Posted on 12/20/2018 2:18:43 PM PST by yesthatjallen
“Mary Queen of Scots” is director Josie Rourke’s 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 Mary’s and Elizabeth’s courts, including decorated Shakespearean actor Adrian Lester, who is black; he portrays Elizabeth’s 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 don’t understand why you wouldn’t 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 didn’t see any reason that these actors couldn’t play these prominent roles in “Mary Queen of Scots.”
I agree. If I want a history lesson, I'll read a book. Hollywood's only job is to entertain me. It's a supporting role. It's not like they cast Oprah as the Queen.
Hardly analogous. But if they had Idris Elba playing Erwin Rommel, that would hardly enhance the suspension of disbelief.
Ooooooooooooooooops...add two more, a young Elizabeth was in the T.V. series THE WIVES OF HENRY VIII, starring Keith Michell and the old THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER, starring Errol Flynn. And I just may be forgetting other movies/T.V. series.
Add to that, the many books about Elizabeth and all of the Tudors, I have and have read. Yes, I am interested in and like this era and Queen Elizabeth.
Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you see it or not; it's your choice, your money, and since you obviously enjoy badly made movies...go for it. :-)
It’s a UK made movie; NOT Hollywood; but, the Brits have gone waaaaaaaaaaay downhill.
I am so impressed by your reliance on other. Thank you for giving me persmission to watch want I want. i feel so honored.
I don't rely on reviews, per se; I just posted what the reviews I've read said. And since I usually agree with those who wrote, I'll take their word for it re this movie; especially re now knowing about the RACIST miscasting!
Unlike YOU, I have extensive knowledge of this era, these historical people, and have seen far more movies and T.V. series than you have, so I really don't have to waste my time on this new version.
Have fun seeing it...or not. ;^)
Now strategic surprise which has been sprung on the US Army three times in the last 75 years is another matter. The Ardennes and Tet 68 are good examples of complacency, the abiding curse of the Army, and underestimating the will of a foe thought effectively beaten. Both Watch on the Rhine and the Tet Mon Tan actions would be failed at Leavenworth. Korea November 1950 was willful imprudence on the part of a commander who felt he could foretell the future. The Chinese offensive literally staggered the US military hierarchy to the extent both State and Defense were working themselves into a panic and were close to calling for an evacuation until Harry Truman apparently verbally told Acheson ‘Not only no, but Hell No.
you blasted this movie and said no based on reviews. now you say the opposite. WTH is your agenda besides uproar. I’m out. It’s a movie with a black guy in a supporting role. Deal with it cowboy.
It’s insulting
I am NOT saying anything "opposite" at all. The movie isn't worth seeing, in my opinion; however, I said that if you want to waste you time and money on watching a crappy movie...do so.
There are many multiple other movies, some bad, some good, some in between ( the 1971 one, starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson is a much better one to see, though not completely accurate as it has Mary and Elizabeth meeting, which they didn't ! ) that deal with the Mary V Elizabeth stuff, with actors and actresses who don't mumble and better scripts.
No, I do NOT have to "deal" with ANYTHING, nor do I have to like nor accept stupid, PC, RACIST miscasting! And anyone who accepts this crap, is a fool!
It’s actually far worse than just “insulting”.
Take your meds and get some sleep.
Stop doing illegal substances and get clean.
suffering from “lastworditis” after running out of things to say.
When Hamilton was added to the show Turn, there was actually an article saying that fans of the stupid Broadway show might be surprised to see a white actor playing the role. WTF.
So just write "word" and I shan't reply; keep up the flame war, and it shan't.
They also got into trouble when HAMILTON sent out a "casting call" and put a notice in the papers, saying ONLY non-whites need apply! Pure, unadulterated, unalloyed RACISM!
Oh no, please have the last word. I don’t want to throw you off balance.
Me too, as a fellow historian!
In the BBC’s latest revival of The Three Musketeers, one of the Musketeers is black. And nobody bothers to mention it.
In 17th Century France. All the little Froggies ignore the fact that he is black.
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.