MARY OF SCOTLAND (1936)
Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Fredric March, Florence Eldridge, Douglas Walton, John Carradine, Robert Barrat, Gavin Muir, Ian Keith, Moroni Olsen, William Stack, Ralph Forbes, Alan Mowbray, Frieda Inescort, Donald Crisp
Writer: Dudley Nichols (based on the play by Maxwell Anderson)
Cinematography: Joseph H. August
Music: Nathaniel Shilkret
Editor: Jane Loring (editorial associate)
B&W, 2h 03m. 1.37:1 presentation.
Released on: July 28, 1936 by RKO Radio Pictures.
My experience: John Ford Film Collection DVD box set.
Luminous.
That's the best word I can use to describe Katharine Hepburn in this movie, both in appearance and performance. She is the heart and soul of the film, and it lives and dies by her. In the 1930s, this picture's success (or rather, lack of it) led, for a short time, to Kate being declared box office poison, a moniker she wouldn't shake until The Philadelphia Story four years later. Viewed today, however, I have to wonder what audiences back then were thinking. She's magnificent.
This is not the sort of film you would expect to be made by John Ford, being more of the sort of picture George Cukor would take on. Ford's insertion into the production, however, ensures a strong focus on the political machinations in lieu of the rather bland romance angle and makes it visually much more striking than Cukor would ever have done. On which, more later.
Catholic Mary Stuart (Hepburn), more famously known today as Mary, Queen of Scots, lately wife to the deceased child king Francois II of France, makes her way to Scotland with her private secretary David Rizzio (John Carradine) and courtier Mary Beaton (Frieda Inescort) to start her life afresh. Protestant Queen Elizabeth I of England (Florence Eldridge) considers Mary a threat due to her close proximity, both physical and familial, to Liz's throne. She wishes her ambassador, the the Earl of Leicester Robert Dudley (Gavin Muir) to be around her, so sends Sir Francis Throckmorton (Alan Mowbray) up north to stir up the clan leaders against her. These include Lords Ruthven (William Stack), Morton (Robert Barrat), Randolph (Ralph Forbes), and Scotland's regent, Mary's own brother James Stuart, the Earl of Moray (Ian Keith). The only one who seems to support her is Lord Huntly (Donald Crisp).
Even Huntly has limits to his support of Mary, especially when he finds out that she prefers to marry James Hepburn, the Earl of Bothwell (Fredric March), a Protestant, over the clan leaders' choice, her own cousin Henry Stuart, aka Lord Darnley (Douglas Walton). Her hard is forced, and she reluctantly accepts Darnley's proposal. All this is a ruse by the clan leaders, who assassinate Darnley, who by this time is living apart from his wife, and blame Mary and her associates for it. This, along with her hasty remarriage of Bothwell, prompts John Knox (Moroni Olsen), the leader of the Protestant reformation in Scotland, to rile up the citizens against her, causing her to escape to England. All the while, Elizabeth plots from afar, until they meet in the penultimate scene of the film.
You probably read that last paragraph and thought - well, wait a minute. That never happened! You're right, dear reader. Mary Stuart and Elizabeth I of England never did meet in person. However, if you're looking to a classic Hollywood costume drama for precise historical accuracy, I'm afeared you'll be sorely disappointed. From Queen Christina to The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, from Clive of India to The Charge of the Light Brigade, these films were made for pure entertainment value, not lessons in history. If it helped spur an interest in a certain subject, all the better. But Mary of Scotland and its ilk are not to be mistaken for documentary works.
One thing all these films do have in common is a cast of thousands. In this case, I'm not just talking about extras. There are 42 -- count 'em, 42 -- credited speaking parts in the opening credits. That's the most I've seen in any film from the classic studio era, at least at the beginning of a film. Another thing they have in common is COSTUMES!!! Honestly, I'm a bit of a slut for a costume drama, so I may be biased. The Elizabethan-era finery here is by Walter Plunkett, who would go on to outdo himself with the outfits from Gone With The Wind just three years later.
John Ford shoots the hell out of this film, inserting expressionistic and proto-noir touches that enhance the staging. Firstly, the way he stages the crowd scenes are stunning in their complex simplicity. Like a modern day field general with a camera, he's able to move hundreds of soldiers from one aesthetically pleasing formation to the next, without seeming overly precious about it.
The things he does with lighting are also phenomenal. He uses stage lighting to great effect here -- sensible, as the film is based off a Broadway play from three years prior. In certain scenes the "house lights" as it were are dimmed or dampened completely, leaving only a key light or a spotlight to enhance the viewer's ability to feel the essence of the scene. Take, for instance, the scene when Darnley proposes to Mary; the lighting adds a dark touch to the moment, allowing us a glimpse into Mary's feelings. Ford's use of shadow is on point as well. There is one scene in which Rizzio eavesdrops on a conspiracy, and all we see is his shadow projected on the wall as the plot is hatched. Another scene has the weak Darnley cowering by a pillar in the midst of a melee, while the shadows of swords clanging appears on the wall over his shoulder.
Another scene has Mary ascend the scaffold from the viewpoint of said objet de mort, as if she were ascending to heaven. Lightning strikes, the stage lighting dims, and we hear Bothwell's theme (sounding an awful lot like the music that plays when Titanic is sailing across the open seas in James Cameron's epic).
Performances are good across the board. Hepburn, who along with Audrey Hepburn are distantly related to the actual Earl of Bothwell (thus playing the lover of her great-great-great-great-whatever?) is phenomenal in the role. She brings fire and passion to her role, and lights up the screen whenever she's on. Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen her so beautiful onscreen. Fredric March plays to the balcony, as was his style in his early career. Thankfully, this is effective, as his performance needed to be strong in order not to get overwhelmed by Hepburn's work. It also contrasts well with Walton's portrayal of Darnley, which is, shall we say, foppish, effete -- even gay coded, perhaps.
Now the film is not perfect. There's a lot of mansplaining going on towards the Queen of Scots, a powerful woman who if portrayed today would no doubt have cut any sort of condescension off at the knees. Not only that, at over two hours this film feels long. Not sure what I would have cut out, as there aren't really any scenes that stick out as unnecessary. Bothwell's scenes in jail, perhaps, as they are the only scenes with March in which Mary is not present. Or perhaps we didn't need so many cutaways to Queen Elizabeth, but then again, to an Anglophilic American public in the 1930s, she would have been A Name To Put Butts In Seats. It's like making a movie about Colonel Tom Parker and not putting Elvis in the film.
At any rate, these complaints notwithstanding, Mary of Scotland is a very good film, with strong direction and performances. Although not a typical John Ford film, it is nonetheless a strong entry in his canon.
Eight quiescent queens out of ten.
No comments:
Post a Comment