[.ca] Anne Of The Thousand Days / Mary, Queen Of Scots

From Amazon.com:
As costume dramas go, this is a passionate and feisty one, keyed by the ever-luminous Vanessa Redgrave in the title role and the sharp-edged Glenda Jackson as her jealous cousin, Queen Elizabeth I (who knew a thing or two about palace intrigue). Mary, who was raised in France as a Catholic, claims the Scottish crown from her mother upon her death. But she runs up against religious prejudice, both from the Protestant Elizabeth (who had encountered anti-Protestant bias before she took the throne) and from Mary's Protestant half-brother James Stuart (Patrick McGoohan). Elizabeth, whose own reign is shaky (given a strong Catholic presence in her country), is nervous about her Catholic cousin--and made more so by Mary's seeming inability to appreciate the political niceties of the period. Redgrave received an Oscar nomination for her performance. --Marshall Fine

4 good stars... for 2 Greater Stars:
Although the figure of Mary Stuart has always been distorted by Hollywood, this is a good movie which is actually an attempt at giving us a glimpse at the women, not the Queens, in their historic context. Unfortunately, even this one is a bit sweet with Mary and goes on hard on Elizabeth. The players are all first class, starting with a Clash of Titans between Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. Two female screen giants fighting out in front of our own eyes. What a feast. Then come the other giants: Trevor Howard, Ian Holm, Patrick McGoohan, Harry Andrews and many more othe British Screen legends. A real treat in Stardom and a who's who in this movie. Just for that it is highly recommendable. Now two points of woe. First: in all these years (the movie dates back to 1971) do you think that Universal Pictures could have released at least one Widescreen version of it? Noooooh, the Gentlemen went on producing other insignificant stuff, but never cared on re-releasing this one in Letterbox format. Second: although I liked it when it was released, especially for its cast and more than beautiful music scored by John Barry, why wasn't an attempt made at remaking it in a more true to history perspective? After all Mary was not as innocent as depicted by Katie Hepburn or even Vanessa Redgrave. This is Folk Lore not History! Mary was raised in France in exile, but pretty soon took a keen interest in politics and started plotting all by herself to take possession of the English Crown. These were not the figments of the imagination of Elizabeth, but a hard and harsh reality that the English Crown and the Parliament both took immediately very seriously. Mary tried it with whomever would have listened to her and would have granted her protection in doing so. She tried to drag the French on her side at first. When this didn't work, she tried the Italians, through the Pope. then came the Spaniards and ultimately the Scots. And they all fell for her. The reasons for her mad conviction of being the only true Queen of England were inculcated into her by her family due to some contentions they had already back in Henry VIII's Reign. All this though was certainly not enough to make her the legitimate Queen of England and she should have contented herself by already being Queen of the Scots. Anyway, she remains a pathetic and sad figure in History and well deserves a movie such as this one as a remainder that at times it is better to be happy with what one already has, rather than wanting the whole pie. In this instance Mary truly was too immature and too arrogant to admit defeat even if it loomed right in front of her eyes. And arrogance as we all know, gets so often repaid with a harsh punishment. In her case she lost her head over it. Some may say that she fought for religion's sake. Is any religion a valid justification for human sacrifice? Especially of other people, rather than your own. Of course not, and yet Mary never hesitated in sending innocent people to be slaughtered in her name. Some may pity her, some may condemn her, but the fact still remains that she was an intriguing figure wonderfully portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave. And right or wrong, she did exist and should therefore be depicted in at least one movie. Between Katie Hepburn and Vanessa, I still prefer Vanessa. Glenda Jackson reprises her role Elizabeth R in this one and she's one strong butch of a woman, a hard nut to crack. No wonder that men lost their heads (in more than one way) for her. Anyway, this one with Elizabeth and Elizabeth R, should be movies to be bought and cherished dearly like good wine. After all it is seldom they make movies like these. And if you're interested by more Tudor Lore, try also "Henry VIII and his Six Wives", "Anne of the Thousand Days", the filmed Play by Robert Bolt "A Man For All Seasons". The King is dead, long live the Queen...

Unkind is not the word:
What a pity some found the depictions poor; worse, the character of of Mary Stuart is found wanting. Nothing about sympahy for those born to such fates, or even at the chopping block, having to use that axe at least three times. You are unmoved, and Mary of Guise is to blame for most as she chose to have her daughter raised in France as wife to the Dauphin, i.e. Crown Prince. My, this girl could do nothing right. Focus maybe on Elizabeth I, gives me horrors but my god, to live a childhood always under the sword of Damocles, and it was no joke, Elizabeth could well expect a trip to the block when Mary I became sovereign of England. Shall we ignore the most tenuous ethical and legal hold on the throne of England by the Tudors? My own horrors at current practices of the Roman church at the time (and including now, Quebec orphans ) do not alter the fact that Henry had little right to his throne, and once he "divorced" Catherine of Aragon, he had no rights at all per the church he had sworn to uphold. Indeed, ever coin in my pocket labels Her Majesty as "E.II D.G.Regina" (Queen by the grace of God), we being in Canada, people in Great Britain get "D.F.") as well, (we used to also), meaning "Defender of the Faith." What a jewel in Henry's cap, a title given him and his heirs by teh pope (the challenge to "Los Reyes Católicos" {the Catholic Monarchs} in Spain as reward for driving out Jews and Moors and if not ,then burning those not caught at first: erdicate the latent Jews/Moors/Protestants and you got it.) Unfortunately, he then had the Archbishop of Canterbury proclaim the independence of the Anglican church from the Roman, and Henry as "Head" of it. See the coronation films, that is a sacrament to Anglicans, like baptism, and despite moves in our parliament to sever that connection, I was a Britsh subject with friends in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and some others (we could even go live in the other Commonwealth monarchies and even vote after 6 months, get a passport), and truly feudal, the Queen had sworn fealty to me as well as I to her , politicians I think have not the right to alter that. Although, not being an anglican, I wonder why I do not get any say in the matter either way? BUT, at the point of Henry's power move, to all who know, he was no longer legally king of England. Mary was automatically then Queen not just of Scotland but of England. And when the lines had run through Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, England then got James VI and I, as I would have it. but we should all remember that the Queen is first Queen of Scotland and then Queen of England. She doesn't care for that, showed up for the coronation in Edinburgh in a day- travelling outfit, no robes of estate, no ermine, (well, thank god no animals killed, they love that all too well otherwise) pocketbook over the one arm as usual. She had refused even in Scotland to be called Elizabeth I, which was the truth everywhere save England (and possibly Newfondland, Sir Humphrey Gilbert) . He who was intending to set the very large and ancient Crown of Scotland on her head, thought otherwise. They say he was absolutely shaking though I am sure not from fear or nerves, so they brought in the crown on a pillow and showed it to her, (I think the photos deserve to be called portrayals of someone truly one card short). Many are those around the world who refuse to say E. the Second, as she is not. This was hushed up very much at the time, press barons used to have some sense of what things might do, hoi polloi and all that, but some know it now, and I doubt that people involved then and now find it easy to control their anger and forgive the rudeness. Well, we have seen worse than that.

See it for the Score:
I was checking this movie out because I was interested in buying the DVD. How disappointing to see it's not available. The movie itself is extremely interesting, but I wanted it just for the soundtrack. This is one of John Barry's best scores. I guess I'll just have to go listen to Moviola again...

IN OLD SCOTLAND.:
Redgrave does a spirited job in the title role as the headstrong and romantic queen who came to an unfortunate end. Mary is raised and educated in France by her mother's Catholic family, from whom she inherits the Scottish title after her mother's death. Mary claims the throne much to the dismay of her Protestant half-brother James Stuart (McGoohan) and England's equally Protestant Queen Elizabeth - who eventually decides to "eliminate" her dangerous cousin...Vanessa Redgrave brings a tremulous, romantic-goddess quality to Mary; Glenda Jackson is likeable but contemporary in this version: she gives Elizabeth a sort of campy humour. Her red wigs seem almost prankishly terrible: she looks like a ragpicker hag dressed by Orry-Kelly! Director Charles Jarrott struggles to give it all a little lift, but without a better script, Hercules couldn't raise this story off the ground...Periods of history "fraught with intrigue" - as they used to say - don't film well. Mary's "tragical destiny" has always been a movie flop - box-office-wise, anyway. The film falters for a number of reasons: First of all, the leaden script by John Hale lacks romantic spirit and a zestful dramatic sense. Secondly, there's no real motovating idea visible in this version, which was produced abroad by the legendary Hal B. Wallis.

"In My End is My Beginning"...:
I read once that this phrase was the last bit of embroidery Mary Queen of Scots did before her execution, and meant that even though Mary herself was to be executed and never assume her rightful place as Queen of England, her son James would indeed become King on the death of the childless Elizabeth I. This movie does not include that embroidered piece, but we certainly cannot miss the thread of the disputed inheritance of England's throne. What always struck me about Mary Queen of Scots was why she thought she could succeed as Queen of England when she couldn't even manage to control Scotland; since then, I have visited Scotland and learned more about its turbulent history and so have a better appreciation of what Mary was trying to do in Scotland. However, what I have noticed about most of the reviews here is that they speak of the actual history of the rival cousins, and don't say all that much about the movie, so perhaps that is where I shall now turn my attention. Nutshell plot for those out there who really can't follow the complicated history involved (and historians take note, this is how it is in the MOVIE, not how it was in real life): Mary (played by Vanessa Redgrave) is the only legitimate heir to the Scottish throne, but ever since she was a small child has lived in France, where she was even married to the Dauphin (heir to the French throne). Elizabeth's (Glenda Jackson's) claim to the English throne can be contested because according to the Catholic Church, her parents' marriage was invalid and she's a bastard. Elizabeth's chief rival would be Mary since she is a direct legitimate descendant of Henry VII, but whew! everyone expects Mary to spend her whole life in France as Queen of France. If only! Mary gets widowed at 19, and goes back to Scotland to claim her birthright. She's a product of the French court, lively and laughing (and Catholic), while the Scots are dour and poorly dressed and not laughing and becoming Presbyterian. Culture clash? Oh yes. And then there's Mary's illegitimate brother (Patrick McGoohan), who's used to running things and wants to keep on running things--she's upset with that, but not up to overcoming him. Meanwhile back in England, Elizabeth gets a brainstorm idea: what if she sends Mary's captured white horses back to England along with a really worthless but handsome young claimant to the throne, Lord Darnley (Timothy Dalton)? Yep. Lonely Mary falls hard for the guy, proposes, and marries him after a really whirlwind courtship. Morning after, heck no, not even that long, Darnley starts bossing everyone around, including her, saying he's the King of Scotland, and he's also a bisexual. Dour presbyterians and half-brother are unimpressed, but use him to knock off Mary's most trusted advisor (who here is also Darnley's lover). Mary bears a son, the future King James of Scotland/England. Then Earl of Bothwell (actor unknown to me) decides he wants in on the action, and before long, he, the brother, and the dour presbyterians (and so it seems Mary) cook up a scheme to blow up the house where Darnley is being kept now that he has syphilis. Plan goes awry somewhat, because Darnley climbed out the window and escaped the blast, but luckily others are on hand to strangle him. Mary then marries Earl of Bothwell. Elizabeth doesn't like this much. She considers Mary bad news and a bad queen, acting in this immoral fashion. When Mary eventually flees to England because she has been overthrown and forced to abdicate, Elizabeth promptly has her rival imprisoned for the next 19 years, until evidence surfaces that Mary is conspiring for the assassination of Elizabeth. Then, she is beheaded. So much for plot. Is this a good movie, though? Well, parts of it are. Great costumes for the women (those Son of Frankenstein sweaters that the presbyterians wear are not quite stylish, though). Patrick McGoohan's portrayal of the brother is also on target; Timothy Dalton is unsavory as Darnley. This is really the first time I've ever seen either Glenda Jackson or Vanessa Redgrave act. Glenda is wonderful: her portrayal is sympathetic--I understood perfectly her concerns. Vanessa is playing a type of plaster saint; her Mary is a victim, never having to take responsibility for her actions. If she were really this stupid, frankly, she shouldn't have lasted as long as she did. I find this a major problem with the movie, and that it makes it difficult to stomach such length with so little personal complexity in Mary's character. How can she be portrayed as a good woman when she helped blow up her husband? How can she be portrayed as a good mother when she was doing nothing in particular to safeguard him or even be with him? Good people don't usually act in these ways, and that's why I didn't like this movie, all in all. Up with Elizabeth!