María, reina de Escocia

It's not entirely clear to me who the latest historical encounter with the queens was meant for. The lives of Mary Stuart and Elizabeth I have inspired various dramatizations and fiction during their lifetimes, and their roles in the history of the island kingdoms are of course still exciting today. With the advent of film, another opportunity was added to revisit particular events in their fates. Before the war, they included Magda Sonja, Katherine Hepburn, and Zarah Leander, and during the war and after the war, the long list grew even longer. However, the choice of a particular subject for Josie Rourke's new film is odd, to say the least, because if we look at John Guy and his "My Heart Is My Own" (2004), we find that it is an ambitious historical novel. And yet, on its foundation, an ambitious film was made, bringing classic drama to contemporary audiences. So contemporary in fact that no minority living in the modern western world is ignored and even in the space of just two hours there is room for the rehabilitation of different races and the whole LGBT+ spectrum. We are trying to find out today to what extent this is to the detriment of the historical substance, but the real evaluation will be made by the next generation. Personally, I find these changes very distracting, as many chapters from real-life biographies had to be cut in order to present the women's issue, Stuart's tolerance of her second husband's homosexual dalliance, etc. There might be room for something like that in a series, but here it's just in a single film. I am much more satisfied with the older films, which are realized in the spirit of classic feuds between nations. Even the singing Stuart, played by Zarah Leander, provides a much more realistic image of the struggle for the crown. (08.05.2021)

Not like this... Watch this film and then its almost eponymous 1971 predecessor and you'll see a difference that is almost abysmal. Both pictures have in common perhaps only the good casting of lead roles (Saoirse Ronan is amazing), beautiful costumes and music (Richter's really resembles Barry), but otherwise the new film is almost all bad. The plot is abbreviated, indistinctly jumping forward for years and perhaps even a decade, while Marie Stuart hardly ages in 25 years. There is good intrigue, but even a person who has some awareness of these events is unsure at times about what's going on. But the biggest minus of this new Mary is that it almost forces the viewer to open a book after the end and read about what actually went on. This not the case got the older film, because, adversely, you feel that you have learned everything essential. (07.02.2019)

A film about two women who, despite their high positions, were mere puppets in the hands of powerful men and the Church. Since you know from history class how this dispute over the throne and succession turned out, the film had to focus primarily on period authenticity, powerful moments and convincing performances. In terms of the production design, the costumes and the make-up, this is a visually stimulating and realistic looking film. What already feels a bit wild, however, is the racial and sexual correctness that is very popular nowadays, and the various fabrications within the plot for the sake of greater impact, which this film ostentatiously builds on. I don't mind the permissive intentions behind this decision, rather I mind the overzealous attempt to please all viewers so that no one feels wronged. But I’ve got a bit past that. The performances by the two lead actresses were of course excellent and convincing – it would be interesting to see Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie in another film. As far as strong moments go, I was most impressed by the cold-blooded murders of the men around Mary and the fictional meeting of the two women. (17.04.2020)