Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this episode. Goto skl.sh/thecynicalhistorian3 to get a 2-month free trial. 6:32 - Mary was a time traveler apparently, lol. Those are supposed to say 16th dates
Accents are a losing battle since the dilect is so different to begin with. I always have fun showing the Canterbury Tales since that is what English in that period would sound like.
I've read several books on the subject. They all state that Mary had pretty much forgotten English completely by the time she went back to Scotland. She spoke French, and her Scottish subjects HATED her for it!
I would like to say that I'm African-American and the fact that they used non-white actors to portray white characters really bothered me. I wouldn't say I'm a historian but I'm a pretty hardcore history enthusiast and I'm not a fan of whitewashing or blackwashing. For instance, if they cast Tom Cruise as Black panther I would be pretty pissed and on the other side of things if they cast Wesley Snipes as Superman that just wouldn't make any sense. As soon as I saw the non-white characters who were portraying white Scottish characters it really threw off the whole movie for me. Like the cynical historian said it really didn't take away from the narrative but it still was really distracting. Also the musician character they portrayed as not only gay but also they implied that he was either non-binary or transgender. I think they threw that in because of the social political things that are going on in the world right now and I feel that it really distracted from the story. On a positive note I like how they showed that Queen Elizabeth was very insecure which was true and It also showed that she contracted smallpox which is also true. No other protrail to my knowledge has done that with Queen Elizabeth and I really appreciated that as a history enthusiast. This movie was okay in terms of my perception but Hollywood and the BBC need to stop putting their social political agenda on all of us. I miss when we were able to just go see a movie and not be preached to.
Completely agree with you. Doesn't matter which race or ethnicity is being *blank*washed, it is not a good idea for media to do this, because it cements and and reinforce myths and falsehoods, which, as Cypher pointed out, can lead to harmful effects.
Makes sense if its one guy and basically a servant or a trader, but here its kinda ridiculous when they are Nobles, like a random European Commoner can't even be a Knight so why are there Black nobles (I kinda get what they were going for but it kinda ruins the very historical setting.)
Francis II died of an ear infection which reached his brain. Also while Lord Darnley was eventually a bad match for Mary, as his father was Duke of Lennox he had an excellent claim to the English throne and cemented her claim to the English throne. We also will never know who killed Darnley, it easily could have been Lord Ruthven (in response to betraying Rizzio's plot) or Maitland/Lethington as well as even allegedly could have been Darnley who blew himself up attempting to assassinate MQS in order to gain the crown matrimonial. As well as others i.e Lord Bothwell. Also with the greatest of respect I think this was premiered towards Scottish (and English , Welsh and Northern Irish watchers) rather than Americans. Most people here have a good idea/knowledge about MQS as especially for me it is a specific part of our historical education. I myself have studied this in detail this year. Also MQS did speak Scots which is a dialect of English although in the 16th century according to a Spanish envoy in July 1498 Pedro de Ayala meeting MQS's grandfather James IV reported to Ferdinand and Isabella that "his own Scots language is as different from English as Aragonese from Castilian" Showing its distinct difference. The classical "scottish accent is contentious but although she did speak French she also spoke Scots along with French, Italian, Latin, Spanish, and Greek. In regards to black/white washing, yes I agree it is an issue and it was jarring. However although there were no asian or sub saharan africans there were definitely merchants who travelled from Morocco and from the Ottoman Empire. Although even know Scotland is an almost completely "white" country.
Sigh, such a shame that people can't respect David Tennant as a fantastic actor, they just recognise him as the Doctor. I saw him as Casanova first and love seeing him in different things, not moaning that he's not 'nice' in stuff
Well, people difffer. Some of them are fans. You know, fanatic admirers. I like him in everything - Much Ado About Nothing, Good Omens, Jessica Jones - but, let's face it, it the Doctor was the role that made him and he literally grew up for it.
On the whitewashing note, for some it's about historical accuracy and, for those people, they should be concerned about casting not matching reality. For most people concerned with whitewashing, it's more about giving minorities more of a presence and more diverse roles (and, as a side effect decreasing stereotypes and normalizing a wider range of depictions for minority roles). For historical works depicting real people/events, I don't think the people concerned about whitewashing for the latter reason have much of a leg to stand on. Sure, nonwhite people certainly have a very interesting history and quite a lot of events and people that would be quite interesting but if you're telling the story of someone like Mary queen of Scots it just doesn't make sense for nonwhite people to have a major role (I'm assuming, I know little about mary queen of Scots).I'd recommend either finding less commonly told stories that actually prominently feature minorities or just going for pure historical fiction not based on any real people if you're into whitewashing for the latter reason. There is no shortage of relatively unknown historical stories involving minorities and there's nothing wrong with historical fiction if you want to go that route.
The reason I get all uppity about White/black whashing is the fact that if they wanted to represent minority's then just do a film based in there culture. I would love to see a movie on the rise of the Zulu or one on the founding of the Mail empire. What I am saying is that I would much rather see a movie about these peoples history than see them just throwing them in to movies about White peoples history.
Its just weird that people make these boardroom decisions with establish characters and historical figures, it would be like making Paul Bunyan Chinese. It just feeds into the "cultural marxsm" crowd's propaganda.
In my own personal opinion in the area of casting, if the actors portrayal of the character fit well enough that the personal appearance is not a defining factor of their performance than you can cast anyone u like no matter their skin color or racial background. But that is just my opinion
My ancestoral home, Quath Quon, was burned to the ground, because my ancestors were supporters of Mary, Queen of Scots. The family, then, moved into an old tower that stood on the property, and was added onto. The tower, with additions, is, now, Shieldhill Castle Hotel in Lanarkshire.
The problem with all of these Mary Queen of Scots films is that they take a huge and complex story and cram it into a two hour drama with very little complexity in terms of its characters. Everyone is portrayed as either all bad or good with no attempt to see another side. The same is true with all of the movies about Elizabeth. Even when a 4 season show like Reign, which is very loosely based off of Mary's life, the writers still don't try to explore her life with any real complexity or nuance, which is really disappointing.
There is a glaring inaccuracy. Elizabeth had smallpox, but she was not badly scarred from it. She did have a few scars, but only a few. OTOH her lady in waiting, Mary Sidney, Robert Dudley’s sister, nursed Elizabeth through. She also caught smallpox, and she was so badly scarred she retired from court.
While the setting was visually interesting, I wouldn't call it consistently accurate. The portrayal of sixteenth century Scotland as a wild, mountainous country filled with grim castles and led by uncultured hardmen, in marked contrast to a more refined, cultured ( read civilised) England distorts Scottish history by relying on cultural stereotypes which an audience will recognise, but never question. For example, unlike the opening scenes of Mary's arrival on the shore and riding through glens to a castle, in reality she disembarked at the stone harbour of Leith only a few miles of rolling countryside from the palace of Holyrood, which a google search will show was decidedly not a medieval fortification. Another example is the scene of Mary's first privy council meeting where she addresses her councillors in French and then in English, which relies on the assumption that the present Scots lords couldn't comprehend french, which many of the would have given the close cultural, diplomatic and military ties between Scotland and France for the previous 250 years.
Maybe you should try to do a few where you watch the movie/tv show first then do research. As a historian, you'd probably already have at least a little knowledge on a lot of subjects but it might give a better impression of what the general public knows without doing research.
I agree on the whitewashing issue. It is incredibly two-faced and hypocritical for people to complain about white actors portraying non-white characters and then turn around and do the exact same thing. As someone that studies human behavior, I suspect its a "see how you like it" move, and an incredibly childish one. Things like this only serve to split people by their opinions, and continues to cause problems where, by this day and age, there should not be. *sigh* Otherwise, this was an interesting review! I too, know very little about Mary, though find it interesting that Henry VIII is connected to her story. He has a way of popping up when least I expect it. For instance, he started the Church of England only 13 years after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg and accidentally started the Reformation. Its very easy to see history as a collection of separate stories, and not as a vast puzzle or tapestry where everything is connected.
Are there any historically accurate films on the protestant reformation? I sort of have become obsessed with the english reformation and civil war after listening to Mike Duncan's podcast on it and I want to see some of those theological debates play out on screen if only to live up to my imagination.
Unnecessary diversity is a bit of a pet peeve. I'd prefer historical accuracy. And movies in the past certainly have whitewashed a lot, but... two historical wrongs don't make a right, in my opinion.
I wish we got more stories with historically nonwhite people that made sense. I feel like nonwhite history gets overlooked a lot of the time and this would be a decent way to help from a popular history perspective. Unfortunately, we get things like this where there is diversity, it just doesn't make much sense for the story being told. I'm not offended by it or anything but this is not really the best way to fix whitewashing.
16th century British history is a pet subject for me. So many things wrong with this movie, from the clothing (denim? REALLY?) to the fact that the two queens never met face to face. Not once. Ever.
I only ever saw the Trailer for this film and decided to give it a miss. Why? Mary with a Scottish accent. She grew up in France with the Guise family. If anything she'd have some kind of French accent. Nothing else I saw in clips etc made me want to see this film. Also, I'm pretty sure she spent enough time as a prisoner in England to age considerably.
Cypher, I'd be curious to see a video on the 2003 Heath Ledger film NED KELLY, as it absolutely deals with the myth of Social Banditry... and the upcoming TRUE HISTORY OF THE KELLY GANG, which debuts at Toronto this year, which also deals with social banditry ;)
I've certainly thought of it, note that I've done the research necessary to talk about the Kelly Gang. Dunno if I'll have the time anytime soon, given comps are coming soon
@@CynicalHistorian ... well, whenever you get the chance - I'll be ready and eager, as will many of my fellow Australians. All the best with the comps, Cypher!!! :) Love your videos, as always!!!
One tiny thing . . . I know historians have suggested that Mary's red kirtle represented martyrdom but red kirtles were VERY common among high ranking ladies at the time. It was an expensive and thought medicinal color, so high ranking ladies very often had red kirtles. That Mary's kirtle was red probably wasn't about martyrdom - which she definitely came - so much as her kirtle was just red. It was a thing.
@@CynicalHistorian There are a number of sources I could cite. Susan E. James' "Women's Voices in Tudor Wills, 1485-1603: Authority, Influence and Material Culture" (2016, Routledge) offers a highly readable explanation on page 267, which you can read online here: books.google.com/books?id=6HK1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=why+tudor+kirtles+were+red&source=bl&ots=uqsWaGhWHD&sig=ACfU3U2V64vJtUAtBnRHpuw8f4j4Mvlp3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfyoPx_6_jAhV6wMQHHVUkDhU4ChDoATACegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=why%20tudor%20kirtles%20were%20red&f=false
@@idontwantachannel7542 figured out why it didn't show. It got burried in my comments review page (i've been away for the week and couldn't see it on mobile for some reason)
You know when I saw the trailer this movie a year ago, I was expecting a lot more vitriol towards it. Now that I’m hearing you say it’s more or less okay, I’m actually a little bit disappointed
She wouldn’t have had a Scottish accent as she grew up in France ! Piss poor effort if you love history and you have more than a passing interest or a little knowledge of this part of history don’t bother it will just piss you off
No that is not correct. Mary was a keen polyglot like her grandfather James IV. Mary had a rich and varied education in France but was born knowing she would be queen of Scots. She learned to play lute and virginals, was competent in prose, poetry, horsemanship, falconry, and needlework, and was taught French, Italian, Latin, Spanish, and Greek, in addition to speaking her native Scots. This was due to the fact her father James V died preceding the disastrous battle of Solway Moss and she knew as a fact she would have to rule Scotland and she DID speak Scots. That is a fact.
@@jonathancampbell5231 she spoke fluent Scots. Scottish nobility did not speak English in court, for they spoke their own language. She could speak English, but we have no idea what that accent was, and the Scottish accent if today is not the one of the 16th century. Hence why i said, non-existent. The movie is doing its best here without resorting to Renaissance Scots and subtitling. In either case, the original comment in this thread is incredibly false
I agree with you about all the movies there are about Elizabeth I, Mary of Scotland and Henry the 8th. Why doesn't someone do a movie about William of Normandy when he fought for the crown of England? Or of Henry the 7th. Or even a movie about Richard the 3rd not based on Shakespeare's writings.
If i just look at this as a movie and ignore all the historical inaccuracies and there is actually a lot of them to ignore, i would say the movie is fine its a decent movie, And i would rate it 7 out of 10. But if i do not ignore all the historical inaccuracies in it the rating goes down to 3 out of 10.
Norman M. Stewart the only inaccuracies I found with the film was the PEOC bunker with the 9/11 scenes and they don’t add in or made a reference the Norman Mineta testimony with locating American flight 77 and where it was over Washington airspace saying 10 miles out 5 miles out etc this was from the 9/11 commission hearings and maybe the radar was confusing everyone on the ground that nightmarish day and it was a literal fog of war situation and maybe some of the Iraq war stuff which I kind of missed on first viewing Any more inaccuracies just let me know Ps which movie do you think is worst death of Stalin or vice?
@@theshenpartei Here's more: www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/vice/ As for which was worse: it's difficult to say - _Vice_ is pure conspiracism to the point where it would make Oliver Stone blush and _The Death of Stalin_ fabricated a massacre.
Norman M. Stewart well at least it isn’t the multiple Caligula movies that came out in the late 1970’s and 1980’s like Bob Guccioni’s caligula or Joe d'amato’s Caligula the untold story and those movies are even potentially worse than death of Stalin or vice Plus I saw the movie with my grandfather on my mom’s side when it was in theaters so i don’t what to do now Ps will cynical Historian do a video on Tolkien when it comes out on dvd or blue ray ?
You know what's the truth in the 16th century? There are no black men who are Lords. That's it. No racism and no whitewashing, just facts. But I do think that the film was great despite of its historical inaccuracies such as Mary and Elizabeth meeting, black man as a lord, an Asian actor playing Bess (Queen Elizabeth's favorite lady) and portraying David Rizzio and Lord Darnley as gay men. I am for inclusivity and diversity but "forced diversity" for the sake of politics and compromising historical accuracy isn't good. All "biographical period films" are fairly biased but any film could be biased without compromising much of the accuracy. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the film, the quality isn't compromised, i actually think that Saoirse Ronan (Actress in a leading role), Margot Robbie (Actress in a supporting role) and Jack Lowden (Actor in a supporting role) and Costume design should have been nominated for Golden globe, BAFTA and Academy Awards at least. I know much of MQS and believe me, this is good and entertaining but don't use this film as a personal preference for history for it really contains some accuracies. Saoirse's accent is a bit disturbing tho although she's superb in this film but portraying a historical icon who was born Scottish but raised in France for 18 years, that sounds different. Although I really have to praise the lighting, costume, script, cinematography and the actors, esp Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie and Jack Lowden.
Mary's "claim" to the English & Irish thrones was more in the imaginations of her advisers and the Papacy than based in anything approaching reality. There were at least five others in line ahead of her!
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez ...having no claim never stopped anybody from having a claim?? Tyler that statement isn't merely an oxymoron, you have ventured into non sequitur!
@@markncl100 I meant simply that just because you don't have a clain to a throne, doesn't mean some people arent going to try anyway. Could have phrased that better. Faking a claim in the middle ages was almost an artform, it was rather common.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez That I can certainly believe but unlike the Scottish Legal System, in England it's derives from Salic Law which bars females from inheritance. Although in certain circumstances in can pass through a female to their sons.
I understand and support diversity when it makes sense in a film. However there's a right way and a wrong way do this. If this was a modern setting or a Shakespearean type adaptation I can get behind. However this movie is ment to telling actual history and casting notably non-white actor's in this setting undermines this movies viewing experience.
I wish they had the guts to give her a French accent. But I disagree. The last part of movie with all that “we ‘re victims because we’re women” bullshit ruined the movie. What was it Elizabeth called herself? “Cub of a Lion”? Doesn’t sound like a victim to me.
I dare say there has never been a great film about Mary. Plenty of good stuff with Elizabeth, but not her cousin. I can't say why this is the case but I feel this is the case. Also FUN FACT. James Hepburn is supposedly related to film legend and humanitarian Audrey Hepburn. Or at least thats what her father claimed. True or not its where she got her surname.
"Although born with the surname Ruston, he later double-barrelled his name to the more "aristocratic" Hepburn-Ruston, mistakenly believing himself descended from James Hepburn, third husband of Mary, Queen of Scots." Clipped directly from the wikipedia page.
@@Domhnall_A_Ghalltachd Yep that's it. Odds are there is no connection but thats never stopped anyone. Hell my great grandmother claimed to be related to Francis Drake.
I'd guess it's because producers are determined to portray her as a wronged heroine. Now, if she were portrayed as she was, another power player, that would be a good story.
All films concerning Mary, Queen of Scots, is that they want to present her as a Scottish heroine. The problem is that the Scots never much cared for her, explaining why she fled to England.
All films concerning Mary, Queen of Scots, try to present her as a Scottish heroine. The problem is that the Scots never much cared for her, explaining why she fled to England.
I love the Mary Queen of Scots movie. I think it’s one of the few that shows close to what Elizabeth really looked like. And that she had pox’s later in life. I heard that she got it younger and was replaced with a boy, but I know that false. I also loved reign and they did put some real history in that show. To be a fly on the wall. I wonder what these queens really looked like and thought of each other. So many unanswered questions. LONG MAY SHE REIGN.
Except Elizabeth was not badly scarred by her bout of smallpox. She looks too much like the Queen from Alice in Wonderland for my liking. I think Glenda Jackson’s version is the closest to reality (although they needed to put a coupe of smallpox scars on her).
Yeah, people back then were very unappealing to look at (especially when wearing make-up that's slowly killing you) but the portrait artists made up for it. They were the Photoshop of their times.
Not in Britain in a formal execution - the axe was the prescribed method, probably because getting a reliable clean cut with a straight edged sword blade against a human neck would be very difficult. Even using an axe with a curved edge could be a prolonged and messy affair, taking several blows to sever the spine. Hanging was a more usual form of execution at the time and beheading was reserved for particular crimes.
I got confused and lost on a lot of things. Mostly cause I was trying to fact check while watching it. LOL I had this video on pause until I finished the movie. I was expecting it not to be very factual.
I would argue that the 'colorwashing' issue is a bit more troubling than you imply, though maybe outside the purview of your analysis. On one level, it's a marketing ploy to attract a wider viewing demographic. On a deeper level, it seems part of a campaign of historical whitewashing, to making history (specifically British history) seem more diverse than it was, and thereby distract attention from their bloody record of colonialism and slavetrading. Wouldn't want to spoil people's enjoyment of The Crown and Downton Abbey.
Great video, but I really have to disagree with your whitewashing point. The problem with whitewashing isn't that it's inaccurate, or that the "wrong" ethnicity is being cast or whatever, but that there are already relatively few roles for minorities, and they cast a white person when the role could have easily went to a POC. That's not to say that there aren't other arguements against casting minorities in "white" rolls, but you can't just call people hypocrites for complaining about one and not the other, as the concerns simply do not apply both ways.
@LadyGaGa is hot That's certainly a point you can make, but that's different from saying "why aren't the people who complain about whitewashing complaining about this?" Also, how do you know that they weren't hired because they were the best actors for the job?
@LadyGaGa is hot It's not. The historically accurate thing is a valid opinion. I never said it wasn't. In fact, I specifically said it was. I was only pointing out that casting a POC in a "white" roll isn't necessarily filling some diversity quota.
So drawn to her. The history. TRUE history. My ex husband shares the name Knox.. yuck! His descended from Scotland I was told! His Mother's side. I have a book that was made on that family. The Crest, etc. My son has red hair. So odd. James.. Phillip .. Knox, etc...
I'll disagree with the whitewashing comment on the basis that to say that it's "only fair" to be as upset about actors of other races being cast in white roles as we are about whitewashing is to assume that actors of color have the same opportunities as white actors, and while things are getting better, I don't think we're there yet. However, if you're going for historical accuracy, I can understand going for white actors. Of course, that gets to the question of whose histories are dramatized, especially given that, as you pointed out in this video, this story has already been told about five billion times on film.
While it's inaccurate that Europe and England were lily white ever, I don't understand why they chose to cast POC actors for characters we know for a fact were not POCs. I get just as irritated they don't cast light skinned actors to portray light skinned African-American people but will go out of their way to cast a blue eye actor to portray a historical figure who had blue eyes.
True story. I half mindedly click on a video thinking it was a review of this movie and it actually was a ten minute preview. So the fist tenminuts of the movie. I didn't even get to five minutes.
Hey Cypher, I’ve been anticipating this film since it’s was announced! Your commentary wrt Black people cast in this period of time...stood out. In part, for the dismissiveness, but also because there’s an accusation of *black* washing when that may not be the case. Now if a Black actor was cast to play a real white person in this film-that is of course a problem. But it was very common for foreigners to Anglesize or change their names upon converting to Christianity. However, my point is the movie is more accurate than you’re allowing in this to portrayal of Black courtiers. We know this because they are documented starting under Henry VII’s reign. Please check out Miranda Kaufmann’s book “Black Tudors” its really the best book on the subject. I’d appreciate your thoughts if you ever revisit this part of your video.
This movie was absolute trash. Never mind the whitewashing, it didn't even have Walsingham, the guy that brought Mary down. Also Mary spoke with a French accent, not a Scottish one. I give this film 0 Starkeys.
In terms of "white-washing" if there were people of African descent in England and Scotland at the time then it should be stated. I remember watching this show about the Battle of Hastings and there was this nobleman attached to William the Conqueror who was black. I don't think they said a single thing about this individual and as someone interested in history I would like to know more about him, especially if he was black, but they said nothing about him. I don't know if they were doing reverse white-washing, but if there was a black nobleman who was in William the Conqueror's court it would be interesting if more of his life was presented, rather than just finding an actor (and this could be any mismatched actor) to play that role in a historical documentary.
There is a fundamental difference between whitewashing and casting a non-white actor to play a white role, and it is that white actors taking over a minority's role - especially the examples you showed in the video - significantly takes away from the original narrative. Ghost in the Shell in particular is a *Japanese* story with plots specifically oriented towards *Japanese* concerns, related to their history/culture, so that casting Scarlett Johansson in that role makes absolutely no sense. Same happens with Tilda Swinton in the role of a Tibetan master of martial/magical arts. It takes away from the narrative and does nothing except take a role away from a non-white actor, and take representation away from marginalized minorities. On the other hand, the presence of non-white actors in white roles is, for one, ridiculously small and anecdotal, and for another, doesn't affect the narrative in any significant way at all. It's a way to be inclusive while preserving the original story as-is, whereas whitewashing actually takes away from the narrative *and* is racist by default, given the obvious under- and misrepresentation of people of color in popular media.
As soon as I saw the trailer for this film I knew it would be another pile of shite like Braveheart. If the abundance of BAME characters wasn't laughable enough the fact they had Mary and Elizabeth meeting face to face was the final straw. Anyone who has done a modicum of research into MQOS or Elizabeth I would have known this never happened. Oh and another thing, she almost certainly never spoke with a Scottish accent, in fact there is written testimony of the time where she is described as having spoken English (she spoke seven languages) with a soft and pleasant French tone.
I think it's about comfort. People of color are included here, I think, because we typically get more uncomfortable today, with a movie, with a full white cast than we do with a diverse cast. But a couple of decades ago, having a pivital character be a person of color, made movie goers more uncomfortable. Generally the backlash against white washing is based on the idea that we have moved on from that time, and there is plenty of great actors, of any race, so there's no reason not to. This is just my opinion, not backed up by any evidence.
As I recall, Elizabeth began painting her face white to conceal the effects of aging ... but it's been a while, so I'm not entirely sure if that's wholly accurate. ETA: Actually no ... I remember now. She survived smallpox and was scarred as a result, so the cosmetics where used to conceal that. Plus, I want to say she was bald as a result too so she wore wigs? Would have to confirm, but that's what I recall.
Whitewashing? Scottish are white... this is reverse whitewashing... Races should be depicted accurately when its a historical film... I am not English nor Scottish, so my first reaction when i see black council or Asian maidens one either side... I am confused, because it messes with my head in sense that I wish to understand how people of different races interacted at that time, was migration of people of different ethnicity common between countries 400 years ago? These questions genuinely interest me... but this film to MY understanding basically goes for this inclusive nature of modern society... I say if it’s done ONLY for the sake of inclusion it’s doing a disservice to the film for its gross inaccuracy of how society worked back then. Film makers should stop changing facts and history for the sake of modern principles. What happened, happened and cannot be undone. We should embrace history and growth of humanity... but to see growth we need to embrace mistakes of the past instead of trying to fool ourselves as if we did not need centuries to understand that we are all in fact equal. We are heading in such a poor direction and obscuring facts of the past... future generations will truly be misguided because they will grow up in this “clean, orchestrated reality” which is in fact fiction
Your take about whitewashing is bad. Racial representation is heavily asymmetrical so it is a very different thing to cast a white character with a black actor than the other way around.
Please don't take this offensively because I'm not trying to start an online debate with you. Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I have to say I disagree. If we cast non-white actors as white characters then that makes it's okay for white actors to play non-white characters or at least it gives the racist argument in favor of whitewashing some ground to stand on. If I saw a black actor playing George Washington it just wouldn't make any sense at all and if I saw Tom Cruise playing Martin Luther King one day that would be so inappropriate. To extend an olive branch I think the issue is only as bad as we make it but if we're trying to promote diversity I don't think this is the way to do it.
Racewashing both ways is still bad. I don't want to attack you, but from your comment, I'm getting an impression that you have an eye-for-eye ideology, which according to Mahatma Gandhi, "makes the whole world blind." The idea to counter whitewashing with blackwashing might be noble, but it just leads to more and more falsehoods, myths and inaccuracies being propagated around. Instead, both should be discontinued.
TimeLord Victorious What they’re saying is that casting a white person as a character that’s “meant” to be a person of color (e.g. Black Panther) is more harmful than casting a black actor as a white character. Yes, white people make up a larger percentage of the population than black people do (although there’s still an over representation of white actors overall), but whitewashing still does more harm than “blackwashing” ever could, since people of color have so few familiar faces in media.
Privilege is a factor, it isn't eye for an eye. But... less is taken from white people by casting black actors in white roles than is taken from people of colour when white actors play their roles. There's a difference between an indigenous American wearing a t-shirt and jeans, and a white American wearing a feathered headdress y'know?
Ah, you beat me to it :) English pronunciation is extremely inconsistent - there's a town up the way from where I was born called Alnwick, which is universally pronounced "Annick" which usually causes confusion to tourists when being given directions for instance. I'd actually write Edinburgh up a sounding close to "Edinburra" but I'm from the North of England.
@@ianstobie5439 Not to be confused with Alnmouth which is actually pronounced "Aln-mouth" even though both and Alnwick get their name for being on the River Aln.
Royalty confuses me so much. I always thought it was just a family thing but clearly the Tudors throw that out of the window. Can someone explain to be how the Tudors ousted the Stuarts? And why Mary as a Stuart had a stronger claim to the throne but Elizabeth continued to be Queen? Like, are you just able to take the throne via fighting and winning or do the people have any say in it? It seems like they just fought battles to claim the throne but why couldn’t some random dude like Genghis Khan just come over with a way bigger army and kick every kings and queens ass and claim every throne?
No movie is 100% accurate and if so its a documentary. We go to movies to be entertained. History is fun but it's kinda boring and stop with the new generation stuff...go to school and read a book lol
THANK YOU for bringing up the whitewashing! Whitewashing sucks ass when it happens but that doesn’t mean you do the same thing to roles that are historically supposed to be white. It’s just dumb to add in random diversity in a film that clearly is about white English and Scottish royals. The director of this film stated she diversified the roles because she swore never to have an all white cast yet she or any other filmmaker probably would never ever even think about having a non-white actor portray queen elizabeth and Mary nor cast a non-white to be their leading star. Nobody cares about the supporting roles being diverse, we want films that are about diverse people that are properly portrayed by them.
When I’m watching a historic film and inaccurate it takes me out of the movie. I knew that Mary and Elizabeth never met in person so that scene would ruin the film for me.🚫🎟️
Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this episode. Goto skl.sh/thecynicalhistorian3 to get a 2-month free trial.
6:32 - Mary was a time traveler apparently, lol. Those are supposed to say 16th dates
Would you please do a historical review of "55 Days at Peking" (1963)?
whats up, cipher my question is simply, is it history or Hollywood??
@@Alte.Kameraden that's too old for a frozen pizza man, you should throw it out
What irks me is surely Mary wouldn't have a Scottish accent, growing up in France?
Accents are a losing battle since the dilect is so different to begin with. I always have fun showing the Canterbury Tales since that is what English in that period would sound like.
She most definitely wouldn't or should I say she definitely didn't have it. She most probably (read almost definitely) had french accent.
@@joekerr9197 Whatever it was, it wouldn't sound like modern day Scottish.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez Well yes, obviously. But IMO that is the least of the problems this film has...
I've read several books on the subject. They all state that Mary had pretty much forgotten English completely by the time she went back to Scotland. She spoke French, and her Scottish subjects HATED her for it!
I would like to say that I'm African-American and the fact that they used non-white actors to portray white characters really bothered me. I wouldn't say I'm a historian but I'm a pretty hardcore history enthusiast and I'm not a fan of whitewashing or blackwashing. For instance, if they cast Tom Cruise as Black panther I would be pretty pissed and on the other side of things if they cast Wesley Snipes as Superman that just wouldn't make any sense. As soon as I saw the non-white characters who were portraying white Scottish characters it really threw off the whole movie for me. Like the cynical historian said it really didn't take away from the narrative but it still was really distracting. Also the musician character they portrayed as not only gay but also they implied that he was either non-binary or transgender. I think they threw that in because of the social political things that are going on in the world right now and I feel that it really distracted from the story. On a positive note I like how they showed that Queen Elizabeth was very insecure which was true and It also showed that she contracted smallpox which is also true. No other protrail to my knowledge has done that with Queen Elizabeth and I really appreciated that as a history enthusiast. This movie was okay in terms of my perception but Hollywood and the BBC need to stop putting their social political agenda on all of us. I miss when we were able to just go see a movie and not be preached to.
Billy you're handsome
Completely agree with you. Doesn't matter which race or ethnicity is being *blank*washed, it is not a good idea for media to do this, because it cements and and reinforce myths and falsehoods, which, as Cypher pointed out, can lead to harmful effects.
Just a point about David Rizzio (MQS'S private secretary and confidant) he was homosexual in real life.
@@Domhnall_A_Ghalltachd thank you for the information. I had no idea.
@@billyboy3404 You are welcome, it was more than rumours and gossip it was pretty much fact.
The one black guy in court brought a chuckle... By the 4th my mum and I burst out laughing😂
Makes sense if its one guy and basically a servant or a trader, but here its kinda ridiculous when they are Nobles, like a random European Commoner can't even be a Knight so why are there Black nobles (I kinda get what they were going for but it kinda ruins the very historical setting.)
Francis II died of an ear infection which reached his brain.
Also while Lord Darnley was eventually a bad match for Mary, as his father was Duke of Lennox he had an excellent claim to the English throne and cemented her claim to the English throne.
We also will never know who killed Darnley, it easily could have been Lord Ruthven (in response to betraying Rizzio's plot) or Maitland/Lethington as well as even allegedly could have been Darnley who blew himself up attempting to assassinate MQS in order to gain the crown matrimonial. As well as others i.e Lord Bothwell.
Also with the greatest of respect I think this was premiered towards Scottish (and English , Welsh and Northern Irish watchers) rather than Americans. Most people here have a good idea/knowledge about MQS as especially for me it is a specific part of our historical education. I myself have studied this in detail this year.
Also MQS did speak Scots which is a dialect of English although in the 16th century according to a Spanish envoy in July 1498 Pedro de Ayala meeting MQS's grandfather James IV reported to Ferdinand and Isabella that "his own Scots language is as different from English as Aragonese from Castilian" Showing its distinct difference. The classical "scottish accent is contentious but although she did speak French she also spoke Scots along with French, Italian, Latin, Spanish, and Greek.
In regards to black/white washing, yes I agree it is an issue and it was jarring. However although there were no asian or sub saharan africans there were definitely merchants who travelled from Morocco and from the Ottoman Empire. Although even know Scotland is an almost completely "white" country.
Sigh, such a shame that people can't respect David Tennant as a fantastic actor, they just recognise him as the Doctor. I saw him as Casanova first and love seeing him in different things, not moaning that he's not 'nice' in stuff
Well, people difffer. Some of them are fans. You know, fanatic admirers. I like him in everything - Much Ado About Nothing, Good Omens, Jessica Jones - but, let's face it, it the Doctor was the role that made him and he literally grew up for it.
@@lois7956 I'd say "made him a star", or at least "made him an international star".
On the whitewashing note, for some it's about historical accuracy and, for those people, they should be concerned about casting not matching reality. For most people concerned with whitewashing, it's more about giving minorities more of a presence and more diverse roles (and, as a side effect decreasing stereotypes and normalizing a wider range of depictions for minority roles). For historical works depicting real people/events, I don't think the people concerned about whitewashing for the latter reason have much of a leg to stand on. Sure, nonwhite people certainly have a very interesting history and quite a lot of events and people that would be quite interesting but if you're telling the story of someone like Mary queen of Scots it just doesn't make sense for nonwhite people to have a major role (I'm assuming, I know little about mary queen of Scots).I'd recommend either finding less commonly told stories that actually prominently feature minorities or just going for pure historical fiction not based on any real people if you're into whitewashing for the latter reason. There is no shortage of relatively unknown historical stories involving minorities and there's nothing wrong with historical fiction if you want to go that route.
The reason I get all uppity about White/black whashing is the fact that if they wanted to represent minority's then just do a film based in there culture. I would love to see a movie on the rise of the Zulu or one on the founding of the Mail empire. What I am saying is that I would much rather see a movie about these peoples history than see them just throwing them in to movies about White peoples history.
Its just weird that people make these boardroom decisions with establish characters and historical figures, it would be like making Paul Bunyan Chinese. It just feeds into the "cultural marxsm" crowd's propaganda.
You made me remember the Netflix show about the war of Troy that chose to make Achilles black but still ignored Memnon.
In my own personal opinion in the area of casting, if the actors portrayal of the character fit well enough that the personal appearance is not a defining factor of their performance than you can cast anyone u like no matter their skin color or racial background. But that is just my opinion
@@danieljean-charles9207 Then don't do historical films, do fantasy.
My ancestoral home, Quath Quon, was burned to the ground, because my ancestors were supporters of Mary, Queen of Scots. The family, then, moved into an old tower that stood on the property, and was added onto. The tower, with additions, is, now, Shieldhill Castle Hotel in Lanarkshire.
WAS THAT THE BLOODY DOCTOR !? Doctor what are you doing man !
Well, I mean, lots of planets have a north...
He's trying to make up for what he did to Elizabeth. Hahaha!
The problem with all of these Mary Queen of Scots films is that they take a huge and complex story and cram it into a two hour drama with very little complexity in terms of its characters. Everyone is portrayed as either all bad or good with no attempt to see another side. The same is true with all of the movies about Elizabeth. Even when a 4 season show like Reign, which is very loosely based off of Mary's life, the writers still don't try to explore her life with any real complexity or nuance, which is really disappointing.
Didn't help that it was a CW show.
I wonder what kind of storm we'd have if Matthew McConnehey played Jessie Jackson in a Martin Luther King movie?
There is a glaring inaccuracy. Elizabeth had smallpox, but she was not badly scarred from it. She did have a few scars, but only a few. OTOH her lady in waiting, Mary Sidney, Robert Dudley’s sister, nursed Elizabeth through. She also caught smallpox, and she was so badly scarred she retired from court.
While the setting was visually interesting, I wouldn't call it consistently accurate. The portrayal of sixteenth century Scotland as a wild, mountainous country filled with grim castles and led by uncultured hardmen, in marked contrast to a more refined, cultured ( read civilised) England distorts Scottish history by relying on cultural stereotypes which an audience will recognise, but never question. For example, unlike the opening scenes of Mary's arrival on the shore and riding through glens to a castle, in reality she disembarked at the stone harbour of Leith only a few miles of rolling countryside from the palace of Holyrood, which a google search will show was decidedly not a medieval fortification. Another example is the scene of Mary's first privy council meeting where she addresses her councillors in French and then in English, which relies on the assumption that the present Scots lords couldn't comprehend french, which many of the would have given the close cultural, diplomatic and military ties between Scotland and France for the previous 250 years.
Maybe you should try to do a few where you watch the movie/tv show first then do research. As a historian, you'd probably already have at least a little knowledge on a lot of subjects but it might give a better impression of what the general public knows without doing research.
I agree on the whitewashing issue. It is incredibly two-faced and hypocritical for people to complain about white actors portraying non-white characters and then turn around and do the exact same thing. As someone that studies human behavior, I suspect its a "see how you like it" move, and an incredibly childish one. Things like this only serve to split people by their opinions, and continues to cause problems where, by this day and age, there should not be.
*sigh*
Otherwise, this was an interesting review! I too, know very little about Mary, though find it interesting that Henry VIII is connected to her story. He has a way of popping up when least I expect it. For instance, he started the Church of England only 13 years after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg and accidentally started the Reformation.
Its very easy to see history as a collection of separate stories, and not as a vast puzzle or tapestry where everything is connected.
That's P C liberalism for ya !!
Pronunciation- Edinburgh is pronounced Eh-din-buh-ruh, or more often Eh-din-bruh for short.
ED-IN-BRUH..
@@dcclxxvii5067 Should be 4 syllables, if pronounced correctly.
@@dougquaid570 yep ED-IN-BUR-OH
@EyeZackZin I'm Scottish, and I care. It's not that hard. Ed- in - bur- uh
@EyeZackZin when I'm in the USA Americans seem to really care about how I pronounce things
Are there any historically accurate films on the protestant reformation? I sort of have become obsessed with the english reformation and civil war after listening to Mike Duncan's podcast on it and I want to see some of those theological debates play out on screen if only to live up to my imagination.
Liz Rathburn
Omg same! I’m also kind of obsessed with the reformation, the Puritans and the English civil war right now.
Unnecessary diversity is a bit of a pet peeve. I'd prefer historical accuracy.
And movies in the past certainly have whitewashed a lot, but... two historical wrongs don't make a right, in my opinion.
I wish we got more stories with historically nonwhite people that made sense. I feel like nonwhite history gets overlooked a lot of the time and this would be a decent way to help from a popular history perspective. Unfortunately, we get things like this where there is diversity, it just doesn't make much sense for the story being told. I'm not offended by it or anything but this is not really the best way to fix whitewashing.
Mistake at 6:33. Sorry for nitpicking, but you can't bring a dead former queen to a throne to replace another dead queen in 1870 and 1871.
2:33 How does one descend to the throne? Unless I'm hearing it wrong and he said ascend?
What, you didn't know Scotland invented the Tardis?
@@CynicalHistorian John Knox was the Doctor is disguise!
@@CynicalHistorian Isn't the 10th Doctor in this?
I have issues with the costumes (mostly made of denim) and the wildly inaccurate hair styles. Mary's hair resembles that of Frankenstein's bride.
16th century British history is a pet subject for me.
So many things wrong with this movie, from the clothing (denim? REALLY?) to the fact that the two queens never met face to face. Not once. Ever.
please do a video on every Bloody Sunday of the 20th century
I really need to finish my dissertation and start watching movies again... before your reviews
I need to finish mine as well 😅
I only ever saw the Trailer for this film and decided to give it a miss. Why? Mary with a Scottish accent. She grew up in France with the Guise family. If anything she'd have some kind of French accent.
Nothing else I saw in clips etc made me want to see this film. Also, I'm pretty sure she spent enough time as a prisoner in England to age considerably.
Cypher, I'd be curious to see a video on the 2003 Heath Ledger film NED KELLY, as it absolutely deals with the myth of Social Banditry... and the upcoming TRUE HISTORY OF THE KELLY GANG, which debuts at Toronto this year, which also deals with social banditry ;)
I've certainly thought of it, note that I've done the research necessary to talk about the Kelly Gang. Dunno if I'll have the time anytime soon, given comps are coming soon
@@CynicalHistorian ... well, whenever you get the chance - I'll be ready and eager, as will many of my fellow Australians. All the best with the comps, Cypher!!! :) Love your videos, as always!!!
At least this, at least for the costumes, is aesthetically better than that TV drama named "Reign".
One tiny thing . . . I know historians have suggested that Mary's red kirtle represented martyrdom but red kirtles were VERY common among high ranking ladies at the time. It was an expensive and thought medicinal color, so high ranking ladies very often had red kirtles. That Mary's kirtle was red probably wasn't about martyrdom - which she definitely came - so much as her kirtle was just red. It was a thing.
Can you cite that conjecture?
@@CynicalHistorian There are a number of sources I could cite. Susan E. James' "Women's Voices in Tudor Wills, 1485-1603: Authority, Influence and Material Culture" (2016, Routledge) offers a highly readable explanation on page 267, which you can read online here:
books.google.com/books?id=6HK1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=why+tudor+kirtles+were+red&source=bl&ots=uqsWaGhWHD&sig=ACfU3U2V64vJtUAtBnRHpuw8f4j4Mvlp3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfyoPx_6_jAhV6wMQHHVUkDhU4ChDoATACegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=why%20tudor%20kirtles%20were%20red&f=false
Sorry, I couldn't get the entire link the post (don't know why). If you Google it yourself, you should be able to review the page.
@@idontwantachannel7542 what's the title and publisher?
@@idontwantachannel7542 figured out why it didn't show. It got burried in my comments review page (i've been away for the week and couldn't see it on mobile for some reason)
Wasn't aware of this movie.
AshlandMan
Same
Not many people were. It grossed less than $50M.
I was aware of it because i really like Saorise Ronan.
Probably just as well. People who know nothing about history, and think Mary good, Elizabeth bad may like it.
You know when I saw the trailer this movie a year ago, I was expecting a lot more vitriol towards it. Now that I’m hearing you say it’s more or less okay, I’m actually a little bit disappointed
Great video! Keep up the good work!
She wouldn’t have had a Scottish accent as she grew up in France ! Piss poor effort if you love history and you have more than a passing interest or a little knowledge of this part of history don’t bother it will just piss you off
If she were played by a French actress, they could have called it Highlander.
She also wouldn't be speaking English, but let's focus on the non existent accent for the time period
Actually she did in fact have a Scottish accent because she was surrounded by Scottish attendees and she purposely wanted to maintain the accent.
No that is not correct. Mary was a keen polyglot like her grandfather James IV. Mary had a rich and varied education in France but was born knowing she would be queen of Scots. She learned to play lute and virginals, was competent in prose, poetry, horsemanship, falconry, and needlework, and was taught French, Italian, Latin, Spanish, and Greek, in addition to speaking her native Scots. This was due to the fact her father James V died preceding the disastrous battle of Solway Moss and she knew as a fact she would have to rule Scotland and she DID speak Scots. That is a fact.
@@jonathancampbell5231 she spoke fluent Scots. Scottish nobility did not speak English in court, for they spoke their own language. She could speak English, but we have no idea what that accent was, and the Scottish accent if today is not the one of the 16th century. Hence why i said, non-existent. The movie is doing its best here without resorting to Renaissance Scots and subtitling. In either case, the original comment in this thread is incredibly false
I agree with you about all the movies there are about Elizabeth I, Mary of Scotland and Henry the 8th. Why doesn't someone do a movie about William of Normandy when he fought for the crown of England? Or of Henry the 7th. Or even a movie about Richard the 3rd not based on Shakespeare's writings.
"Amount" versus "number". I think it is, "given the number of times this story has been told..." Cheerfully submitted.
In America you call people who marry their cousins hillbillys
In Europe we call them Royals
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
If i just look at this as a movie and ignore all the historical inaccuracies and there is actually a lot of them to ignore, i would say the movie is fine its a decent movie, And i would rate it 7 out of 10. But if i do not ignore all the historical inaccuracies in it the rating goes down to 3 out of 10.
When is the vice review coming?
Just curious
Dealing with monetization issues currently
The Cynical Historian ok I understand
Norman M. Stewart the only inaccuracies I found with the film was the PEOC bunker with the 9/11 scenes and they don’t add in or made a reference the Norman Mineta testimony with locating American flight 77 and where it was over Washington airspace saying 10 miles out 5 miles out etc this was from the 9/11 commission hearings and maybe the radar was confusing everyone on the ground that nightmarish day and it was a literal fog of war situation and maybe some of the Iraq war stuff which I kind of missed on first viewing
Any more inaccuracies just let me know
Ps which movie do you think is worst death of Stalin or vice?
@@theshenpartei Here's more: www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/vice/
As for which was worse: it's difficult to say - _Vice_ is pure conspiracism to the point where it would make Oliver Stone blush and _The Death of Stalin_ fabricated a massacre.
Norman M. Stewart well at least it isn’t the multiple Caligula movies that came out in the late 1970’s and 1980’s like Bob Guccioni’s caligula or Joe d'amato’s Caligula the untold story and those movies are even potentially worse than death of Stalin or vice
Plus I saw the movie with my grandfather on my mom’s side when it was in theaters so i don’t what to do now
Ps will cynical Historian do a video on Tolkien when it comes out on dvd or blue ray ?
You need to do about Wong Fei Hong ...I can't telk from fiction and reality
They only showed half of what happened & Mary & Elizabeth didn’t ever meet face to face
Good info! Thanks for this.
1:06 Six Days, actually.
Are there any good movies about the black and tan period of Irish-English history?
You know what's the truth in the 16th century? There are no black men who are Lords. That's it. No racism and no whitewashing, just facts. But I do think that the film was great despite of its historical inaccuracies such as Mary and Elizabeth meeting, black man as a lord, an Asian actor playing Bess (Queen Elizabeth's favorite lady) and portraying David Rizzio and Lord Darnley as gay men. I am for inclusivity and diversity but "forced diversity" for the sake of politics and compromising historical accuracy isn't good. All "biographical period films" are fairly biased but any film could be biased without compromising much of the accuracy. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the film, the quality isn't compromised, i actually think that Saoirse Ronan (Actress in a leading role), Margot Robbie (Actress in a supporting role) and Jack Lowden (Actor in a supporting role) and Costume design should have been nominated for Golden globe, BAFTA and Academy Awards at least. I know much of MQS and believe me, this is good and entertaining but don't use this film as a personal preference for history for it really contains some accuracies. Saoirse's accent is a bit disturbing tho although she's superb in this film but portraying a historical icon who was born Scottish but raised in France for 18 years, that sounds different. Although I really have to praise the lighting, costume, script, cinematography and the actors, esp Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie and Jack Lowden.
there were no black people or asian people in that era or should I say during what took place....And I'am not racist.
That is actually wrong, there where black people in England and Scotland in that era, but there where no black people among the nobility and at court.
@@aragorniielessar1894 There were no black people in Scotland. None.
@@dirkbogarde44 There have been black people in Scotland since the 15th century, look it up
Mary's "claim" to the English & Irish thrones was more in the imaginations of her advisers and the Papacy than based in anything approaching reality. There were at least five others in line ahead of her!
As Crusader Kings 2 taught me, having no claim never stopped anybody.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez ...having no claim never stopped anybody from having a claim??
Tyler that statement isn't merely an oxymoron, you have ventured into non sequitur!
@@markncl100 I meant simply that just because you don't have a clain to a throne, doesn't mean some people arent going to try anyway. Could have phrased that better. Faking a claim in the middle ages was almost an artform, it was rather common.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez That I can certainly believe but unlike the Scottish Legal System, in England it's derives from Salic Law which bars females from inheritance. Although in certain circumstances in can pass through a female to their sons.
@@markncl100 Ah... i wasn't aware the inheritance was male only at the time. Okay yeah that makes the inheritance war a lot more... pointless.
I understand and support diversity when it makes sense in a film. However there's a right way and a wrong way do this.
If this was a modern setting or a Shakespearean type adaptation I can get behind.
However this movie is ment to telling actual history and casting notably non-white actor's in this setting undermines this movies viewing experience.
I wish they had the guts to give her a French accent. But I disagree. The last part of movie with all that “we ‘re victims because we’re women” bullshit ruined the movie. What was it Elizabeth called herself? “Cub of a Lion”? Doesn’t sound like a victim to me.
I dare say there has never been a great film about Mary. Plenty of good stuff with Elizabeth, but not her cousin. I can't say why this is the case but I feel this is the case. Also FUN FACT. James Hepburn is supposedly related to film legend and humanitarian Audrey Hepburn. Or at least thats what her father claimed. True or not its where she got her surname.
"Although born with the surname Ruston, he later double-barrelled his name to the more "aristocratic" Hepburn-Ruston, mistakenly believing himself descended from James Hepburn, third husband of Mary, Queen of Scots." Clipped directly from the wikipedia page.
@@Domhnall_A_Ghalltachd Yep that's it. Odds are there is no connection but thats never stopped anyone. Hell my great grandmother claimed to be related to Francis Drake.
I'd guess it's because producers are determined to portray her as a wronged heroine. Now, if she were portrayed as she was, another power player, that would be a good story.
@@floraposteschild4184 This is true. Every depiction that's about her defends her. Most versions of Elizabeth's story does the opposite.
No, he was related to Katherine Hepburn.
Back up did you say she was kidnapped and raped and people went 'that bitch' and moved against her for it?
the italian singer history is why in castille nobody carry weapons in the "presence" of the king..
Take this, Mary, Queen of Scots!
What's the name of the song in the middle
Parcel O' Rogues sung by Alastair McDonald ruclips.net/video/Hyj6c5VPLHQ/видео.html
All films concerning Mary, Queen of Scots, is that they want to present her as a Scottish heroine. The problem is that the Scots never much cared for her, explaining why she fled to England.
All films concerning Mary, Queen of Scots, try to present her as a Scottish heroine. The problem is that the Scots never much cared for her, explaining why she fled to England.
I love the Mary Queen of Scots movie. I think it’s one of the few that shows close to what Elizabeth really looked like. And that she had pox’s later in life. I heard that she got it younger and was replaced with a boy, but I know that false. I also loved reign and they did put some real history in that show. To be a fly on the wall. I wonder what these queens really looked like and thought of each other. So many unanswered questions. LONG MAY SHE REIGN.
Except Elizabeth was not badly scarred by her bout of smallpox. She looks too much like the Queen from Alice in Wonderland for my liking. I think Glenda Jackson’s version is the closest to reality (although they needed to put a coupe of smallpox scars on her).
brontewcat so correct. , I actually recently watched the older Mary queen of Scots and liked it better.
And Glenda did an amazing job as Elizabeth , watched that movie as well.
Deer god Elizabeth look like a creepy clown in the movie 😱
Royal makeup with it's incredibly white faces and red lips is kind of creepy.
Yeah, people back then were very unappealing to look at (especially when wearing make-up that's slowly killing you) but the portrait artists made up for it. They were the Photoshop of their times.
Beauty standards were... interesting in the early modern era let's just say. Europe really liked a pronounced forehead.
That accent is off, she was raised in France. Also nobles don’t get beheaded with an Ax but a sword.
Nope, King Charles and a lot of others had their head lopped off with an axe the sword may have been a German/French thing.
Not in Britain in a formal execution - the axe was the prescribed method, probably because getting a reliable clean cut with a straight edged sword blade against a human neck would be very difficult. Even using an axe with a curved edge could be a prolonged and messy affair, taking several blows to sever the spine. Hanging was a more usual form of execution at the time and beheading was reserved for particular crimes.
I got confused and lost on a lot of things. Mostly cause I was trying to fact check while watching it. LOL I had this video on pause until I finished the movie. I was expecting it not to be very factual.
I would argue that the 'colorwashing' issue is a bit more troubling than you imply, though maybe outside the purview of your analysis. On one level, it's a marketing ploy to attract a wider viewing demographic. On a deeper level, it seems part of a campaign of historical whitewashing, to making history (specifically British history) seem more diverse than it was, and thereby distract attention from their bloody record of colonialism and slavetrading. Wouldn't want to spoil people's enjoyment of The Crown and Downton Abbey.
Great video, but I really have to disagree with your whitewashing point. The problem with whitewashing isn't that it's inaccurate, or that the "wrong" ethnicity is being cast or whatever, but that there are already relatively few roles for minorities, and they cast a white person when the role could have easily went to a POC. That's not to say that there aren't other arguements against casting minorities in "white" rolls, but you can't just call people hypocrites for complaining about one and not the other, as the concerns simply do not apply both ways.
@LadyGaGa is hot That's certainly a point you can make, but that's different from saying "why aren't the people who complain about whitewashing complaining about this?" Also, how do you know that they weren't hired because they were the best actors for the job?
@@MadeleineTakam I'm scared to ask, but... what did they say to you?
@LadyGaGa is hot You said "roles should be given based on talent and accuracy to the script."
@LadyGaGa is hot It's not. The historically accurate thing is a valid opinion. I never said it wasn't. In fact, I specifically said it was. I was only pointing out that casting a POC in a "white" roll isn't necessarily filling some diversity quota.
Why did Elizabeth imprison Mary when she came looking for shelter?
Mary was a possible usurper
@@CynicalHistorian Liz was the usurper
15:15 So True.
Is there any history of dark skinned(mixed ethnicity) people of any nobility low or high in this period of 14th to 17th century?
Not in western europe, perhaps in the mediterranean during the 800-1100 with north african or moorish people
15:20 Good point, though I feels stories about Lancelot and Achilles are fair game because they are about fictional characters.
Pep As a white-american, I give permission to anyone to draw upon my culture for their artistic aspirations.
@@patrickblanchette4337 That's easy to say, when you don't have a culture! 🤣
Can you do Bloody Sunday and Diverted?
So drawn to her. The history. TRUE history. My ex husband shares the name Knox.. yuck! His descended from Scotland I was told! His Mother's side. I have a book that was made on that family. The Crest, etc. My son has red hair. So odd. James.. Phillip .. Knox, etc...
I'll disagree with the whitewashing comment on the basis that to say that it's "only fair" to be as upset about actors of other races being cast in white roles as we are about whitewashing is to assume that actors of color have the same opportunities as white actors, and while things are getting better, I don't think we're there yet. However, if you're going for historical accuracy, I can understand going for white actors. Of course, that gets to the question of whose histories are dramatized, especially given that, as you pointed out in this video, this story has already been told about five billion times on film.
god damn it Grave Digger a bunch of mad Germans who sing about Scots history cause why not
Hello
9:29 Joaquin Phoenix
Hi
Huh
While it's inaccurate that Europe and England were lily white ever, I don't understand why they chose to cast POC actors for characters we know for a fact were not POCs. I get just as irritated they don't cast light skinned actors to portray light skinned African-American people but will go out of their way to cast a blue eye actor to portray a historical figure who had blue eyes.
Its because they want to be woke and political correct.
True story. I half mindedly click on a video thinking it was a review of this movie and it actually was a ten minute preview. So the fist tenminuts of the movie. I didn't even get to five minutes.
Not really thst important but why is EVERYONE all the time dressed in black?
Hey Cypher, I’ve been anticipating this film since it’s was announced! Your commentary wrt Black people cast in this period of time...stood out. In part, for the dismissiveness, but also because there’s an accusation of *black* washing when that may not be the case. Now if a Black actor was cast to play a real white person in this film-that is of course a problem. But it was very common for foreigners to Anglesize or change their names upon converting to Christianity. However, my point is the movie is more accurate than you’re allowing in this to portrayal of Black courtiers. We know this because they are documented starting under Henry VII’s reign. Please check out Miranda Kaufmann’s book “Black Tudors” its really the best book on the subject. I’d appreciate your thoughts if you ever revisit this part of your video.
This movie was absolute trash. Never mind the whitewashing, it didn't even have Walsingham, the guy that brought Mary down. Also Mary spoke with a French accent, not a Scottish one. I give this film 0 Starkeys.
In terms of "white-washing" if there were people of African descent in England and Scotland at the time then it should be stated. I remember watching this show about the Battle of Hastings and there was this nobleman attached to William the Conqueror who was black. I don't think they said a single thing about this individual and as someone interested in history I would like to know more about him, especially if he was black, but they said nothing about him. I don't know if they were doing reverse white-washing, but if there was a black nobleman who was in William the Conqueror's court it would be interesting if more of his life was presented, rather than just finding an actor (and this could be any mismatched actor) to play that role in a historical documentary.
Everything you wrote is wrong.
1 8 7 0
There is a fundamental difference between whitewashing and casting a non-white actor to play a white role, and it is that white actors taking over a minority's role - especially the examples you showed in the video - significantly takes away from the original narrative. Ghost in the Shell in particular is a *Japanese* story with plots specifically oriented towards *Japanese* concerns, related to their history/culture, so that casting Scarlett Johansson in that role makes absolutely no sense. Same happens with Tilda Swinton in the role of a Tibetan master of martial/magical arts. It takes away from the narrative and does nothing except take a role away from a non-white actor, and take representation away from marginalized minorities.
On the other hand, the presence of non-white actors in white roles is, for one, ridiculously small and anecdotal, and for another, doesn't affect the narrative in any significant way at all. It's a way to be inclusive while preserving the original story as-is, whereas whitewashing actually takes away from the narrative *and* is racist by default, given the obvious under- and misrepresentation of people of color in popular media.
Hypocrisy
Either both are wrong or neither of them are.
Awful movie. Embarrassing just sitting in the theatre watching it.
Lee Etchells what was the only redeeming thing about it though?
THE WOKE TOMATOE METER RATING is 20% its a rental at best
As soon as I saw the trailer for this film I knew it would be another pile of shite like Braveheart. If the abundance of BAME characters wasn't laughable enough the fact they had Mary and Elizabeth meeting face to face was the final straw. Anyone who has done a modicum of research into MQOS or Elizabeth I would have known this never happened.
Oh and another thing, she almost certainly never spoke with a Scottish accent, in fact there is written testimony of the time where she is described as having spoken English (she spoke seven languages) with a soft and pleasant French tone.
I think it's about comfort. People of color are included here, I think, because we typically get more uncomfortable today, with a movie, with a full white cast than we do with a diverse cast. But a couple of decades ago, having a pivital character be a person of color, made movie goers more uncomfortable. Generally the backlash against white washing is based on the idea that we have moved on from that time, and there is plenty of great actors, of any race, so there's no reason not to. This is just my opinion, not backed up by any evidence.
Why is the Queen of England the Joker?
As I recall, Elizabeth began painting her face white to conceal the effects of aging ... but it's been a while, so I'm not entirely sure if that's wholly accurate.
ETA: Actually no ... I remember now. She survived smallpox and was scarred as a result, so the cosmetics where used to conceal that. Plus, I want to say she was bald as a result too so she wore wigs? Would have to confirm, but that's what I recall.
Like the video. Minor quibble... it's pronounced Edinbro... I know that's not how it's spelled, but...
Wrong. Ed-in-buh-ruh
Her life sucked
Or second lol
Whitewashing? Scottish are white... this is reverse whitewashing... Races should be depicted accurately when its a historical film... I am not English nor Scottish, so my first reaction when i see black council or Asian maidens one either side... I am confused, because it messes with my head in sense that I wish to understand how people of different races interacted at that time, was migration of people of different ethnicity common between countries 400 years ago? These questions genuinely interest me... but this film to MY understanding basically goes for this inclusive nature of modern society... I say if it’s done ONLY for the sake of inclusion it’s doing a disservice to the film for its gross inaccuracy of how society worked back then. Film makers should stop changing facts and history for the sake of modern principles. What happened, happened and cannot be undone. We should embrace history and growth of humanity... but to see growth we need to embrace mistakes of the past instead of trying to fool ourselves as if we did not need centuries to understand that we are all in fact equal. We are heading in such a poor direction and obscuring facts of the past... future generations will truly be misguided because they will grow up in this “clean, orchestrated reality” which is in fact fiction
Your take about whitewashing is bad. Racial representation is heavily asymmetrical so it is a very different thing to cast a white character with a black actor than the other way around.
Please don't take this offensively because I'm not trying to start an online debate with you. Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I have to say I disagree. If we cast non-white actors as white characters then that makes it's okay for white actors to play non-white characters or at least it gives the racist argument in favor of whitewashing some ground to stand on. If I saw a black actor playing George Washington it just wouldn't make any sense at all and if I saw Tom Cruise playing Martin Luther King one day that would be so inappropriate. To extend an olive branch I think the issue is only as bad as we make it but if we're trying to promote diversity I don't think this is the way to do it.
Racewashing both ways is still bad. I don't want to attack you, but from your comment, I'm getting an impression that you have an eye-for-eye ideology, which according to Mahatma Gandhi, "makes the whole world blind." The idea to counter whitewashing with blackwashing might be noble, but it just leads to more and more falsehoods, myths and inaccuracies being propagated around. Instead, both should be discontinued.
TimeLord Victorious
What they’re saying is that casting a white person as a character that’s “meant” to be a person of color (e.g. Black Panther) is more harmful than casting a black actor as a white character. Yes, white people make up a larger percentage of the population than black people do (although there’s still an over representation of white actors overall), but whitewashing still does more harm than “blackwashing” ever could, since people of color have so few familiar faces in media.
Privilege is a factor, it isn't eye for an eye. But... less is taken from white people by casting black actors in white roles than is taken from people of colour when white actors play their roles.
There's a difference between an indigenous American wearing a t-shirt and jeans, and a white American wearing a feathered headdress y'know?
azraphon This is taking work from indigenous Britons and Europeans though
It's pronounced Edin-bruh. My duty as an English man is done. :P
Ah, you beat me to it :) English pronunciation is extremely inconsistent - there's a town up the way from where I was born called Alnwick, which is universally pronounced "Annick" which usually causes confusion to tourists when being given directions for instance. I'd actually write Edinburgh up a sounding close to "Edinburra" but I'm from the North of England.
@@ianstobie5439 Not to be confused with Alnmouth which is actually pronounced "Aln-mouth" even though both and Alnwick get their name for being on the River Aln.
@EyeZackZin Did you not see the ":P" denoting it being said in good humor? Jeebus...
@EyeZackZin Fair enough, I hope there is no ill will and wish you the very best. ~_^
First
thirst!
lol Ok. I am also a historian and work in film. The casting of white people as non-white characters is NOT the same as casting poc as yts...
Actually it is.
Fuck off, hypocrite
Did you actually check your racial assertions or just assumed that everyone was white in those days?
There where black people in England and Scotland in those days, but there where no black people among nobility or at court.
Feologild very very very vey few
Royalty confuses me so much. I always thought it was just a family thing but clearly the Tudors throw that out of the window. Can someone explain to be how the Tudors ousted the Stuarts? And why Mary as a Stuart had a stronger claim to the throne but Elizabeth continued to be Queen? Like, are you just able to take the throne via fighting and winning or do the people have any say in it? It seems like they just fought battles to claim the throne but why couldn’t some random dude like Genghis Khan just come over with a way bigger army and kick every kings and queens ass and claim every throne?
Mary did NOT have a stronger claim. She was the great-niece of Henry VII; Elizabeth was his daughter.
No movie is 100% accurate and if so its a documentary. We go to movies to be entertained. History is fun but it's kinda boring and stop with the new generation stuff...go to school and read a book lol
History is not boring. And a movie don`t need to be a 100% accurate but it should be mostly accurate.
THANK YOU for bringing up the whitewashing! Whitewashing sucks ass when it happens but that doesn’t mean you do the same thing to roles that are historically supposed to be white. It’s just dumb to add in random diversity in a film that clearly is about white English and Scottish royals. The director of this film stated she diversified the roles because she swore never to have an all white cast yet she or any other filmmaker probably would never ever even think about having a non-white actor portray queen elizabeth and Mary nor cast a non-white to be their leading star. Nobody cares about the supporting roles being diverse, we want films that are about diverse people that are properly portrayed by them.
When I’m watching a historic film and inaccurate it takes me out of the movie. I knew that Mary and Elizabeth never met in person so that scene would ruin the film for me.🚫🎟️