Trailer construction is a delicate art. There are
many different ways to make a trailer and different functions for one. Some
trailers use the story directly to build interest. Clint Eastwood movies love
doing that (American Sniper,
The Mule). My
favorite trailers are pure teasers. Disney loves those. The Force Awakens
had a great one. It said nothing and featured some cool images. Many trailers
just want to make it clear who is in the movie. Those ensemble RomComs are easy
examples of that. Trailers can be deceptive and paint a movie in a way that's
more appealing to general audiences. The Favourite's
trailer makes it look like much more of a straight comedy than it is. The
"best foot forward" trailer is problematic. That's when nothing is
saved for when you see the movie. I already know the entire plot of A Dog's
Way Home because it's all in the trailer. Or, in the case of Mary Queen
of Scots, I already knew all the best lines and watched the movie like a
checklist of them. I'll admit, that's more of a personal problem. The trailer
for Mary Queen of Scots (or The Shape of Water
or Isle of Dogs)
is only meant to be seen once, not a half dozen times or more. I bring this up
to say that I'm not sure how much of my disappointment with Mary Queen of
Scots has to do with seeing the trailer too much or the trailer promising a
different movie.
As the title would suggest, this film is the story
of Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan), from the time she returns to take the Scottish
throne until her death. And that's the first misdirect of the trailer. This is
Mary's movie. Queen Elizabeth (Margot Robbie) is not a co-lead. She's a
supporting character. Elizabeth's function is to periodically give commentary
about what just happened in Mary's story. From the day she gets to Scotland,
Mary, a Catholic, is met with rebellion by her predominantly Protestant
subjects. This is a movie filled with political maneuvering. Who Mary weds and
if she has a child is all of utmost importance. Men want her throne. Elizabeth
wants her allegiance. The movie is a reminder of how tenuous even a queen's
power was then. Mary can only keep control as long as she's the most cunning
person in the royal court. Elizabeth outright calls herself more man than woman
in order to keep her control. This film has a feminist streak to it that looks
a little by taking place hundreds of years ago.
Saoirse Ronan is very good in the lead role. She
gets to use something closer to her native accent. As good as her American
accent it, she's always a little better without that added burden. I really do
think we are looking at the next Meryl Streep, or at least Cate Blanchett. She
never hits a false note. Margot Robbie gets the flashier role. After Robbie
rose to prominence with roles in films like The Wolf of Wall Street
and Suicide Squad
that leaned into her beauty, she's made a show lately of taking "ugly
roles" (this and I Tonya)
that put all the focus on her acting talent. She's intense in this, but stops
right before she loses control of the performance entirely. The men are
all...period appropriate. This isn't their movie.
I was in the middle of watching Amazon's Vanity
Fair mini-series when I left to see Mary Queen of Scots, and the
difference in the costuming and production design was striking. Everything in Vanity
Fair looked new and expensive. All the sets had been assembled that day. It
was accurate but not real. Mary Queen of Scots looks very real. The
lighting is often natural. The costumes are appropriately worn. The colors are
just a little more muted. Everything is messy and lived-in. The crew on that
all deserve bonuses.
I won't get into the historical accuracy. Based on
the huffs and whispers of the guy sitting next to me, I'm guessing that a lot
of it was wrong. (Btw, keep it to yourself. No one in the theater cares if you
are educated. Save that for a ranting blog post after the fact.) The point of the
movie wasn't uncompromising accuracy. It's trying to tell a story of power and
gender through real historical figures.
I had trouble getting into this movie. I don't think
it executed its goals. I never bought into the chess match between Mary and Elizabeth.
Mary mostly does her own thing. Occasionally she does something to piss
Elizabeth off. Eventually, Elizabeth starts to like Mary for how successfully
she pisses her off. Then, Mary gets taken down by elements out of Elizabeth's
control. I feel like if it wasn't Margot Robbie playing the part, Elizabeth's
role in the movie would've been diminished. Ideally, telling the stories in
tandem as co-leads would've been a fresher take that a pretty standard
biography with occasional commentary. Some of my resistance to the film as well
is that I didn't follow all the legalese of it. I'm afraid I don't know the
rules of the queen's court in the 1500s and the movie doesn't always explain
them. Part of that is on me. Part of it is on the movie.
Mary Queen of Scots is a well dressed period piece with a pair of strong
performances at the center who never allow what's on the screen to be dull. It
suffers from a story that's building toward five different things and completes
none of them. When the final credits rolled, my first thought was "Oh
yeah, I guess it has been about 2 hours" not "that was a satisfying
culmination of events". It has the credentials of an Oscar hopeful and the
execution of an Oscar afterthought.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment