MovieChat Forums > The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939) Discussion > Bette Davis miscast??

Bette Davis miscast??

posted 16 years ago by cookieluv
18 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong, I sincerely heart Bette Davis, but to me, this performance was too harsh. Elizabeth I is portrayed as a woman who is very much overtaken by her love of Essex, but in later films, such as Elizabeth (with Cate Blanchett in the title role), she is of much stronger character. Perhaps Davis played her character this way because it was made in 1939? A perfect role for Ms. Davis would have been playing Mary Queen of Scots, a more tyranical figure.

Katharine Hepburn would have been wonderful, but I believe she was under contract with RKO.

[–] Lutzqueen 16 years ago

Have you read anything about Elizabeth I?

She was more like Bette Davis'version than Cate Blanchett's by FAR--she was always locking men she desired up for marrying other women,was of nervous temperament and in old age forbid mirrors in the palace...Davis had the right characterization....hands down!

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 16 years ago

I don't know much about the real person but I have to say that this is definitly the best Bette performance I have seen and one of the best performances of all time too I might add.

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] exiledinnj 15 years ago

There are times in the film, especially in the scenes with her courtiers, where you would swear it was Margo Channing playing Elizabeth. Watch the birthday party scene in Eve and compare the mannerisms and actions.

[–] ejj1955 15 years ago

So, let me get this straight: your objection is that the character of one fictional Elizabeth I doesn't agree with that of another fictional Elizabeth I? Neither film is particularly rooted in fact, but uses the historical Elizabeth for dramatic effect.

And what evidence do you have that Mary, Queen of Scots, was more tyrannical than Elizabeth I? Mary reigned in Scotland for about six or seven years before being forced to abdicate; she was twice married during that time (three times in total: she was married to the French King Francis II until his death and she began her reign in Scotland after that); she fled to England to seek Elizabeth's protection, and was locked up until her execution by Elizabeth's order. Elizabeth I, on the other hand, was queen for more than 40 years, during which time she ruled as sole monarch.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] debategod 15 years ago

Off with Your Head!!

[–] netshopper-2 14 years ago

Bette Davis miscast? NO!

[–] oldblackandwhite 14 years ago

Betty Davis miscast as Elizabeth I? The statement borders on sacrilege! Those of us in the older age bracket think automatically of Betty when we hear Elizabeth the First mentioned. I have read a half-dozen or so nonfiction books on the Tudors. Most have pictures of Elizabeth in them, but I still find myself picturing her as Betty Davis as I read.

My impression would be that it is not possible to portray her as too tyranical. She was after all the daughter of Henry VIII, the inventor of police state government and one of the worst tyrants of al time. In fairness to Queen Bess, though, we should realize she had a rough bunch to rule! The movie only scratches the surface of that aspect.

He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45