The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

Bette Davis stars in four major motion pictures released during the year 1939. However, this is the only one with Errol Flynn, which depending on one's point of view makes it either worth seeing or worth staying away from.Mostly, Miss Davis' costar is a capable actor, and anyone who may have doubts about that should look no further than his death scene as the Earl of Essex. Yet despite the solid production values, a rather entertaining script and the overall atmosphere of the picture, something seems slightly amiss. Perhaps it is because the two lead actors do not exactly register the sort of romantic chemistry this story requires.Olivia De Havilland, usually cast as Mr. Flynn's love interest in the studio's other costume dramas, is given the supporting part of Lady Penelope Gray. She has been underused in this spectacle, and her part could easily have gone to a lesser actress. Similarly underutilized is Vincent Price who does well with a small but significant role as Sir Walter Raleigh. As for Miss Davis and her brand of acting, she's intense, and she's certainly dramatic, but it is obvious she is playing the Queen of the Warners Lot more than she is playing Queen Elizabeth I. It would have been a vast improvement if her performance did not lack subtlety and if it contained real luminosity. Nevertheless, this film is often extraordinary in spite of Miss Davis and its other shortcomings, mostly because of Erich Korngold's wonderful score; the costumes; the set design; and the cinematography.

This 1939 movie is loosely based on the story of Elizabeth and her "favourite", Robert Devereaux, the 3rd Earl of Essex. To sum up the plot in a few words (without giving away the ending): they love each other intensely, but their relationship is fraught with the complexities of their personalities and positions. Elizabeth is very much a queen, Essex a headstrong military man eyeing the throne.The actual historical events have been simplified and changed, so if you feel cheated by historical movies that stray from the facts, you might as well skip this one.I am not a fan of old movies. I have little interest in old-time stars like Bette Davis and Errol Flynn. But this was an eye-opener for me. Davis's acting and Flynn's magnetism leapt out at me, even though I was watching their performances 75 years after the fact.Bette Davis was superb. In this film she WAS Elizabeth, in almost every sense of the word. Her performance was so magnificent on so many levels, I can't even begin to go into it.And Errol Flynn. Well, the main thing about Errol Flynn in this movie is that he was really physically attractive. This movie helped me to understand the star appeal of Errol Flynn two generations ago. However, Flynn's acting here was not as strong as Davis's. He didn't really convey the overweening pride that the script called for.The sets and costumes are impressive. There is a lot of Elizabethan pageantry in the movie.This is a queen who always has on her magnificent formal clothing, jewelry and make-up. All the time, even when she's relaxing with her ladies-in-waiting in the evening or pitching woo to Essex. In this movie Elizabeth never lets her hair down. Literally. Was this a child-like movie portrayal of a queen? Or was it historically accurate? It's hard to say, but it felt unrealistic to me. I suppose you could see it as a metaphor for a woman who identified completely with her role as queen.It was a little surreal to see this ageing iconic queen (almost kabuki-like in appearance) in a passionate embrace with a young vibrant male god. In 2012 we recognise them immediately as cougar and boy toy. How shocking it must have been in 1939 to see Essex slapping the Shakespearean Elizabeth on the ass and talking to her with the rude familiarity of an Australian lover. This was 1939, however. There was only so much you could show. In this movie Elizabeth and Essex have a lot to say to each other. In those days movie fans had to be satisfied with repeated professions of love rather than actual depictions of it. Just as they had to be satisfied with the symbolic imagery of the Nine Years' War rather than anything realistic.What Elizabeth sees in Essex is plain to see. But what could Essex possibly see in Elizabeth behind all that make-up and imperial hauteur? Of course her age and make-up didn't matter to him: he was in love with her. But did he love her for her herself or for her throne? This was Elizabeth's dilemma. Essex truly loved her, but he was also ambitious. He loved her as his queen, his ageing kabuki queen. And he was a man, so he could do better on the throne than she.All Elizabeth had to do to land this stud was to give up her pride and offer him her kingdom. All Essex had to do to wed his queen was to give up his pride and be content with being her consort. Could they make it work? Who would have expected such an intriguing psychological angle in a movie from 1939. This hooked me into caring what happened. In particular, their anguish and their struggle with this predicament were realistic and palpable (in a 1939 sort of way).

This is without a doubt, one of the worst movies I've seen so far. Don't let the publicity fool you, my fine friends. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex is an appalling, melodramatic contest between two of the greatest actors who ever lived. People will say to me, "But it has Bette Davis and Errol Flynn! How could it be bad?" Well, my reply to this is, "Everyone makes a sucker." This is simply the sappiest, most unscrupulously ignorant films of the twentieth century. It is just terrible. I know, I should go easy on it. Lot's of people liked it. But enough of mincing words!Here is the gist of the rather sensible plot. Bette Davis plays Queen Elizabeth I. Errol Flynn plays her lover and enemy, Robert the Earl of Essex. Now through an unfortunate series of events, Essex gets shipped off to Ireland to fight a rebel called Tyrone (Alan Hale). Over the course of the several months in Ireland, Essex and Elizabeth slowly learn to hate each other. Now if they just decided to leave each other because they can't stand each other, that would make sense. But oh no! Back Mr. Flynn comes to tell Elizabeth how much he loves her, but hates her all the same. She loves him, and then hates him just the same. These two showmen go back and forth with each other for the entire one hundred six minutes of the movie. At the beginning, they both love each other. Then they hate each other. Finally one decides they don't hate the other, and the other decides they really do hate the other one. Confusing, isn't it? The minute one decides to put aside their differences, the other decides that they shouldn't be together. So these two Schizophrenics go around pulling this same sappy junk over and over again. And the dialog they say it in is just cringe-worthy. Why Jack Warner aloud this to be released under the prestigious name of Warner Brothers Pictures, Incorporated is beyond me.So, on we go, down one of the most boring and indulgent paths in film history. And the story leads nowhere. I won't give away the end for those of you who wish to see this garbage. This film had everything going for it. Great actors, an excellent supporting cast, a great director (Michael Curtiz of Casablanca), and a descent story concept. But this is a film like the following scenario: You have gone to church your entire life. Every year there is a sermon about Easter Sunday. Every time you hear it, you think, "Oh what a lovely story. It's so nice that nobody can tell it wrong." Well, no matter how great a story is, there's always someone who can botch it up. And it really must have been difficult! How could they go wrong with the material? But somehow they did! This film is so surprisingly terrible that one wonders if it wasn't the mix of all these great qualities found together that was its downfall. By the end of this film, you start to wish that one of these frenemies would shove a sword down the other's throat. They are so melancholy and over done.Bette Davis, looking ever so lovely as the Queen, never even starts to perform like she did in so many other films. She just starts downhill and keeps on rolling. Flynn is not quite so pathetic. He starts off as his usual charming character, but eventually gets wound up in the sap entrapping the rest of the characters. I love the way these two play off each other. In one scene, they are kissing on the steps of the Queen's study. They pledge their indissoluble love for one another, then about thirty seconds later, she pushes him away and tells him get out of her sight. I think this couple's problem is that they are much too prideful and stubborn. Bette is as hard-headed as a mule and won't budge an inch for anyone, even Essex (up till the very end). And Flynn is a prideful snob who wouldn't dishonor himself even to save his mother. So on and on and on, and back and forth and back and forth bounce these two fools in love. It's rather like a Pong game, until the film seems almost interminable. There is some debate over whether old films were actually better than new films, or if the nostalgia just makes them seem better. That may be the case, because this film does not represent the Golden Age well at all. In fact it ridicules it.It's interesting how well melodrama works in some cases (i.e.: Gone With the Wind, Moby Dick), but here it is just a flop. No dramatic value comes out of the laughably over exaggerated voice inflexions and body movements. It's almost like a silent film with dialog. Sort of like in Singin' in the Rain when they release their first talkie. This is even more drawn out than stage acting. But now one may ask, "Do you recommend this movie." Now for those of you who have read my other reviews, you know I have a tendency to recommend bad films because they are so bad they are funny. In the words of Joe Gillis "It's fun to see how bad bad writing can be." This is not such a case. This is bad and boring. This is just a boring cookie covered with sap.So my advice is to skip it. Don't even glance at it in the video store. It's not worth your money or my money, or Warner Bros.' money to distribute it. So avoid this picture at all costs. Make no attempt to see it. Now I'm being melodramatic. No matter. I just hope I can wash the sap off after viewing this.www.colewebbharter.com

Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, The (1939) *** 1/2 (out of 4) An elderly Queen Elizabeth (Bette Davis) and the younger Essex (Errol Flynn) battle their hatred through their wild passion for one another in this historical drama, while not accurate, still manages to hit all the right marks. Once again it's director Michael Curtiz pulling all the strings and getting every right. Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Donald Crisp, Vincent Price, Alan Hale and Henry Daniell all deliver wonderful performances but even they look poor next to Davis who is absolutely remarkable. I just love the way Davis is constantly fidgeting around during every scene. You can just look at her and see a tormented woman burned by her love for this younger man. The scene that starts off with her playing chess to having all the mirrors removed is among the greatest work I've seen from any actress in any film. The love story is beautifully told and is quite touching especially the ending, which is pulled together very nicely. Also, is it just me or at the start of the film when Davis slaps Flynn, did it strike anyone else that Flynn really wanted to knock the hell out of her?