La reine vierge

With an exceptionally good cast headed by Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr and Charles Laughton, costumes by Walter Plunkett, music by Miklos Rozsa and all the technical wizardry of MGM's vast resources, YOUNG BESS is the kind of historical romance that comes to life on the screen with a good deal of vitality. Jean Simmons and Charles Laughton have the most interesting roles and play them brilliantly, particularly Laughton who is once again portraying Henry VIII, the shrewd monarch who disposed of the women in his life by putting them to the block.

The screenplay is gracefully written and although it is leisurely paced, it never lets up interest in examining the relationships between Elizabeth I (young Bess) and others at court. Historical purists will object to whatever liberties the novel took to tell this story of court intrigue, but they will be impressed by the attention paid to historical detail and the meticulous settings and costumes. The score by Miklos Rozsa is not obtrusive and yet it underlines the deep emotions portrayed by Simmons, Granger and Laughton. Deborah Kerr has a rather colorless and almost minor role as Catherine Parr and is unable to do much with it although she and Simmons photograph beautifully in color.

Easy on the eyes and a very entertaining saga of a bloody chapter in England's history.

"Young Bess" features three of the greatest English actors of all time :Jean Simmons,Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr;the two actresses had already teamed up for "black narcissus" but in "young Bess" it's Simmons who plays the lead .

The movie does not really show it,but Elizabeth had a very harsh childhood ,unlike Mary Stuart ,her dear cousin who spent her youth in the sweet Chateaux de La Loire in France .That may explain why Elizabeth was prepared to reign and Mary failed dismally. It was a wonder she kept her head after all those years with Mary Tudor.But Jean Simmons succeeds in her performance:from a romantic young girl to the strong queen (the big shadow on the wall is revealing),she runs the whole gamut and she gets strong support from Stewart Granger as her dashing attentive escort ,from Deborah Kerr ,in an underwritten part, and from Charles Laughton,ideally cast as Henry the Eighth.

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.

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!

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!!