La vie privée d'Elisabeth d'Angleterre

This 1939 Technicolor film, which was directed by the notoriously tyrannical Hungarian Michael Curtiz is strangely unavailable on video at present. A wonderful film if you don't take it too seriously history-wise, because many of the characters and situations are fictionalized. Davis was only 31 here, but her valiant attempt to portray Good Queen Bess impressed the pious critics: a showy performance, Davis chews the scenery with zesty aplomb: it's never boring. Errol Flynn isn't as bad in his playing of Essex as many are led to believe, certainly, he didn't equal Davis as a thespian, but he lends the film his energy, looks and finesse. It has been widely implied that Davis herself wanted Laurence Olivier for the role of Essex, but he was busy doing WUTHERING HEIGHTS. As Lady Penelope Grey, a purely fictional character, Olivia de Havilland is lovely but her performance isn't particularly captivating, owing to a rather weakly drawn character. The real surprise performance of the lesser cast members is that of Nanette Fabares as a lady-in-waiting. Truly genuine and sincerely heartfelt is her brief emotional scene with the Virgin Queen. The sets are magnificent, the old Technicolor gorgeous, and the Erich Wolfgang Korngold score is stellar. A finely crafted movie version of Maxwell Anderson's ELIZABETH THE QUEEN, hopefully this semi-controversial film will find its way back on video soon.

The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex was a personal triumph for Bette Davis in her portrayal of Elizabeth I of England. Davis was 31 when she played the Virgin Queen at the tail end of her regime, Elizabeth herself was 65 in 1601 when the action of this story takes place. It concerns her involvement with Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex, a last foolish gesture on the part of a great monarch.

Davis hated working with Errol Flynn since doing The Sisters with him a year earlier. She was quoted as saying that when she had to kiss him she'd close her eyes and pretend it was Laurence Olivier. But I think Olivier might have had trouble making Essex a hero.

In point of fact he wasn't any kind of a hero. He was a vainglorious, conceited, egotistical cad of a human being who apparently only had talent in the bedroom. Now the bedroom part would have fit Flynn perfectly. But he became a military commander and leader and he bungled every job he was given.

The real Essex was played like a piccolo by the other members and rivals of the Elizabethan court. His main rival in the film is Robert Cecil played by Henry Daniell. In the film he is incorrectly identified as Lord Burghley's(Henry Stephenson's)son when in fact he was a nephew. Because it's Henry Daniell and he's a clever schemer he has to be the villain. In point of fact Cecil was a patriot in the best tradition. He was very concerned in fact about Essex's military ventures that they were nothing but missions of glory. Cecil's greatest contribution to English history was to come two years later when Elizabeth died, it's due to him that there was an orderly transition from the House of Tudor to the House of Stuart.

My favorite performance in this film is that of Alan Hale as Hugh O'Neill, the Earl of Tyrone who led the Irish rebellion against the English at that time. What happens in court to Essex with his rivals there is nothing compared to the way O'Neill plays him. He leads him deeper into the Irish interior, using hit and run tactics and then cuts him off from his supply base. And then in surrendering O'Neill very cleverly sows the seed of more dissension by telling him what a great leader he was and the Irish could never have beaten him if he'd been backed up better from home. And Essex the rube falls for it.

Another good performance is Donald Crisp as Sir Francis Bacon. He's a wily old fox used to court politics Elizabethan style. Bacon tries to give Essex some good advice none of which Essex accepts. In the end Bacon gives up on Essex and just switches sides, lest he be brought down with him.

So what we have here is Bette Davis giving a great performance with a leading man she detested and Flynn trying desperately to breathe life and heroism into a character who wasn't terribly heroic. It would have defeated a better actor than Errol Flynn.

I think there is a lot to like about Essex and Elizabeth. Even with moments of pedestrian pacing, parts where the dialogue seemed a little too ripe and the fact that to historians perhaps it is a travesty of history, there is still a lot to like. The film is shot in beautiful Technicolour and has lavish sets and costumes, and Korngold's score is very stirring indeed. The story is compelling enough, and the acting was actually not too bad. Errol Flynn I think did a really good job here, it didn't matter for me that the performance wasn't another Captain Blood or Robin Hood, it was still a good performance. And Bette Davis is very good as Elizabeth, while Davis reportedly hated working on the picture the chemistry was believable enough. It was a delight to see Vincent Price here as Walter Raleigh, I have always liked Vincent Price, and he looks very handsome and quite nuanced in his role here, and Donald Crisp gives another great performance. The direction from Michael Curtiz is pretty much solid too. So overall, it was a good film, without being a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Bette Davis and Errol Flynn, the Queen and King of Warner Bros. in the late '30s and early '40s, only worked together a couple of times. "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" is their major effort, and it's a very good one. Warners pulled out all the stops for this Technicolor extravaganza, and Curtiz directs with a sure hand. Erich Wolfgang Korngold's music is wonderful. The real star of the show, though, is Ms. Davis as Queen Elizabeth. With all the on-screen Elizabeths to choose from, you won't forget hers. I had just watched "The Sea Hawk" where Errol faces another great Elizabeth, Dame Flora Robson (even though they only have a couple of scenes together, but Errol seems much more at ease in that picture).

Bette made no secret of her dislike for the freewheeling, womanizing, undisciplined Flynn, and criticized his performance opposite her for years afterwards (although if memory serves she eventually relented and admitted he wasn't bad). Some may take issue with the pacing of the movie, but Bette's so good, Errol's so handsome, and the dialogue so adult and refreshing (and don't forget the reliable villain Henry Daniell), you can't help but like it.

This is a far cry from the sentimental ahistorical nonsense I was expecting. It is all about the machinations of power, the ruthlessness that a ruler must uphold so as not to endanger her kingdom, about the necessity to put oneself aside and think of the greater good. Michael Curtiz, with the inestimable help of Bette Davis in one of her most heartwrenching cinematic portrayals, gets all his sinister points across and does not flinch. Sure enough, the ending is more Hollywood, I believe, than London, more glamorous heroics than real-life sacrifice, but even so, it does not stick in your throat. I loved the amorous, innocent banter and bickering of the queen and the earl in their many intimate moments, and Errol Flynn never photographed better. Was there ever anyone in the annals of Hollywood more handsome? Olivia De Havilland tries on a slightly different role than the goody-goody, doe-eyed ones she usually had to make do with. Technicolor cinematography and lighting are both superb.