![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot
Nov. 21st, 2010 08:38 pmGunpowder, Treason & Plot is a British mini series from several years ago. It’s made up of two 1 hour 40 minute movies, the first about Queen Mary Stuart, and the second about her son, James I.
I admit, I’ve never been overly interested in Mary Stuart, which may seem unusual for me, but most of my early exposures were about her being Tragic. And married a few times, and her son was the king after her. But mostly, Tragic. That said, this was the first thing to really make me interested in her. Like most movies about historical women, it focuses on her relationship with a man-in this case, her third husband, Bothwell-but I minded it a lot less than usual, I think because Mary treated Bothwell as a resource for her utilize, which he knew and encouraged. (They actually reminded me of the dynamic between Anjelica and Sexby in The Devil’s Whore, only way more palatable. At least partly because he never tried to rape her because she acted assuming he would keep his word and let her live her life independently of him and make her own choices about it.) It does, sadly, hold with the “only one woman can be awesome at a time” theory of fiction and essentially depicts Elizabeth Tudor as being inferior because…she had no children. Which may be an understandable stance for Mary and her supporters, but it was held as true by the narrative, too. Still, despite problems, I enjoyed this one a lot.
Then, my hopes high, I started part two. And wondered how it could be from the same people. So, we start with James ranting about how he hated his mother, who never loved him, and then him agreeing to her execution. This is partly where the narrative voice comes in, because while feeling abandoned would be natural for James, for the viewer who watched the first half recently, there’s almost guaranteed to be a gut reaction to reject his POV outright. That I could have bulldozed through, but I honestly can’t remember the last time I watched something where I thought the writers were determined to make the viewer hate the lead. I mean, aside from opening the movie with his approving of his mother’s execution, he’s emotionally abusive to his wife, openly-sometimes virulently-misogynistic, and forces other men into sexual relationships with him, and gets particular enjoyment if there’s humilation involved. Yes, it has using homosexuality to show evilness. I had really hoped fiction was over that already. And, unfortunately, there wasn’t a single interesting character to keep me going.
I had to stop about 40 minutes in, and couldn’t force myself to watch the rest. I mean, I like Robert Carlyle, even when I don’t like his character, but this had me going “Eeew…Robert Carlyle, get off my screen!”
Despite the disappointment of the second half, though, I really wish BBC would make more series set pre-1800. Even most of the few that do get made make it to the US. The only ones in recent years that I’m familiar with are this, The Devil’s Whore, and an Elizabeth Tudor mini from a couple years back, and only the last ever made it to the US, that I know of.
I admit, I’ve never been overly interested in Mary Stuart, which may seem unusual for me, but most of my early exposures were about her being Tragic. And married a few times, and her son was the king after her. But mostly, Tragic. That said, this was the first thing to really make me interested in her. Like most movies about historical women, it focuses on her relationship with a man-in this case, her third husband, Bothwell-but I minded it a lot less than usual, I think because Mary treated Bothwell as a resource for her utilize, which he knew and encouraged. (They actually reminded me of the dynamic between Anjelica and Sexby in The Devil’s Whore, only way more palatable. At least partly because he never tried to rape her because she acted assuming he would keep his word and let her live her life independently of him and make her own choices about it.) It does, sadly, hold with the “only one woman can be awesome at a time” theory of fiction and essentially depicts Elizabeth Tudor as being inferior because…she had no children. Which may be an understandable stance for Mary and her supporters, but it was held as true by the narrative, too. Still, despite problems, I enjoyed this one a lot.
Then, my hopes high, I started part two. And wondered how it could be from the same people. So, we start with James ranting about how he hated his mother, who never loved him, and then him agreeing to her execution. This is partly where the narrative voice comes in, because while feeling abandoned would be natural for James, for the viewer who watched the first half recently, there’s almost guaranteed to be a gut reaction to reject his POV outright. That I could have bulldozed through, but I honestly can’t remember the last time I watched something where I thought the writers were determined to make the viewer hate the lead. I mean, aside from opening the movie with his approving of his mother’s execution, he’s emotionally abusive to his wife, openly-sometimes virulently-misogynistic, and forces other men into sexual relationships with him, and gets particular enjoyment if there’s humilation involved. Yes, it has using homosexuality to show evilness. I had really hoped fiction was over that already. And, unfortunately, there wasn’t a single interesting character to keep me going.
I had to stop about 40 minutes in, and couldn’t force myself to watch the rest. I mean, I like Robert Carlyle, even when I don’t like his character, but this had me going “Eeew…Robert Carlyle, get off my screen!”
Despite the disappointment of the second half, though, I really wish BBC would make more series set pre-1800. Even most of the few that do get made make it to the US. The only ones in recent years that I’m familiar with are this, The Devil’s Whore, and an Elizabeth Tudor mini from a couple years back, and only the last ever made it to the US, that I know of.