Accidental Lessons from Hollywood on Monarchy

The 1939 film "Juarez", a biopic of Mexico's most famous president, is well worth looking at for monarchists, even if that seems odd. Juarez is upheld as the 'Abraham Lincoln of Mexico' and this point is driven home hard in the film to the extent that Juarez is rarely seen on-screen without a portrait of Lincoln in the background. It is a love letter to Benito Juarez and makes no apologies for that. However, it does not vilify Emperor Maximilian and Empress Carlota either. Being all about deifying Juarez, it certainly is against the monarchy and their very presence in Mexico, however, it spares the idealistic couple and focuses its wrath on the French Emperor Napoleon III. From the perspective of this film, Napoleon was the real villain, a wicked tyrant on a mission to eradicate democracy and republicanism in the New World whereas the handsome young couple, Maximilian and Carlota, are pitiable dupes; good people tricked into an "evil" enterprise by a manipulative Frenchman. Because of this, the Emperor actually comes off as a rather sympathetic figure. For a broad overview of the film, you can read a review of it here.

For me, one part of the film, two scenes, really stand out as being worthwhile, though they will be of most benefit only to those who know their history and in light of the events of our own time. In the first, Emperor Maximilian comes to meet with the captured rebel General Porfirio Diaz in his prison cell, in an effort to convince him to take a message to his president, offering to make Juarez the Prime Minister of the Mexican Empire. Emperor Maximilian has some very good lines as he makes the case for having a free and liberal society with a benevolent monarch at its head as a sort of safety valve. He presents such a good case that he seems to have won Diaz over and convinced him that the Emperor is a man of sincerity who wants the same things for Mexico that Juarez wants and Diaz goes to deliver this message to the President along with his offer to make Juarez his premier and allow him to run the government of Imperial Mexico. The next scene is Juarez, with kindly bemusement, listening to the naive, young general who has been duped by Maximilian. Juarez then starts preaching the republican gospel to Porfirio and showing him the error of his ways.

This scene, coming after the heartfelt speech of Emperor Maximilian in the previous one, is enough to make any monarchist who is familiar with the history of republicanism, and Mexico in particular, roar with laughter at how Hollywood inadvertently shows just how painfully wrong Juarez was in all of his speechifying on the glories of democracy. In the first place, they make much about the constitution that Juarez wrote, however, any honest historian of the period knows that Juarez himself violated the constitution he wrote on numerous occasions. Part of what makes constitutions ultimately worthless is that they can only do good if they are adhered to voluntarily, which could be done without them, and they have no power on their own to prevent anyone from violating them. Even the United States is proof of that and it has a record better than most republics in that regard.

Juarez explains to poor, ignorant, Porfirio that Maximiliano duped him. When Diaz explained how honest and sincere the Emperor was, Juarez responds that, "virtue is a powerful weapon in the hands of an enemy" which is meant to sound "wise" but is absurd if you think about it for more than a second. It essentially says that Maximilian is wrong regardless of whether he is wicked or virtuous. He says that the unbridgeable gulf between himself and Maximilian is "democracy" and that this is the right of men to rule themselves. He explains that since a man never rules himself into bondage, freedom flows from democracy like the rivers flow from the mountains, just as naturally and serenely. This is, of course, quite hilarious given that Mexico itself democratically voted itself into bondage more than once. The PRI, for example, held tyrannical control over Mexico for the better part of the last century. Yet, the current President of Mexico was the leader of the PRI, voted back into power after a break of only two non-PRI presidents. It is also extremely laughable in the context of Juarez, a man who came to the presidency not by election, speaking to Porfirio Diaz who would go on to lead a rebellion against Juarez, then run for president himself, winning on the promise that he would serve only one term, only to then rule as dictator of Mexico for the next 35 years!

It is quite a howl that virtually everything Juarez and Diaz talk about in these scenes as being the major problems of their country; too much land owned by too few, a privileged elite prospering while the masses are impoverished, freedom of speech being suppressed, even selling out to foreign influences (such as the French) are ALL accusations made by many against General Diaz himself during his hold on power from 1877 to 1911 (with a small break in there). At the end of the scene, Juarez says, again -so profoundly, that when a monarch misrules, he changes the people but when a presidente misrules, the people change him. A perfect ending really, given that the liberal-democratic leaders of North America and Western Europe are doing precisely what Juarez said the wicked monarchs do, they are changing out their peoples for a new batch that will keep them in power. Irony doesn't begin to describe it. And yet, what is the final cherry on top of this heaping bowl full of republican hypocrisy? The fact that Juarez, the native Mexican fighting against an Austrian Emperor, was played by Paul Muni, real name Friedrich Meshilem Meier Weisenfreund, a Jew from Galicia in what was then Austria-Hungary. So, yes, instead of giving the part to a Mexican actor, Benito Juarez was played by an actor from Austria.

Oh Hollywood, you really are too much sometimes...

MM Movie Review: The Last Samurai

“The Last Samurai” is a 2003 film I shall classify as “historical fiction” directed by Edward Zwick and starring Tom Cruise, Timothy Spall and Ken Watanabe. In describing what the film is about one of the major problems with it comes up immediately. As it is entirely a work of fiction, there is some debate over exactly what events the filmmakers are trying to portray here. It depicts a washed-up American cavalry officer who is hired by the government of Meiji Japan to train the newly established Imperial Japanese Army. This officer, Captain Nathan Algren played by Tom Cruise, is a veteran of the Indian Wars who is haunted by his experiences, particularly the atrocities committed by his unit in fighting the American Indians. He is then pushed into acting as an advisor to the Imperial Japanese Army as they confront an army of rebel samurai. Algren is taken prisoner by these samurai rebels, comes to sympathize with their cause, seeing them as analogous to the American Indians who fought the U.S. government, and finally joins them in their “last stand” against the imperial army.

Teaching the Japanese what they already would've known..

One thing to make clear at the outset is that absolutely nothing even remotely like this ever happened in Japanese history. However, the events in the film are generally said to have been inspired by the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877 with the leader of the samurai rebels, Lord Moritsugu Katsumoto played by Ken Watanabe, standing in for the historical figure of Saigo Takamori. The character in the film, however, is nothing like the historical figure and no one like the character of Captain Algren ever existed at all. He is portrayed as an alcoholic, haunted by demons from his past, forced to take a job because of his desperate poverty. His former superior officer who recruits him for this job in Japan is a moustache-twirling villain who is hired by equally stereotypical villainous Japanese government officials who are portrayed as cruel and corrupt, dominating the noble, young, Meiji Emperor to enrich themselves in collaboration with the unscrupulous Americans. Again, nothing like this ever happened. Captain Algren begins training the Imperial Japanese Army but, before he thinks they are ready, these men are sent into combat after a series of attacks by samurai rebels.

If all else fails...CHARGE!!!

For some reason, despite being hired simply as a military instructor, Algren accompanies these soldiers on their campaign and, of course, ends up taking part in the battle, effectively commanding them, they are wiped out easily by the samurai and Algren is taken prisoner. Held in the stronghold of the rebels in a remote village, he lives with the wife of a samurai he had killed in the battle, eventually learns Japanese and comes to sympathize with his captors. He trains with them, learns their ways, all in a part of the film that has caused many to refer to this as “Dances with Wolves” set in Japan. Finally, the rebel leader Katsumoto goes to the capital to attend a council meeting in which he hopes to convince the Meiji Emperor to see things his way. However, he doesn’t attend the meeting at all because he refuses to take off his swords, the wicked government officials try to assassinate him and Algren goes with him to prepare for the final battle. Algren becomes a samurai and fights with Katsumoto in the climactic battle of the movie against the Imperial Army, presumably based on the historic Battle of Shiroyama though of course what happens in the film is nothing like what happened in real life.

Brunet

The most obvious problem with this movie is Tom Cruise and his character. The Japanese did not hire American veterans to train their army. During the period of modernization the Meiji government did try to learn from the west but they were much more influenced by the European powers such as Britain, France and Germany than by the United States. The U.S. had obviously played the decisive part in opening Japan up to the outside world but after that point American involvement was minimal. Indeed, the closest historical parallel to the character of Algren is usually given to be Captain Jules Brunet of the French army, however his involvement in Japan was earlier than the period depicted in this film. He was involved in the Boshin War, part of the fighting over the Meiji Restoration, not the subsequent modernization that happened in Japan. This, however, necessitates pointing out another glaring inaccuracy in the film which is the attitude of the rebel samurai toward foreigners and foreign ideas and tools, particularly weapons.

Muskets and volley fire were long established

In the movie, the rebel samurai are portrayed as fighting for the pure soul of Japan, Japanese tradition and as a matter of honor only fight with traditional Japanese weapons. This means they do not use firearms. Pardon me for being blunt but this is flat out retarded. The samurai rebels of the Satsuma rebellion were, to an extent, fighting for traditional ways but they were not stupid and would not refuse to use weapons that would help their cause. The Japanese had been using firearms for centuries ever since the first Portuguese explorers came to Japan and showed them what they were and how they worked. The Japanese immediately built their own firearms and used them forever after. Ranks of ashigaru armed with muskets were a staple of Japanese samurai armies throughout the famous Sengoku Period. Prior to the period of isolation under the Tokugawa Shogunate, many Japanese daimyos made extensive use of firearms with muskets, artillery and naval canon. The man who began the reunification of Japan, Oda Nobunaga, was one of the most enthusiastic about these western innovations.

Personally, I have often imagined what might have happened if Oda Nobunaga had not been assassinated, imagining Japan being united and modernizing earlier and sailing out into the northern Pacific to get in on the colonization of North America via Alaska and California, but that is getting off topic. The point is that no one in Japan would have considered firearms to be dishonorable or even “foreign” at all considering that they had been making and using such weapons for centuries to the point that their warfare was dominated by them long before Commodore Perry ever appeared on the horizon. This also highlights the way the film tries to simplify everything by having one side working with foreign powers and the other side shunning them (aside from Algren of course who adopts Japanese ways). The open to foreigners versus nativist dynamic was not the primary element of the Satsuma Rebellion but would have been more closely related to that of the previous Boshin War. However, even then, it was not so simple as both the shogunate and imperial forces had foreign powers they worked with against each other. As the historical case of Captain Brunet demonstrates, the forces loyal to the shogun had French backers whereas the imperial forces had British support.

Saigo Takamori

Brunet himself wrote to Napoleon III that the daimyos loyal to the shogun were friendly to France and that their victory would mean a greater French influence in the future Japan. No doubt the British backed the imperial forces for the same reason. Neither were open allies of course and neither would have all that much greater a position of favor in Meiji Japan but the point is that each side had foreign support and the rebels were not so puritanical as to shun any and all outside assistance. They would even ultimately adopt a rather foreign government model with a republic and a president; the Republic of Ezo. Their system was, to an extent, inspired by that of the United States yet there was no significant American involvement in this and it all happened in 1869, long before the events portrayed in this film. Saigo Takamori, on whom Katsumoto is based, fought with firearms as Japanese armies had long done, he often wore the western-inspired uniform (most similar to that of the French army of the time) as did the earlier rebel leaders of the Boshin War. Captain Brunet, it should also be mentioned, quite unlike Algren, did not ‘go native’ but rather insisted the Japanese adopt French customs.

Moreover, Saigo Takamori was no isolationist or backward-looking reactionary. He had supported the imperial party in the Meiji Restoration, he helped in the modernization and formation of the Imperial Japanese Army and advocated the conquest of Korea as a way to unite the country, gain foreign respect and provide the disgruntled samurai with an honorable death in battle. Far from shunning western technology, he established his own network of military academies throughout his prefecture and opened his own artillery school. Rebellion broke out when the imperial government tried to disarm these academies, fearing they could pose a threat and inadvertently provoking the very rebellion they had hoped to prevent. Saigo Takamori agreed to lead the rebellion that had already broken out, wearing his western-style army uniform at the head of a column of well-armed men who had raided government arsenals in order to do no more than demand reforms and the removal of corrupt officials and their replacement by men of more traditional Japanese morality.

The Battle of Shiroyama

The film is correct in depicting Katsumoto as a reluctant rebel. Saigo Takamori was insistent that he did not desire war and was loyal to the Emperor, that his only concerns regarded the government but the government would agree to nothing under threat of force and so warfare ensued. However, unlike in the film, the rebel forces never won any significant victories over the imperial forces. Their final confrontation, the Battle of Shiroyama, was not like what was depicted in the film at all but was similar at least in so far as it was an extremely heroic stand against impossible odds. The rebels were outnumbered roughly 60-to-1, were intensely shelled and faced assaults by huge numbers of imperial troops until the last handful of survivors drew their swords and charged to certain death. Saigo Takamori did not survive the battle though there is some dispute as to whether he died of his wounds or committed ritual suicide. Either way, even those who blamed the rebellion for setting back the Japanese economy and causing the samurai class to be viewed with suspicion could not help but admire the heroism of Saigo Takamori and his men.

His Majesty the Meiji Emperor did pardon Saigo Takamori posthumously but it is rather overstretching things to say, as the film does, that this gave Emperor Meiji the courage to slow down westernization and insist on Japanese traditions being retained. This was not something that the actual Meiji Emperor needed to learn. His father had been the most vociferous in rejecting any foreign contact with Japan at all and the Meiji Emperor was always cautious and rather suspect when it came to foreigners from the very beginning. He simply understood that isolation was no longer an option and if Japan was to avoid being dominated by foreigners, it would have to become as strong as the other foreign powers and this, during his reign, the Empire of Japan managed astoundingly well.

Low ranking foreign devils meet the Emperor

On the whole, “The Last Samurai” seems rather too full of tropes and very much lacking in any semblance to actual history. It is very well photographed, the visuals are extremely good and it at least does not ultimately depict the lone westerner as the one who saves the day. Algren is just along for the ride. It can be very moving at times and does get some things right, at least in terms of overall sentiment, which is to say being ‘true to life’ rather than actually true. I did like the scene toward the end when the imperial soldiers all bow down in respect to the courage of the defeated samurai rebels. Actual history is practically nonexistent. What is portrayed is simply not what happened in the Satsuma Rebellion, the rebels did not refrain from using firearms, the imperial army was not inept and not trained by American soldiers nor would any hired captain ever have been allowed into the presence of the Emperor. However, the actors mostly do very well, it can be entertaining and you do get to see Tom Cruise get the ever living crap beaten out of him on several occasions. There is that.

MM Movie Review: 1898, Los últimos de Filipinas

Given recent events, it is clear that the Kingdom of Spain, like most every other West European country, is suffering from a severe lack of confidence and self-esteem. If this film, titled in English as “1898, Our Last Men in the Philippines”, is any indication of the popular culture it is certainly no surprise. It is the story of the last die-hard holdouts of the Spanish empire who, barricaded in a small church in the village of Baler, held out against a far larger force of besieging Filipino rebels from July 1, 1898 to June 2, 1899. I cannot say how the film did with its intended audience but of the Spanish reviews I read, most were positive though, thankfully, almost as many were quite negative. What we have with “1898, Los últimos de Filipinas” is a gorgeous film that throws historical accuracy out the window in an effort to tow the politically correct line and make the Spanish soldiers look as horrible and nasty as all “evil, European imperialists” are supposed to look today. Yet, do not think that the Filipinos escape unscathed either.

The Spanish return

In many ways, perhaps because the siege of Baler has sometimes been referred to as ‘the Spanish Alamo’ (which is a bit ironic considering the actual Alamo is a Spanish mission) it reminded me of the most recent film version of Texas’ most famous siege in that, in an effort to be liberal and avoid taking your own side in a dispute, the filmmakers went out of their way to portray the defenders in a negative light, yet, in so doing, could not help but portray the besieging force in a negative light as well, in fact making them look worse than the supposedly more patriotic pieces of decades past. Despite portraying the Spanish as the villains of this story, I would think it completely justifiable if The Philippines were to ban this movie as an insult to their people. They still, for most of the movie going masses, come across better than the Spanish but that is only because the public has been taught to accept what is spoon-fed to them and it is clear that the Spanish are the “bad guys”, carrying on the ‘evil European imperialist’ stereotype. However, if you actually think about it for a minute, you will see how the Filipinos should actually find this film even more insulting than a proud, God-fearing Spaniard would.

Teresa, a local 'working girl'

The film begins with a crowd of Filipino rebels making a surprise, nighttime attack on a small Spanish detachment at Baler, massacring all but one of the soldiers. We then take up with the unit that is coming to retake Baler and hold it for the King of Spain. I have heard some talk about the uniforms of the Spanish soldiers being wrong for a start. I am no expert on the subject, but I did think they were slightly off. In the end, it was more noticeable to me how the Spanish soldiers all had disappearing hats. By the end of the film, the two remaining officers still have their caps, but the straw hats of every one of the soldiers have totally vanished. I am sure this was done for the sake of the ‘look’ of the film, but as someone very familiar with exceedingly hot climates, a hat is essential. Anyway, the Spanish soldiers arrive, raise the flag and make contact with the sole survivor of the previous garrison, a bloodthirsty and brutish sergeant named Jimeno (played by Javier Gutierrez) as well as the local Filipino whore named Teresa (played by the very fetching Alexandra Masangkay). She is the only Filipina with a speaking part in the film and she is a whore which, sadly, sets the stage for how the Filipinos will be portrayed in this movie.

The Brother, Captain Morenas & Lt. Cerezo

The Spanish soldiers are led by Captain Enrique de las Morenas (played by Eduard Fernandez) who, in what I have heard is actually a rare bit of accuracy, brought his little dog along with him. Other than that, I doubt there is any similarity at all to the actual historical figure as this character is portrayed as fairly competent but still a rather out-of-his-depth fop. The primary leadership role, however, is that of his second-in-command Lieutenant Martin Cerezo (played by Luis Tosar). He is portrayed as an upright man with something of a death wish. His wife died in Spain, he has nothing to live for and, over the course of the film, seemed to me to be cast in a very fanatical light as someone willing to needlessly sacrifice the lives of his men simply because he feels he has no home to go back to and would prefer to die for his country. The main character, however, is an artistic soldier named Carlos (played by Alvaro Cervantes) who has ‘main character’ magical powers, by which I mean he somehow always manages to just happen to be nearby when important things happen, is talked to by everyone, picked for every important mission and so on. Frankly, it becomes annoying very fast.

I should also add that that the only other officer besides the captain and the lieutenant is the doctor, which is not historically accurate at all and should have been obvious given that the Spanish army was rather notoriously top-heavy with an overabundance of officers compared to the number of enlisted men. In any event, the Spanish take possession of Baler and in quick order are attacked by a large force of Filipino rebels, forcing them back into the church which they had prepared to endure a long siege. Here, again, the historical inaccuracies return as they imply many more Spaniards being killed in battle than was reality. Only a handful of Spanish soldiers (literally 3-5) were killed by the Filipino rebels, the vast majority of casualties coming from disease over the many months in a confined, sweltering space with an insufficiently balanced food supply. The Captain soon falls ill and upon his death is succeeded by Lt. Cerezo who refuses to surrender. They endure the occasional attack as well as one foray outside the church to eliminate a rebel artillery piece but for the most part it is a standoff.

Defending the church

No one comes away from this film looking very good. The Spanish soldiers are shown to be suspicious, discontented and disdainful of their government. They highlight, for example, the stupidity of putting untested, inexperienced troops who have never even fired a weapon into such a position and that the government was incapable of even providing them with shoes that fit. The first is another outright fabrication. Most of the soldiers at Baler were experienced veterans of colonial service and the second is simply silly. Shoes and uniforms that do not fit is a common complaint of armies all over the world. As to the attitude of the soldiers, it is impossible to believe that discipline and a determined defense over such a long period under such grueling conditions could have been maintained if the soldiers were so lacking in patriotic devotion as they are portrayed here. Given their behavior, one constantly expects them to simply shoot the lieutenant, surrender and go home. In fact, the Spanish soldiers were remarkably disciplined and only two men deserted (one of these being portrayed in the film, fairly accurately from what I can recall). However, overall, the portrayal is one of sullen, bickering soldiers who care nothing for the cause they are defending and who have only contempt for their country.

The Roman Catholic Church fares no better. The only religious figure shown (there were actually several) is the missionary Brother Carmelo (played by Karra Elejalde). Here is a man who has devoted his life to the service of God in the most distant and alien lands from his own home. However, in this film he is portrayed as a drug addict who retreats to the cellar to smoke opium from his hidden stash and lament that the Christian Heaven is, I will clean it up a bit and say “crap”, and far inferior to the Muslim Heaven. His only real praise for the Christian religion is that it is preferable to the Buddhist belief in reincarnation since you only have to suffer through one life. He also, before succumbing to disease, allows Carlos to share in his hidden store of opium and so turns him into a drug addict as well which eventually leads to a great deal of agony for Carlos when the supply runs out. The whole sub-plot is insulting and ridiculous as well, as if someone thought that an historical epic about heroism and determination needed to take time out to rip off the plot from “Trainspotting”.

Literally every Filipina in this movie is portrayed as a whore

The Filipinos are also horribly insulted, though safe to say it is rather by accident. The filmmakers obviously intended to show the Filipinos as everything the Spaniards (i.e. “evil European imperialists”) are not. They are free, in touch with nature, simple and sexually liberated. Their commander lounges around with his shirt open and Teresa sings in the rain with one breast exposed. They mock the Spaniards for fighting a war they know is already over, laugh at their sacrifice for a government that has “sold them out” to the villainous United States and they take all of this way too far. In what has to be the most insulting scene of all for Filipinos, the rebels shout to the Spanish in the church that they have local women available for them to enjoy and demonstrate this by having a rebel soldier and a local woman start fornicating in broad daylight right in front of the church so the Spanish inside can watch. The point was, again, to show the Filipinos as liberated natives living in a ‘state of nature’. The effect was to make all the Filipino men and women look like pimps and whores. Again, I am not the absolute expert on the subject but I am pretty damn sure that the Filipinos never used the tactic of, “surrender and you can have sex with our women”. It is hard to imagine anything more degrading than that.

If you look close, they did actually get the flag right.

I should also add that the United States does take a few hits in this movie too, being viewed as the enemy for both sides (the Spanish-America War was fought and ended during the course of the siege). This, however, is something the filmmaker clearly threw in to be politically correct as sticking to the actual facts would have been detrimental to the narrative he was trying to sell. The Americans actually tried to rescue the Spanish soldiers besieged at Baler but did not have much luck. A scouting party they sent in was attacked an massacred by the Filipinos who were, keep in mind, supposed to be allied with the Americans at this time. If, as the film claims, the Filipinos did not hate the Spanish at all (as they constantly claim) but simply wanted them to surrender and go home because the war was over, surely allowing the U.S. military forces to make contact with them would have been an easy way to do it. But, no, though the film does show Carlos, in an effort to go to Manila and report back on the situation, seeing a bunch of dead American soldiers in the jungle. Contrary to popular belief, many Americans wanted nothing to do with The Philippines and the decision to keep the islands and suppress the pro-independence forces happened when Filipino rebels attacked American soldiers before the government had decided what to do. I think I can safely say that no American wishes The Philippines had remained an American Territory. If that had happened, they could be a state by now and the expense of that would be outrageous.

Marching out after finally giving up

Eventually, and in fairness it must be said that the reason shown was historically accurate, the Spanish lieutenant does decide to surrender his post. The Filipino rebels, showing great chivalry and a total lack of animosity, allows the soldiers to depart with their colors and their arms to return to Spain. The problem is, what should be a moment to stir the pride of any patriotic Spaniards, actually amounts to nothing of the sort given the way the film has portrayed everyone. If one accepts the narrative of this movie, one would probably feel nothing but pity at best and contempt at worst for the Spanish soldiers who, led by an unreasonable fanatic, fought, suffered and died for a government that had abandoned them and against people who had no ill-will toward them at all. And imperialism/colonialism, at least when done by western countries, is always bad anyway so defending it is nothing to be proud of. The actors all did their jobs well enough and the movie looks absolutely spectacular, shot on the island of Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa and Equatorial Guinea, the scenery is truly breathtaking. Other than that, the whole thing was downright insulting to the memory of everyone involved, certainly for the tremendously heroic Spanish who endured so much to defend that last patch of ground over which their flag flew, to the Filipinos as well, albeit inadvertently.

Wasted potential

In the end, the audience is also made to think that Lt. Cerezo will be in for big trouble when he gets home for his actions at Baler. Once again, even this final note is a totally false one. The Spanish defenders will all hailed as heroes when they returned to Spain and Lt. Cerezo was decorated with the Cross of St Ferdinand by King Alfonso XIII and died in 1945 having achieved the rank of general. Ultimately, the only positive thing I can say about the message of this film is that it did make me see the parallels between the defenders of Baler and modern-day monarchists. Anything and everything will be said to try to convince you to abandon support for your monarch. You will be told it is a bad cause you are supporting, then that it is a futile cause, that the republic is inevitable, finally you will also be told that your monarch is not worthy of your loyalty, that a “real” monarchist would not support such a monarch anyway, whatever it takes so long as the end result is you abandoning your loyalty and accepting the end of the monarchy. Don’t do it. Be the hold out that never surrenders. This film is disgraceful, I am told there was one made in the 1940’s that may be better but I have not seen it. Instead, stick to the actual history and you will find a story of courage and determination that will inspire you rather than a film like this that can only demoralize.

MM Movie Review: A Royal Affair

“A Royal Affair” (‘En kongelig affaere’) is a Danish historical film about the affair between Queen Caroline Matilda of Great Britain, consort of King Christian VII of Denmark, and the court physician Johann Friedrich Struensee. Released in 2012, directed by Nikolaj Arcel, it stars Mads Mikkelsen as Dr. Struensee, Alicia Vikander as Queen Caroline and Mikkel Folsgaard as the King of Denmark. I am not expert enough on the details of Danish history to know how precisely accurate the film is but I can at least say it is broadly so. King Christian VII was considered mentally ill, he did have a court physician named Struensee who had an affair with his wife and during this period there was a huge amount of changes undertaken by the Danish Crown which ultimately resulted, as shown in the film, in a rather unhappy end for the Queen and the doctor. Given what an unusual historical character Queen Caroline was, I am rather surprised the film did not portray her as more ‘over the top’ and was, frankly, surprised by the amount of restraint and even fairness presented in the film.

The English princess

The entire story is told in flashback, Queen Caroline, in circumstances not made known until the end, writing a letter to her children to explain what happened during her time in Copenhagen from her own point of view. She relates being plucked from a seemingly idyllic childhood in England to be married off in 1766 to King Christian VII of Denmark who, we are assured from the outset, is barking mad. As is usually the case in such circumstances, I have my doubts about this, though there is certainly no denying the fact that he was not entirely sound. However, I have a hard time taking diagnoses of mental illness (about which even today we know practically nothing) from people who think that, as was said of King Christian, insanity can be caused by masturbation. The King seems at least interested in her, they have a romp and an heir to the throne is soon on the way, though the Queen cannot relate to her bizarre husband, nor he to her and he soon neglects her, spending his time elsewhere. This is all intended to build up the first half of the ‘royal affair’, that of the liberal minded, neglected young queen, forced into an unwanted and loveless marriage with a lunatic.

It is at this point that we are introduced to Doctor Johann Friedrich Struensee and, I should add, also from the very beginning, we are made aware that the Kingdom of Denmark is, at this point, still a feudal, absolute monarchy, lagging behind the times in “Enlightened” Eighteenth Century Western Europe. The Queen, at the time of her marriage, is told that her ‘Enlightenment’ books are not allowed in Denmark which is resolutely sticking to tradition. However, Dr. Struensee is also a devotee of Rousseau and the ‘Enlightenment’. A German, from the Danish possessions in northern Germany, he is portrayed as a progressive man of, if not low origins, at least perfectly comfortable with the common, crude and even vulgar. He does a man with connections a medical favor, this is returned by his being recommended to court and he soon finds himself appointed as the King’s personal physician. Whether it is whoring or bizarre conversation, he goes along with the King, seems to understand him and the King becomes very attached to him, no doubt because he is the only one who does understand him, probably because he is the only one who has taken the time to actually try.

The King and his doctor

Dr. Struensee begins winning the King over to his more liberal ideas and the King gives the doctor a seat on his Privy Council. However, Struensee finds that his views are always overruled, though he is careful that these are put forward by the King. Struensee then begins working on the King, having come to understand him, he is able to put things in a way that the King will respond. He convinces the King to act normally by presenting it to him as a game, a sort of joke, as the King does understand pretending or acting in a play. He works on the King to pretend as though he is acting in a play when he meets his ministers and, as such, is able to have the King behave in a more kingly fashion and his ministers must obey him. Once this formula is worked out, the King begins unleashing a flood of liberal reforms on Denmark, all secretly originating from Dr. Struensee. His part in this, however, cannot remain secret and it is soon known that he is the one behind all of these dramatic changes which many in the aristocracy and Royal Family oppose.

Someone who does not oppose it is the Queen who, with all of these changes underway, sees that she and Struensee hold much the same pro-Enlightenment political opinions. The two soon begin an affair and Struensee seems on top of the world, or at least Denmark and what else really matters? The King is his friend and is basically allowing him to rule the country, he is committing vigorous adultery with the beautiful, young queen and he is re-making Denmark according to the ‘Enlightenment’ principles he most believes in. Everything is going his way. Then, the Queen informs him that she is pregnant. Uh-oh. It then becomes a matter of dire necessity to get the King back in bed with his wife very quickly in order to provide some plausible deniability for anyone else being the father. I do not like these, “the prince/king is not really the father” tropes in film but, unlike “Braveheart”, this one actually has historical merit. We cannot say for sure who the father of the child was, a girl born in 1771, but courtiers did say the child looked like Struensee and even in the King, with his supposedly limited mental capacity, had his doubts.

The King & Queen of Denmark

Nonetheless, the King appoints Struensee to the highest position at court to the extent that any order which comes from him must be enforced as if it came from the King personally. Struensee begins issuing a flood of “reforms”, more than ever, in actual history what works out to three a day and, I must give the film some credit on this score. Even for those who thought some of these changes were beneficial, they were too much, too fast. In a way that, frankly, surprised me, the film actually acknowledges that this torrent of liberal changes does not really work out well. It is made clear that Struensee has not taken the time to think things through, just ordering what to him seems “reasonable” while taking no account of how practical any of these changes are. He upsets the elites and, again, I am surprised the film was honest enough to show this, even upsets common people who he thinks he is benefiting. Moreover, by abolishing the censorship laws, these people are able to ridicule the King in whose name all of this is being done. Struensee gave the public the tools to attack him with.

All of this scrutiny finally allows the Dowager Queen Juliana, mother of the King’s younger half-brother Prince Frederick, to learn of the affair between the Queen and Dr. Struensee. The tension shown was historically accurate. The King never got on with his step-mother, the Queen never liked her and she did have a history of trying to keep the King isolated. She was never very popular in Denmark and no doubt looked forward to having more influence by replacing the unsound King with her own son. The Dowager Queen and a powerful official work together to arrange a palace coup, meanwhile the public has been worked up into a howling mob as not only have the horde of liberal reforms upset their lives but now they learn the King is being manipulated by a German who is ‘playing doctor’ with the Queen.

The downfall of Struensee

Nonetheless, the King is portrayed as a basically good man who simply has an affliction of the mind but he sees the mob howling for blood and refuses to turn over Struensee to them, the man who has been his only real friend, the only one who had any understanding of him at all. However, aside from having the affair confirmed, the King is told that the Queen and Struensee are plotting to murder him and take control of his kingdom themselves. This, the King cannot allow and he orders the execution of Struensee and the exile of his Queen. However, he still does not really want Struensee to be killed and issues an order pardoning him. However, the pardon is suppressed by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who is set to take over the country in place of Struensee and the doctor is executed. The liberal reforms were overturned, though not much mention is made of it, this is done under the regency of the King’s half-brother Frederick. The film ends with the Queen finishing her letter to her children shortly before her own death in Hanover. The children receive the letter and, we are told, when he came to the throne, King Frederick VI reissued most of the Struensee reforms and Denmark was all happy, free and “enlightened”.

That was, of course, a fitting way to end such a film but anyone who knows anything about the actual history of the Danish monarchy in this period will know that they lie by omission. Yes, King Frederick VI did issue many similar liberal reforms but then he also led Denmark to a fairly disastrous involvement in the Napoleonic Wars, the result of which was to see Denmark lose Norway to Sweden and afterwards, seeing the woeful state of his country, Frederick VI reversed course, abandoning his earlier liberalism and becoming a full-throated reactionary. It is an historical record that makes it rather difficult for the so-called “reformers” that every time their ideas were put into practice, disaster was the result. In any event, I have low expectations when it comes to the ‘messaging’ of most royal-subject films and I think “A Royal Affair” can be forgiven this effort at implying an altogether happy ending. I say that, however, only because I had expected worse and was pleasantly surprised.

Mother and child at the mercy of step-mother-in-law

“A Royal Affair” is, I think, overall a pretty good movie. For the sake of people in Kansas, I will say, it is not for children (which I would think should be obvious but…) as there is some crude language, brief nudity and what I suppose would be termed “sexual situations”, though those mostly alluded to rather than seen. Overall, it seems a fairly accurate film to me, though, while I am no expert, some things did bother me somewhat given what I do know on the subject. For example, it seemed to me that Queen Caroline was portrayed as being far too helpless, as if she were little more than a prisoner from start to finish when, in reality, she had her own faction at court, as was usual in such cases, and was far from being isolated and powerless. In any event, I was impressed with how the King, while certainly portrayed as being insane, was not portrayed as an inherently bad person but a basically good man who has an affliction which makes me unable to relate to ordinary people or for them to relate to him. I was also, again, surprised and impressed that they were honest enough to show that the Struensee reforms did not instantly make a paradise on earth but actually made things worse and sparked a backlash, not just from the aristocrats but from ordinary people.

It is certainly a well made film, well acted, it won a large number of awards and great amount of critical acclaim. It looks very good and it covers, fairly accurately I thought, a critical period in Danish history. If it prompts people to learn more, I think that alone would make it worth recommending. Personally, I am glad to see any such films from the Kingdom of Denmark and wish there was more available on Danish royal history in various language (such as English) for a wider audience. Denmark has the oldest monarchy in the western world and there is much there to enthrall and educate, I wish more people could learn about it, myself included. Anyway, bottom line, I would say it is a pretty good film, not perfect but better in some ways than I expected and I would like to see more, preferably next time about a Danish monarch who was successful and not insane.

MM Movie Review: Der große König

“Der große König” (‘The Great King’) is a German biopic of the famous Prussian warrior king Frederick the Great, released in 1942 and directed by Veit Harlan. That information alone necessitates addressing the ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to this film so, we may as well get that out of the way. Yes, the film was made in Nazi Germany and was a product of the film industry which was ultimately under the authority of the Minister of Propaganda Dr. Joseph Goebbels. Because of this, many will hate the film, sight unseen while others will and have inevitably seen it through a tinted lens, which is unfortunate but, I am sure, for some people it simply cannot be helped. Most broadly, it is usually interpreted as a film about Frederick the Great in which the King is meant to be a stand-in for Adolf Hitler. That may or may not be true but I certainly think it is possible to see it without such a parallel and I believe that if someone were to watch it and not be told when it was made, many would see nothing ‘national socialist’ about it at all.

Prussian advance at Kunersdorf

Production values are very high with this film, reflective of the fact that it was made in late 1940 and early 1941 when the Germans were pretty much winning the war. It is set during the Seven Years War (for Americans that is the French and Indian War) and stars Otto Gebuehr as King Frederick II, Gustav Froehlich (who sci-fi fans will know from “Metropolis”) as Sergeant Treskow and Kristina Soederbaum as his wife Luise Treskow. The sets are all quite convincing and the major battle sequences are truly epic in scope with large numbers of soldiers, cavalry and all the rest. Otto Gebuehr does a great job as Frederick the Great, was quite similar in appearance to the monarch and, as such, it is not surprising that he played the part on more than one occasion. The film opens with the Battle of Kunersdorf in which the Prussian army is crushed by the combined forces of Austria and Russia, the worst defeat of Frederick’s career. The Austrians held off the Prussian attack, then counter-attacked and drove the Prussians from the field, a route it was thought might well finish them. In the aftermath, the King is despondent and his generals and officials in Berlin begin to talk of peace negotiations and even doing away with the King if he stands in their way.

In one telling scene early on, Prince Heinrich criticizes his brother Frederick to his face, saying that under his rule, their enemies have increased every year to the point that Prussia was opposed by all of Europe. This, of course, was mostly true as historically, at this point, Prussia was opposed by almost everyone with the British as their only major ally. In a fury, the King also says that he had intended for the first regiment that fled to be sacrificed, basically that he ordered them to attack an Austrian position he knew they could not take but that as they would be shot down, others could shelter behind their corpses and prevent any counter-attack until the artillery arrived to open a breach in the Austrian lines. After soberly listening to a tirade against him by Luise Treskow, whose family mill was destroyed in the battle (she thinking the King was just an elderly major), we see in this scene that the King, while mindful of the suffering of ordinary people, was fully prepared to order men to certain death in order to win the larger victory. However, at Kunersdorf, it did not work because the regiment in question had fled.

Graf von Laudon, the Austrian commander

Despite the wishes of his generals, King Frederick is determined not to surrender but to carry on the fight and orders the regiment that fled, the Bernburg Regiment, to be officially disgraced, at which point the colonel shoots himself. The King is unmoved, seeing this as weakness. Later, he survives a Habsburg attempt to poison him by a sleazy envoy, dreams of his books and his music, the pursuits of peacetime while back in Vienna, Kaunitz and General von Laudon talk about him. Count Kaunitz is adamant that only a Habsburg has the right to rule Germany and that the Hohenzollern is no legitimate monarch at all but simply the puffed up Marquis of Brandenburg. Count von Laudon, on the other hand, has more respect for his recently defeated opponent and points out that when it was last in great peril, the Empire was saved, not by a legitimate monarch but by the victories of Prince Eugene of Savoy. Kaunitz thinks it unfair to the Prince to compare him to so despicable a character as the King of Prussia but the matter is ended when word arrives that Frederick has raised a new army and is on the move again.

Frederick is, however, ill and rages against his brother when he suggests making peace and an alliance with France. The King tells him that the French are not to be trusted and want to keep Germany as a collection of small, powerless states that can all be easily dominated, as it was, he says, after the Thirty Years War. That issue is put aside in favor of the next battle, the Battle of Torgau, which is a great victory over the Austrians of Daun. The Bernburg Regiment is restored to favor, however, the coordinated attack was carried out by bugle calls and when the adjutant who was supposed to order the attack on the front where the Bernburg Regiment was stationed was killed, Sergeant Treskow (recently married to Luise), sees the enemy approaching and blows the bugle himself. King Frederick is outraged when he learns that a lowly sergeant ordered the attack, though one might wonder why an attitude of “all’s well that ends well” was not in order. Well, believe it or not, this is. The King says that if the end result had not been a victory, he would have had the sergeant shot immediately. Instead, he orders him spread eagle to a wagon wheel for three days as punishment. Obviously, this does not endear him to Luise Treskow who had been fuming against the King since her family mill was destroyed.

"Old Fritz" and his generals

What she doesn’t know is that the King is simply trying to maintain discipline and has ordered that Treskow be promoted to lieutenant when he has finished taking his three days of punishment. But Sgt. Treskow is indignant about the injustice of this and decides to desert. In the meantime, Czarina Elizabeth of Russia has died and while other Russian officers break out in cheers for Czar Peter III and start smashing everything in sight to show their happiness, their commander, General Zakhar Grigoryevich Chernyshov, is not so sure. He knows Czar Peter will soon make peace with Prussia and then an alliance with him. However, Chernyshov plans to deceive Frederick by offering more troops than he has, withholding any real help and waiting for the Czar to be bumped off. However, to his surprise, as well as those who know their history, this all happens before he can do anything. Czar Peter is assassinated, Catherine II is Empress of Russia and he then intends to isolate his army as much as possible until Frederick is heavily engaged against the Austrians at which time he will intervene on the Austrian side.

However, Frederick figured out what the Russians were up to, takes General Chernyshov prisoner and orders that, while he doesn’t expect the Russians to fight alongside him, they will still march to their assigned position so that the Austrians under Daun will have to divide to meet them. This culminates in the Battle of “Schweidnitz 1762” (if you can find that one) where we see Prussians advance, artillery bow up a tower and Sergeant Treskow is killed as he did not desert after all. A victory parade is held in Berlin but the King does not attend. The non-religious man checks on the widow Treskow and then goes to a large cathedral, not to pray, but to cry some manly tears before a brief song of tribute sings us out and the film ends.

Overall, the film is an entertaining one though not without flaws. It is broadly accurate as far as the history goes, Frederick the Great did meet with a stunning defeat, he did soldier on and he was ultimately victorious, however, it does take a number of liberties with the historical record, one major one being that the “Hohenzollern Miracle” does not amount to much in this film as it never shows the Russians playing any part in the ultimate success of Frederick. It says, at the outset, that the words spoken by Frederick in the film are historically accurate. Although I cannot claim to know everything Frederick ever said, this seems dubious to me, particularly the scene in which he justifies his war against Austria to his brother. He condemns the Habsburgs as being unfit to lead a united Germany, makes clear that a united Germany under Prussian leadership is his goal, on the grounds that the Habsburgs share power with non-Germans. This little speech, and I may well be proven wrong, sounds to me more like something Hitler would have said than something Frederick the Great would have said.

Frederick the Great, while a Prussian nationalist of a sort, was not as xenophobic as this films seems to me to imply that he was. This was a monarch who usually spoke French rather than German, had an army made up of men from many different countries and who took in a number of foreign exiles, a notable example being the Jesuits who he said he would sell back to the Catholic countries when they regained their senses. It is all the more strange considering that, while this film is set during the reign of the Austrian Empress Maria Theresa, her successor, Emperor Joseph II, would seem to have been more of a German nationalist than Frederick was, going so far as to try to impose German as the primary language of all Habsburg lands (which did not go over well as one can imagine). However, while it seems to show an anti-Habsburg bias that was more in line with Hitler than Frederick (who often expressed his admiration for his Habsburg opponents, particularly Joseph II) it is, overall, a well made, well acted and entertaining film. Perhaps knowing when it was made distorts my view as it does others, it simply seems at such times to be casting the views of Hitler on to the person of Frederick. And Hitler, after all, while admiring Frederick the Great immensely, was certainly no traditionalist, no monarchist and no friend of the ‘old order’ but was, in fact, quite an egalitarian other than in the area of race. It may also be noteworthy, given Hitler's opinion of the Jews, that neither King Frederick nor Empress Maria Theresa were particularly fond of them and not a few would likely say Frederick was more tolerant of them than the Habsburg Empress was. However, Hitler's opposition to the Habsburgs was clearly irrational and no facts would have changed it.

Aside from this issue, the film has what I would consider only rather minor flaws. It runs longer than it needs to and there are a number of scenes which are rather superfluous. The drama surrounding the King’s favorite nephew, who he hopes will succeed him but dies toward the end, is not needed to drive the story forward and seems to exist simply to show that the King has a great many burdens and heartaches and must stand alone, shouldering the weight of the German destiny. The conspiracy involving the Russians could have been cut out as it ultimately came to nothing and did not matter to the overall narrative. Many have commented on the fact that filming was in progress when war broke out between Germany and the Soviet Union but not too much should be made of this as it is extremely doubtful that the filmmakers would have been aware of this impending attack. On the whole, I think it is a good film for its time and one that people should do their best to view on its own merits and not get bogged down in trying to find Nazi propaganda messages throughout. I would even say it is a good film to take a lesson from in how royal leadership is supposed to be, not swayed by popular opinion and putting the good of the nation above the personal happiness of the monarch.

MM Movie Review: Mary of Scotland

“Mary of Scotland” is a 1936 film, directed by, of all people, John Ford who is probably most remembered for his cavalry pictures of the American frontier west. Distributed by RKO Radio Pictures and produced by Pandro S. Berman it is a very favorably biopic of the tragic Stuart monarch Mary Queen of Scots based on a play by Maxwell Anderson of 1933. The screenplay was written by Dudley Nichols (probably best known for his work on “Stagecoach” and “For Whom the Bell Tolls”. It is a very well shot picture with cinematography by Joseph H. August and Jack MacKenzie. The starring role went to Katharine Hepburn, an iconic American actress who doesn’t attempt an accent, which is well enough as I’ve never heard any definitive argument as to what the famous queen would have actually sounded like, being Scottish but having spent her youth in France. The film opens with text to fill us in on the essential background info and to state from the outset that this film will be about a struggle between two women; Mary of Scotland and Elizabeth of England. And, make no mistake about it, Queen Mary is definitely the heroine while Queen Elizabeth is unmistakably the villainess of the piece.

Queen Elizabeth I

The film opens in England with the first appearance of Queen Elizabeth I played by Florence Eldridge (who the previous year had appeared with co-star Frederic March in “Les Miserables”). Her introduction is very significant, solemnly announced, her courtiers all drop to one knee as she barges down the hall, barking orders and scowling at the news that Mary Stuart has left France for Scotland and that the Scottish sovereign has refused to recognize her as the Queen of England. This opening scene is highly significant in contrasting Mary and Elizabeth. Elizabeth is haughty, vain and angry but is treated with loyal submission by all around her. It will be a very different story with Queen Mary. It is also made clear in this scene just whose “side” the film is on, Queen Mary is stated to be the “legitimate heir of King Henry VII” and that “all of Europe” considers Elizabeth I to be a usurper. In any event, the presence of Queen Mary in Scotland is considered a direct threat to Elizabeth who makes a rather Henry II-like statement about some English ships raising a black flag and using force to prevent Mary from landing in Scotland. However, it is no avail and at just after six minutes of screen time the star appears as Queen Mary lands in Scotland to a less than rapturous welcome from the lords.

The Queen arrives in Scotland

In contrast to our first view of Elizabeth, at first sight Queen Mary drops to her knees in prayer upon first stepping on Scottish soil, thanking God for bringing her safely to her homeland and asking divine guidance to rule well and wisely. Meanwhile, in Edinburgh, we see the nobles of Scotland who are not so loyal as the elites of England to their own monarch. They are a squabbling, scheming bunch of self-serving villains, perhaps none more so than James Stuart, Lord Moray, her regent and half-brother played by Ian Keith. The only exception is Lord Huntley played by Donald Crisp who is the Queen’s most loyal defender throughout the film (and one of the few who wears a kilt). From the outset, the nobles object to the presence of a foreigner, the Queen’s Italian private secretary David Rizzio played by John Carradine, and her Catholic faith. The Queen stands firmly loyal to her faith firmly states that in her kingdom all will be free to worship as their conscious dictates. They also immediately urge her to marry a “loyal Scot” and prefer Lord Darnley who they think they can control. However, she refuses to marry and vows to live as she pleases and not allow herself to be directed by others as had been the case throughout her life thus far.

Meeting John Knox

Thankfully, this ugly scene is relieved by a torchlight procession of her subjects singing a song of praise and loyalty to their Queen. This cheers her up and she makes up her mind to “find a way to win”. However, this happy sight cannot last long before a ranting John Knox shows up to denounce the new Queen and Catholicism. Knox is played by Moroni Olsen, the only member of the cast of the original play to portray his same character in the film. It is also during this confrontation that we see the arrival of Lord Bothwell played by Frederic March (who won an Oscar for starring in “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, played princes in “Death Takes a Holiday” and “We Live Again” and who played Philip II of Macedonia in “Alexander the Great”. He also played Christopher Columbus in the 1949 film of that name -though Generalissimo Franco did not approve of it). While Knox raves his intolerant bigotry, Bothwell has him drowned out by his pipers. Queen Mary comes out to confront Knox. She tells him to preach his faith but asks him to be tolerant of her own faith and asks for his friendship in spite of his treasonous rhetoric. Knox, of course, refuses her offer and storms off determined as ever to oppose her. In the aftermath, the Queen meets Bothwell who is, from the start, portrayed as a rough, blunt but romantic hero who takes an instant liking to the Queen.

Lord Darnley

In England, Elizabeth continues to puzzle over how to defeat Mary. She dislikes the idea of Mary being wed to Bothwell or Darnley and fears that a war to conquer Scotland would unite the Scots in loyalty to Mary and against England. So, she decides to try to corrupt Moray and use him as her instrument -something we are led to believe will be very easy. In Scotland, Rizzio is also pushing the Queen to marry but prefers Darnley over Bothwell because Darnley is a Catholic but would prefer any Catholic royal from the continent over either one. The Queen accuses him of being as intolerant in his Catholicism as Knox is in his Protestantism but the two remain close friends and the Queen agrees that she must marry but it will not be a continental royal. At Rizzio’s urging then she decides that Darnley is the only viable option. It is clear though that she only has eyes for the dashing Bothwell. Darnley soon arrives, played by Douglas Walton (who viewers may remember from “The Bride of Frankenstein”, “Mutiny on the Bounty” and “The Count of Monte Cristo”). His is a totally reprehensible character, but Mary finally agrees to marry him when she is told that Elizabeth wants her to marry Leicester and does not wish her to marry Darnley. Bothwell confesses his love for her but Mary is steadfast that Darnley is the best choice for political reasons. When the Queen accepts Darnley’s proposal, the scene ends in a creepy way, after which we next see Darnley drunk and making a nuisance of himself while the nobles demand that the Queen send Rizzio away.

David Rizzio -looks like he knows what's coming

With the Queen standing firm, the nobles easily dupe Darnley into joining their conspiracy to murder Rizzio. Oddly enough, at that point, the Queen tells Rizzio, who is homesick for the sunshine of Italy, that she will send him home, though he is her only friend, to make him happy. Rizzio then asks why she doesn’t summon Bothwell back (who left in a huff over her marriage to Darnley) showing that their positions have basically switched from the beginning. The nobles bring in their troops, kill the palace guard and attack Rizzio in the Queen’s chamber with Darnley along but seemingly drunk or dazed, in any event the ignorant pawn of the nobles. The Queen vows never to forgive Darnley and tells him how stupid he has been, casting doubt on the paternity of his own son she is carrying (which is true as some later did try to spread the rumor that King James I was actually the son of Rizzio rather than Darnley). The nobles make it clear that she is to be a figurehead prisoner-queen under their control. The scandal will ruin her public support and Darnley was implicated so can take no action.

Dunbar Castle

At that moment, however, word arrives that Bothwell is returning and the rats make for their holes. There’s a fight in the courtyard but the Queen and Darnley escape while Bothwell is victorious. The little Prince James is born off-screen but the news upsets Queen Elizabeth immensely, especially with Bothwell triumphant beside the Queen and the Protestant nobles who had supported England having been banished for killing Rizzio. Darnley, with the fear of death removed, goes back to being a drunken nuisance immediately. He’s paranoid and is convinced that everyone is out to kill him. He blames the Queen for turning the nobles against him and vows to leave Scotland and disown his son. Lord Ruthven, one of the nobles who killed Rizzio, then sets the powder that blows Darnley into a million un-mourned pieces. Knox then tells the people from his pulpit that Bothwell was the murderer and it is made clear to the audience that the nobles (who really did it -in this film at least) gave him this information. Bothwell then captures the Queen and Lord Huntley and plans to marry her though Huntley tells him he is mad and the two of them have put themselves in Moray’s power by their actions and the charade of a “kidnapping” and plans for a “forced” marriage. He leaves in disgust but the Queen and Bothwell are wed, Mary telling him that he is the only one she ever loved.

Moray sets his terms

We are then told, by way of an ambassador’s report to Elizabeth (scenes with Elizabeth are often used to fill us in on things that happened off-screen) that Moray has taken the little prince and that Bothwell is trying to fight a war to restore the Queen to power but that Moray has the people behind him thanks to Knox convincing everyone that Bothwell killed Darnley when, we are told, it was really his own cronies who did the deed. The marriage seems to prove to all that Mary and Bothwell were guilty. At Edinburgh, Knox invokes revenge for a murdered king of Scotland (referring to Darnley) to rally the people against the Queen and Bothwell. Trapped and outmatched, Bothwell agrees to leave Scotland so long as the Queen is guaranteed on her throne, even if only as a figurehead. Of course, as soon as Bothwell is gone, Moray goes back on his word and betrays the Queen anyway. She is told to abdicate, see her son made king and Moray made regent to rule the country. She refuses, but Moray tells everyone she has abdicated and goes ahead. Queen Elizabeth sends word that she will oppose Moray publicly but support him privately while protesting friendship to Queen Mary and playing for time.

Queen Mary being judged

Queen Mary believes her and makes her escape to England where she thinks she will find a safe haven. She is quickly taken into custody and to her sorry discovers that her royal cousin has betrayed her (like most people in this movie) and she is a prisoner. Unknown to her, after an off-screen defeat, Bothwell dies raving in a Danish prison and Queen Mary is put on trial, though she refuses to recognize their authority or the authority of Queen Elizabeth. Nonetheless, she is charged with conspiracy to murder Elizabeth I while Queen Mary protests that she is guilty only of trying to escape from unjust imprisonment. She finally accepts her fate that the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion based on an invented plot by a paranoid Elizabeth. Her only hope is Bothwell and the English judges delight in revealing to her the news of his death. This leaves her a broken woman, accepting of her fate.

Two Queens face to face

But, of course, like all such films of this era, we cannot end without a secret meeting of the two queens, something for which there is no evidence at all but which few filmmakers have been able to resist. Elizabeth accuses Mary of being born too close to her throne, a threat she had to eliminate. Queen Mary claims to have had a happiness that Elizabeth will never know and that Elizabeth’s life has been “a magnificent failure”. Queen Mary tells her that Elizabeth has lived her whole life in fear of her. Yet, she refuses to renounce her claim to the English throne even though Elizabeth offers to spare her life if she does. Boldly, the Queen of Scots stands by her birthright and proclaims that she will win and Elizabeth will still lose because one day it will be her son, a Stuart, who sits on the throne of England. The Tudor queen leaves in a fury and Queen Mary prays, preparing for her death. She is led to her execution, saying a rosary in Latin amidst loud thunderclaps and the event happens off-screen as sad music plays. The film ends and the credits roll.

Mary & Bothwell publicity still

“Mary of Scotland” was not a big hit at the box office, yet, it is not a bad film and I think is sure to be very popular with a particular audience. Personally, I like it, I don’t love it but I like it. It’s sweet. It is certainly not historically accurate, though it is not really as inaccurate as some like to imply. Some things are completely made up for sure but what I think most people who complain about the historical inaccuracy are really upset about is just how partisan the film is. And boy howdy is it ever. One thing “Mary of Scotland” is not is ‘subtle’. It is a plain and simple story of good guys and bad guys and the audience is told, from the outset, in no uncertain terms, who is who. Personally, that doesn’t bother. After all, keeping this film in the context of others like it, there have been far, far more films that were just as blatantly partisan regarding Queen Elizabeth I. Almost every film to be about or to feature the ‘Virgin Queen’ have portrayed her in the most positive light possible. Certainly none of them were entirely historically accurate but it seems to me that if we can have so many films unapologetically positive of Elizabeth I (and I’m all for them), surely there is room for a film that is unapologetically positive of her rival Queen Mary.

I thought the two female leads both did an excellent job playing their parts, the rest of the cast was solid, it looked good and I think tended to get more things right than it is often given credit for. Queen Mary did claim the English throne, Queen Elizabeth did try to dominate Scotland through corrupt nobles and Queen Mary was an advocate of religious freedom rather than Catholic domination all as shown in the film. There are, on the other hand, plenty of things the film gets wrong but this is a movie closer to the romantic image of the Stuart queen rather than the historical one. It also shows Queen Mary as a devout Catholic woman who made some poor decisions in her life and that is perfectly true. Even the negative portrayal of Queen Elizabeth is not entirely inaccurate. Not everyone will like this movie but some will. In particular, I would say especially that if you are a Catholic monarchist interested in British history, you will probably love this movie.