logo
   Web Issue 3191 July 5 2008   
spacer
Scarlett to star as Mary, Queen of Scots
ALISON CHIESAMay 19 2007
REGAL: Scarlett Johansson will star in film written by Jimmy McGovern. Picture: Matt Sayles/AP
REGAL: Scarlett Johansson will star in film written by Jimmy McGovern. Picture: Matt Sayles/AP

Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson is to play Mary, Queen of Scots in what could become one of the most significant historical films about Scotland since Braveheart.

The epic deal was revealed at the Cannes Film Festival yesterday.

According to production company Relativity Media, the film will see the tragic monarch "battle political enemies, scheming allies and affairs of the heart in her quest to reunite the warring tribes of her native Scotland".

Co-produced by Johansson's mother, Melanie, the script will be penned by Jimmy McGovern, who wrote the gritty television crime drama Cracker which starred Robbie Coltrane. The project has been a long-term labour of love for the Liverpool screenwriter.

Three years ago he wrote a two-part television drama about Mary Stuart, entitled Gunpowder, Treason and Plot, which was directed by Scot Gilles McKinnon and starred French actress Clemence Poesy.

The new feature film version will be directed by John Curran, whose most recent film, The Painted Veil, was based on the W Somerset Maugham novel.

Mary, a Roman Catholic, ruled Scotland from 1542 to 1567, but her alleged designs on the throne of England - ruled by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth I - led to her downfall and beheading.

Johansson, 22, is one of Hollywood's most sought-after stars. Her films include Lost in Translation, The Girl with a Pearl Earring, Match Point and The Black Dahlia.

Last month, it was revealed that, in her determination to be seen as a serious actor, the curvaceous celebrity has insisted on a no-nudity clause in all her contracts. Johansson is the latest in a long list of actresses to take the role of the tragic monarch who succeeded the throne shortly after her birth, became a wife at 15, was widowed at 17, before being beheaded at 44 after spending years in jail.

Among famous faces to have brought her story to life on the screen is Vanessa Redgrave who starred in the 1971 version, also titled Mary, Queen of Scots. Others who have played her include Vivian Pickles, Katharine Hepburn and Dame Janet Baker, who took the lead in the late-1990s in Gaetano Donizetti's opera of her life.

In a television historical drama, Elizabeth I, two years ago, which starred Helen Mirren, Barbara Flynn took the role of Elizabeth's arch rival.

More recently, Siobhan Redmond, the Scots actress, starred in a play about Mary who succeeded her father, James V, when she was just one week old. At six years old, she was sent to France. She married the future Francis II of France in 1558.

When he died in 1560 she returned to Scotland, where, as a Catholic, she came into conflict with Protestant reformers. Her marriage to Henry Stuart (Lord Darnley) was also resented and soon broke down. Following the murder of Lord Darnley in 1567, she married Lord Bothwell, possibly her husband's murderer, which alienated remaining supporters.

Following a rebellion of Scottish nobles, she was imprisoned and forced to abdicate in favour of her infant son, James VI.

Although she escaped and raised an army, it was defeated at Langside in 1568, and Mary fled to England. She was kept in captivity, but it was thought she became involved in Spanish plots against Elizabeth I and was executed.


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Posted by: nouveauxdarnley on 9:50pm Fri 18 May 07
Involved in Spanish plots whilst imprisoned? Nice one......are you getting in on the script writing Alison?
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 11:20pm Fri 18 May 07
Oh, dear. Miss Pouty Lips.

Sounds like sell-out to Hollywood casting. "You don't get our money unless the lead is played by an American. " Next thing to be abbounced, Arnie Swatzenegger will play Ritzio.

This culture crap has been going on since films were invented - a British production must have an American in the lead if it is to sell to Americans. How did they manage to accept Helen Mirren as HRH?
Posted by: James Currie, Calgary, Alberta Canada on 12:14am Sat 19 May 07
Will Scarlette have to get a bald haircut and wear a wig for the head chopping scene?
Posted by: G on 2:29am Sat 19 May 07
Any more badly done Scottish accents anyone?
Posted by: Jock Thomson, Glasgow on 6:53am Sat 19 May 07
I tremble at the crass sterotypes and manufactured history this will produce,absolutely tremble. Her Grace spoke Scots and English with a slight French accent. Liverpudlian? Ugh.
Posted by: Wee Jock, Australia on 8:23am Sat 19 May 07
Come on, guys, fair go ... give Scouser Jimmy a chance - and Saucy Scarlett as well. Surely it can't be any less of an inspirational piece of historical fiction than 'Braveheart' - and didn't we all enjoy that? - despite the gallant Scottish hero losing his vital parts in the end. Perhaps in the new 'Mary', Big Arnie will emerge from screen left and carry her off into the sunset, all her vitals still intact, declaring, 'We'll be back ...' And besides, the new movie might even help people spot the historical parallels with E2R and Princess Di.
Posted by: Aelle, The world is a stage on 9:00am Sat 19 May 07
Thanks to Johann Christoph Friedrich (later: "von") Schiller, a German Poet, a philosopher, historian and dramatist, who wrote the play Mary Stuart, premiered in Weimar, Germany, on June 14th 1800, nearly 5 years before he died, we have been able to know a bit about Maria, the Queen of Scotland.

"She can bewitch the mind of any man and wield the power of a woman's tears." Schiller - Act 1, scene 8

Her beauty was probably her misfortune.
Posted by: Shirley Hodge, Glasgow on 9:29am Sat 19 May 07
If the proposed movie Mary Queen of Scots which was reported in the Herald this morning is as historically defunct as Gibson's Braveheart then it will probably be worth a big pass. Couldn't the producers at least make some effort to get a bonnie lassie to play the role. From all photos of Mary I have seen the make-up people are going to have a heck of a job with this one.
Posted by: PictureThis, Aberdeen on 9:46am Sat 19 May 07
Shirley Hodge wrote:
If the proposed movie Mary Queen of Scots which was reported in the Herald this morning is as historically defunct as Gibson's Braveheart then it will probably be worth a big pass. Couldn't the producers at least make some effort to get a bonnie lassie to play the role. From all photos of Mary I have seen the make-up people are going to have a heck of a job with this one.
Shirley..
please remind us.
When was photo graphy invented !?!?!
Posted by: Wee Geordie, Glasgow on 10:10am Sat 19 May 07
Here we go again! This is a movie made by Hollywood, so will have little to do with historical fact. Why can't people get over this - its entertainment!
Posted by: Robert Wynkfielde's account (excerpt), Fortheringhay Castle on 10:23am Sat 19 May 07
The execution Feb 8 1587, 08.00 am
~~~~~~ Then she lying very still upon the block, one of the executioners holding her slightly with one of his hands, she endured two strokes of the other executioner with an axe, she making very small noise or none at all, and not stirring any part of her from the place where she lay: and so the executioner cut off her head, saving one little gristle, which being cut usunder, he lift up her head to the view of all the assembly and bad God save the Queen..............

Then Mr Dean (Dr. Fletcher, Dean of Petersborough) said with a loud voice, "So perish all the Queen's enemies, and afterwards the Earl of Kent came to the dead body, and standing over it, with a loud voice said, " Such end of all the Queen's and Gospel's enemies."
Then one of the executioners, pulling off her garters, espied her little dog which was crept under her clothes, which could not be gotten forth but by force, yet afterward would not depart from the dead corpse, but came and lay between her head and her shoulders, which being imbrued with her blood was carried away and washed, as all things else were that had any blood was either burned or washed clean, and the executioners sent away with money for their fees, not having any one thing that belonged to her.~~~~~~
Posted by: John Pegron, London on 3:56pm Sat 19 May 07
We are living in an Republican dominated US administration, so we can forget about another Braveheart like movie. The American rightwing will never allow a movie that attacks the Godsend power of a King or that attacks the English rule of its colonies.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.i
nfo
www.onlinejournal.co
m
otherside123.blogspo
t.com
www.globalresearch.c
a
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 8:35pm Sat 19 May 07
Wee Geordie:
Here we go again! This is a movie made by Hollywood, so will have little to do with historical fact. Why can't people get over this - its entertainment!
I understand why you and others make this comment but it's only half the truth.

Shakespeare didn't worry about historical accuracy when he borrowed our MacBeth in order to write a drama about good and evil. Nor did the great playright, Arthur Miller, when he took elements of the Salem witch trials and used them as an analogy for the anti-American communist trials. In both cases they were pointing up an aspect of human behaviour and political ambition.

By the same token, good dramatists are NOT making documentary, or drama documentary. We don't know how McGovern has treated his view of Mary. If clever like Miller and Shakespeare he will lift his subject matter to another level, giving his story symbolism, irony, and universal meaning. The story can be entirerly of his own concoction.

Hack writers invite derision when they create a bog standard biography while playing footloose and fancy free with historical accuracy, and throwing in gratuitous sex and violence. Then, as Wee Geordie says, we get plain entertainment and nothing more.

Dialogue is a different matter.

Writers have to imagine most of it - no easy job - getting around archaic styles by composing a heightened language that will translate easily for a modern audience and sound plausible.

Having defended the writer I have to add the warning bells are in the casting. Why pick an American who will have trouble affecting an English accent let alone ye olde English accent, or ways walking, dressing, and deportment? The culture is alien to her. I'd also argue she had a modern face, bringing with it all that American baggage which the cinemagoer has to block out their mind before accepting her as Mary Queen, of Scots.
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 8:38pm Sat 19 May 07
PS: Just realised: I bet McGovern gives his Mary a French accent! Sacre Bleu!
Posted by: Boab, Glasgow on 1:13pm Sun 20 May 07
Just what we need: a movie showing unfortunate scenes from Scottish history. How about a movie about Adam Smith inventing capitalism? I must be in a minority for thinking that Braveheart - a Hollywood movie filmed in Ireland with an Australian lead - was an embarassment. Still, McGovern is a good writer at least.

How to write a Shakespeare play: steal a few plots from antiquity, hopefully which play up on a few national stereotypes as well (Italian mafiosi, mordant Danish alcoholics, spiteful Jews, angry Blacks and thuggish Scots). Throw in a few knob-gags and make sure it sucks up to the Queen. Sorted! You're officially the greatest writer of all time.
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 4:50pm Sun 20 May 07
Boab said,
Hollywood movie filmed in Ireland with an Australian lead - was an embarassment
There are folk in Scotland like you who would groan if a film about a Scottish matter was written by a Scot, filmed by a Scottish crew, and employed only Scottish actors and locations. And all hell would break loose if it used Scottish investment.

Stop complaining! Braveheart was made and paid for by the Americans. It didn't cost you a penny, nor one night's sleep.
Posted by: Boab, Glasgow on 5:58pm Sun 20 May 07
LA: Hey, doesn't bother me! My only problem is that Braveheart was a load of crap! Why should mediocrity (the movie) and failure (William Wallace) get to represent Scottishness?
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 8:39pm Sun 20 May 07
Boab said,
My only problem is that Braveheart was a load of crap! Why should mediocrity (the movie) and failure (William Wallace) get to represent Scottishness?
Actually it wasn't.

It made no concesssions to worthy academics worried about dates, places, and time. Much of it was accurate, even if the pregnant princess was an attempt to give it a hopeful ending rather than a scene of torture. That's what is called populist drama.

Braveheart was the story of a real person, not Spiderman, or Superman, or any other comic character.

Much to the annoyance of Unionists, it reminded the world Scotland was a sovereign country; it returned a hero to his rightful place; and it boosted tourism. Rob Roy was made on the back of it.

What it didn't do was ressurect a Scottish film industry. For even a tenth of that to happen we need to go on bended knee to London's Wardour Street for the inevitable refusal of funds because they have them tied up in a new Dickens adaptation, a trilogy of Thomas Hardy stories, a film on their national hero, Admiral Nelson, the life of Winston Churchill, and heroic failures like Shackelton and Scott.

Other than places and names, there was not a blind bit of historical accuracy in Shakespeare in Love but that was not why the project was conceived. It too won Academy Awards.

Are the English bleating about television's current Adventures of Robin Hood being a total fabrication and embarrassment?
Posted by: lorna, france on 9:20pm Sun 20 May 07
Boab wrote:
Just what we need: a movie showing unfortunate scenes from Scottish history. How about a movie about Adam Smith inventing capitalism? I must be in a minority for thinking that Braveheart - a Hollywood movie filmed in Ireland with an Australian lead - was an embarassment. Still, McGovern is a good writer at least. How to write a Shakespeare play: steal a few plots from antiquity, hopefully which play up on a few national stereotypes as well (Italian mafiosi, mordant Danish alcoholics, spiteful Jews, angry Blacks and thuggish Scots). Throw in a few knob-gags and make sure it sucks up to the Queen. Sorted! You\'re officially the greatest writer of all time.
This is not an "unfortunate scene"- it IS Scottish history and Mary Stuart has been much maligned and misunderstood over many centuries . Nobody knows the real truth about her story . We have always received the "official " version of the facts which can be disputed due to conflicting records and doctored documents.Her's is an absolutely fascinating story !
True-the choice of actress is worrying but as she has so far proved she can act (albeit in a New York ,gum-chewing genre) let's give Scarlett a chance .
Main worry is what historical tack the writers are going to take . Hopefully ,the director won't take too many liberties with what is already the disputed truth.
On second thoughts why not have Johnny Depp as Darnley and the lovely Scottish David Tennant as Bothwell!! Then who would care about historical accuracy! Not I!
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 12:01am Mon 21 May 07
Lorna said:
On second thoughts why not have Johnny Depp as Darnley? - who would care about historical accuracy! Not I!
LOL So long as Depp takes off his kit. LOL.
Posted by: Anna, Edinburgh on 5:33pm Mon 21 May 07
Lorna said:
why not have Johnny Depp as Darnley and the lovely Scottish David Tennant as Bothwell!!


Actually, considering their style of character, Depp would do better as Bothwell and Tenant as Darnley. In fact, neither. Darnley was supposed to be a fair haired, fit young man: flamboyant and tall. Bothwell was rough, dark, short and had ears that stuck out.

Also, Mary Queen of Scots is soooo relevant to the state of Scotland today. She was Scotland's last monarch, huh? She is so full of tragic mystery: as beautiful and mysterious as Scotland itself. A landmark figure in scottish history. If Braveheart was the landmark beginning, then she was the end.
Posted by: Norman on 3:04pm Tue 22 May 07
What annoys me is that I tend to find Americans make movies which other Americans then seem to believe to be factual. (JFK springs to mind immediately.) If they saw them as fictional and not factual I wouldn't mind but some seem not to be able to tell the difference.

Historical movies may only make one cringe to hear an accent mangled, but when it comes to manipulating more recent events, portraying heroes and events our grandfathers were part of, and knowing that no American was there, it becomes nationalistic manipulation of the herd.
Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 1:37am Mon 28 May 07
Norman said,
If they saw them as fictional and not factual I wouldn't mind but some seem not to be able to tell the difference.
In fairness to the Hollwyood bio, I think Americans do know the difference between the real and the fictional. But I accept your point.
Posted by: Bethany McCullie, Perth Scotland on 12:22pm Fri 18 Jan 08
Hey. Will it even be made in Scotland? I hope so. I'd love to be in it.
I'm not too happy about it having an American lead though.
has filiming started yet? and does anyone know how to get involved?

Thanks.
Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:
spacer
 IN YOUR AREA
 
Herald Appointments - Every Friday
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved   
Sitemap :: Circulation :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use