Posted on 12/20/2018 2:18:43 PM PST by yesthatjallen
Mary Queen of Scots is director Josie Rourkes historical retelling of one of the most fraught and interesting periods of the Elizabethan era. But how much of it is fact and how much is fiction?
The film, which is written by Beau Willimon (House of Cards) and based on a book by John Guy, stars Saoirse Ronan in the titular role as Mary Stuart and Margot Robbie as her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. It also showcases a number of actors of color in prominent roles in both Marys and Elizabeths courts, including decorated Shakespearean actor Adrian Lester, who is black; he portrays Elizabeths ambassador to the Scottish court, Lord Thomas Randolph.
Rourke told TheWrap that colorblind casting a period drama was important to her, because of the many years black and other people of color were left out of such portrayals and films.
I was really clear, I would not direct an all-white period drama, Rourke said. Adrian, who plays, Lord Randolph, grew up 40 miles from the birthplace of William Shakespeare; he is one of our eminent Shakespearean actors. I needed to cast an ambassador who could move between the two courts and help this make sense. I dont understand why you wouldnt cast him.
There were people of color in England during that time. According to the U.K. national archives, Elizabeth would have employed black servants and musicians, and even had a black chambermaid, though seeing a person of color as high up as Lord Randolph would have been improbable. Rourke said, however, that she didnt see any reason that these actors couldnt play these prominent roles in Mary Queen of Scots.
Have you watched the White Queen? It’s really good.
In high school I did my term paper on Mary Queen of Scots. I am fascinated with her and Elizabeth 1. I really wanted to see this movie but after reading the review, replacing of characters, not so sure.
but there were a lot of gays in the Royal courts across Europe
that guy is a good actor. Who cares
not necessarily silly but more of a reaction to the ‘blacks’ assertion that any non black person playing a black character is cultural appropriation. White people can not use black music, black terms, etc.
Except the actor was not chosen on the basis of the best available for the role. He was chosen from a pool that excluded all white actors.
As for the suspension of disbelief, the tone and theme of a movie either allows for it, or makes it painfully obvious that youre watching a movie. To succeed the details must be consistent with the internal reality of that films construct. Period details of say, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum will be different than those found in Ben Hur.
This casting decision may or may not work, but there is simply no good reason to do so. It is different, I think, to intentionally cast other than white actors for Hamilton, where that was part of the gimmick, than it is to exclude white actors for ONE role and substitute a TOKEN minority out of historical context.
when every roman or german has a british accent, I don’t piss and moan about it.
I have liked all the elizabeth I have seen. I recommend the series Victoria on PBS and The Crown on Netflix. The crown is the story of the current elizabeth
Sorry Medicine Tail Coulee, been awhile since I was up there.
What factual history. . ITS A MOVIE!.
Remember John Wayne playing Gengas Khan? Yual Brenner in The King and I
Its all pretend.
I don't mind a fiction book that isn't about KNOWN personages, but tries to weave a story about a time long ago. I'll even ignore some anachronistic and/or some fiddling, as long as it doesn't ruin the story for me, by being blindingly stupid/inaccurate.
Oh yes, I remember that Bancroft Prize cockup.
I've been fascinated by Queen Elizabeth I since I was a little kid. I've read a LOT of books about her and seen most movies and T.V. series ever made about her and her and various other people. The MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS, starring the great ( who was NOT any good in this early film of hers! )Katherine Hepburn, which is a stinker.
A few weeks ago, I read a few reviews about this film, none of which mentioned the idiocy of black actors portraying WHITE HISTORIC FIGURES! These reviews panned the film and especially how both Mary and Elizabeth were written and the actresses who have those two parts. There were also complaints about other actors and the ONLY good thing that these 2 reviews had to say about the movie, was that the lush scenery ( woods, hills, vales, NATURE ) was beautiful.
SAVE YOUR MONEY; DON'T SEE IT!
If still want to watch it, wait for it to hit cable which it shall do soon enough.
Most thinking people CARE! Why don’t YOU?
That’s something completely DIFFERENT!
Would she cast white actors in a movie she made about 16th or 17th century Africa, China, or Japan?
really. Well I have a suggestion Don’t watch the movie. I will. There you go.
OTOH...Yule Brynner, being of some strange mixture of races, worked. He was more believable than a youngish Rex Harrison was, in the same, non-musical, earlier version. But with the makeup, even Rex wasn't all that unbelievable.
Of course it's "pretend"; however, "breaking the 4th wall", so to speak, with a rancid miscasting, is an unnecessary distraction, which voids the audiences' ability to "believe".
But go ahead...waste your money on it; it's your choice.
Nobody asked you to cowboy. Interesting you know so much about it without seeing it. Amazing.
Are reviews always right? It depends on WHO wrote them.If one is familiar with the reviewer you read and usually agree or disagree with them whichever person wrote them, then yes, they are RELIABLE for you.
I trust reviews from the two I read and base my opinion on what they wrote. And neither of them even mentioned the RACIST miscasting. Each complained about the script, how Mary and Elizabeth were portrayed, others in the cast as well, the messing with historical facts, but said that the costumes, scenery, and vistas of many horsemen riding through woods were pretty to see. If THAT bit is the "best" of a picture, then I might as well watch a travelog.
The remake of MY COUSIN RACHEL had the same kind of reviews and you know what? The stupid remake wasn't any good at all! The original, 1952 movie, with Richard Burton and Olivia, even though it cut out a some important parts of the book, was FANTASTIC; not to mention the fact that the acting was superior to the modern, 21rst. century actors who can't act!
not interested. I am drawn to period pieces and “historical” portrayals. I read independently from that. I can’t imagine not going to a movie because some black guys portrays a white character. Especially when he has acting chops. The lead actresses are attractive. I have seen 4 elizabeths and look forward to this one.
I rarely let a review keep me away from movie in which I have a long-time interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.