This Portrayal of Elizabeth


First of all I want to say Bette Davis was a remarkable actress, and I'm sure she portrayed Elizabeth exactly how the writer and director wanted her to. I think Elizabeth was saddened about Lord Essex, but not overtly emotional like this movie portrays. Somehow I doubt she was screaming at him and begging him not to go as he stoicly marched to his execution, but that's Hollywood for you. In the time period in which this was written, men often portrayed women as being more hysterical. It makes me wonder what the writer felt about women and power.

reply

What a twisted interpretation. Makes me wonder what you think of men.


"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

reply

Eh? That was not an interpretation at all, that was a description of the portrayal in the film. And indeed, the film's portrayal is nothing short of ridiculous. Essex gallantly and stoically sacrificing himself for the sake of England, and Elisabeth a weak and fragile thing, ready to give it all up for Essex. What utter rot. I had enjoyed the film up to that point, but that ending ruined everything. Taking liberties with history is one thing, but this was frankly insulting.

reply

I don't know the director's intent. However, you should study a little bit about English history. This movie is a total fabrication except for the names of the people involved.

Errol Flynn is one year younger than Bette Davis, who is not given any make-up to make her look significantly older than she was. Errol is twenty-nine or thirty years old at the time of filming and Bette is thirty or thirty-one. The real Robert, Earl of Essex was in his mid-twenties when he arrived at court and Queen Elizabeth was in her fifties. She was probably already in menopause or peri-menopausal when they met. Whether or not there was anything romantic between them, not implausible, though unlikely, it was extremely improbably that he would provide her with an heir if they had married.


The Earl of Essex failed in his attack on Buckingham Palace and was arrested after his attempt. He never controlled it and that entire sequence is made up for the screen. Frankly, I see the way it is presented as a slur on the reputation of Queen Elizabeth and the movie offends me in this regard. However, I can take it as romantic fiction and just ignore the historical travesty. At least it is entertaining.

I think you are more right than you would guess at your suspicions of what the writer and director have done to the true history.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

One small correction: Buckingham Palace did not exist at this time (it was begun in 1703) so I suspect Essex was attacking the Palace of Westminster (burned in 1834).

reply

Thank you. I wasn't sure of the proper title of the palace they were in. They mentioned it in the dialogue, but I can't remember what it was.


The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

I grew up loving Bette Davis and this movie was one I was anxious to see. But it was abysmal, start to finish. Flynn never seems to even like Davis. And she is twitching all over the place. I could not understand her speech in the beginning, she was so all over the place. So happy to know the Hollywood misogynists made it up. I wonder how much the Hayes code had to do with the storyline--non-marital affairs had to punish those involved--so behead him and make her crazy with grief and longing! Now I need to look up the real history and forget this atrocious fiction.

reply

I don't understand this thread. These sorts of films taking the historical fiction approach are done all the time, and once one accepts that the narrative is not a literal retelling of history, which we all do, then the sort of criticism of the approach taken would seem to be limited to those applicable to any work of fiction.

So, what is it about the story told that is so awful?

I thought the film was excellent, nine out of ten. Great Bette Davis, not the best Flynn but very good, and an excellent supporting cast. The story? It was certainly plausible.

That Elizabeth would be torn about Essex and why was more than adequately covered. Even from a feminist point of view she showed great adherence to principle and in the end not only prevailed but did so as she thought she should. She was swayed by emotion to be sure, but only temporarily, as anyone of either sex could be.

Not sure what the criticism is here.

reply