Young Bess (1953)

Yes, it's about a romantic love conflict during the time Queen Elizabeth I was developing into womanhood, but it's not as bad as some. The costumes are colorful and the acting meets professional standards, in the case of Charles Laughton as Henry VII, rather beyond that. What a slob. I had to memorize all these kings and queens in high school. I remember all of them precisely -- Ethelred the Black, Frederik the Fatuous, Donald the Impotent, and Ivan the Terrible. Maybe I remember them as well as I do because the class was taught by the venomous and ill-favored Miss Chelydra Serpentina, Spinster, she who must be obeyed.I've always kind of liked Jean Simmons, who plays Bess. She's not strikingly beautiful but she was splendid as Ophelia in Olivier's "Hamlet" and perfect as Estella in "Great Expectations." She's also good natured. I watched a location shoot in Echo Park and she played chipper word games with Ed Asner, a monster egotist. Here's Asner, shouting angrily to the director, "All right, let's get this thing going -- or are we only here to amuse the public!", meanwhile staring around and basking in the attention.Stewart Granger is always likable too, handsome, sun tanned, and sporting a reassuring baritone. Unluckily he's cast in the part of the Admiral who loves two women at the same time -- the sassy and independent Jean Simmons, and the delicate and understanding Deborah Kerr. He pays for it, traduced by his own brother.You'll probably enjoy it. It's a commercial entity. There are no scenes of action but not much abject sobbing either. A decent semi-historical love story with impressive wardrobe and production design.

Jean Simmons a half a century before Cate Blanchett gives another view of a young Elizabeth Tudor before she became Queen of England. The period covered is roughly the last year of Henry VIII reign until Elizabeth became Queen with an emphasis on the early years of Edward VI. For those of us who remember the regal Elizabeth that Bette Davis and Flora Robson have played this is a reminder Elizabeth was young once herself.Elizabeth I was one remarkable woman who sacrificed all for her country, including a small measure of personal happiness. Of the many men in her life, part of the story here is that of the first. Her experience with Thomas Seymour taught her well.Stewart Granger is the bold and reckless Thomas Seymour who made an incredible reach for power. Seymour upon the death of Henry VIII marries his last wife and widow Catherine Parr played by Deborah Kerr to assure a place in court. He then even while Parr is alive romances young Elizabeth who was of course daughter Henry's second queen Anne Boleyn.Granger and Guy Rolfe as Edward Seymour were the uncles of young Edward VI who was the child of Henry's third queen and their sister Jane Seymour. When Henry died they were his guardians and regents of the minor king. But Tom played for bigger stakes than that, even trying to ace his brother out and assume total power. He paid with his life and later Rolfe is also executed and it all blows up when Edward VI dies and the Catholic Queen Mary the older sister to both Elizabeth and Edward takes over. Through all of this Young Bess treads through a court minefield.Simmons is remarkable as Young Bess who learns the political and royal arts early on and moves with a cat's caution for her own survival and eventual succession to the throne. The film also offers an early cameo appearance for Charles Laughton to reprise his Oscar winning role of Henry VIII. Even in his last year, Henry VIII is a man very much in control until the second he can't fog a mirror. Then the games begin. Deborah Kerr is touching as the Dowager Queen, confused, compassionate, but ultimately heartbroken.Best of all is young Rex Thompson as Edward VI. Young Bess offers a rare opportunity to see what happens to Edward, half of the two twin protagonists in Mark Twain's beloved The Prince And The Pauper. It wasn't happily ever after for Edward as king, just a child pawn in a continual struggle for power between rival court factions in the film and in real life. I'm sure the real Edward wished at times he could have changed places with a doppleganger beggar boy for real. Young Bess got two Oscar nominations for Art&Design and Costume design. It's a lavish production graced with a fine cast and not too inaccurate as history either.

How many films have been made about Alfred the Great, the only English monarch with the nickname "the Great". Only one, made in the 1960s I believe. There is, to my knowledge no film about William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings, although there are at least six versions of Shakespeare's MACBETH (who was William's contemporary monarch in Scotland!).There is one film about the Normans of William's time - THE WARLORD (1965) with Charleton Heston and Richard Boone. It's a very good film, but it never shows William. No films about St. Edward the Confessor, Ethelred the Unready, William Rufus, or Hardecanute (remember the Danish Viking ruler of England who whipped the disobedient waves of the Channel). The first major English monarch who is made the subject of a big film is Henry II, the role played (both times) by Peter O'Toole in BECKET and THE LION IN WINTER. Significantly his two roles stem from two major plays of the 1950s and 1960s. His son Richard I ("the Lion-Hearted") appears in THE LION IN WINTER, but earlier films included THE CRUSADES, ROBIN HOOD, IVANHOE, KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS, and ROBIN AND MARION. Richard is really the first English monarch to appear in more than just a couple of films - but notice, even though he is a central figure the films tend to deal with the Third Crusade he helped to lead, or the machinations of his brother "Prince John", or the possibly fictional figure of Robin, Earl of Locksley (known as "Robin Hood"). While THE CRUSADES and KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS deal with him and Berengaria (his wife), and try to build a romantic and chivalric triangle between them and Saladin, the actual sexual interests of Richard seem to be closer to the performance of Anthony Hopkins in THE LION IN WINTER. Oddly there is no film about King John and his failure to control his nobles (not even a film version of Shakespeare's historic play, although a television movie version was made starring Leonard Rossiter as John in the 1980s - but the BBC were filming the entire series of the plays). Nor of the fights led by Simon De Montford against Henry III that led to the creation of the House of Commons. Occasional films pick up on a few monarchs - BRAVEHEART giving a look at Edward I and his witless son; Christopher Marlowe's EDWARD II showing what happened to the witless son; CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT being Orson Welles's take on Henry IV and Prince Hal (but concentrating on Sir John Falstaff); and both Olivier and Branagh dealing with HENRY V in two startling great and different interpretations. Then there is another biggie: Old Crookback - RICHARD III in Olivier's production set in the 1470s and 1480s, or the version by Sir Ian McKellan set in the 1930s, or TOWER OF London with Rathbone (a distinctive Richard) abetted by Karloff, and then a version with Vincent Price (who was Clarence in TOWER OF London).This brings us to the champs of British Royals in film - the Tudors. Henry VII always pops up in the Richard films (he has to - he wins at Bosworth Field). Yet no film specifically about Henry VII has been made. Not so Henry VIII, Edward VI, Jane Gray, and Elizabeth (not much for "Bloody Mary") though. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII, THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, ANNE OF A THOUSAND DAYS, THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER (at least 3 versions, including one called CROSSED SWORDS), YOUNG BESS, SIX DAY QUEEN, ELIZABETH, MARY OF Scotland (Mary, Queen of Scots, was Henry VIII's niece), MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS, THE VIRGIN QUEEN, THE SEA HAWK, FIRE OVER ENGLAND, THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX / ELIZABETH THE QUEEN, Shakespeare IN LOVE. No other British Royal Family has been as chronicled in films as the Tudors. Think of it. Charles I was the center of so much turmoil that he eventually was executed after a trial following a series of Civil Wars he lost to Oliver Cromwell. Only one film about him was made - and a bad one - CROMWELL (emphasizing the victor of those wars). But the Tudors generate more interest - there is more skulduggery and treason in their reigns than most, and England becomes a great nation (and a cultural fountainhead) at the end of it all. YOUNG BESS is a small joy - it deals with the forgotten career of Admiral Thomas Seymour, uncle of King Edward VI, and would-be romantic wooer of Princess Elizabeth. He also was the last of Katherine Parr's three husbands (Henry VIII being the second). It is the second time that Laughton plays the great monarch, and the terrible fury of the man is shown in two shots showing his hand caressing the neck of Elizabeth's doomed mother Anne Boleyn, and later caressing the neck of the doomed Catherine Howard in the same way. Most interesting is the casting of Jean Simmons and Steward Granger as Princess Elizabeth and Admiral Tom Seymour. They were married at the time, so their scenes together have an extra-something to them (like the Burtons some ten years later). YOUNG BESS is not accurate history, but it is good film making. You will view this film with satisfaction.

There really isn't much more that I can add that hasn't been said in previous reviews.Yes,it's historically quite inaccurate with regard to :a.)Tom Seymour's character.b.)The fact that Elizabeth wasn't at all interested in him,romantically.c.)The way Tom Seymour was sent to execution,not at the instigation of his brother,but as a result of his own (failed)machinations.What I found most interesting,however,was the device of having a real-life husband and wife performing the roles of an erotically charged romantic situation.It adds an extra depth,and degree of verisimilitude to what is going on on-screen. Regarding the production,see my comments on "Diane."They apply here equally.