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.

As a history buff, I understand many commentators' criticism of this film because it strays often and far from the facts - as, indeed, most "historical" films made in Hollywood do. If that kind of disregard for history bothers you, then this is probably not the movie for you. Other commentators have provided excellent historical "correction" and delineated the movie's plot; I refer you to their comments for such matters. I will only address the movie, itself, in my remarks.

If you require plenty of action in a film to entertain you, this one will probably fail to satisfy you. But if you enjoy costume dramas featuring political intrigue and ensemble acting then I highly recommend this movie. Although modern movie-goers expect verisimilitude in a film's sets and locations, I do not fault old films for being produced on studio sound stages and back lots. In 1936, when this movie was made, films retained a stronger connection to their roots in the theater, and were much less the modern art form into which they have evolved. This is not the least bit bothersome to me.

That said, I enjoyed the exterior scenes more than the interiors. When I watch depictions of Medieval and Renaissance times in old films such as this, I am constantly aware of 2 aspects of interior palace shots. The ceilings are incredibly high and never shown - they are nonexistent, of course. Also, the floors are so shiny - seamless, highly polished expanses! I bet a lot of spills occurred during filming! The palace scenes in this movie are no exception. Mary's apartments are suspiciously ornate and sumptuous for an old Scottish castle. Again, this doesn't detract from the movie, it is just an observation about the sets.

By contrast, the exteriors are more convincing. The set where the Scots people are harangued by John Knox (Moroni Olson) as they gather to welcome home their queen has the feel of an authentic castle (especially by comparison with the interiors). The nighttime setting and smoky torches create a very gloomy atmosphere in the castle courtyard. The same set is equally convincing during the clash between the conspiratorial Scots nobles and Lord Bothwell (Frederic March) who has come to Mary's timely rescue.

I admit (heresy of heresies!) that I am not a big fan of Kate Hepburn. However, here she is prettier and more radiant than ever. She delivers a nicely nuanced performance that evoked my sympathy.

Frederic March, however, demonstrates why he is one of the greatest actors in American cinema. Before I saw this movie the first time, I never would have believed that he could be convincing as a dashing, romantic hero in a historical costume drama. But he pulls it off superbly - what a remarkably versatile actor! The costumes, which he wears comfortably and convincingly, show off his broad shoulders to great effect. He is a very robust presence on screen. I loved seeing him in a role that was as big a change of pace as this one.

Likewise, I give extremely high marks to John Carradine. In his later career, he was more or less typecast as a cold, sinister bogeyman. But, along with his role in the classic, Stagecoach, this role shows that he had a much broader range. I enjoyed seeing him portray a much more emotional character than usual in this role. Like Hepburn, he portrays an interesting, conflicted character that evoked my sympathy.

Alan Mowbray also delivers a surprisingly superb performance that is very different from the roles he typically played - either a comic foil or a sophisticate in films depicting contemporary society of the '30's and '40's. His is not a large role, but it is important, and he comes across as a real sneak. I loved it.

I was disappointed by the fictitious meeting between Elizabeth and Mary. Unlike several commentators, I did not think it at all necessary. In addition, it is very predictable. I would have been much more satisfied if the movie had reflected that Mary was Elizabeth's captive for many years. During that time each may have fretted in her own way about a possible encounter. No doubt, contemplation of the ultimate fate of Mary of Scotland weighed heavily on many people for many years - including Mary, herself, and Elizabeth.

Brooks Atkinson was a first rate drama critic for the New York Times. He had blind spots. He over enthused on the career of Maxwell Anderson. Anderson wrote some good plays such as "Winterset", but Anderson was enthusiastic of Anderson's pompous attempts to do dramas in blank verse: "Mary Of Scotland", "Elizabeth The Queen", and "Anne Of The Thousand Days".

The problem with these plays is, even if they get the history right they are too stiff. Compare the conclusion of "Elizabeth The Queen" to "A Man For All Seasons". Yes, the loneliness of the elderly Elizabeth is shown as Essex goes to his doom - but in reality Elizabeth knew there were other young men to replace her dangerous, ambitious lover. In "All Seasons" the tragedy of a rotten system crushing the life of a decent, thoughtful man like Thomas More is far more powerful as it's stark tragedy is silently brought to us.

That said, the first of the three Tudor tragedies to be filmed was "Mary Of Scotland". It is above average because it is starring Katherine Hepburn (a distant relative of Mary's third husband the Earl of Bothwell) and Frederic March, and directed wholly or partially by John Ford. It suffers from being black and white, except for one moment of sheer unexpected terror: when Mary sees the Scots nobles who oppose her they are photographed in such light and darkness to look like ogres in a nightmare.

The film follows the reign of Mary from 1560 to her execution in 1587. Most Americans do not understand the great difficulties that Mary (and Elizabeth) both faced in their parallel reigns. While England and Scotland allowed for female monarchs, women were not considered good material for rulers. They were considered governed by their emotions more than by their brains. Those women who ruled well were usually married to capable partners (Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain). More frequently they were dismissed as misfits, like Isabella and Ferdinand's daughter Juana the Mad).

Mary had other problems. From 1400 to 1560 the nobles of Scotland got a great boon. Scotland had a series of minors who grew up to be king, married, and then died before they could cement their monarchic views on the government. The nobles cemented their local powers at the expense of a weak central authority.

Mary had been Queen of France, married to Francis II who ruled for a two year period (1559 - 1560). As Mary was the niece of the Duc De Guise, the king's power-hungry mother Catherine De Medici hated her. When Francis died suddenly, Catherine encouraged Mary to return to rule her own country. Surprised Mary did so, not realizing that she was unprepared to start ruling. She was a Catholic, and she really needed some time to understand the need to compromise and take advice from Protestants. She never did understand this.

Her foes hated her and were fully supported by Elizabeth, who never could see that an attempt to join forces with her cousin might pay back great dividends. But then Mary was ambitious - she wanted to be Queen of England as well as Scotland. Her Catholic supporters felt she was legitimate Queen of England (as Henry VIII had briefly disowned Elizabeth as a bastard when he executed her mother Anne). So the peaceful resolution of their differences was almost impossible.

Elizabeth had only to watch from the sidelines, with only an occasional move on her own part, to see Mary wreck her own position. She encouraged a marriage between another cousin/potential heir Lord Henry Darnley to Mary (Mary almost chose Elizabeth's lover Robert Dudley!). The marriage was a disaster, as Darnley was an ambitious fool and vicious scoundrel. But it cemented a Scottish succession to the British throne from two Tudor heirs instead of one.

Hepburn portrays Mary as a brave woman desperately seeking a way out of the difficult situation she has inherited, especially tied to Darnley by marriage and facing the ghouls who are John Knox (Moroni Olsen) and the Scottish nobles - led by her jealous half brother the Earl of Moray (Ian Keith). Her only allies are the independent Earl of Bothwell (March) and her secretary Rizzio (John Carridine). The murder of the latter (implicating Darnley) is the first step to her loss of the throne, and to the death of her husband. We know today that Kirk'a'Field house was blown up by Bothwell, but to this day we don't know if Mary was implicated. It remains one of the big mysteries of the 16th Century.

Historically Bothwell was no prince, but ambitious in his own right - he killed Darnley in order to marry Mary, and guide her to rule both Scotland and England. But March plays him as a man deeply in love with his Queen, and this enhances the story's tragedy - especially as Bothwell died in exile insane. The reason for this was his ship was captured by a Danish warship. Bothwell was guilty of a rape in Denmark, and was imprisoned. His punishment (which led to his madness) was to stand chained to a stone pillar that was half his height.

The last ten minutes glosses over the road that led Mary to the block in England - her support of a plot by one Anthony Babbington to kill Elizabeth and let Mary take the throne. Elizabeth's spy-master Sir Francis Walsingham sprung this trap - though Elizabeth did not reject the result. Elizabeth allowed a functionary to be blamed for falsely getting her to sign the death warrant - but all she did was briefly imprison the man. Unlike her movie representative (Florence Eldritch) she never met Mary.

A good film - but it is too gentle on Mary's failings, and not deep enough to explain what is going on in the background.