“Mary Queen of Scots” is a costume drama built around two queens and a throne, and it mostly knows what to do with its leads. Saoirse Ronan plays Mary Stuart, widow of the French king, and Margot Robbie plays her cousin Elizabeth I, the Protestant ruler of England. The film follows their rivalry through marriage, betrayal and rebellion, set in 1561. It is a historical picture with a clear agenda: to make the past dramatic, and sometimes to make it wrong.
The film is directed by Josie Rourke, who made her feature directorial debut here, and the screenplay is by Beau Willimon, adapted from John Guy’s 2004 biography “Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart.” The story opens with Mary returning to Scotland after the death of her husband, King Francis II, and reclaiming her throne. Her half-brother, James Stewart, Earl of Moray, greets her. Across the border, Elizabeth, the Protestant Queen of England, watches uneasily as Mary’s Catholic presence raises a claim to the English throne.
Trailer, via Focus Features.
Ronan and Robbie Carry the Weight
Ronan plays Mary as a young woman who is both regal and vulnerable. She arrives back in Scotland with grace, but her position is fragile. The film shows her dismissing the Protestant cleric John Knox from the Scottish court, and Ronan captures the mix of determination and hesitation in her performance. She is a queen who knows she is being watched, and Ronan makes that fear visible without ever losing her dignity.
Robbie plays Elizabeth as a ruler who is guarded and calculating. She is described as twenty-eight years old, unmarried and childless, and the film gives her a coldness that suits the role. Robbie’s Elizabeth is not warm; she is sharp and wary, especially when it comes to Mary’s claim to her throne. The chemistry between the two actors is the film’s strongest asset. Their scenes together are tense and often quiet, and they hold the audience’s attention even when the plot slows.
The rest of the cast fills out the story. Jack Lowden plays Lord Darnley, the English nobleman who becomes Mary’s husband. David Tennant plays John Knox, the Protestant leader of the Scottish Reformation. Guy Pearce plays William Cecil, the English statesman who advises Elizabeth. Gemma Chan plays Bess of Hardwick, and James McArdle plays James, Earl of Moray. The film also features Ismael Cruz Córdova as David Rizzio, Mary’s confidant, and Martin Compston as the Earl of Bothwell.
A Marriage That Changes Two Kingdoms
The plot centers on Mary’s marriage to Darnley. Elizabeth arranges it to weaken Mary’s threat, and the film presents the arrangement as a strategic move. Mary agrees to marry Darnley, though she senses an ulterior motive. The marriage creates a constitutional crisis in both Scotland and England, since Darnley is a Stuart grandchild of Margaret Tudor, which elevates Mary’s claim to the English throne. The film dramatizes the tension between the two realms, with both demanding Darnley’s return to England and Mary refusing.
Moray mounts a rebellion against Mary, and the film shows Mary defeating the rebel forces. She spares Rizzio and Moray, and demands that Darnley be punished. The marriage is the engine of the story, and the film uses it to drive conflict between the two queens.
Costumes, Colors and Historical Gaps
The production design is strong, and the costumes are a particular highlight. The film’s visual style emphasizes color, with Mary often dressed in red and Elizabeth in white, a contrast that is meant to signal their opposing positions. The attention to detail in the clothing is one of the film’s best features, and it helps sell the period setting.
But the film is not faithful to history in every way. There are several inaccuracies that stand out. The director, Josie Rourke, chose to cast actors of color in roles that were not historically accurate, including David Rizzio, the Piedmontese confidant, who is portrayed as mixed-race, and Lord Thomas Randolph, the English ambassador to the Scottish court, who is shown as a black man. Gemma Chan’s character is Elizabeth Hardwick, who in real life was white.
Rourke defended this choice in an interview with the L.A. Times, saying, “I was really clear, I would not direct an all-white period drama.” That statement explains the decision, but it does not excuse the historical misstep. The film is making a political statement about representation, but it is doing so at the expense of accuracy.
The Tagline and Its Meaning
The film’s tagline is “Bow to No One,” which suggests a spirit of defiance. That spirit is present in Mary’s character, but it is less clear in Elizabeth’s. The film wants both queens to be strong, but it gives Elizabeth a colder, more calculating edge that makes her less sympathetic. Mary is the one who feels truly trapped, while Elizabeth seems more comfortable in her own power.
The tagline works for Mary, whose position is precarious and whose decisions are constantly questioned. It does not work as well for Elizabeth, whose position is secure but whose choices are often driven by calculation rather than conviction. The film is trying to make both queens feel heroic, but it succeeds better with Mary than with Elizabeth.
What Works and What Doesn’t
The film’s strengths are its performances and its visual style. Ronan and Robbie are both excellent, and their scenes together are the film’s best moments. The direction is confident, and the pacing holds up for most of the runtime. The costumes are lavish and well-chosen, and the settings feel lived-in.
The weaknesses are structural. The screenplay is uneven, and some of the historical details are questionable. The film is overlong at 124 minutes, and it could have been tighter without losing its emotional weight. The story is dense, and some of the political machinations are hard to follow, especially for viewers who are not familiar with the period.
The film also leans heavily on its tagline, “Bow to No One,” which suggests a spirit of defiance. That spirit is present in Mary’s character, but it is less clear in Elizabeth’s. The film wants both queens to be strong, but it gives Elizabeth a colder, more calculating edge that makes her less sympathetic. Mary is the one who feels truly trapped, while Elizabeth seems more comfortable in her own power.
The Reception and Its Nominations
The film received mixed reviews when it was released. Critics praised the performances, particularly Robbie’s, and the costumes. The historical inaccuracies drew criticism, and the screenplay was singled out as a weak point. The film was nominated for three awards at the 72nd British Academy Film Awards, and it received two nominations at the 91st Academy Awards, for Best Costume Design and Best Makeup and Hairstyling. Robbie was also nominated for a SAG Award and a BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress.
The film’s release schedule was modest. It premiered on closing night of AFI Fest on 15 November 2018, then opened in the United States on 7 December 2018 and in the United Kingdom on 18 January 2019. It was not a major blockbuster, but it found an audience among viewers interested in historical drama.
The Legacy of a Period Picture
“Mary Queen of Scots” is a film that wants to be both a costume spectacle and a serious historical drama. It succeeds at the former and struggles at the latter. The performances are excellent, the visuals are striking, and the story has real stakes. But the historical inaccuracies and the uneven screenplay keep it from greatness.
The film is worth seeing for Ronan and Robbie alone. Their scenes together are the reason to watch. The rest of the picture is competent but forgettable, and the historical gaps are hard to ignore. If you can look past the errors and enjoy the drama, there is plenty here to enjoy. If you want accuracy, you will find yourself disappointed.
The film is a reminder that historical drama is not the same as history. It can be powerful, moving and beautifully made, but it should not be mistaken for the truth. “Mary Queen of Scots” is a fine piece of entertainment, but it is not a lesson in history.
Here is how the key elements of the film break down:
- Ronan and Robbie deliver strong performances
- The costumes are elaborate and well-chosen
- The historical inaccuracies are significant, including the casting of actors of color in roles that were not historically diverse
- The screenplay is uneven and occasionally confusing
- The film is overlong at 124 minutes
The film’s ranking among similar historical dramas is difficult to pin down, but it stands as a solid entry in the genre. It is better than most costume dramas, but it falls short of the great ones. The following is a rough ordering of how the film compares to other recent historical films:
- Strong performances from Ronan and Robbie
- Lavish costumes and period detail
- A compelling central rivalry between two queens
- Significant historical inaccuracies, including the casting of actors of color in roles that were not historically diverse
- An uneven screenplay and a runtime that could have been tighter
The film’s score reflects this balance. It is a film with ambition and talent, but with flaws that keep it from reaching its full potential.
“Mary Queen of Scots” is a worthy addition to the canon of historical drama, but it is not the definitive telling of its story. It is a good film, not a great one, and its reputation will likely depend on how audiences judge the trade-off between spectacle and accuracy.
The final word is fair. Ronan and Robbie deserve the praise they have received, and the film deserves credit for its ambition, even as it stumbles in execution.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
