lugonian "Mary of Scotland" (RKO Radio, 1936), directed by John Ford, stars the queen of RKO, or at least one of the movie queens for that studio, Katharine Hepburn, in the role of Mary Stuart, "Queen of Scotland," or better known in latter-day terms as "Mary, Queen of Scots." With screenplay by Dudley Nichols, and taken from the 1933 stage play by Maxwell Anderson, as produced by The Theater Guild (starring Helen Hayes), the movie itself reportedly strayed from the play in favor for acting technique/style of Katharine Hepburn. For being a lavishly produced production with a cast of thousands, and under the direction of the recently Academy Award winning director John Ford (for "The Informer"), "Mary of Scotland" should have been an astounding success, but it wasn't. While earlier screen efforts of movie royalty as "The Private Life of Henry VIII" (United Artists, 1933), "Queen Christina" (MGM, 1933) and the outlandish life story of Catherine the Great in "The Scarlet Empress" (Paramount, 1934) being worthy considerations, the failure of "Mary of Scotland" might have been due to Hepburn's recent flop of "Sylvia Scarlett" (1935) or the fact the movie itself was simply, to many, a 123 minute bore.FORWARD: "Like the fateful stars, Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor appeared in the Sixteenth Century, to reign even two great nations in the making … thus were doomed to a life-and-death struggle for supremacy, a lurid struggle that still shines across the pages of history … but today, after more than three centuries, they sleep side by side at peace, in Westminster Abbey." The story, set in 1561, opens in England where the temperamental Queen Elizabeth Tudor (Florence Eldridge), daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, learns that her cousin, Mary Stuart (Katharine Hepburn), is returning to her native land of Scotland after 13 years in France where she is to re- establish herself as monarch. Elizabeth plots with Throckmorton (Alan Mowbray), the Scottish ambassador, to use her half brother, James Stuart Moray (Ian Keith) go against her. After a rousing reception for her return to Leith, Scotland, accompanied by David Rizzio (John Carradine), her personal secretary and only true friend, Mary is denounced as "wicked" by the bearded radical, John Knox (Moroni Olson). Although loved by The Earl of Bothwell (Fredric March), Mary decides to marry Lord Darnley (Douglas Walton), a young drunk who lacks courage. Giving birth to a baby boy, and following Darnley's murder, Mary marries Bothwell, but their marriage is cut short as Holyrod Castle is soon attacked by troops hired by Queen Elizabeth to prevent Mary's claim to the English throne.Under the direction of another director as Rouben Mamoulien, for example, "Mary of Scotland" might have turned out rather differently, possibly better. John Ford, best known for his work in westerns or war dramas, seemed to be in foreign territory here. His visual style, ranging from shadowy images on walls and low-key lighting used for his previous success of "The Informer" (1935), repeats his visual style for "Mary of Scotland," but not so much with the same results. The acting, however, is superb, especially by John Carradine for his stand-out performance as Rizzio. Robert Barrat, Donald Crisp, Frieda Inescort and little Bobs Watson can be seen in smaller roles. While one might have wished for British born actress, Flora Robson, to have played Elizabeth Tudor, Florence Eldridge (Mrs. Fredric March) is given the honor as the spiteful queen. Although Fredric March, whose role is somewhat secondary, might seem miscast at first glance. Once he gets into character, one tends to forget that sort of initial reaction. Memorable highlights include the confrontation between Elizabeth and Mary; Mary's trial and her climatic closing segment. Also notable is the singing of "We Will Fight for the Queen" heard during the story and closing credits.Not historically accurate by any means, "Mary of Scotland" is what it is. The story of Mary Stuart would be retold later as the British- made "Mary, Queen of Scots" (Universal, 1971) starring Vanessa Redgrave. Redgrave had one distinction over Hepburn, that being nominated as Best Actress for her performance. However, this original edition, formerly distributed to video cassette and later onto DVD, has enjoyed frequent broadcasts on cable television, notably American Movie Classics (prior to 2001) and Turner Classic Movies. (***1/2 crowns)

sddavis63 A couple of points just to start out with. First is that this movie (in my opinion anyway) hasn't held up as well as some others of the era. Some movies from the mid-30's still work, but "Mary of Scotland" came across to me as quite dated. It just looked old to me for whatever reason. The second point I'd make in starting out is that although I guess it would have to be classified as a story based on history, it's actually a movie based on a play by Maxwell Anderson. It plays rather fast and loose with history, and the musical scenes - perhaps necessary for a stageplay - seemed unnecessary and frankly kind of silly in a movie of this type. I would also add that the story is ridiculously romanticized, which is fairly typical of even modern movies that deal with the Tudors (and, although it's sometimes forgotten, Mary was a Tudor - the great niece of Elizabeth's father Henry VIII.) In a way, it's her Tudor background that really sets the stage for what the movie succeeded in doing.The heart of the movie, to me, was the contrast between Mary and England's Queen Elizabeth I - Henry's daughter. Mary - played by Katherine Hepburn - came across as passionate and desperately yearning for love, while Elizabeth - played by Florence Eldridge - came across as cold and calculating. Both were immersed in the politics of their respective kingdoms, but Mary came across as something of an unwilling participant, while Elizabeth seemed to relish the political world. Hepburn - as the title implies - was much more central to the movie than Eldridge, and her performance was certainly passable - although I would suggest that Mary was much tougher than Hepburn played her, and was quite capable of holding her own in the rough and tumble world of the 16th century Scottish court.That was the primary background to the movie: the Scottish court and the political and religious battles that were being fought. Mary was Catholic, but Scotland had embraced the reformed religion (ie, Calvinist Protestantism) and while Mary was open to toleration, Protestants never really accepted her or believed her promises. Mary's troubled relationship with her Council was believable. The Council is portrayed as wanting Mary to be essentially what we would call today a constitutional monarch - one who reigned but didn't really rule, except with the consent of her advisors. This would have been quite a normal expectation for the Scottish Council, since for almost 150 years Scotland had been in and out of regency, as a succession of children and teenagers had come to the throne, and so the lords of Scotland were quite accustomed to having their way. The relationship between Mary and the Earl of Bothwell was perhaps the most hopelessly over- romanticized part of the film. Their relationship in real life was at best tempestuous, and it's generally believed that he forced her into marriage by raping her. The movie doesn't make that suggestion. The movie leads up to Mary's execution under orders from Elizabeth, after she had been imprisoned in England for 19 years. Elizabeth's decision to execute Mary is (and was) a controversial one, but in the context of the times, Mary - as a descendant of the Tudors - was a potential rival for the English throne, especially because English Catholics regarded Elizabeth as an illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII, and therefore as an illegitimate Queen."Mary of Scotland" was a box office flop for RKO in 1935, and while it features some good performances it hasn't really held up all that well for today's audiences either. (4/10)

esteban1747 My comment is not positive, therefore it will be brief. This story is far away from the real one. In the film Bothwell is not the ambitious man whom Mary loved, the relationship of Mary with her English "sister" is touched shallowly showing Elizabeth, the queen, as an evil but avoiding to show the complexity of the English - Scotish problem at that time and the influence of France on the ongoing events there. Moray, the Mary's half brother, was a very smart man and knew how to move himself with his well invented intrigues, in the film one cannot see much of that. The film was made to show Mary as a heroe, killed because England wanted to do that. Very simple, in my opinion, and not good for educating on history the new generation. Katharine Hepburn played well the role given to her, Fredric March and John Carradine performances were poor.

ccthemovieman-1 Wow, what a piece of anti-Protestant propaganda this turned out to be. I was shocked, first of all, to see atheist Katharine Hepburn playing a praying Catholic (actors are prostitutes; they'll play any role if the money is right. Hepburn and Tracy proved that way back). "Mary" was praying for guidance. That was fine, even refreshing to see her play that kind of role, to be honest.However, once "Mary, Queen of Scots" arrives in Scotland and encounters John Knox, the Scottish Protestant reformer, we see the bias. Knox is portrayed as some shouting, wild-man lunatic! Sorry, but that's so typical of the film world....even back in the classic film days where Catholic priests/nuns were all portrayed as lovable and beautiful people by the likes of Bing Crosby, Ingrid Bergman, Tracy, Loretta Young, etc. but Protestants did not receive the same treatment...and never have. Of course, nowadays Hollywood is unrelenting in bashing both groups, particularly Catholics.Nevertheless, this film is really biased toward Hepburn's character, and too prejudiced for me. Even with no bias, at 123 minutes this film was too boring - a sin to every movie-goer!