The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex

I'm surprised to see so many raves here for this stinker. I have great respect for Bette Davis and--yes!--for Errol Flynn as well but they are woefully miscast as lovers here and the unease which others have noted that Flynn displays is one that I happened to share as well--and I only had to watch this thing, not act in it! From the opening moments Davis overplays the part. If I'd seen it in a theater I would not have been able to stay seated because Davis's non-stop mannerisms and nervous energy would have made me squirm in my seat far more effectively than the electric wires that were rigged to the seats at screenings of "The Tingler!" But to be fair Davis's histrionics come out of the unrealistic lines she's given. It's ludicrous to expect that the Queen would be speaking her most intimate thoughts out loud to every one of her handmaidens and advisers ad nauseum the way she does here. The opening pageantry is beautiful and a great showpiece--but this promise of an historical epic on the order of "Robin Hood" is never fulfilled. The bulk of the movie takes place in Elizabeth's court and private rooms: there are no dashing outdoor adventures (though there are a couple of unconvincing, plodding battle scenes) and very little humor to break the oppressive mood. In short, nothing that plays to both Michael Curtiz's and Errol Flynn's strengths. Everything feels very staged--betraying the scripts origins as a play. And the play obviously wasn't any good, either. There's never any reason given for the supposed romance between these two. Although the conflict that tears Elizabeth apart--between her duty and her love--is endlessly worked over, it's all "tell" and no "show". The grim ending will leave you grieving not for the characters but for the entire enterprise: what a waste!

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?

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.

Bette Davis and Errol Flynn, the Queen and King of Warner Bros. in the late '30s and early '40s, only worked together a couple of times. "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" is their major effort, and it's a very good one. Warners pulled out all the stops for this Technicolor extravaganza, and Curtiz directs with a sure hand. Erich Wolfgang Korngold's music is wonderful. The real star of the show, though, is Ms. Davis as Queen Elizabeth. With all the on-screen Elizabeths to choose from, you won't forget hers. I had just watched "The Sea Hawk" where Errol faces another great Elizabeth, Dame Flora Robson (even though they only have a couple of scenes together, but Errol seems much more at ease in that picture). Bette made no secret of her dislike for the freewheeling, womanizing, undisciplined Flynn, and criticized his performance opposite her for years afterwards (although if memory serves she eventually relented and admitted he wasn't bad). Some may take issue with the pacing of the movie, but Bette's so good, Errol's so handsome, and the dialogue so adult and refreshing (and don't forget the reliable villain Henry Daniell), you can't help but like it.

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!

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?

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)

This one Errol Flynn movie that is very hard and tiring to sit through. I have no idea what the hell he was thinking when he signed up for this boring, soap opera movie. This movie is boring, boring, boring, boring. There are endless and endless scenes of nothing but boring talking between Errol and Bette Davis. Scenes like "does she love me, does he love me. Does she hate me, does he hate me." Dialouge that can knock out the audience in a matter of five minutes. Good acting from Errol and Bette, but a lousy ass script. I think the reason Errol Flynn did this movie anyway is to take a break from his action movies and do something a little more quitier, excuse me a lot more quieter. He did though make up for it the following year, starring in three action packed adventures. This is one film that only Errol Flynn fans could only sit through, other fans would probably use the 106 minute running time to take a nice breather. * out of ****.

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.

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.