Young Bess

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.

Never mind about the historical accuracy, the movie is very enjoyable as a great love story. It is well written and elegantly portrayed by a good assemble of actors. Simmons is excellent as Young Bess, a smart and strong minded princess growing from adolescence into young womanhood, falling for a much older heroic Admiral, attracting his love from his beautiful and tender loving wife. Granger is a great match as Simmon's lover, the arrogant adventurous war hero, also the loving husband of the more classical beauty Kerr. The love triangle between the three is convincing and moving, and its tragic end is heart broken.

The costume is wonderful, especially of Granger's.

With an exceptionally good cast headed by Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr and Charles Laughton, costumes by Walter Plunkett, music by Miklos Rozsa and all the technical wizardry of MGM's vast resources, YOUNG BESS is the kind of historical romance that comes to life on the screen with a good deal of vitality. Jean Simmons and Charles Laughton have the most interesting roles and play them brilliantly, particularly Laughton who is once again portraying Henry VIII, the shrewd monarch who disposed of the women in his life by putting them to the block.

The screenplay is gracefully written and although it is leisurely paced, it never lets up interest in examining the relationships between Elizabeth I (young Bess) and others at court. Historical purists will object to whatever liberties the novel took to tell this story of court intrigue, but they will be impressed by the attention paid to historical detail and the meticulous settings and costumes. The score by Miklos Rozsa is not obtrusive and yet it underlines the deep emotions portrayed by Simmons, Granger and Laughton. Deborah Kerr has a rather colorless and almost minor role as Catherine Parr and is unable to do much with it although she and Simmons photograph beautifully in color.

Easy on the eyes and a very entertaining saga of a bloody chapter in England's history.

Maybe not quite how it actually happened, but this was Hollywood, remember. Jean Simmons plays the Princess Elizabeth brought up in rags and riches depending on the whim of her father Henry VIII (rather rumbustiously played by Charles Laughton). Meantime Thomas Seymour (a handsome, swashbuckling rogue played by Stewart Granger) is marrying Henry's widow Catherine Parr (Deborah Kerr) and so we have our menage-a-trois. History is fact about the marriage; much less so about the "love affair" between Elizabeth and Seymour. This film follows her coming-of-age as she navigates the political intrigues after her father's death. It's is colourful and engaging - her two servants add quite a lot too. It's entertainment though, nothing too educational.

This is what happens when a film studio and a novelist places history on the big screen. Historical accuracy and truth takes second place when it comes to spinning a yarn. I just hope when kids watch this film, they do not rely on it as facts for their education. The real story itself was intriguing enough without having to bend the truth. So, why did they?

Anyway, in the film, Elizabeth (I) was madly in love with Thomas Seymour. From historical records, Thomas was supposedly the person who made advances on Elizabeth (I) but was unsuccessful. In the film, Edward Seymour was seen as a callous power hungry puppeteer in the royal court. In history, he was a successful military man when he battled oppositions at Pinkie, Scotland (1547). Edward was also responsible for religious reforms and in relaxing heresy and treason laws. In the film, he sent his brother Thomas to the scaffold because of his paranoia over power struggle threats. In history, the execution of Thomas by the council in 1549 was a significant blow to Edward and it weakened his power in England. The eventual arrest and execution of Edward in 1552 was conspired by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton to remove Seymour's protectorate power over his nephew, King Edward VI. Edward VI died at the age of 15 in 1553. Dudley induced the council to proclaim his daughter-in-law, Lady Jane Grey, as queen after Edward VI's death. Dudley was executed in 1554 by Mary (I) for treason.

Of course, there's no way of knowing precisely what really happened in history. But in rationale, a person should not be defamed or condemned (as in the case of Edward Seymour) based on hearsay, idle gossip, a romantic novel or a chick flick, even if they are dead over a few centuries. In theory, anyhow.

Anyway, I did enjoy this film as pure entertainment. Walter Plunkett's costume design was magnificent and the whole cast was superb. Miklos Rozsa's emotional music score was an incredible soul wrenching delight.

Is it worth seeing? Yes, definitely! It's entertaining, well acted and beautifully produced.