Rating: 7/10 stars
A period film portraying gay and bisexual characters, oral sex performed on a woman, actors of colour playing white historical figures, numerous examples of the female gaze, and trickling period blood. It was clear from the start that the film will rub some people the wrong way.
The film’s subversive reputation precedes itself as it isn’t hard to find reviews critiquing the above-mentioned features. However, I have always willfully stopped myself from jumping on the ol’ bandwagon. Let it be Twilight, Fifty Shades of Grey, Ghostbusters (2016), or Justin Bieber, my first rule is not to mock something just because it is popular to do so. My second rule is to subject myself to the experience directly and form my own opinion independently of what my friends or the random person on the Internet says. I would even say that if something is unpopular, my curiosity is piqued and I am more likely to subject myself to it.
The decision of casting true historical figures of the ambassador Lord Randolph with the black British actor Adrian Lester and Elizabeth of Hardwick with British Chinese actress Gemma Chan did not pass without stirring lively discussion in its audience. Was it unlikely or impossible for the queens to have POC’s at their court? Nay. However, in a still unusual move, the filmmakers decided to cast historical white characters with non-white actors.
The Director Josie Rourke’s commented that “I was really clear, I would not direct an all-white period drama. (…) I needed to cast an ambassador who could move between the two courts and help this make sense.”
A different approach would be to follow the steps of productions like Anne with an E (2017) and Vanity Fair (2018) who have both introduced new POC characters, Bash Lacroix played by Dalmar Abuzeid and Sam played by Richie Campbell respectively. However, the Director calls us to see beyond skin colour and ethnicity. I would say that she raises a good question:
In film, why are we so eager to look beyond the fact that these historical figures are being role-played by contemporary people whose English will be historically inaccurate, as were their accents (the real Mary reportedly spoke with a French accent), hair colour (the real Mary wore a wig to her execution which covered her grey hair) etc. etc.? Furthermore, why does the film experience differ from theatre where the practice of colour-blind casting is more commonplace?
Less concerned by casting choices, I became more baffled by the multiple camera shots of Lord Randolph. Their purpose was no doubt to convey the female gaze, let it be the plot pertinent gaze of the female characters or the symbolic gaze of the Director. The takes were prominent throughout the film and I was waiting for his relationship with the women to escalate to some turning point (perhaps an exchange of vital information or ultimate betrayal where each must choose their side). A similar escalation took place with the horrific murder of David Rizzio. But Lord Randolph’s scenes were empty – there was no escalation, no resolution, alas no point. The scenes’ only purpose seemed to be to hand over the audience hollow female gaze shots, and perhaps give more screen time to non-white actors. The filmmakers missed an opportunity there to convey deeper meaning to the kissing scenes.
A less discussed but still visually prominent scene was one where we see Mary’s period blood running and dissolving in bath water. I cannot remember last time I saw a more natural, calm portrayal of menstrual blood on film (and we all know that Carrie, 1976, scene). This was a subversive scene done right – the Director had an agenda to put the “period into a period film” and was able to also give it a deeper meaning. Mary’s blood symbolises her fertility, her ability to carry child in a womb which is currently empty. An important power role for a woman of her time, and one contrasted with Elizabeth I.’s often referred to “inability” to perform so (inverted commas as the film and history both continue the mystery behind the reason why Elizabeth led a child-free life).
The film does not shy away from body horror. On numerous occasions we are given a glimpse of Elizabeth’s small pox-ridden face at the height of its infection, as it is recovering, and badly hidden behind make up. Another portrayal of the Tudor queen under grotesque make up, similar to Anita Dobson in the Armada (2015).
Both Saoirse Ronan as the titular Mary and Margot Robbie as Elizabeth I. were fantastic in their roles. They portrayed the two only scenarios available to the women in power which is the never ending madonna/whore complex. A woman can embrace her motherly role literally by marrying and spawning the next heir to the throne. By doing so she puts herself in danger of being publicly declared a harlot and dying alone. Or she can protect her chastity and stay a virgin to her last day where she also dies lonely. It is a lose-lose situation.
In this sense, Mary and Elizabeth were both doomed to unhappiness purely by starting from the same point of being born a woman. However, Mary also made mistakes herself by not keeping a watchful eye over her court and council. Perhaps in demonstration of her youth, she often spends time with her handmaids and David Rizzio in contrast to the older, more experienced Elizabeth’s frequent council meetings.
Despite all my critiques I did enjoy my time in the cinema and thus seven stars seems reasonable.
Kristina's review on ... 