Absolutely incredible that Olivia de Havilland, who plays Lady Penelope, could appear in this film in 1939 (the same year as her performance in "Gone With The Wind") and could still be with us eighty-one years later in 2020. Almost as remarkable is that Davis -- thirty-one when this film was made -- could be so utterly convincing as the sixty-seven year old Elizabeth.
@romain reuter Indeed she did. A life very well lived. I might add that, while I admire everything she did on screen, I think that it's a bit of a pity that she's most remembered for Melanie in "Gone With The Wind", when her two best performances were as Marian Fitzwalter in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and Catherine Sloper in "The Heiress" (the latter one of the most perfect cinematic realizations of a fine literary work EVER, right up there with the Deborah Kerr film "The Inmocents", which is, coincidentally or not, another film of a Henry James story.) I don't know who Olivia's heirs were, but they must now be VERY rich. I grew up in France, and nobody has to tell me what a large, luxurious mansion in the heart of Paris fetches. Rest in peace, Miss de Havilland.
This is a great piece of actor training material. Every slight nuance of 'individuality' and 'personal idiosyncrasy' that Davis injects into her delivery lifts each shot out of its cloying Hollywood predictability and formulaic blandness. Kubrick, in his time, looked to his actors to deliver a combination of convincing and interesting performances (and would run through countless takes to get these). Flynn plays a perfectly convincing heroic stereotype as Essex, but nothing more. Davis is both convincing and interestingly quirky. Sometimes you need to have some overwhelmingly distracting quirkiness to maintain the suspension of disbelief needed to stop reminding yourself that this is nothing more than syrupy Hollywood hokiness masquerading as realistic historical drama. But Davis's on-screen creativity and imagination deliver such a credibly tormented and mercurial Queen that we could easily imagine that we were watching something unmistakeably Shakespearian rather than a showcase for Warner Bros' top golden age box office talent. Then again, it was directed by Curtiz and he went on to direct Casablanca only a few years after this.
Davis evidently considered her performance the bee's knees and Flynn's a failure, but with time his natural approach aged better while she looks like a Kabuki dancer! (She did soften her opinion later, I do believe.)
Twenty years after this movie came out, the 50-year-old, about-to-die Flynn was a bloated wreck after decades of drinking, drugs and partying. This 1939 effort shows him at his physical peak.
I don't think any of the real historical personages were as good looking as the actors cast to portray them in film. Actors are nearly always better looking than the vast majority of the population. In this historical period people weren't in the best health, including those of royal lineage, and that would likely be reflected in their appearance. Portraits of famous individuals are typically average looking yet painters were paid to be 'complimentary' of their subjects, especially if they were prominent individuals.
@@jamesaron1967 I've been looking at some of these youtubes that give historical figures animation and color. If these are accurate, I am surprised at just how good looking some historical figures were, e.g. Ann Boleyn and Alexander the Great. But in general, I agree with you. Historical figures are not as good looking as the actors that portray them in films. No one, after all, wants to pay money at the cinema to look at ugly people.
I'm not taking anything away from Bette Davis as an actress, but this characterisation of Elizabeth is neurotic and unsympathetic. Flora Robson in 'The Sea Hawk' is a more engaging Queen (I realise that's a completely different kind of film). It's great to see Olivia and Errol in Technicolour again and the supporting cast is A+. Likewise, Curtiz & the production team and Korngold.
I regard Bette Davis as one of the greatest actresses that ever was, but she was so wrong for this part it's painful to watch. Elizabeth I was a tough woman, but also an intelectual, a strategist, a diplomat and a politician. Her reign was so influenced by her own upbringing, that theres an entire age of literature, painting and arts named after her. Playing Elizabeth I is playing a Queen running an entire kingdom with an iron fist yet with grace of the nobel upbringing, whereas Davis sounds like a Madame running the town's brothel with a though attitude of the upbringing in a barn. Bette Davis strongest attribute when it came to acting, was that she was real, authentic and transparent, everything Elizabeth I wasn't. A pattron of the arts, was the one part, Davis could never play, because it simply wasn't her.
AL I think your complaint is valid...However Davis is playing the Elizabeth of Maxwell Anderson's play...She is OLDER and suspicious and there is a scene in the complete film where one of her lords ( a council member) wants RICHARD II closed down and she refuses to let him do it...I have come to like her interpretation and it is hard to think of anyone else playing the part...Davis did not like Flynn's interpretation and he is pretty good also...The both of them strike some sparks...
After watching FLORA ROBSON in 2 movies, I can see that Bette was not a good choice for the role. However this filme has great music, cinematography and art direction and costumes.
A fine film, with one glaring exception: the overheated, overplayed performance of Bette Davis. It's all external artifice, without a single glimpse of the real woman. Davis displays every one of the phony mannerisms that would soon be the ruination of her career as a serious actress.
@@RenanCMaia Delusional poppycock. Bette is remembered where her contemporaries are totally forgotten. For good reason: she and she alone stands supreme. In her day and now, still.
![The Virgin Queen [VOSE] 1955](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tkM0qhGsh-E/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Virgin Queen [VOSE] 1955](/img/tr.png)
Absolutely incredible that Olivia de Havilland, who plays Lady Penelope, could appear in this film in 1939 (the same year as her performance in "Gone With The Wind") and could still be with us eighty-one years later in 2020. Almost as remarkable is that Davis -- thirty-one when this film was made -- could be so utterly convincing as the sixty-seven year old Elizabeth.
@romain reuter Indeed she did. A life very well lived. I might add that, while I admire everything she did on screen, I think that it's a bit of a pity that she's most remembered for Melanie in "Gone With The Wind", when her two best performances were as Marian Fitzwalter in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and Catherine Sloper in "The Heiress" (the latter one of the most perfect cinematic realizations of a fine literary work EVER, right up there with the Deborah Kerr film "The Inmocents", which is, coincidentally or not, another film of a Henry James story.) I don't know who Olivia's heirs were, but they must now be VERY rich. I grew up in France, and nobody has to tell me what a large, luxurious mansion in the heart of Paris fetches. Rest in peace, Miss de Havilland.
Great Korngold music. Worth watching just for the music. Flynn proves that he could act.
Bette Davis we love you!!
This is a great piece of actor training material. Every slight nuance of 'individuality' and 'personal idiosyncrasy' that Davis injects into her delivery lifts each shot out of its cloying Hollywood predictability and formulaic blandness. Kubrick, in his time, looked to his actors to deliver a combination of convincing and interesting performances (and would run through countless takes to get these). Flynn plays a perfectly convincing heroic stereotype as Essex, but nothing more. Davis is both convincing and interestingly quirky. Sometimes you need to have some overwhelmingly distracting quirkiness to maintain the suspension of disbelief needed to stop reminding yourself that this is nothing more than syrupy Hollywood hokiness masquerading as realistic historical drama. But Davis's on-screen creativity and imagination deliver such a credibly tormented and mercurial Queen that we could easily imagine that we were watching something unmistakeably Shakespearian rather than a showcase for Warner Bros' top golden age box office talent. Then again, it was directed by Curtiz and he went on to direct Casablanca only a few years after this.
I love Bette Davis. Favorite actress. Rest in Dame Olivia De Havilland.
How Bette didn't get nominated for an Oscar for this movie is beyond me.
The chemistry in this one scene with Olivia vs all of Bette’s scenes with Errol….like it should be taught in history classes cause WHEW
Davis evidently considered her performance the bee's knees and Flynn's a failure, but with time his natural approach aged better while she looks like a Kabuki dancer! (She did soften her opinion later, I do believe.)
I see the Davis Haters are here in Full Force .....
It is interesting how Hollywood portrays history. The real Lord Essex was no where close to being as handsome as Errol Flynn.
Twenty years after this movie came out, the 50-year-old, about-to-die Flynn was a bloated wreck after decades of drinking, drugs and partying. This 1939 effort shows him at his physical peak.
I don't think any of the real historical personages were as good looking as the actors cast to portray them in film. Actors are nearly always better looking than the vast majority of the population. In this historical period people weren't in the best health, including those of royal lineage, and that would likely be reflected in their appearance. Portraits of famous individuals are typically average looking yet painters were paid to be 'complimentary' of their subjects, especially if they were prominent individuals.
@@jamesaron1967 I've been looking at some of these youtubes that give historical figures animation and color. If these are accurate, I am surprised at just how good looking some historical figures were, e.g. Ann Boleyn and Alexander the Great. But in general, I agree with you. Historical figures are not as good looking as the actors that portray them in films. No one, after all, wants to pay money at the cinema to look at ugly people.
I'm not taking anything away from Bette Davis as an actress, but this characterisation of Elizabeth is neurotic and unsympathetic. Flora Robson in 'The Sea Hawk' is a more engaging Queen (I realise that's a completely different kind of film). It's great to see Olivia and Errol in Technicolour again and the supporting cast is A+. Likewise, Curtiz & the production team and Korngold.
N In total agreement with your comment however just wanted to add that Davis and Flynn are also generating some real heat in their scenes together...
Perfect comment! Flora Robson was the best Elizabeth.
I think Robson (and Glenda Jackson) are the ideal ER. That said, Davis stands alone. No comparisons are possible.
I think Glenda Jackson is the best Elizabeth.
BD is simply amazing.
Que tal trio de actores
I regard Bette Davis as one of the greatest actresses that ever was, but she was so wrong for this part it's painful to watch. Elizabeth I was a tough woman, but also an intelectual, a strategist, a diplomat and a politician. Her reign was so influenced by her own upbringing, that theres an entire age of literature, painting and arts named after her. Playing Elizabeth I is playing a Queen running an entire kingdom with an iron fist yet with grace of the nobel upbringing, whereas Davis sounds like a Madame running the town's brothel with a though attitude of the upbringing in a barn. Bette Davis strongest attribute when it came to acting, was that she was real, authentic and transparent, everything Elizabeth I wasn't. A pattron of the arts, was the one part, Davis could never play, because it simply wasn't her.
AL I think your complaint is valid...However Davis is playing the Elizabeth of Maxwell Anderson's play...She is OLDER and suspicious and there is a scene in the complete film where one of her lords ( a council member) wants RICHARD II closed down and she refuses to let him do it...I have come to like her interpretation and it is hard to think of anyone else playing the part...Davis did not like Flynn's interpretation and he is pretty good also...The both of them strike some sparks...
Later in life, Davis appreciated Flynn's performance more and more
She can’t play an “itelectual”, eh? Who can?
@@laurencedankel4751 LOL
Agreed.
After watching FLORA ROBSON in 2 movies, I can see that Bette was not a good choice for the role. However this filme has great music, cinematography and art direction and costumes.
Korngold was the best. The rest are hangers on!
Their love was alive a living and dying
A fine film, with one glaring exception: the overheated, overplayed performance of Bette Davis. It's all external artifice, without a single glimpse of the real woman. Davis displays every one of the phony mannerisms that would soon be the ruination of her career as a serious actress.
Sad but true.
Rafael Storm 💤
@@RenanCMaia Delusional poppycock. Bette is remembered where her contemporaries are totally forgotten. For good reason: she and she alone stands supreme. In her day and now, still.
Someone is quoting the Barbara Leaming biography 😉
As Romeo and Juliet said in epic rap battles of history. Oh no, what irony is this? The lead role shot down by a failed actress!
Arrrr Do they not actually show the execution itself
+King Hamster Frisbee VI -- They show the Queen's reaction, and it is all the stronger.
It's 1939