HotToastyRag If you love Katharine Hepburn and can't imagine how she got her nickname "box office poison", you obviously have never seen Mary of Scotland. Do yourself a favor and keep it that way.In this biopic of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, she's surrounded by those opposing her rise to the throne, including Florence Eldridge as Queen Elizabeth, Ian Keith as her power-hungry half-brother, and Douglas Walton as her effeminate suitor. Not completely alone, Kate has a few allies: Donald Crisp as a loyal Scottish citizen, John Carradine as her secretary, and Fredric March as the love of her life. I'm not well-versed on any of the details, so I don't know how historically accurate Dudley Nichols's script was, but as an audience member, this movie was atrocious. Fredric March was supposed to play someone so incredibly Scottish, he's never seen in anything besides a kilt, but since he's the same actor who notoriously mispronounced his nemesis's name in Les Miserables, could he really have been expected to speak in a Scottish accent? I wasn't the only one who found Fred's lack of accent comedic; Nathaniel Shilkret's music made it clear he thought he was scoring a funny film rather than a dramatic period piece.Kate's portrayal of Mary—and Nichols's screenplay—makes her seem like perhaps the most incompetent queen in cinematic history. Donald Crisp dares to stand up to her in one scene, criticizing her for letting herself become a woman instead of a queen, and I completely agree with him. Time and time again she's given the ultimatum of keeping either her throne or her true love, and she's unable to decide. She claims to not care about the crown, but she won't sacrifice it to run away with Freddy? She's weak, unlikable, and annoying. Trust me, you don't need to watch this movie.

Michael_Elliott Mary of Scotland (1935) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Historical drama from RKO about the rivalry between Mary of Scots (Katharine Hepburn) and her cousin Elizabeth I (Florence Eldridge). The film follows Mary's fight for justice from 1560 to 1587 and includes her third marriage to Bothwell (Fredric March). This film was a notorious flop when it was originally released and it had a large part in Hepburn being called box office poison. Seeing the film today it's rather amazing to see how good the film actually looks considering RKO was usually just popping out very low-budget films. There were certainly a few exceptions and this here is one of them and I'm sure many will be shocked to see how much actually went into this film. The amazing sets and costumes are one of the biggest selling points to the movie. Ford knows how to make things appear epic and he does that here with these amazing sets that make you feel as if you're at the actual locations. Many times these sets are obviously on some lot but you never get that feeling here. The costumes are another major plus as they help bring a realistic nature to the film. I'm not sure what the actual budget was on the film but it really does look just as expensive as many of de Mille's epics. Another reason the film is worth viewing is the performance by Hepburn. As a devoted atheist she really does a nice job in the role of a Catholic and her religious scenes are quite moving as she's certainly giving it her all. She's very believable in the part as you can tell she's strong enough to lead all the battles that Mary had to. That strong nature of the actress clearly shows up on the screen. March is also very good in his role, although the film could have used much more of him. I was a little Luke warm on Eldridge but after a while she started to grow on me. The supporting cast includes Douglas Walton, Frieda Inescourt, Donald Crisp and John Carradine. Carradine plays the servant Rizzo and does a pretty good job with it. We also get to hear him sing a couple songs, which I'm not sure how many times he had the chance of doing that in his long career. The biggest problem with the movie is that the story is at times hard to follow as it appears like the screenplay wasn't totally sure where they wanted to take all of the events. I think at times the story just seemed to float all over the place.

Steffi_P There was something of a fad for Tudor-period dramas in the late 1930s, although Mary of Scotland is something of an overlooked picture in the careers of Katherine Hepburn and John Ford. The star and director went on to have an on-off love affair, although this was the only occasion on which they worked together.Mary of Scotland has the look that is typical of Ford's RKO features. It's often forgotten that Ford was a director who liked to work with space, shape and light, usually manifested in a sharp contrast between the indoor and outdoor worlds. Here the contrast is between the palace of Elizabeth – light, open and filled of straight lines and symmetry – and the castle of Mary – small, shadowy and made of rough curves. At first glance this seems to imply that the Scottish setting is grimmer and more confined, but for Ford these cosy spaces with layers of shadows were also about honesty and simplicity – see for example the compositions he makes in The Informer or The Fugitive. Those two pictures were also made at RKO, and their expressive look is testament to the fact that although the studio might not have had much money it did have a strong and open-minded production design team, something Ford took advantage of when he could.By this point, few Ford films would be complete without the sing-song scene, and there is an especially fine example in Mary of Scotland. Ford never made an out-and-out musical in his career, but the way he uses singing as an emotional backdrop is remarkable. Here, the song sung by the peasants as they march into the castle begins as a simple yet effective expository device – demonstrating where the people's loyalties lie – but then the scene moves onto another level. Ford isolates one singer, then cuts to a rare close-up of Hepburn. The beauty of the music provides a backdrop to her emoting. It is in such moments that Ford's direction is at its strongest.This was perhaps an important breakthrough role for Hepburn, whose parts until now had mostly been as teenagers or young women. This is her first real adult role and she handles it well, albeit with one or two touches of uncertainty when she is required to act "queenly". She does however manage the task of humanising the queen, more so than the screenplay would seem to allow. Unfortunately her leading man, the normally excellent Fredric March, is rather bland here. It's a real treat though to see John Carradine in a role where he really gets to show his more sensitive side. Because of his looks, not to mention his creepy voice, the character actor generally landed villainous roles, but he was actually at his best playing good guys.One oft-repeated story regarding this production – although it varies a little depending on who's telling it, so pinches of salt at the ready – is that Hepburn and Ford disagreed over the necessity of Mary and Bothwell's final scene together on the tower top. Ford thought it a pointless bit of soppiness, Hepburn said it was the most important scene in the script. Eventually a flippant Ford challenged Hepburn to direct it herself, which she did. The scene stands out because Hepburn actually shoots it with some romantic tenderness – something Ford hardly ever did – with lengthy close-ups and rhyming angles. You can see why Ford didn't like it; he tended to downplay the love themes in his pictures, and on top of that the scene is rather heavy on dialogue. Hepburn was right though – without this scene the romance between Mary and Bothwell would be little more than a subplot, and without the romance the film wouldn't work. Audiences would find it hard to empathise with a queen clinging onto her throne, but easy to sympathise with a woman separated from the man she loves.Mary of Scotland was not really Ford's cup of tea, and it was his rather cavalier approach to interpreting a screenplay that spoiled a fair few of his pictures (even though it won him the admiration of the auteurists). This picture is only saved by his use of music, the proficiency of the RKO crew and of course the good judgement of Katherine Hepburn. Nevertheless, I can't help but love Ford's laid-back realism. In one scene, we see a dog barking crazily at men entering a room; in another a moth flutters about John Knox's head. How many other directors of that era would have kept those takes?

bkoganbing Mary of Scotland is not based on the exact historical record, but on Maxwell Anderson's play. However Anderson was trying to dramatize the difference between Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart. Elizabeth was first and foremost a queen who put her passions on hold when it was a choice between them and the country she governed. Mary Stuart was totally incapable of doing that.Interesting that Katharine Hepburn played Mary. Hepburn who was probably the liberated woman of the 20th century would have been a natural to play Queen Elizabeth. Too bad in fact she didn't in her career. But she does fine her as Mary. Florence Eldridge plays a cold, calculating Elizabeth. Fredric March as Lord Bothwell is not the hero he's shone to be here.One thing about Scotland in the 16th century. The kingdom had the unbelievable rotten luck of having a whole succession of minority rulers with regencies for a couple hundred years. The nobles who are depicted here are quite used to having their own way. And when Mary abdicated the throne it went to still another regency when her infant son James became king.Ian Keith's part as Hepburn's illegitimate half brother the Earl of Moray is an interesting one. In history, I've always thought of him as the real hero. He gave Mary sound advice which had she taken, she would have died on the throne of Scotland.Vanessa Redgrave's later film shows how the exiled Mary Stuart got tricked into a conspiracy to bring Elizabeth down. I wish that had been done here. She was essentially AbScammed.Elizabeth and Mary never met in real life, but for dramatic purposes it had to happen here. It's a good film, not one of the best for any of the principals in the cast or for John Ford. Still it's an interesting piece of cinema although some knowledge of Scottish history might help.