How accurate is the movie "Mary Queen of Scot

[helenazar]

...they went to the effort of getting Elizabeth's wardrobe accurate, such as her coronation gown, pattern, material, etc.  Why go to such painstaking detail & then flout historical fact, I
just don't understand it...

Because it's Hollywood  !

[Janet_W.]

Unfortunately, from what I have read Mary Tudor was rather repulsive (an unfortunate but reasonably accurate descriptor ) toward the end of her life. Most records indicate that she had been a happy and comely child--there was still the promise of sons, so why shouldn't she be the much-loved apple of her father's eye?--but subsequent years of strain and bitterness contributed in no small way to her appearance. I think most of us can empathize with her re: her father's shunning of both Mary and her mother; her displacement, first by an attractive little sister, and next by a much-celebrated brother; her loveless relationship with Phillip; and her much desired pregnancy gone horribly wrong. All the same, these situations, plus her never robust health, could not have added up to an attractive middle-aged woman. (And, of course, what we would consider middle-aged, the folks back then considered close to elderly.)

Elizabeth, on the other hand, was growing up into a radiantly stunning young woman, accent on the young. Not to mention a clever, live-by-her-wits sort of individual, and--unlike Mary--ready to learn all manner of survival skills from The School of Hard Knocks. In sad contrast, Mary was dour and disliked, and continued to cling to a faith to which many of her subjects were now indifferent. Not an especially pleasant Tale of Two Sisters, but then--as we all know--who ever said Life was fair . . .  

[Mgmstl]

Also Diane de Poitieres & Catherine de Medici would make a great movie or miniseries if it was done right.
I see Catherine a bit more physically like Mary Tudor was portrayed in Elizabeth, yet malicious, evil, and reliant on her religion for her salvation in her misdeeds. A totally horrible woman.  No redeeming virtues at all.

[Robert_Hall]

Which brings me back to my original point: it is a business making a product that they hope people will buy. There is no profit to be made in spending millions making a film just to satisfy  a few historical purists. Drama, sets, costumes, as well as the players and script, everything goes into making something that a great many people will pay to see.
I notice the inaccuracies as well, but I just find them amusing more than irritating.  It is supposed to be entertainment, after all.

[Janet_W.]

P.S. Not that I mean to be a defender of Elizabeth--for one thing, I'm not a stockholder!  --but it has been a bit of time since I watched it, so when possible I'll take another look and listen again to the director's commentary, keeping in mind all recent comments made here.

[helenazar]

I think Margaret of Scotland, Mary's grandmother would make a much more interesting story.  A Tudor princess sent to Scotland, a life of turmoil.  

Unfortunately, from what I have read Mary Tudor was rather repulsive (an unfortunate but reasonably accurate descriptor ) toward the end of her life.

Michael, didn't you mean Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII and sister of Henry VIII, not Mary Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VIII?

[helenazar]

Unfortunately, from what I have read Mary Tudor was rather repulsive (an unfortunate but reasonably accurate descriptor ) toward the end of her life. Most records indicate that she had been a happy and comely child--there was still the promise of sons, so why shouldn't she be the much-loved apple of her father's eye?--but subsequent years of strain and bitterness contributed in no small way to her appearance. I think most of us can empathize with her re: her father's shunning of both Mary and her mother; her displacement, first by an attractive little sister, and next by a much-celebrated brother; her loveless relationship with Phillip; and her much desired pregnancy gone horribly wrong. All the same, these situations, plus her never robust health, could not have added up to an attractive middle-aged woman. (And, of course, what we would consider middle-aged, the folks back then considered close to elderly.)

Elizabeth, on the other hand, was growing up into a radiantly stunning young woman, accent on the young. Not to mention a clever, live-by-her-wits sort of individual, and--unlike Mary--ready to learn all manner of survival skills from The School of Hard Knocks. In sad contrast, Mary was dour and disliked, and continued to cling to a faith to which many of her subjects were now indifferent. Not an especially pleasant Tale of Two Sisters, but then--as we all know--who ever said Life was fair . . .  

Janet, these are all really good points about Mary Tudor, and often when she is portrayed in films, her character is not sympathetic at all, but rarely does anyone bother to explain why she came to be so. I think it would be interesting to see a film made that concentrates on her life before she became religiously fanatical Bloody Mary. Is there a movie about her life, BTW?

[Mgmstl]

Janet actually Elizabeth was a good movie, outside of the historical inaccuracies.

I think those of us interested in history genealogy, strive for fact & accuracy for the most part, and find it frustrating when others take liberty with it.

Especially those in Hollywood.  Another example was that HBO special about Rasputin with Greta Saacchi, Ian McKellan, narrated by the character Alexi, and filmed in the Catherine Palace.  Found it great to watch for the interiors alone, but the content was so BS I found it hard to watch.  Especially knowing the family did not live at Catherine, and used it only for ceremonial purposes.

There was an A&E special "The Last King" about Charles II which I found good, done well, of course you can't take much license with Charles, his life was a sexual exploit..lol, except I did think Diana Rigg's portrayl of Henrietta Maria very good.

[helenazar]

P.S. Not that I mean to be a defender of Elizabeth--for one thing, I'm not a stockholder!  --but it has been a bit of time since I watched it, so when possible I'll take another look and listen again to the director's commentary, keeping in mind all recent comments made here.

The first time I saw it was when it first came out in the movie theater, and that's when I hated the content. Several years later I started thinking about it and realized that I forgot exactly why I hated it, so decided to rent it and give it another shot, thinking maybe I will like it more now that I know what to expect. I hated it just as much!   As I said, I am very picky about stuff like that! I have no problem with fiction as long as it is presented as such, but it really bothers me when fiction is presented as historical fact and pretends to convey "knowledge"!      

[helenazar]

... you can't take much license with Charles, his life was a sexual exploit...

Oh yes, Charlie was Hollywood's dream subject! And they didn't even have to embellish much    

[Robert_Hall]

Well, I too take issue with some of the junque that Discovery, History Channel, et al slap together as "documentaries".  But you will notice the disclaimers that are on every commercial film released as general entertainment, releasing the producers of any historical liability. In other words, it "my money, my movie & I'll say anything I wish [and hope to make a few millions saying it]"".

[helenazar]

But you will notice the disclaimers that are on every commercial film released as general entertainment, releasing the producers of any historical liability. In other words, it "my money, my movie & I'll say anything I wish [and hope to make a few millions saying it]"".

Yeah, yeah, but who ever reads those disclaimers! Not me

[Silja]

Janet, these are all really good points about Mary Tudor, and often when she is portrayed in films, her character is not sympathetic at all, but rarely does anyone bother to explain why she came to be so. I think it would be interesting to see a film made that concentrates on her life before she became religiously fanatical Bloody Mary. Is there a movie about her life, BTW?

I don't think she was that repulsive. And neither in Elizabeth R nor in Lady Jane Grey (Jane Lapotaire as Mary) does she come across as being repulsive.

[helenazar]

I don't think she was that repulsive. And neither in Elizabeth R nor in Lady Jane Grey (Jane Lapotaire as Mary) does she come across as being repulsive.

I didn't say she was "repulsive", I said "unsympathetic. I think you are confusing my post with someone else's.

[Mgmstl]

I stated that the way Mary Tudor was portrayed in Elizabeth, she was repulsive.  I know portraits from those days can be deceiving, such as Anne Of Cleves by Holbein, BUT, the ones I saw of Mary were not so bad.

However in Elizabeth all that religious, fanaticism & the actress who played her (who I have seen in AB FAB and several other Britcoms) was a bit repulsive.  As portrayed in Elizabeth R or in Lady Jane, she is potrayed as an elegant woman of the time.

What is interesting about Mary is that she never put Elizabeth to death, even though she had several chances and Elizabeth was not involved in the death plots.