and it was clear that she would survive she could not attend Council directly for some time, Elizabeth appointed her favourite Dudley as "great protector of the Kingdom" making him something of a de facto regent allowing him to exercise *some* of the Monarch's powers while she recovered. Also it is alleged that during this period Elizabeth confessed that while she adored Dudley, nothing sexual had occurred between them. After she recovered from the box it did allegedly leave scars on her face and effected her hair growth which was one reason she began to adopt heavier makeup and wigs.

This film was decent, although they portrayed Elizabeth far too meekly and Mary too strong and sane. Mary was largely the instrument of her own destruction which I think the film was trying to show but by trying to make her a feminist hero rewrote history. One of the things that the film did get right was that Elizabeth's decision not to marry rested mostly in her desire never to give up her power. Had she married, her husband would have effectively become King while she would have been relegated into the background. Elizabeth intended to rule as regent in her own right and the only way to ensure this was never to marry.

"Also it is alleged that during this period Elizabeth confessed that while she adored Dudley, nothing sexual had occurred between them"

And FYI, her contemporaries had just as hard a time believing that as we do! During her lifetime, the world was buzzing with rumors of lovers, hushed-up miscarriages, and bastard children, which were certainly mostly malicious... and possibly all were. Every single book I've read about Elizabeth expressed doubts whether she really was a "Virgin Queen", even reputable historians wonder about her relationships with Dudley and Seymour.

So I think the new movie got that right about Elizabeth, at least. She was a passionate heterosexual, and the only reason she never married was because she wasn't willing to let her husband take over the rule of England.

[quote]Every single book I've read about Elizabeth expressed doubts whether she really was a "Virgin Queen", even reputable historians wonder about her relationships with Dudley and Seymour.

When I was Christian, our pastor said the Greek word for "virgin" merely implied a woman who didn't belong to a specific man, ie unmarried. As most single women back in the day weren't going to admit to any premarital sex, the word became synonymous with not having had sex yet. I don't know how true that is, but it makes sense in the context of Elizabeth being a Virgin Queen because she was an unpartnered ruler, shrewdly exploiting her subjects' belief in the more chaste definition of the word. I doubt too many nobles were that naive.

R411 While I believe that Elizabeth was not a virgin, she did indeed attempt to reassure her Council during her illness when she appointed Dudley as Great Protector that nothing had "passed between us." My guess is she made this claim to calm speculation that she wished to marry Dudley.

R412 How we interpret the term virgin (which largely stems from the Victorian era) is not how the term was used in Elizabeth's time. Virgin was another term for unmarried not necessarily a term meaning that one is chaste.

R412, R413 is correct. Nobody in Elizabeth's time cared about the Greek meaning of the word "virgin", but they sure as hell cared about intact hymens.

That isn't what r413 said, r413. R413 was actually confirming what I said- it was a term for being unattached, not chaste.

Sorry, that was meant for r414.

Regardless of how the word was interpreted in her time, Elizabeth had already been accused of illicit behavior with her married guardian, Thomas Seymour, so it's doubtful that her hymen remained pristine for thr entirety of her life.

Henri IV of France once said: 'There are three things that no one believes that are nevertheless true: that the Prince of Orange is a great general, that the Queen of England is a virgin and that I am a true Catholic'.

Now that we have almost reached 420 comments in this pox-ridden thread I have to tell you I regard 400 of them with the utmost scepticism.

There is a paucity of documentary evidence and a shipload of fevered invention.

I saw this candy-colored, painfully inclusive snoozefest the other day. AVOID.

Elizabeth Jenkins argued in her biography of Elizabeth that Liz may have well died a virgin. Given that her father executed her mother, a beloved stepmother and another favorite stepmother died in childbirth, Liz had a lot of reasons to fear getting pregnant and surrendering any power. She learned to be wary at an early age for good reason. I don't think she trusted any man enough to let down her guard physically and emotionally.

Sounds like the BBC Elizabeth R is still the best dramatic portrayal of Liz, clunky staging and all.

A friend recommended Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles by Stefan Zweig. There is also Mary Queen of Scots Antonia Fraser. Has anyone here read either?

R421, the Fraser book is compelling and well-written; it debunks a lot of the common myths about Mary.

Is Antonia Fraser really good, R422? Why would Harold Pinter forsake his wife Vivien and his Cockney Jewish heritage to live in sin with a titled lady.

Vivien said Antonia Fraser had ankles like milk bottles before she commenced to drink herself to suicide.

Well, if she had fat ankles then who can believe anything that she wrote...

what are the common myths?

R425, one of the big controversies in her life was the degree to which she may have been involved in Darnley's murder. In the popular imagination (in Schiller's play about her, for example), she was guilty. It was also thought that one of her motives for the crime was her sordid but exciting sexual relationship with the Earl of Bothwell, who became her third husband. Fraser argues that Mary did not kill Darnley, who had plenty of enemies, and that she was forced to marry Bothwell for purely political reasons. Mary's life had such amazing drama in it--the slaughter of her secretary in front of her while she was pregnant (one of the henchmen held a pistol to her stomach), the never-solved murder of her husband, multiple trials, forged documents, her own horrifying beheading--that it's hard to believe that she lived as long as she did.

R424 I believe that these highly-fabricated historical romances are VERY coloured by the 'psyche' of the writer.

A self-assured aristocrat like Antonia Fraser would give a different interpretation from that of an unloveably obese Hilary Mantel or a flapping eunuch luvvie Simon Schama.

According to Elizabeth's physical Dr. Lopez her hymen remained intact well into her 40s as he noted during her gynecological exams (then again Lopez was later executed allegedly for involvement with a plot to poison Elizabeth). I personally think that Elizabeth probably fooled around and had a lot of fun, but never actually had penetrative sex in order to avoid pregnancy.

Mary only lived as long as she did because Elizabeth hesitated to pull the trigger. Mary's tale is tragic though, considering her glittering beginning and grisly ending.

Now, R429, just which trigger was it that Elizabeth hesitated to pull?

The only way Elizabeth's husband would have 'become King of England' would be if he were a King beforehand.

Not really, R431, in that the husband of a ruling queen in the 16th century did normally get the title king, as Darnley did in Scotland and Antoine de Bourbon in Navarre. If Elizabeth had married the Archduke Charles, the king of Sweden's brother or even Robert Dudley, everyone would have expected whichever to get the title 'king of England'. What they could actually do, however, would have been subject to intense negotiation.

Apparently it's crap all around so who cares about the colour-blind casting.

R431 Remember that later when William and Mary were placed on the throne, William became King, even though he was only a Stadtholder in Holland.

LOL at the posters saying the don't like the color blind casting because it's not histrocially accurate but don't mind all the other glaring historical inaccuraries in it