La reine vierge

This is what happens when a film studio and a novelist places history on the big screen. Historical accuracy and truth takes second place when it comes to spinning a yarn. I just hope when kids watch this film, they do not rely on it as facts for their education. The real story itself was intriguing enough without having to bend the truth. So, why did they?

Anyway, in the film, Elizabeth (I) was madly in love with Thomas Seymour. From historical records, Thomas was supposedly the person who made advances on Elizabeth (I) but was unsuccessful. In the film, Edward Seymour was seen as a callous power hungry puppeteer in the royal court. In history, he was a successful military man when he battled oppositions at Pinkie, Scotland (1547). Edward was also responsible for religious reforms and in relaxing heresy and treason laws. In the film, he sent his brother Thomas to the scaffold because of his paranoia over power struggle threats. In history, the execution of Thomas by the council in 1549 was a significant blow to Edward and it weakened his power in England. The eventual arrest and execution of Edward in 1552 was conspired by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton to remove Seymour's protectorate power over his nephew, King Edward VI. Edward VI died at the age of 15 in 1553. Dudley induced the council to proclaim his daughter-in-law, Lady Jane Grey, as queen after Edward VI's death. Dudley was executed in 1554 by Mary (I) for treason.

Of course, there's no way of knowing precisely what really happened in history. But in rationale, a person should not be defamed or condemned (as in the case of Edward Seymour) based on hearsay, idle gossip, a romantic novel or a chick flick, even if they are dead over a few centuries. In theory, anyhow.

Anyway, I did enjoy this film as pure entertainment. Walter Plunkett's costume design was magnificent and the whole cast was superb. Miklos Rozsa's emotional music score was an incredible soul wrenching delight.

Is it worth seeing? Yes, definitely! It's entertaining, well acted and beautifully produced.

This is an entertaining movie and not a documentary. So, why not show "how it could have happened". This is what makes history interesting and exciting. The story is very well written, the actors are superb. And there is this sparkling chemistry between Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr I miss so much in modern movies. This is GOOD OLD HOLLYWOOD (even it is mostly a british movie). I hope that in the near future somebody produces a good DVD!! This movie is one of my all time favorites!!

I don't expect or even want precise historicity in a costume drama, so I love this beautifully-filmed production. Did anybody else find Rex Thompson's portrayal of Edward, the little king, as remarkable as I did? Rex was only 11 at the time, and no matter how visionary the director, how plausible the writing or how facile the film editor, it takes real brilliance for a person that young to perform so believably. He perfectly reproduced Laughton's characterizations of Henry VIII in miniature, and was as matter-of-dactyl bloodthirsty as Henry ("I wish he'd die," he remarks about his "Oncle Ned," seeing nothing untoward about it). He worked again with Deborah Kerr playing Louis in "The King and I." He was "The Page" in the Hallmark Hall of Fame production of the same name in 1966, but there are no later entries about him on this site. Also, no death date, which I'm glad to see...was he one of those unfortunate child actors who was robbed blind by unscrupulous relatives/agents/investors? Did he just get sick of the grind and chuck it all? Or did he change his name and vocation? I would have liked to have seen him as an adult. He was such an appealing child!

Never mind about the historical accuracy, the movie is very enjoyable as a great love story. It is well written and elegantly portrayed by a good assemble of actors. Simmons is excellent as Young Bess, a smart and strong minded princess growing from adolescence into young womanhood, falling for a much older heroic Admiral, attracting his love from his beautiful and tender loving wife. Granger is a great match as Simmon's lover, the arrogant adventurous war hero, also the loving husband of the more classical beauty Kerr. The love triangle between the three is convincing and moving, and its tragic end is heart broken.

The costume is wonderful, especially of Granger's.

This is a splendidly-mounted production by anyone's standards; arguably it is the best realization of the pre-Elizabethan, the late Marian period ever realized on film.   But despite its modest beginnings as a fictionalized biography of Elizabeth Tudor by popular author Margaret Irwin, the screenplay by Jan Lustig and Arthur Wimperis also adds another dramatic dimension to a well-told story.  The subject in this work is the dangerous, difficult and famous youth of the future Elizabeth Ist of England, taking her from childhood to her accession to the throne after the death of her sister Bloody Mary, who reigned following the death both of King Henry VII and his frail son and heir Arthur, who died at 12 years of age.  George Sidney directed this dignified and powerful story;  and the assembled cast he presented were well-chosen as speakers of the English language:  Jean Simmons playing the young Elizabeth with unusual intelligence and verve; Cecil Kellaway as the loyal warder who looks after her modest household as a princess out of favor;  Charles Laughton reveling in his bravura role as the irascible and fascinating Henry VIII;  Stewart Granger and Guy Rolfe playing the rival brothers who wrestle for control of England's political direction; Deborah Kerr as the King's last wife, gentle an d lovely Catherine Parr; also prominently featured were Kathleen Byron, Kay Walsh, young Rex Thompson as Edward, Elaine Stewart, Dawn Addams, Ivan Triesault, Lumsden Hare, Leo G. Carroll, Doris Lloyd, Norma Varden, Alan Napier, Robert Arthur and Lester Mathews. The plot-line concerns Elizabeth's attempts to survive the shifting fortunes of the English court; powerless, except for the loyalty of a few noblemen, her greatest danger comes from the handsome and ambitious Thomas Seymour (Granger); the script treats his regard for Elizabeth as political, which is not historical; by attaching himself to the queen of the late King Henry, he becomes so dangerous his unpleasantly Establishment and puritanical brother Edward must move against him. from this loss, Elizabeth is fortunate to emerge alive and, at last, queen of England; but this is a moving film that touches on her relative poverty, fears, learning, arguments with her father, disappointment when Edward who loves her dies, and her last danger in the Seymour's quarrel. The emotionally rich film is superbly served in my estimation by Miklos Rozsa's memorable score. With bright cinematography by Charles Rosher, brilliant art direction by Cedric Gibbons and Urie McCleary, set decorations by Jack D, Moore and Edwin Willis and gorgeous costumes by Walter Punkett, the film is very attractive to watch in every scene. Sydney Guilaroff's hairstylings, William Tuttle's makeup and Douglas Shearer's sound work are all first-rate as well. The best scene in the film to many minds is the argument aboard a ship between the volatile Henry Tudor and his equally spirited daughter; but this is a very good film, on the verge of being a great one, thanks to director Sidney's solid presentation of every scene of the material. I recommend it highly, if not as literal history then as a colorful, thoughtful and satisfying entertainment.