When I was a kid, my siblings and I would play a game that we never quite had a name for. We’d split into teams and base those teams in different bedrooms. When we were in our respective bedroom, we would pass messages to the other team by sliding a note under their door. The notes could say anything, from insults to pictures of animals, it just had to be slid under the door.
There was no real objective or ruleset to this game, the fun was just in communicating with another group. The knowledge that across the border of the hallway, another team was talking about us was enough to keep us interested. And it kept our parents from having to worry about us, so win-win.
Such is the driving entertainment behind the new film, Mary Queen of Scots, marking the cinematic directorial debut from Josie Rourke. And with a powerful cast of players such as Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie and a very bearded David Tennant (who pops up now and then to shout something) the film has no shortage of talent in front of the camera to make it one of this year’s most overlooked but satisfactory films.
Both Sides Of The Story
Mary Queen of Scots takes the viewer back to the 1500s, telling us of the final years of Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan). The film chronicles Mary’s relationship with her “sister” Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), as the two discuss peace between their two domains and attempt to confer with each other about the future of their lands.
Like the game my siblings and I would play, passing notes underneath a door but never meeting face to face, Mary Queen of Scots is at its best when the viewer is bounced back and forth between the two rulers. They send letters that are laced with hidden meanings (sometimes insults) and our entertainment comes from watching the two rulers react to these messages.
It makes the film feel like a Greek tragedy in a way, as we are shown the power of dramatic irony. Only we, the viewers, are granted the privilege of knowing the thoughts and motives of both sides. It allows the film to become interactive in this way. Giving the viewer a role like this allows for investment in the story.
The Queens
With two (well earned) Academy Award nominations under her belt, I expected Saoirse Ronan be one of the more enjoyable aspects of this film. What was exciting to see was that Ronan seems to be challenging herself more and more every year. Mary Stuart is far from the adolescently frustrated Lady Bird, but Ronan seems undaunted in slipping into the dress and corset of Scottish royalty.
Ronan’s Mary is a character that must handle the conspiracies of everyone around her. As such, Ronan plays her character close to the vest, with pensive expressions that coax the audience into wondering what she is thinking and wondering what she will do next. But when her humanity breaks through, it breaks in that way that only Saoirse Ronan can. Her tears are magnetic, pulling us ever closer in sympathy and pity, and her moments of joy are so infectious that you feel you may never frown again.
I know the film is called Mary Queen of Scots, but Margot Robbie’s Elizabeth I has significantly less to do in this film than I’d like. She allows the viewer to see another side of the crown. She’s a conflicted character, and we can see the worry seeping slowly through her character as the film goes on. She admires and fears her peer, Mary, and wants to reason with her as much as she wants to see her destroyed. It’s a performance that takes a certain amount of nuance, but Robbie proves she’s up for the task.
The Cruelty Of Men
But past these performances, Mary Queen of Scots feels as though it never is able to become anything other than a good film. Time clearly passes throughout the film, but the filmmakers seem to feel showing it is not important. Only a few scenes after the birth of Mary’s son, we see him speaking with a full head of hair. In a film where the setting is pointed out by on-screen text telling us where we are, you’d think a “Three years later” would seem in the norm.
The conflicts in it seem scattered, and while I maintain seeing both sides of this film is its strength, the inner conflicts of both sides can easily cause the viewer to wish for a character chart. Both sides contain almost comically similarly-dressed bearded men that I found myself unable to keep straight. Only when Ronan or Robbie was on screen did I know what country the scene was taking place in.
But perhaps, that’s the strength of Mary Queen of Scots. Because above it all, this is a film about women in power. It’s a chronicling of how men took advantage of their rulers because they were women. Who these men are matters less than the fact that they’re men. In a line that almost too-blatantly gives the thesis for the film, Robbie’s Elizabeth I remarks, “How cruel men are.” Ronan’s Mary is time and time again upended and usurped by the men beneath her who believe she is not fit to rule, until her beheading at the film’s close (can you spoil history? I think I just did).
And it’s tragic. Ronan’s Mary loves Scotland, and the film wants the viewer to love Scotland with her. Though most of the cinematography is thoroughly passable throughout the film, one can’t help but marvel at the sweeping shots of the Scottish Highlands that the film is not afraid to boast. The film smartly shows the beauty of Scotland so that we can understand just what it is Mary is trying to protect and serve.
What did you think of Mary Queen of Scots? Too little Margot Robbie? Not enough shouting/bearded David Tennant? Let me know in the comments below!
Mary Queen of Scots is in theaters now.
Does content like this matter to you?
Become a Member and support film journalism. Unlock access to all of Film Inquiry`s great articles. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about cinema - get access to our private members Network, give back to independent filmmakers, and more.