|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 31, 2018 2:56:24 GMT
At first glance, casting two of the most acclaimed and bankable starlets as two of the most influential female historical figures on record would be a slam dunk. And indeed, on paper, Mary, Queen of Scots feels like it could have the potential for a true cinematic dogfight between Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, with the former playing the titular monarch while the latter slips into the role of her rival, the Virgin Queen herself. Such a matching should, by rights, promise heavyweight-level sparring between its actresses.
Unfortunately, Beau Willimon’s half-baked Wikipedia article of a script glosses over the nuances and emotional beats of these women, relegating Mary Stuart to being nothing but a conglomeration of solemn glances and trailer-worthy soundbites, while undercutting Queen Elizabeth as being little more than a glorified cameo rather than the De Niro to Ronan’s Pacino in a Tudor-era Heat that she deserves.
Funnily enough, this imbalance actually causes the inverse in regards to the quality of the performances. Saoirse Ronan, a normally luminous presence in both classical and contemporary roles, is unfortunately at sea in the title role, unable to galvanize the leaden dialogue to rouse an audience, much less a kingdom. On the other hand, Margot Robbie makes the most of her meager screentime as Queen Liz, portraying the melancholy frustrations of the monarch with gusto and aplomb. Her performance cries for a full-length series of her very own.
There are a few praiseworthy moments throughout the film as well, thanks to Josie Rourke’s confident direction and the stunning costume design, but for the most part, Mary, Queen of Scots exists as the cinematic equivalent of the rolled paper flowers that Elizabeth makes at one point: lovely to look at, but easy to discard.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Dec 31, 2018 5:32:34 GMT
I saw this a few days ago, and you nailed down my feelings on it. I expected Margot Robbie to have a bigger role especially after the trailer played up the rivalry between them so much. She did well in her brief performance, but I could see people being disappointed especially as the only between them doesn't happen until the end and Rourke obscures them meeting face to face at first because of the bed hangings. It could have worked, but I don't think there was proper buildup. I expected Ronan to do a better job, but I agree she seems at sea here. She had a few moments where she shined, but I thought she was too self conscious never really getting deep into the character. Overall it felt like Elizabeth-lite to me. Not bad, but I expected more. I will say that I did like the colorblind casting, and while I'm disappointed but not surprised that aspect of it is being criticized at other forums. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 31, 2018 5:40:24 GMT
Overall it felt like Elizabeth-lite to me. Not bad, but I expected more. I will say that I did like the colorblind casting, and while I'm disappointed but not surprised that aspect of it is being criticized at other forums. I thought the colorblind casting was a stroke of genius and showcases how one need not necessarily hew so closely to historical accuracy when it comes to casting, as long as the performance works. Especially as, unlike Othello, the characters' race has no bearing on the story. Not surprised at all it's being criticized, though. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 31, 2018 5:58:42 GMT
Overall it felt like Elizabeth-lite to me. Not bad, but I expected more. I will say that I did like the colorblind casting, and while I'm disappointed but not surprised that aspect of it is being criticized at other forums. I thought the colorblind casting was a stroke of genius and showcases how one need not necessarily hew so closely to historical accuracy when it comes to casting, as long as the performance works. Especially as, unlike Othello, the characters' race has no bearing on the story. Not surprised at all it's being criticized, though. It's not even colorblind casting. Black people have lived in and migrated to Britain since Roman times. People aren't aware of that since history tends to get whitewashed in film and literature. There was a thriving black community in Elizabethan England (and not of the slave variety). Article below gives a bit of history: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18903391 |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 31, 2018 6:02:22 GMT
I thought the colorblind casting was a stroke of genius and showcases how one need not necessarily hew so closely to historical accuracy when it comes to casting, as long as the performance works. Especially as, unlike Othello, the characters' race has no bearing on the story. Not surprised at all it's being criticized, though. It's not even colorblind casting. Black people have lived in and migrated to Britain since Roman times. People aren't aware of that since history tends to get whitewashed in film and literature. There was a thriving black community in Elizabethan England (and not of the slave variety). www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18903391While this is true, Thomas Randolph (the ambassador played by Adrian Lester) wasn't black in real life. Nor was Bess of Hardwick (Gemma Chan) of Asian descent. Their ethnicities did not matter in the grand scheme of the story, so Rourke casting them in these roles was pretty damned inspired. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 31, 2018 6:16:50 GMT
It's not even colorblind casting. Black people have lived in and migrated to Britain since Roman times. People aren't aware of that since history tends to get whitewashed in film and literature. There was a thriving black community in Elizabethan England (and not of the slave variety). www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18903391While this is true, Thomas Randolph (the ambassador played by Adrian Lester) wasn't black in real life. Nor was Bess of Hardwick (Gemma Chan) of Asian descent. Their ethnicities did not matter in the grand scheme of the story, so Rourke casting them in these roles was pretty damned inspired. Ehhh...it's happened before in films documenting this era (to the benefit of white actors), so not sure it's even a big deal to switch ethnicity in that time period for some characters. British Royalty and aristocracy had a history of interracial mixing before Harry and Meghan. But again, history tends to erase that, for obvious reasons. Queen Charlotte (whom Helen Mirren played in The Madness Of King George) was a black/mixed race woman. That isn't common knowledge, because people who document history didnt want it to be. Halle Berry would have been more accurate phenotype casting than Mirren, but the world surivived. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/27/britains-black-queen-will-meghan-markle-really-be-the-first-mixed-race-royal/ |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 31, 2018 6:23:14 GMT
To be fair, that article merely suggests that Charlotte could've been mixed-race, according to one theorist. There are as many counterpoints to that rumor as there are claims to back it up. So it's not definitive one way or the other. Would've been an interesting casting choice, though. Have you seen Belle, by the by? A wonderful film dealing with a mixed-race woman raised in the nobility by her father's white family in England. Gugu Mbatha-Raw deserved an Oscar nomination, as did the costumes and art direction. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 31, 2018 6:43:51 GMT
To be fair, that article merely suggests that Charlotte could've been mixed-race, according to one theorist. There are as many counterpoints to that rumor as there are claims to back it up. So it's not definitive one way or the other. Would've been an interesting casting choice, though. Have you seen Belle, by the by? A wonderful film dealing with a mixed-race woman raised in the nobility by her father's white family in England. Gugu Mbatha-Raw deserved an Oscar nomination, as did the costumes and art direction. I've seen portraits of Queen Charlotte from her time. Her features are so clearly mixed race (and most painters at the time would try to play down those features, so it says a lot that you can actually tell), that it gives total credence to her black Portugese lineage. This type of interracial mingling in European high society was more common than people know. Alexander Dumas father was called The Black Count because his father was a French nobleman and his mother a black slave. He became one of the highest ranking Generals in the French Army. Cary Fukunaga was supposed to direct a biopic on him, but must still be in development hell. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 31, 2018 6:47:07 GMT
Haven't seen Belle. Heard good things about it, so it's on my watchlist, even though it's a few years old now. So much content, so little time  |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jan 22, 2019 23:04:14 GMT
It was a fine film however definitely not the classic it could have been or that it was predicted to be. Especially the first half of the film felt a bit like the lifetime TV version of "Elizabeth". It was thankfully not as week as "The Other Boleyn Girl" tho. Nice to look at and some fine performances. While Saiorse Ronan was decent enough she really didn't steal my breath here as usual. She can do better and for her abilities it was a bit pale. Not bad, but not outstanding at all. During the weaker first half I wasnt too sure about Margot Robbie's performance either, fell she was too pretty for the role.. until she got "ugly make-up" but that was also the point when her performance became more and more authentic. Especially her final scenes were brilliant and absolutely outstanding. Jack Lowdon was okay but nothing to write home about. I liked Luke Kidd. Guy Pearce was rather underused here.
You often question the historical accuracy and it often felt like they rather used melodramatic soap opera elements instead of sticking to the truth. I guess this was the weakest part of the film. But I said it once and I will say it again... it really improved in the second half and actually in the end became a fine film.
Current nominations for:
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Margot Robbie
Best Make-Up
Rating: 7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 11, 2019 22:50:36 GMT
Heck of a dull movie and a great example of how NOT to use digital cameras...but I really did like Ronan and Robbie, especially the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 11, 2019 22:52:24 GMT
I genuinely don’t remember what happened in this movie. I don’t think it helped I watched The Favourite the same exact day.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557 
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on May 10, 2019 1:38:49 GMT
Mary Queen of Scots (1996 film)__________________________________________________________________From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMary Queen of Scots is a 1996 historical drama film directed by Stephen Frears and written by Tom Stoppard, based on John Guy's biography Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart. The film stars Saoirse Ronan as Mary, Queen of Scots and Margot Robbie as her cousin Queen Elizabeth I, and chronicles the 1569 conflict between their two countries. Jack Lowden, Joe Alwyn, and Guy Pearce also star in supporting roles.
Mary Queen of Scots had its world premiere at the 53rd Venice Film Festival on 2 September 1996. It was released in the United States on 6 December 1996, distributed by Miramax Films, and in the United Kingdom on 17 January 1997.
The film received generally favorable reviews, with praise for the costumes, set designs, makeup, the usual good-looking old-timey stuff, as well as the director's bold decision to film an entire cast sleepwalking through principal photography, but was criticized by some for its 170-minute runtime as well as its writing, particularly the deliberate choice to completely remove pacing and intrigue from all but the final 20 pages of the screenplay.
Mary Queen of Scots received 11 nominations at the 1997 British Academy Film Awards, as well as 7 nominations at the 1997 Academy Awards, and became one of the Miramaxiest post-Miramax titles ever to post-Miramax. It is now regarded as a relic of the 1990s, watched exclusively by bored seniors flipping through cable as well as the members of this board, the latter due to their ever-questionable sense of completionism and undying love of Shersha and Margot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on May 10, 2019 1:46:11 GMT
Mary Queen of Scots (1996 film)__________________________________________________________________From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMary Queen of Scots is a 1996 historical drama film directed by Stephen Frears and written by Tom Stoppard, based on John Guy's biography Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart. The film stars Saoirse Ronan as Mary, Queen of Scots and Margot Robbie as her cousin Queen Elizabeth I, and chronicles the 1569 conflict between their two countries. Jack Lowden, Joe Alwyn, and Guy Pearce also star in supporting roles.
Mary Queen of Scots had its world premiere at the 53rd Venice Film Festival on 2 September 1996. It was released in the United States on 6 December 1996, distributed by Miramax Films, and in the United Kingdom on 17 January 1997.
The film received generally favorable reviews, with praise for the costumes, set designs, makeup, the usual good-looking old-timey stuff, as well as the director's bold decision to film an entire cast sleepwalking through principal photography, but was criticized by some for its 170-minute runtime as well as its writing, particularly the deliberate choice to completely remove pacing and intrigue from all but the final 20 pages of the screenplay.
Mary Queen of Scots received 11 nominations at the 1997 British Academy Film Awards, as well as 7 nominations at the 1997 Academy Awards, and became one of the Miramaxiest post-Miramax titles ever to post-Miramax. It is now regarded as a relic of the 1990s, watched exclusively by bored seniors flipping through cable as well as the members of this board, the latter to their ever-questionable sense of completionism and undying love of Shersha and Margot. Reminds me of that Puss in Boots parents guide on IMDb. That shit was crazy. |
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
Member is Online
|
Post by Pasquale on Dec 24, 2019 17:13:08 GMT
I did not expect, that solid of a film.
Strong score and performances.
Robbie and Ronan, wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 24, 2019 17:27:04 GMT
maintain that the snubs for costume and production design at this past AMARAs were worse than Hanks's Captain Phillips snub.
|
|
