I saw this movie when I was a child in Mexican black and white TV. Now it has been released in DVD in Spain by Divisa(2005) It is clear that true history is absent in most of the historic events related to the story. Essex was actually married to Penelope Rich (and not Gray, as in the movie), which meant nothing to his relationship to the queen. The meeting with Ireland's clan chief Tyrone was thought alright as treason, but when Essex entered London no one rouse with him. He passed a lot of time in his house, far from London, before the Queen made any decision on his final destiny... also Briton's uniforms in Ireland look Spanish...etc. The strange thing is that the story itself, as told by Curtiz, functions well. Davies is great ( a little bit overacting, but, who cares?), as the uncommon woman Elizabeth must have been. She did'not want Flynn to play the part: she asked for Laurence Olivier, but I sincerely think Flynn gave the necessary gaiety and spirits Essex would have had in reality, and Olivier would have spoiled that by his well known acting excesses, playing dark and severe where there should be light and superficial. Both, Davies and Flynn, seem profoundly in love and hate. Constanty driving in and out from and to love and politics. I would'not say this is a great movie, but it's worth while seeing it! (Excuse my English, I write better in Spanish)
76 Reviews
Not the dream team of the cinema
bkoganbing13 February 2006
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.
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.
The Greater Good
mik-1922 February 2004
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.
New DVD version makes the film twice as compelling...fine performances...
Doylenf22 April 2005
Watching the newly restored DVD version of THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX gives this viewer a new appreciation of the lavish attention to detail in sets, costumes--and even the performances surrounding BETTE DAVIS in her showcase role as the Queen who is unwilling to let the ambitious Earl of Essex share her throne. Flynn fans won't be disappointed either. He's never looked handsomer as Lord Essex.
Davis seems unwilling to let anyone else steal the thunder from her fidgety display of histrionics. Costumed in the most brilliant array of historically correct costuming ever dreamed up by the Warner costume department, she gives a commanding display of histrionics that will fascinate even those who will undoubtedly accuse her of overacting or chewing the scenery on occasion.
And what scenery! Seldom has the lavishness of a Warner costume epic been captured by cinematographers as here. All of the courtroom scenes have the stately dignity and majesty of inspired paintings. And yet, despite all the rich atmosphere of court settings, the performances stand out as uniquely individual characterizations, thanks to Michael Curtiz's firm direction.
ERROL FLYNN, despite a few weaker scenes in the film's final moments, does a sterling job as Essex, matching Davis' fiery temperament with a strong display of courage, cunning and nobility as Essex.
OLIVIA de HAVILLAND, while demoted to a supporting role by Jack Warner (who never forgave her for outwitting him in her move to play a loan-out role as Melanie in GWTW), is breathtakingly gorgeous and shows that beneath that demure surface lurked an actress with sparks of her own to share with Davis.
The glittering supporting cast includes such stalwarts as Vincent Price (handsomely attired as Sir Walter Raleigh), Henry Stephenson, Donald Crisp--and in an uncredited role as a member of the Queen's guard, John Sutton. Notable in a small but effective scene is Nanette Fabray, at the very start of her career on screen.
Not historically accurate as far as Maxwell Anderson's legend goes (there was no romance between Elizabeth and Essex), but this is a fascinating version of his stage play, "Elizabeth the Queen".
Alan Hale does a superb job in a brief role as Tyrone (with Irish accent), cast as Errol's foe for a change. Watch the color cinematography in the marshes scene--subtle shades of pastel amid the fog shrouded swamps.
A magnificent, pulsating background score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold adds to the intrigue. The film itself is not entirely flawless--there are several scenes that move much too slowly. But all in all, it captures the court intrigue and sympathetically reveals the demands that a Queen must face when her throne is challenged by men just as ambitious (and ruthless) as she is to rule.
Director Michael Curtiz keeps things visually stirring throughout, as is his customary practice.
A final note: It cannot be emphasized enough that the new DVD version brings out all of the detailed splendor of sets, costumes and photography and makes it all the more compelling to watch. In fact, the whole viewing experience is quite different from the VHS version.
Davis seems unwilling to let anyone else steal the thunder from her fidgety display of histrionics. Costumed in the most brilliant array of historically correct costuming ever dreamed up by the Warner costume department, she gives a commanding display of histrionics that will fascinate even those who will undoubtedly accuse her of overacting or chewing the scenery on occasion.
And what scenery! Seldom has the lavishness of a Warner costume epic been captured by cinematographers as here. All of the courtroom scenes have the stately dignity and majesty of inspired paintings. And yet, despite all the rich atmosphere of court settings, the performances stand out as uniquely individual characterizations, thanks to Michael Curtiz's firm direction.
ERROL FLYNN, despite a few weaker scenes in the film's final moments, does a sterling job as Essex, matching Davis' fiery temperament with a strong display of courage, cunning and nobility as Essex.
OLIVIA de HAVILLAND, while demoted to a supporting role by Jack Warner (who never forgave her for outwitting him in her move to play a loan-out role as Melanie in GWTW), is breathtakingly gorgeous and shows that beneath that demure surface lurked an actress with sparks of her own to share with Davis.
The glittering supporting cast includes such stalwarts as Vincent Price (handsomely attired as Sir Walter Raleigh), Henry Stephenson, Donald Crisp--and in an uncredited role as a member of the Queen's guard, John Sutton. Notable in a small but effective scene is Nanette Fabray, at the very start of her career on screen.
Not historically accurate as far as Maxwell Anderson's legend goes (there was no romance between Elizabeth and Essex), but this is a fascinating version of his stage play, "Elizabeth the Queen".
Alan Hale does a superb job in a brief role as Tyrone (with Irish accent), cast as Errol's foe for a change. Watch the color cinematography in the marshes scene--subtle shades of pastel amid the fog shrouded swamps.
A magnificent, pulsating background score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold adds to the intrigue. The film itself is not entirely flawless--there are several scenes that move much too slowly. But all in all, it captures the court intrigue and sympathetically reveals the demands that a Queen must face when her throne is challenged by men just as ambitious (and ruthless) as she is to rule.
Director Michael Curtiz keeps things visually stirring throughout, as is his customary practice.
A final note: It cannot be emphasized enough that the new DVD version brings out all of the detailed splendor of sets, costumes and photography and makes it all the more compelling to watch. In fact, the whole viewing experience is quite different from the VHS version.
Davis and Flynn, Mismatched Lovers in Anderson Play...
cariart7 October 2003
Until her death, at 81, in 1989, screen legend Bette Davis would express a combination of bitterness and disappointment over the Maxwell Anderson play that came to the screen as THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX. She had lobbied hard for the WB to buy the rights, certain that, at age 31, it would be her greatest acting triumph to date (quite a prediction from an someone who'd already won two 'Best Actress' Oscars). ELIZABETH THE QUEEN was a Broadway sensation, but the studio was reluctant to gamble on it; the few Hollywood attempts to do royal epics had failed (MARY OF Scotland, with Katharine Hepburn in the lead, and John Ford directing, had been a major flop, and helped the actress gain the title 'Box Office Poison'), and it appeared that only the British could make this kind of film work.
Nevertheless, when your biggest (and most headstrong) female star wants something, you GET it for her, so the rights were purchased, and ELIZABETH THE QUEEN was announced as 'prestige' production to be filmed with Davis as the lead. Then the problems began...
For the pivotal role of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, the ambitious lover who nearly costs Elizabeth her crown, Davis wanted Laurence Olivier, who, at 32, had already established himself as one of the finest actors on two continents. Darkly handsome, and renowned for his interpretations of Shakespeare, the future British lord had created quite a stir in Hollywood, aided by the fact that his lover was Vivien Leigh, who'd won the coveted role of 'Scarlet O'Hara' in GONE WITH THE WIND.
Unfortunately, Olivier was committed to play Heathcliff in the Goldwyn production of WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The search for a British actor of equal stature proved fruitless; Robert Donat was filming GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS (for which he'd win an Oscar), Leslie Howard was finishing GONE WITH THE WIND and in preproduction for INTERMEZZO, Ronald Colman was involved in THE LIGHT THAT FAILED, even Cary Grant was busy, shooting GUNGA DIN... ...But Errol Flynn, Warner's biggest male star, WAS available...
Davis had worked with Flynn a year earlier, in THE SISTERS, and it had NOT been a pleasant experience. Prone to taking things as easy as possible, and playing practical jokes on his co-stars, he took advantage of his classic good looks and natural charm to 'get away' with not knowing his lines and frequent tardiness (he was a world-class carouser and womanizer, away from the camera). Davis, who was always punctual, knew everybody's dialog, and could be quite temperamental, considered him unprofessional, and crude.
But Flynn had become a major star, and the WB, trying to insure ELIZABETH would be a success, overrode Davis' objections, and cast him as Essex...and Flynn immediately demanded a title change. He felt he was as big a star as Davis, and that the film title should reflect his status; so ELIZABETH THE QUEEN first became THE KNIGHT AND THE LADY, which Davis vehemently refused to accept, then THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, which she disliked, as well, but had to accept.
The filming was an unhappy affair. Both Flynn and Davis had difficulties with director Michael Curtiz, resulting in Davis' performance being 'over-the-top', and Flynn's so underplayed that he failed to grasp Essex's character, often appearing shallow. In one scene, Davis was supposed to slap Flynn; rather than do a 'staged' one, which would barely touch him, she hit him full force, wearing a heavy ring, which brought tears to his eyes, and broke, momentarily, his composure (the moment is in the completed film; watch, quickly, and you can see Flynn 'lose his cool'!) Flynn responded by a series of escalating practical jokes, with Davis threatening to kill him. Even co-star Olivia De Havilland was unhappy, having just completed GONE WITH THE WIND, and back at Warners in a decidedly secondary role. That the film 'worked' at all was a testament to Davis' perseverance, the glorious Technicolor-filmed sets, and Erich Wolfgang Korngold's spectacular musical score.
THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX garnered mixed reviews for Davis (although she would be praised for how convincingly she portrayed the much older woman), and terrible ones, for Flynn (which would be used against him, in future, whenever he asked for more substantial roles).
Davis would again play Elizabeth, 16 years later, in the British production, THE VIRGIN QUEEN, but she never lost her resentment over the failure of the earlier film.
In a year of 'classics', THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX would be an exception!
Nevertheless, when your biggest (and most headstrong) female star wants something, you GET it for her, so the rights were purchased, and ELIZABETH THE QUEEN was announced as 'prestige' production to be filmed with Davis as the lead. Then the problems began...
For the pivotal role of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, the ambitious lover who nearly costs Elizabeth her crown, Davis wanted Laurence Olivier, who, at 32, had already established himself as one of the finest actors on two continents. Darkly handsome, and renowned for his interpretations of Shakespeare, the future British lord had created quite a stir in Hollywood, aided by the fact that his lover was Vivien Leigh, who'd won the coveted role of 'Scarlet O'Hara' in GONE WITH THE WIND.
Unfortunately, Olivier was committed to play Heathcliff in the Goldwyn production of WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The search for a British actor of equal stature proved fruitless; Robert Donat was filming GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS (for which he'd win an Oscar), Leslie Howard was finishing GONE WITH THE WIND and in preproduction for INTERMEZZO, Ronald Colman was involved in THE LIGHT THAT FAILED, even Cary Grant was busy, shooting GUNGA DIN... ...But Errol Flynn, Warner's biggest male star, WAS available...
Davis had worked with Flynn a year earlier, in THE SISTERS, and it had NOT been a pleasant experience. Prone to taking things as easy as possible, and playing practical jokes on his co-stars, he took advantage of his classic good looks and natural charm to 'get away' with not knowing his lines and frequent tardiness (he was a world-class carouser and womanizer, away from the camera). Davis, who was always punctual, knew everybody's dialog, and could be quite temperamental, considered him unprofessional, and crude.
But Flynn had become a major star, and the WB, trying to insure ELIZABETH would be a success, overrode Davis' objections, and cast him as Essex...and Flynn immediately demanded a title change. He felt he was as big a star as Davis, and that the film title should reflect his status; so ELIZABETH THE QUEEN first became THE KNIGHT AND THE LADY, which Davis vehemently refused to accept, then THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, which she disliked, as well, but had to accept.
The filming was an unhappy affair. Both Flynn and Davis had difficulties with director Michael Curtiz, resulting in Davis' performance being 'over-the-top', and Flynn's so underplayed that he failed to grasp Essex's character, often appearing shallow. In one scene, Davis was supposed to slap Flynn; rather than do a 'staged' one, which would barely touch him, she hit him full force, wearing a heavy ring, which brought tears to his eyes, and broke, momentarily, his composure (the moment is in the completed film; watch, quickly, and you can see Flynn 'lose his cool'!) Flynn responded by a series of escalating practical jokes, with Davis threatening to kill him. Even co-star Olivia De Havilland was unhappy, having just completed GONE WITH THE WIND, and back at Warners in a decidedly secondary role. That the film 'worked' at all was a testament to Davis' perseverance, the glorious Technicolor-filmed sets, and Erich Wolfgang Korngold's spectacular musical score.
THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX garnered mixed reviews for Davis (although she would be praised for how convincingly she portrayed the much older woman), and terrible ones, for Flynn (which would be used against him, in future, whenever he asked for more substantial roles).
Davis would again play Elizabeth, 16 years later, in the British production, THE VIRGIN QUEEN, but she never lost her resentment over the failure of the earlier film.
In a year of 'classics', THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX would be an exception!
Great fun for history buffs & Davis addicts
willowgreen17 February 2003
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.
Not outstanding but there is a lot to like
TheLittleSongbird21 June 2010
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
A stunning tour de force by Davis and Flynn.
Bob-27417 June 1999
One of my top 10 best movies of all time! This has to be Davis' best dramatic performance ever - the voice, the mannerisms, the psychological torment between Queen and woman. Never have I seen a character performance like Davis' where she literally shakes with the emotion and tension she feels! Even her eating habits are a source of fascination.
Flynn gives another dashing performance of an emotionally shallow, politically incorrect Essex - he never really quite understands just what he is dealing with until towards the very end. To Essex (and probably to Flynn too!) a woman is just a woman ready to acquiesce to her man at his whim and his detractors at court are simply disgruntled competitors for the affections of his woman. Honest and trustworthy, he has no time patience or comprehension of the treacheries of Raleigh and Cecil or the political considerations of Elizabeth.
Though the plot is quite straightforward it is the absorbing script that allows this actors' tour de force - this is one of the few movies ever where the lead characters are allowed to talk from their hearts. Davis portrays a bitingly intelligent woman in desperate need of one honest voice she can trust and depend upon in a sea of political plots and assorted self-interests. Her determination to rule her people wisely avoiding senseless wars is constantly assailed by her great doubts to continue to command respect and love of her people as she ages and must seek impartial counsel amongst a court of self-seeking, two-faced advisors. She walks the razor's edge of lonely command and tormented despair.
DeHavilland's Penelope is a pivotal character whose envy of the queen and discounting by Essex drives her to attempt to destroy their relationship but finally realises where her loyalties lie.
But the highlight of the film is the intimate exchanges between Essex and Elizabeth that bring out the very best and the very worst in each as they explore their true intentions and their boundaries. The quality of these exchanges are so good that they rival today's psychological thrillers as Elizabeth finally uncovers Essex's true ambitions. It makes you realise how few relationships today could withstand such sincere probing as to the real character of the couple. And the dramatic finale is truly heart-wrenching when Essex becomes the true unselfish hero Elizabeth has been seeking upon finally realising what he would do to England if he shared her throne and that even Elizabeth herself is prepared to sacrifice everything she holds most dear for the man she desperately loves.
They just don't write movies like this any more and it is an excellent example of a masterpiece that can never age.
Flynn gives another dashing performance of an emotionally shallow, politically incorrect Essex - he never really quite understands just what he is dealing with until towards the very end. To Essex (and probably to Flynn too!) a woman is just a woman ready to acquiesce to her man at his whim and his detractors at court are simply disgruntled competitors for the affections of his woman. Honest and trustworthy, he has no time patience or comprehension of the treacheries of Raleigh and Cecil or the political considerations of Elizabeth.
Though the plot is quite straightforward it is the absorbing script that allows this actors' tour de force - this is one of the few movies ever where the lead characters are allowed to talk from their hearts. Davis portrays a bitingly intelligent woman in desperate need of one honest voice she can trust and depend upon in a sea of political plots and assorted self-interests. Her determination to rule her people wisely avoiding senseless wars is constantly assailed by her great doubts to continue to command respect and love of her people as she ages and must seek impartial counsel amongst a court of self-seeking, two-faced advisors. She walks the razor's edge of lonely command and tormented despair.
DeHavilland's Penelope is a pivotal character whose envy of the queen and discounting by Essex drives her to attempt to destroy their relationship but finally realises where her loyalties lie.
But the highlight of the film is the intimate exchanges between Essex and Elizabeth that bring out the very best and the very worst in each as they explore their true intentions and their boundaries. The quality of these exchanges are so good that they rival today's psychological thrillers as Elizabeth finally uncovers Essex's true ambitions. It makes you realise how few relationships today could withstand such sincere probing as to the real character of the couple. And the dramatic finale is truly heart-wrenching when Essex becomes the true unselfish hero Elizabeth has been seeking upon finally realising what he would do to England if he shared her throne and that even Elizabeth herself is prepared to sacrifice everything she holds most dear for the man she desperately loves.
They just don't write movies like this any more and it is an excellent example of a masterpiece that can never age.
Errol Flynn, the Heart and Soul of this Kink-Fest
Danusha_Goska30 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Warning, this review will reveal the end of the movie.
Wow, what a kink-fest "Elizabeth and Essex" is. Bette Davis gives a herky-jerky performance as the 66 year old Queen Elizabeth, madly and passionately in love with the much younger Essex (Errol Flynn). She ends their affair by chopping off his head.
Really, how many romantic movies feature a bald woman decades older than the man she is sleeping with who chops off the guy's head? Not many. Maybe because that head chopping off part is hard to warm to. And the woman's being bald is also hard to warm to.
There's a lot not to like in this movie: Bette Davis doesn't look 66; she looks like a young actress trying to pass as an old actress by wearing lots of white make-up. Bette moves in a herky-jerky fashion here, as if Queen E had Parkinson's. It is distracting.
And websites devoted to debunking myths about Queen E say she was not bald; that, in fact, Essex himself claimed he saw her hair in her bedroom, after she'd removed her wig. Bette is made to look as if she is bald; she wears a clown-red wig over a high, shaved forehead.
But the story is very, very compelling, and Errol Flynn is pure heart and soul.
Maxwell Anderson's play toys with some primal themes: are all love/sex relationships struggles over power? No matter how much a man and a woman love each other, can they ever overcome the basic biological directive that the man must feel he has dominance over the woman? And how do you work that out when you are a sexagenarian queen and your lover is a hotheaded, gorgeous, showboat? Can a man, for that matter, overcome men's focus on women's physical appearance, and love a woman old enough to be his mother? Is it kinky and sick for a young man to love a woman old enough to be his mother? Will there always be something of the little boy in that love? (There are lots of scenes of Errol nuzzling up to Bette's ample bust.) And then there is the whole celebrity issue. Elizabeth and Essex were the power couple of their day, at least as depicted in this play. Just as tabloids work to destroy celebrity relationships today, courtiers worked to undermine Elizabeth and Essex's love. Though powerful people, they are easily wounded and pout like children. You feel sorry for them.
Nobody says that this plot has historical accuracy, although some of the bare bones of the plot reflect historical events. But the big themes of power, love, sex, age, game playing, and betrayal are very real.
Errol Flynn is the real revelation here. Bette is just not very good, and she's not at all generous to Errol. It's said she hated him in real life; maybe so; in any case, she gives no real sign of being a woman in love. When they kiss, you can practically see her thinking, "Cooties!" But Errol is wonderful. He is just pitch perfect. He is Anderson's Essex -- a dashing, romantic, boy-man, with a distorted sense of honor and power that ushers him out of the world rapidly and dramatically. His final gesture, kissing the ring Elizabeth had given him, and begged him to give her in a gesture of his needing her, in short, a gesture of his submission to her, is pure lunacy, and pure gold.
Wow, Errol, wow. You certainly were all that. I can't think of anyone today quite like you, or anything like this movie.
A final note: the opening title sequence is loads of fun, with the calligraphy done in illuminated manuscript style, and everything very bright and as if right out of a child's storybook -- and I mean that in the best sense.
Wow, what a kink-fest "Elizabeth and Essex" is. Bette Davis gives a herky-jerky performance as the 66 year old Queen Elizabeth, madly and passionately in love with the much younger Essex (Errol Flynn). She ends their affair by chopping off his head.
Really, how many romantic movies feature a bald woman decades older than the man she is sleeping with who chops off the guy's head? Not many. Maybe because that head chopping off part is hard to warm to. And the woman's being bald is also hard to warm to.
There's a lot not to like in this movie: Bette Davis doesn't look 66; she looks like a young actress trying to pass as an old actress by wearing lots of white make-up. Bette moves in a herky-jerky fashion here, as if Queen E had Parkinson's. It is distracting.
And websites devoted to debunking myths about Queen E say she was not bald; that, in fact, Essex himself claimed he saw her hair in her bedroom, after she'd removed her wig. Bette is made to look as if she is bald; she wears a clown-red wig over a high, shaved forehead.
But the story is very, very compelling, and Errol Flynn is pure heart and soul.
Maxwell Anderson's play toys with some primal themes: are all love/sex relationships struggles over power? No matter how much a man and a woman love each other, can they ever overcome the basic biological directive that the man must feel he has dominance over the woman? And how do you work that out when you are a sexagenarian queen and your lover is a hotheaded, gorgeous, showboat? Can a man, for that matter, overcome men's focus on women's physical appearance, and love a woman old enough to be his mother? Is it kinky and sick for a young man to love a woman old enough to be his mother? Will there always be something of the little boy in that love? (There are lots of scenes of Errol nuzzling up to Bette's ample bust.) And then there is the whole celebrity issue. Elizabeth and Essex were the power couple of their day, at least as depicted in this play. Just as tabloids work to destroy celebrity relationships today, courtiers worked to undermine Elizabeth and Essex's love. Though powerful people, they are easily wounded and pout like children. You feel sorry for them.
Nobody says that this plot has historical accuracy, although some of the bare bones of the plot reflect historical events. But the big themes of power, love, sex, age, game playing, and betrayal are very real.
Errol Flynn is the real revelation here. Bette is just not very good, and she's not at all generous to Errol. It's said she hated him in real life; maybe so; in any case, she gives no real sign of being a woman in love. When they kiss, you can practically see her thinking, "Cooties!" But Errol is wonderful. He is just pitch perfect. He is Anderson's Essex -- a dashing, romantic, boy-man, with a distorted sense of honor and power that ushers him out of the world rapidly and dramatically. His final gesture, kissing the ring Elizabeth had given him, and begged him to give her in a gesture of his needing her, in short, a gesture of his submission to her, is pure lunacy, and pure gold.
Wow, Errol, wow. You certainly were all that. I can't think of anyone today quite like you, or anything like this movie.
A final note: the opening title sequence is loads of fun, with the calligraphy done in illuminated manuscript style, and everything very bright and as if right out of a child's storybook -- and I mean that in the best sense.
The Elizabeth of legend
arturus7 December 2005
This picture, based on Maxwell Anderson's play (written entirely in blank verse!) portrays the Elizabeth of legend, not the historical Elizabeth, in this case based on Lytton Strachey's book, "Elizabeth and Essex". In other words, this is more a theatrical than a strictly accurate presentation of the great queen and her times.
And what a presentation! Lynn Fontanne portrayed Elizabeth in the play's original Broadway run; Judith Anderson played her in the 1968 television presentation (opposite Charlton Heston!). Davis takes the part (re-written for the picture, discarding the blank verse) over the top. Her overactive, explosive performance might seem too much to some, but it definitely matches the style of the play itself, the sumptuous settings, gorgeously photographed, the historically accurate costuming, and Korngold's splashy, brilliant score, one of his best creations.
The supporting cast matches her at every turn. Even Flynn's performance, dismissed at the time as being lightweight, comes across as the ideal foil to the tempestuous, aging queen he's playing against.
Quite a treat, even after almost seventy years. Definitely of its time, but, understanding this, it can be thoroughly enjoyed.
And what a presentation! Lynn Fontanne portrayed Elizabeth in the play's original Broadway run; Judith Anderson played her in the 1968 television presentation (opposite Charlton Heston!). Davis takes the part (re-written for the picture, discarding the blank verse) over the top. Her overactive, explosive performance might seem too much to some, but it definitely matches the style of the play itself, the sumptuous settings, gorgeously photographed, the historically accurate costuming, and Korngold's splashy, brilliant score, one of his best creations.
The supporting cast matches her at every turn. Even Flynn's performance, dismissed at the time as being lightweight, comes across as the ideal foil to the tempestuous, aging queen he's playing against.
Quite a treat, even after almost seventy years. Definitely of its time, but, understanding this, it can be thoroughly enjoyed.
Bette's Ugly Film
JoeytheBrit21 September 2010
Errol Flynn always complained about being typecast in action roles, but the reasons why are clearly evident in this sometimes ponderous, and sometimes affecting historical drama based on the play by Maxwell Anderson. While Flynn's performance isn't bad it looks positively bland when compared to Bette Davis's superlative performance as the ageing Queen Elizabeth I. Davis furnishes the Queen with all sorts of mannerisms and vocal inflections (while banishing all traces of her American accent) which may or may not be factually accurate (as my only other reference point for Elizabeth is Miranda Richardson's madcap turn in Blackadder it's impossible for me to know). Whether it is accurate or not, Davis delivers a performance that is never less than riveting and dominates the entire film.
The film itself is something of a Jekyll and Hyde. The first forty minutes border on tedium as we are subjected to endless conversations between the dowdy queen with fading looks and the dashing young knight who courts her, and it's clear that the writers struggled (and failed) to escape from the material's stage origins. It's all scene-setting for the second half of the film, however, which makes it worth sitting through, because once the political intrigue and back-stabbing begin the film takes off and becomes a richly absorbing slice of history. The supporting cast is straight out of Hollywood's Who's-Who of the 1930s, but my only gripe would be the casting of Alan Hale in the small but important role of an Irish rebel leader. The jolly Hale looks more like a well-fed butcher than a fighting man who's been squelching around Irish bogs for weeks on end!
The film itself is something of a Jekyll and Hyde. The first forty minutes border on tedium as we are subjected to endless conversations between the dowdy queen with fading looks and the dashing young knight who courts her, and it's clear that the writers struggled (and failed) to escape from the material's stage origins. It's all scene-setting for the second half of the film, however, which makes it worth sitting through, because once the political intrigue and back-stabbing begin the film takes off and becomes a richly absorbing slice of history. The supporting cast is straight out of Hollywood's Who's-Who of the 1930s, but my only gripe would be the casting of Alan Hale in the small but important role of an Irish rebel leader. The jolly Hale looks more like a well-fed butcher than a fighting man who's been squelching around Irish bogs for weeks on end!
Excellent Flynn Performance!Davis Greatest actress!
Lutzqueen10 June 2005
The Private lives of Elizabeth and Essex has been one of my favorite films for some time and just goes to show that one should look at these old films rather than believe what the biographers and critics state without examination. I have read that Errol Flynn was poor in this film,but that is in serious error,IMO! He does an outstanding job in this role and his doomed romanticism MAKES the film what it is. There is no story if the audience does not believe in the love affair, and Flynn convinces in this category. He holds his own with Powerhouse Davis, and that is saying something(watch her chew up Henry Fonda in Jezebel for e.g.)! His naturalness and ease on screen are very appealing, and there is no one more handsome in such costumes. He seems very much the courtier and lover. Very underrated thespian-he is elite here in a difficult role. Bette's pyrotechnics are a marvelous counterpoint to Errol's subtle ways-she is the Greatest movie actress,period. And, they did have sexual chemistry in this film, despite personal antipathy. Great stuff!
Not good history, just good fun!
dougandwin17 July 2004
It is fairly obvious from the start that Bette Davis did not want Errol Flynn as her partner/lover in this movie, and it is just as obvious that Jack Warner punished Olivia de Havilland for doing "Gone With the Wind" by giving her what is really a minor role here. Davis has a great time over-acting while Flynn looks a bit out of place in this enjoyable romp which has no real resemblance to the truth of what really happened. It does show what a beauty de Havilland was in her prime as she is gorgeous as Penelope (a lady-in-waiting to the mighty ugly Elizabeth!). The supporting cast all enter into the spirit of things, with Vincent Price playing Raleigh, and Donald Crisp, Alan Hale and Henry Daniell contributing. It truly is a lot of fun and well produced, but do not try to relate it to history.
Errol Flynn Seems Wasted
JamesHitchcock24 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Dramas based upon British history have always been popular in the cinema, in America as well as in Britain, and for some reason the Tudor period has enjoyed particular popularity. This was as true in the thirties as it is today; other sixteenth-century dramas from the decade include "Mary of Scotland" (like this film based on a play by Maxwell Anderson) and the British-made "Tudor Rose" about Lady Jane Gray.
Historians have often speculated upon the precise nature of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and her favourite Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. In this film they are shown as lovers, at least in the sense that they are in love with one another. Whether they are also lovers in the physical sense is something over which the script draws a discreet veil. The plot is loosely based upon Essex's rise and fall although it takes a number of liberties with historical fact.
In the film, Essex's rebellion against Elizabeth's rule takes place immediately after his return from Ireland; in reality he returned from Ireland in 1599 but did not come out in open revolt against the Queen until 1601. In the film the rebellion nearly succeeds, and only fails because of a piece of treacherous double-dealing by Elizabeth; in reality it was always a doomed, desperate affair which was easily crushed by a small loyalist force under Sir John Leveson. Essex's rival Lord Burghley is shown as outliving him, whereas in reality he predeceased him by three years. Essex explores the possibility that he could marry Elizabeth rule jointly with her as King-Consort; in reality this would have been impossible, if only because Essex was already married. (His wife, Frances, is never referred to in the film). Essex's enemies at court- Burghley, his son Robert Cecil and Sir Walter Raleigh- are all shown as being motivated by jealousy, whereas it is more likely that they distrusted him because they saw him as an unscrupulous adventurer on the make. (All three played more substantive roles in English history than Essex himself).
It would be interesting to consider how film on this subject would have been made at different times. Ten, and certainly twenty, years later it would probably have been made as a grand epic with plenty of action sequences and opportunities for Errol Flynn, or whichever Flynn- equivalent (Lancaster? Granger?) might have played the role in 1959, to show off his skills as a swashbuckler. The capture of Cadiz would have formed a great opening set-piece. In the sixties or seventies the story would have been told as a lavish costume-drama in the style of "Anne of the Thousand Days" (again based on an Anderson play) or "A Man for All Seasons". In the eighties, if certain British film-makers had got hold of it they would probably have made it a political parable along the lines of "Lady Jane" with Essex as a proto-socialist social reformer and Elizabeth as an unpopular Maggie Thatcher-figure. Today it would probably be a psychological drama with a glamorous older woman like Helen Mirren playing the Queen.
The film that we actually have was, despite some elaborate sets and costumes and the use of Technicolor (very much the exception rather than the rule in 1939), made in the "filmed theatre" style which was the most common style of film-making in the thirties. There is surprisingly little in the way of action for a biography of an adventurer like Essex. Most scenes take place indoors, the Cadiz action is not shown at all, and even the battles in Ireland seem very small-scale affairs. The love- story becomes as important as the political events; indeed, the two subjects are intimately connected, because Elizabeth is torn between her love for Essex and her duty to her country, while he is torn between his love for her and his ambition and love of power.
As a dashing action hero Errol Flynn had few, if any, equals in his generation, but in film that is mostly talk and little action he seems wasted. Morally ambiguous, emotionally conflicted heroes like Essex were rather outside his comfort zone. His co-star Bette Davis wanted Laurence Olivier in the role, but she was overruled by the studio, Warner Brothers, and possibly also by director Michael Curtiz, who had made several earlier films with Flynn. Yet Davis herself also seems miscast, although for different reasons. In 1939 she was 31 (only one year older than Flynn); at the time of Essex's death in 1601 Queen Elizabeth was 68 and, try as she might, Davis was not yet ready to play a woman in her late sixties. (Her second portrayal of Elizabeth in "The Virgin Queen" was to be more successful, largely because that film was made in 1955 when Davis was 47 and set in 1581 when Elizabeth would have been 48).
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" has some good points; it is visually attractive and there is an excellent orchestral score by Erich Korngold, if not quite as famous as the one he was later to write for another Flynn film, "The Sea Hawk". Overall, however, today it seems excessively long-winded, one of those history films which mostly consist of long speeches, especially at the end where Essex tries to justify rebelling against Elizabeth, even though he loves her, and she tries to justify betraying him, even though she loves him. It is not in the same class as Flynn's other collaboration with Curtiz from 1939, "Dodge City". 5/10
A goof. In addition to the film's various historical inaccuracies, there is also a geographical inaccuracy. While in disfavour with the Queen, Essex retires to his estates at Wanstead, Essex- shown here as lying at the foot of a range of mountains, although in reality this is one of the flattest parts of England.
Historians have often speculated upon the precise nature of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and her favourite Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. In this film they are shown as lovers, at least in the sense that they are in love with one another. Whether they are also lovers in the physical sense is something over which the script draws a discreet veil. The plot is loosely based upon Essex's rise and fall although it takes a number of liberties with historical fact.
In the film, Essex's rebellion against Elizabeth's rule takes place immediately after his return from Ireland; in reality he returned from Ireland in 1599 but did not come out in open revolt against the Queen until 1601. In the film the rebellion nearly succeeds, and only fails because of a piece of treacherous double-dealing by Elizabeth; in reality it was always a doomed, desperate affair which was easily crushed by a small loyalist force under Sir John Leveson. Essex's rival Lord Burghley is shown as outliving him, whereas in reality he predeceased him by three years. Essex explores the possibility that he could marry Elizabeth rule jointly with her as King-Consort; in reality this would have been impossible, if only because Essex was already married. (His wife, Frances, is never referred to in the film). Essex's enemies at court- Burghley, his son Robert Cecil and Sir Walter Raleigh- are all shown as being motivated by jealousy, whereas it is more likely that they distrusted him because they saw him as an unscrupulous adventurer on the make. (All three played more substantive roles in English history than Essex himself).
It would be interesting to consider how film on this subject would have been made at different times. Ten, and certainly twenty, years later it would probably have been made as a grand epic with plenty of action sequences and opportunities for Errol Flynn, or whichever Flynn- equivalent (Lancaster? Granger?) might have played the role in 1959, to show off his skills as a swashbuckler. The capture of Cadiz would have formed a great opening set-piece. In the sixties or seventies the story would have been told as a lavish costume-drama in the style of "Anne of the Thousand Days" (again based on an Anderson play) or "A Man for All Seasons". In the eighties, if certain British film-makers had got hold of it they would probably have made it a political parable along the lines of "Lady Jane" with Essex as a proto-socialist social reformer and Elizabeth as an unpopular Maggie Thatcher-figure. Today it would probably be a psychological drama with a glamorous older woman like Helen Mirren playing the Queen.
The film that we actually have was, despite some elaborate sets and costumes and the use of Technicolor (very much the exception rather than the rule in 1939), made in the "filmed theatre" style which was the most common style of film-making in the thirties. There is surprisingly little in the way of action for a biography of an adventurer like Essex. Most scenes take place indoors, the Cadiz action is not shown at all, and even the battles in Ireland seem very small-scale affairs. The love- story becomes as important as the political events; indeed, the two subjects are intimately connected, because Elizabeth is torn between her love for Essex and her duty to her country, while he is torn between his love for her and his ambition and love of power.
As a dashing action hero Errol Flynn had few, if any, equals in his generation, but in film that is mostly talk and little action he seems wasted. Morally ambiguous, emotionally conflicted heroes like Essex were rather outside his comfort zone. His co-star Bette Davis wanted Laurence Olivier in the role, but she was overruled by the studio, Warner Brothers, and possibly also by director Michael Curtiz, who had made several earlier films with Flynn. Yet Davis herself also seems miscast, although for different reasons. In 1939 she was 31 (only one year older than Flynn); at the time of Essex's death in 1601 Queen Elizabeth was 68 and, try as she might, Davis was not yet ready to play a woman in her late sixties. (Her second portrayal of Elizabeth in "The Virgin Queen" was to be more successful, largely because that film was made in 1955 when Davis was 47 and set in 1581 when Elizabeth would have been 48).
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" has some good points; it is visually attractive and there is an excellent orchestral score by Erich Korngold, if not quite as famous as the one he was later to write for another Flynn film, "The Sea Hawk". Overall, however, today it seems excessively long-winded, one of those history films which mostly consist of long speeches, especially at the end where Essex tries to justify rebelling against Elizabeth, even though he loves her, and she tries to justify betraying him, even though she loves him. It is not in the same class as Flynn's other collaboration with Curtiz from 1939, "Dodge City". 5/10
A goof. In addition to the film's various historical inaccuracies, there is also a geographical inaccuracy. While in disfavour with the Queen, Essex retires to his estates at Wanstead, Essex- shown here as lying at the foot of a range of mountains, although in reality this is one of the flattest parts of England.
Played like a picolo!
theowinthrop5 June 2004
There was a time, in the early 1920s and 1930s, that Maxwell Anderson was considered a great modern American dramatist. His plays were considered the modern equivalent of Shakespeare or Marlowe or Jonson. This was because he wrote in blank verse. Many of his plays were turned into films, such as WINTERSET and MARY OF SCOTLAND. Even as late as the 1970s Brooks Atkinson (in his book BROADWAY) lauded Anderson to the skies.
In retrospect, one wonders why the praise. Probably because we have not produced many great serious dramatists. I imagine that five names might be pushed at the present: O'Neill, Miller, Williams, Albee, and Inge. Anderson is not revived. His use of blank verse, so impressive to Atkinson, seems pretentious to us. That and his stiff characterizations are major roadblocks to enjoying his work.
But he was flying high in 1939, when Warner Brothers purchased the film rights for ELIZABETH THE QUEEN for Bette Davis at Davis' urging. But she wanted Lawrence Olivier for Essex, and was given Errol Flynn, an actor she did not like to work with. Further, the title was changed (probably based on the Charles Laughton film THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII) to THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX. Actually the original title is better and it is as ELIZABETH THE QUEEN that the film is remembered.
The finished film is actually a good historical work - basically taking the story of Elizabeth I and her last favorite to it's tragic conclusion. Flynn does capture the emotional instability of Essex, who chafed at being in his position of power only because he was the boy-toy of an aging, decrepit monarch. The play/movie makes the affection of the two real, but the actual reality suggests that Essex was more of a male chauvenist than he dared show until the very end. He was in contact with James VI of Scotland (the son of Elizabeth's dead rival Mary, Queen of Scots) about the coming change in regime. This is not covered in the film (and to be fair, Essex's rival Robert Cecil (Henry Daniell) was also in contact with James VI).
The achilles heel of Essex is his desire for glory, and what is fascinating in the film is how everyone plays on his weakness. Elizabeth tries to protect him from his follies, by giving him a high ranking title to keep him in London. But Cecil, his father Lord Burghley (Henry Stephenson), his rival Raleigh (Vincent Price) manage to goad him into leading an army in that permanent quagmire of Ireland. Finally his enemy Tyrone (Alan Hale Sr.) goads him (when he has been beaten) into returning to London and straightening out Elizabeth. Essex does do so. In real history, his men were defeated in the streets of London. In the film he does seize the palace, only to be manipulated by Elizabeth into disarming, and then is arrested for treason.
I don't think Elizabeth actually gave Essex a ring to return to her if he ever needed her help, but his death in 1601 on the headman's block at the Tower of London may have shortened her life. She died in 1603, still Elizabeth the Queen, but also a sad, lonely old woman.
In retrospect, one wonders why the praise. Probably because we have not produced many great serious dramatists. I imagine that five names might be pushed at the present: O'Neill, Miller, Williams, Albee, and Inge. Anderson is not revived. His use of blank verse, so impressive to Atkinson, seems pretentious to us. That and his stiff characterizations are major roadblocks to enjoying his work.
But he was flying high in 1939, when Warner Brothers purchased the film rights for ELIZABETH THE QUEEN for Bette Davis at Davis' urging. But she wanted Lawrence Olivier for Essex, and was given Errol Flynn, an actor she did not like to work with. Further, the title was changed (probably based on the Charles Laughton film THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII) to THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX. Actually the original title is better and it is as ELIZABETH THE QUEEN that the film is remembered.
The finished film is actually a good historical work - basically taking the story of Elizabeth I and her last favorite to it's tragic conclusion. Flynn does capture the emotional instability of Essex, who chafed at being in his position of power only because he was the boy-toy of an aging, decrepit monarch. The play/movie makes the affection of the two real, but the actual reality suggests that Essex was more of a male chauvenist than he dared show until the very end. He was in contact with James VI of Scotland (the son of Elizabeth's dead rival Mary, Queen of Scots) about the coming change in regime. This is not covered in the film (and to be fair, Essex's rival Robert Cecil (Henry Daniell) was also in contact with James VI).
The achilles heel of Essex is his desire for glory, and what is fascinating in the film is how everyone plays on his weakness. Elizabeth tries to protect him from his follies, by giving him a high ranking title to keep him in London. But Cecil, his father Lord Burghley (Henry Stephenson), his rival Raleigh (Vincent Price) manage to goad him into leading an army in that permanent quagmire of Ireland. Finally his enemy Tyrone (Alan Hale Sr.) goads him (when he has been beaten) into returning to London and straightening out Elizabeth. Essex does do so. In real history, his men were defeated in the streets of London. In the film he does seize the palace, only to be manipulated by Elizabeth into disarming, and then is arrested for treason.
I don't think Elizabeth actually gave Essex a ring to return to her if he ever needed her help, but his death in 1601 on the headman's block at the Tower of London may have shortened her life. She died in 1603, still Elizabeth the Queen, but also a sad, lonely old woman.
Some of the behind the scenes stuff is almost more interesting
blanche-211 August 2007
Warner Brothers went all out on this opulent production of "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex," a 1939 film starring Bette Davis, Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Donald Crisp, Nanette Fabray, Alan Hale, Vincent Price, and Henry Daniell. The film is the story of the volatile love affair between Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex and how court politics and ambition thwarted it.
Other reviewers have talked about the behind the scenes aspects. I personally believe that Davis planned on being the only "star" on the premises, and this is a primary reason she didn't want Flynn. At this point, his contract stated that his character had to be named or referred to in the film's title. I'm sure for a woman as professional as Davis, working with the flamboyant Flynn was a nightmare, but I also believe there was a little more to it than that. He could make demands on Warner, too. In wanting Laurence Olivier, she was certainly correct - he would have been magnificent and the film's stature over the years would have grown as it would have seemed less like a Warner Brothers Production with the usual suspects. The fact is, at the time, he wasn't a star yet, which I think played into Davis' plans very well.
Davis is criticized for being over the top; I think she's excellent, playing both a vulnerable older woman and a great queen with emotion and dignity. She's a little mannered, as she always was, but that's what makes her Bette Davis. Her tenderness with the de Havilland and Fabray characters also shows another side to Elizabeth. It is a wonderful portrait of a woman torn between love and duty. It probably was a role she felt close to - she was not considered any great beauty by Hollywood standards, and like many celebrities, she walked the line between her personal and professional life and it often zig-zagged.
One can certainly see how Elizabeth would have been in love with the Essex of Errol Flynn. He was at the peak of his looks in this film - and he wasn't there long due to his lifestyle, so this is to be appreciated. It's not an in-depth portrayal, but he has the romantic fervor and the charm necessary, not to mention a beautiful speaking voice. The romance does come off as an odd one. Possibly with a deeper performance, one could have understood more readily what attracted Essex to the Queen. Here, Flynn as Essex seems too superficial to have really appreciated her.
Olivia de Havilland has a small role given her own stardom - as suggested, this was perhaps Warner's way of humbling her after "Gone with the Wind." He might also have wanted to keep her working since she was under contract. Nevertheless, she is very beautiful and gives a sincere performance. The rest of the cast is top-notch, with veterans like Crisp, Daniell, Price and Hale.
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" is a gorgeous film to look at. The costumes are glorious and the color, muted by today's standards, looks great. It's a good movie - but I would like to see a film of Davis, Flynn, Jack Warner and director Curtiz when they thought the cameras weren't rolling.
Other reviewers have talked about the behind the scenes aspects. I personally believe that Davis planned on being the only "star" on the premises, and this is a primary reason she didn't want Flynn. At this point, his contract stated that his character had to be named or referred to in the film's title. I'm sure for a woman as professional as Davis, working with the flamboyant Flynn was a nightmare, but I also believe there was a little more to it than that. He could make demands on Warner, too. In wanting Laurence Olivier, she was certainly correct - he would have been magnificent and the film's stature over the years would have grown as it would have seemed less like a Warner Brothers Production with the usual suspects. The fact is, at the time, he wasn't a star yet, which I think played into Davis' plans very well.
Davis is criticized for being over the top; I think she's excellent, playing both a vulnerable older woman and a great queen with emotion and dignity. She's a little mannered, as she always was, but that's what makes her Bette Davis. Her tenderness with the de Havilland and Fabray characters also shows another side to Elizabeth. It is a wonderful portrait of a woman torn between love and duty. It probably was a role she felt close to - she was not considered any great beauty by Hollywood standards, and like many celebrities, she walked the line between her personal and professional life and it often zig-zagged.
One can certainly see how Elizabeth would have been in love with the Essex of Errol Flynn. He was at the peak of his looks in this film - and he wasn't there long due to his lifestyle, so this is to be appreciated. It's not an in-depth portrayal, but he has the romantic fervor and the charm necessary, not to mention a beautiful speaking voice. The romance does come off as an odd one. Possibly with a deeper performance, one could have understood more readily what attracted Essex to the Queen. Here, Flynn as Essex seems too superficial to have really appreciated her.
Olivia de Havilland has a small role given her own stardom - as suggested, this was perhaps Warner's way of humbling her after "Gone with the Wind." He might also have wanted to keep her working since she was under contract. Nevertheless, she is very beautiful and gives a sincere performance. The rest of the cast is top-notch, with veterans like Crisp, Daniell, Price and Hale.
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" is a gorgeous film to look at. The costumes are glorious and the color, muted by today's standards, looks great. It's a good movie - but I would like to see a film of Davis, Flynn, Jack Warner and director Curtiz when they thought the cameras weren't rolling.
Simmers When It Should Sizzle
evanston_dad29 November 2008
A talky and rather dramatically inert period drama starring Bette Davis and Errol Flynn.
The sparks are apparently supposed to fly between these two big-time stars, but they instead only intermittently flicker. Davis gives a one-note performance as the woman who struggles between her duties as a queen and her love for her man -- she was such a contemporary actress that it's a shame to see her stifled behind period garb and mannerisms. Flynn is appropriately dashing as the man who loses his head over his queen, but there's not much to his role. The film was based on a stage play and it shows; the usually reliable director Michael Curtiz couldn't seem to find a way to rid the story of its staginess.
The Technicolor looks great though, and fans of production and costume design may want to check the film out for those aspects alone.
Grade: B-
The sparks are apparently supposed to fly between these two big-time stars, but they instead only intermittently flicker. Davis gives a one-note performance as the woman who struggles between her duties as a queen and her love for her man -- she was such a contemporary actress that it's a shame to see her stifled behind period garb and mannerisms. Flynn is appropriately dashing as the man who loses his head over his queen, but there's not much to his role. The film was based on a stage play and it shows; the usually reliable director Michael Curtiz couldn't seem to find a way to rid the story of its staginess.
The Technicolor looks great though, and fans of production and costume design may want to check the film out for those aspects alone.
Grade: B-
"The necessities of a queen must transcend those of a woman."
utgard145 August 2015
Lush costumer from Warner Bros. gives Bette Davis a chance to shine in one of her best roles as Queen Elizabeth I. The movie primarily focuses on the love-hate relationship between Elizabeth and Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex. Devereux is played by Errol Flynn. While Davis was praised by critics at the time, Flynn was criticized for his performance. I think he does a fine job here, as he almost always did. Despite reports the two stars did not get along on set, they have a nice chemistry on screen. The excellent supporting cast includes Olivia de Havilland, Donald Crisp, Vincent Price, Alan Hale, Henry Daniell, and many other memorable actors. Directed by Michael Curtiz with a wonderful Erich Wolfgang Korngold score. It's a period drama, considered a "woman's picture" by many. Whatever you call it, it's a prime example of Old Hollywood filmmaking that should please most classic film fans. Historical accuracy nitpickers might not like it so much.
Queen Bette
jotix10028 April 2005
The main interest in this 1939 film is the great performance by Bette Davis. It was a role she was born to play. Her input on the film makes it work in unexpected ways. Under the direction of Michael Curtiz, the stage play, by Maxwell Anderson, gets a great Technicolor production. The adaptation by Norman Reilly Raine and Aeneas McKenzie, works well.
The main thing is not to look for real history in this movie. We are given a fictionalized account of what Mr. Anderson thought was drama, taking dramatic license along the way. With all that into account, the film rewards the viewers splendidly.
Errol Flynn was cast as Robert Devereux for his good looks, no doubt. He offers such a contrast against the aging Elizabeth, that one wonders what could have attracted these two souls into a love both felt for one another. Mr. Flynn is not as effective here as in some of his other vehicles, where he reigned supreme. In this movie, he is totally outfoxed by a cunning Bette Davis. Both stars brought their own chemistry to the roles and it's curious that after all the years since it was released, the film still fascinates.
Olivia de Havilland plays a minor role of Penelope. It's curious seeing her in some frames with Errol Flynn, her partner in many movies where they played lovers to better effect. The supporting cast is excellent. Donald Crisp, Alan Hale, Vincent Price, Henry Stephenson, Nanette Fabray and Herny Daniell, among others, support the two stars well.
Ultimately this was one of the best films Bette Davis graced with her appearance. The film remains one of her signature creations. This Elizabeth offered her a role in which she could portray one of the strongest women in history. Ms. Davis outshines others whenever they are seen in scenes together.
Long live this queen! Long live Queen Bette!
The main thing is not to look for real history in this movie. We are given a fictionalized account of what Mr. Anderson thought was drama, taking dramatic license along the way. With all that into account, the film rewards the viewers splendidly.
Errol Flynn was cast as Robert Devereux for his good looks, no doubt. He offers such a contrast against the aging Elizabeth, that one wonders what could have attracted these two souls into a love both felt for one another. Mr. Flynn is not as effective here as in some of his other vehicles, where he reigned supreme. In this movie, he is totally outfoxed by a cunning Bette Davis. Both stars brought their own chemistry to the roles and it's curious that after all the years since it was released, the film still fascinates.
Olivia de Havilland plays a minor role of Penelope. It's curious seeing her in some frames with Errol Flynn, her partner in many movies where they played lovers to better effect. The supporting cast is excellent. Donald Crisp, Alan Hale, Vincent Price, Henry Stephenson, Nanette Fabray and Herny Daniell, among others, support the two stars well.
Ultimately this was one of the best films Bette Davis graced with her appearance. The film remains one of her signature creations. This Elizabeth offered her a role in which she could portray one of the strongest women in history. Ms. Davis outshines others whenever they are seen in scenes together.
Long live this queen! Long live Queen Bette!
Wonderfully mercurial and belligerent
moonspinner5528 February 2007
Terrific adaptation of Maxwell Anderson's play, "Elizabeth The Queen", and just one of many incredible pictures to be released in 1939. Featuring sumptuous color cinematography and production design, the film is headlined by a grand, deliciously brittle Bette Davis performance as hot-tempered Queen Elizabeth I, presiding over England in 1596 and battling with sometime-lover Lord Essex (Errol Flynn) during England's war with Spain. Hollywood's usual twisting of historical facts doesn't put a damper on the mercurial dramatic storytelling, and the film is colorfully enacted by a great cast including Olivia de Havilland, Vincent Price, and Alan Hale. Fans and critics alike continue to quibble over Flynn's casting and performance (Bette did too, famously at the time), yet he more than holds his own with La Davis, creating sparks with her in the calmer moments while putting up a roguish, devilish front for the rest. *** from ****
Like going home again
kidcrowbar11 May 2002
I think the last time I saw this movie was probably over thirty years ago on the late-nite movie during Errol Flynn week. The local PBS station just showed it tonight and I was very impressed. I hardly knew who Bette Davis was back then, but now that I do know her, I was pleasantly surprised not to see her in this movie. Her Elizabeth was so unlike what I've come to expect from Davis that it was like seeing her for the first time.
Flynn, of course, is Flynn, and I refuse to say anything bad about a guy as handsome as him that wears thigh-high boots throughout the movie.
I thought the script was intelligent, the dialogue realistic, and the pacing pretty good. Yes, it flagged a couple of times, but never for more than a moment and the next scene picked it right up again. Except for de Haviland, the supporting cast doesn't have much to do and Vincent Price is more or less wasted. Those are minor quibbles, however, as overall the movie seems to have held up amazingly well.
I gave it a rating of 9 stars. It's not perfect, but it's very good, and Bette Davis is outstanding. And did I mention Flynn's boots?
Flynn, of course, is Flynn, and I refuse to say anything bad about a guy as handsome as him that wears thigh-high boots throughout the movie.
I thought the script was intelligent, the dialogue realistic, and the pacing pretty good. Yes, it flagged a couple of times, but never for more than a moment and the next scene picked it right up again. Except for de Haviland, the supporting cast doesn't have much to do and Vincent Price is more or less wasted. Those are minor quibbles, however, as overall the movie seems to have held up amazingly well.
I gave it a rating of 9 stars. It's not perfect, but it's very good, and Bette Davis is outstanding. And did I mention Flynn's boots?
More romance than history, but beautiful to look at
jamesrupert201411 May 2020
Fictional (probably) romance involving the Queen Elizabeth I (Bette Davis) and Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex (Errol Flynn) against the background of war and court intrigues. Famously, Davis was 30 years too young to be playing the aging Queen Bess and although she makes a game effort (shaving off some of her hair and eyebrows), her consent twitching and quavering (presumably an attempt to appear elderly) becomes distracting after a while (I initially assumed that the Queen had Parkinson's or some kind of palsy, but apparently not). The film is based on a play ('Elizabeth the Queen' by Maxwell Anderson), and is quite 'talky' with a very theatrical, stagy look (even the scenes in the Irish bogs look like they could have been done live in a theatre). Although clearly more at home playing a flamboyant hero, Flynn (who was the correct age) is pretty good as the conflicted Essex and the rest of the cast is fine. The sets and costumes are fabulous.
Intelligence vs. beauty
TheJabberwocky22 September 2006
There are really no words to convey the beauty of this movie, its intelligence, its cleverness. All the casting is brilliant, but Bette Davis here is something unbelievable. Every gesture, every tiny detail is perfect: it makes perfect sense that even an handsome and brilliant man like Flynn's character could fell in love with such a woman. I started to watch this movie just out of curiosity towards a combination that seemed totally absurd to me: old, charismatic Bette Davis, and handsome, vacuous Flynn. And yet from the first scene where the two main actors are together alone, after Essex returns to the court, I was just amazed. They were perfect. They matched perfectly. I do not think Bette Davis was larger then life here: she IS a queen, the most powerful woman of her century, and she just acts so, and does that with such a wit an energy and a charismatic force to draw you to her. You fell in love. Like Essex did. De Havilland characters in all the others Flynn's movie just can't hold a candle. She's the perfect match. Seeing her laughing, fidgeting, sitting! This is one of the interpretations that impressed me the most, among the little I've seen so far. And Errol Flynn can be next to her without fading away, and this says a lot about the acting ability of one who was "famous only for his good looks". To the devil his good looks! Go on, putt Brad Pitt there, and see if good looks are enough to stand side by side with something like queen Bette Davis. He's warm, delicate, passionate... The incredible appeal of this movie to me is its cleverness. The whole movie is an incredible metaphor of how little does beauty mean in terms of emotion. The couple Essex/Elizabeth is made out of intellectual passion and wit and their outstanding quarrels prove it: so different from the mundane "love bickering", they are fight of brains and power, between two passionate souls. And the movie is just the same: its strength isn't the lush historical setting, or the good looking of anyone, but the intelligence of every single detail of it.
Bette Davis opposite Errol Flynn in this historical drama
jacobs-greenwood9 December 2016
A love story really, between two "heavyweights": Elizabeth I (Bette Davis) and the Earl of Essex (Errol Flynn). Essex has returned victorious from Spain, but the success of his mission is questioned by the Queen, who drained the treasury and taxed her people to support him, only to have him return, and earn the people's favor, without the needed spoils (funds) of war. Therefore, he is a threat to her throne.
Donald Crisp plays an adviser to both, but friend to Essex. Henry Daniell, Henry Stephenson and Vincent Price play political opponents of Essex, who conspire to ruin him. Olivia de Havilland plays a lady in Elizabeth's court who adores Essex, even after she discovers that his love is for the Queen only, though she's unknowingly used by Daniell's character against him. Alan Hale, instead of playing his typical role as Flynn's sidekick, plays his opponent in another war.
Davis overacts a bit, but otherwise gives her usual solid performance, though Flynn is every bit her equal.
Directed by Michael Curtiz. Nominated for five Academy Awards: Art Direction, Color Cinematography, Special Effects, Sound, and Musical Score. Based on Maxwell Anderson's play, the screenplay was co- written by Norman Reilly Raine.
Donald Crisp plays an adviser to both, but friend to Essex. Henry Daniell, Henry Stephenson and Vincent Price play political opponents of Essex, who conspire to ruin him. Olivia de Havilland plays a lady in Elizabeth's court who adores Essex, even after she discovers that his love is for the Queen only, though she's unknowingly used by Daniell's character against him. Alan Hale, instead of playing his typical role as Flynn's sidekick, plays his opponent in another war.
Davis overacts a bit, but otherwise gives her usual solid performance, though Flynn is every bit her equal.
Directed by Michael Curtiz. Nominated for five Academy Awards: Art Direction, Color Cinematography, Special Effects, Sound, and Musical Score. Based on Maxwell Anderson's play, the screenplay was co- written by Norman Reilly Raine.
Bette is DA BOMB!
ldavis-28 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Nobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and "Elizabeth and Essex" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.
Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?
What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?
Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?
What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
