mark.waltz This is one of the rare color movies of the late 1930's, and the only one that Bette Davis made during her 17 years at Warner Brothers. Only in her 30's when she played the part, Davis became Queen Elizabeth, just as other actresses as worthy as her have done two or more times. But Davis, the Meryl Streep of her day, didn't get roles like this without struggle, and by 1939, she was a two time Academy Award winning actress, the most powerful woman in Hollywood, referred to by some as the fifth Warner Brother.One of several films in which she co- starred with both Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, this film is nevertheless dominated by Davis's every move. Like the virgin queen, Davis is in command, and Davis uses every trick she knows to keep all eyes on her. In a year of four great films added to her resume, she makes Elizabeth seem so unlike there's any acting going on. Flynn and de Havilland get some good moments, with Vincent Price in a smaller role, and British history gets a nice screen presentation. Period detail all superb, given the Warner Brothers gloss and that sensational sound that only they could record.

James Hitchcock 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.

bobsgrock The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex is a play brought to the big screen and essentially left untouched. There are only a few minor sequences depicting Essex trying to overthrow rebels in Ireland, while the rest takes place in the palace between Essex and his queen, Elizabeth I.Playing these two lovers are two of the finest actors of Hollywood's Golden Age: Bette Davis and Errol Flynn. Davis, almost unrecognizable here, is near-perfect in her mannerisms and moods as the tortured queen torn between the man she loves and the throne she craves more. Flynn, not known for being able to perform at this high a level, is also quite good as a man whose greatest weakness is his love for power, which perhaps escalates his love for Elizabeth. Indeed, their scenes are quite entertaining not only for the acting but the way these two fascinating characters who seemingly care as much for each other as they do for their own personal ambition to rise in fame and fortune.Here, we see an early example of how to adapt a play to the movies, with great bravado and strong acting. Despite the costumes and settings being marvelous and epic in scale and beauty, the true center of each scene and the film belongs to Davis and Flynn, who despite not caring for one another are able to conquer it and convince us that these two did love each other. There really are no surprises or anything unconventional here. Olivia de Havilland is underused as a lady-in-waiting to the queen and Alan Hale nearly steals the show in his one scene as the rebellious Earl of Tyrone. Other than that, this is the show starring David and Flynn, and how great they both are!

evanston_dad 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-