This film is not great, but it is also undeservedly forgotten. Think of Elizabeth I and Bette Davis and everyone recalls THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, the Warner Brothers film with Davis and Errol Flynn made in 1939. This film, made in the middle 1950s (when Davis's career was on a downturn)has Richard Todd, a better actor than Flynn but not with half of the latter's charm and charisma. Also the plot is listless. Basically it should be called WHEN SIR WALTER CAME TO COURT, because it is how Raleigh enters Elizabeth's court and rises to her attention. But aside from his rivalry with Sir Christopher Hatton (Robert Douglas, in a well performed semi-villain role), which leads to the death of Dan O'Herlihy (Raleigh's friend) there is no tension in the plot - even with Joan Collins as a youthful beauty at court who becomes Elizabeth's rival.
The real problem is the script writer did not know what to do with the project. ELIZABETH AND ESSEX was based (for better or worse) on a popular play of the time by Maxwell Anderson. It detailed the tragic relationship of the elderly Queen and her youthful lover, who was too hot-headed and too ambitious. It ends with Essex's rebellion of 1601, and his execution which (one can see) destroys the Queen as well. There was plenty of tension in that film, and one of the joys of it is watching how from the start every character knows how to play Essex's headstrong behavior against him. He literally destroys himself, taking his monarch with him.
Raleigh's character appeared in that film (Vincent Price played the role) as a rival of Essex. And they were rivals. But Essex, aside from some fitful abilities as a military leader, had nothing in him. Raleigh and Robert Cecil (Essex two successful adversaries) were gifted in various ways: Cecil was a brilliang politician and statesman, and Raleigh a gifted poet, writer, and explorer of the New World. While Essex has never been forgotten, most people are better acquainted with Raleigh (who eventually became a political martyr as well - being executed for treason in 1618 when King James I was "disappointed" that Raleigh's South American explorations did not bring in the gold of El Dorado to England). Cecil/Salisbury is better recalled to scholars of Elizabethan history, but he was quite a master-success. He was the first Earl of Salisbury, and his family remains a leading set in the British Aristocracy to this day (one of them, Robert Gascoigne Cecil, Marquis of Salisbury, was Queen Victoria's last Prime Minister from 1895 - 1902).
A good film about Raleigh would actually concentrate on his various careers as writer, explorer, and would-be colonist. It would show his major achievement as a writer: THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and go into his attempts to finance exploration of North America (the "Lost Colony" of Roanoke was created by Raleigh's plans). It would end in the tragedy of 1618, and the ingratitude of a particularly obnoxious monarch. Raleigh did not find El Dorado, and his oldest son died in the attempt to settle a colony in South America. However, his expedition created the British territory of British Guiana (now the nation of Guyana)which is the only English speaking country in South America.
That, alas, is not the case with THE VIRGIN QUEEN. Set in the 1580s, Raleigh arrives in the court dominated by the Queen's oldest (and probably truest love), Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Herbert Marshall), and by Leicester's rival Hatton (Elizabeth's fairly able Chancellor of Exchequer). Leicester goes to lead a military team who are assisting the Dutch. He died in the Netherlands in 1587 (his death occurs off screen here). Hatton, happy to be rid of his rival finds Leicester's place filled by that upstart Raleigh, and this goes into a long, increasingly bitter rivalry that ends with the death of Dan O'Herlihy. Raleigh decides to leave the court, as he has fallen in love with Bess Throckmorton (which displeases the Queen) and he wishes to explore the New World, but Elizabeth convinces him to remain at court - even allowing him to marry Bess (which he did do).
It's not an exciting story at all. They try to pump excitement into it, but Douglas (while good as Hatton) seems to frivolous a character to take seriously. Actually this is quite true in a sense: Elizabeth actually was first attracted to Hatton by his graceful dancing. It just turned out he was a competent public servant as well. The tragedy of O'Herlihy's death is sad but not enough to really make the film tense and interesting (it also comes too late in the film to do much good). While well mounted it is not a good historical movie.
Ironically Davis was closer in age to the age of Elizabeth when she made this film, as opposed to ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, where she was playing an older version of Elizabeth when she (Davis) was younger. I think I prefer her performance when she was younger.
The real problem is the script writer did not know what to do with the project. ELIZABETH AND ESSEX was based (for better or worse) on a popular play of the time by Maxwell Anderson. It detailed the tragic relationship of the elderly Queen and her youthful lover, who was too hot-headed and too ambitious. It ends with Essex's rebellion of 1601, and his execution which (one can see) destroys the Queen as well. There was plenty of tension in that film, and one of the joys of it is watching how from the start every character knows how to play Essex's headstrong behavior against him. He literally destroys himself, taking his monarch with him.
Raleigh's character appeared in that film (Vincent Price played the role) as a rival of Essex. And they were rivals. But Essex, aside from some fitful abilities as a military leader, had nothing in him. Raleigh and Robert Cecil (Essex two successful adversaries) were gifted in various ways: Cecil was a brilliang politician and statesman, and Raleigh a gifted poet, writer, and explorer of the New World. While Essex has never been forgotten, most people are better acquainted with Raleigh (who eventually became a political martyr as well - being executed for treason in 1618 when King James I was "disappointed" that Raleigh's South American explorations did not bring in the gold of El Dorado to England). Cecil/Salisbury is better recalled to scholars of Elizabethan history, but he was quite a master-success. He was the first Earl of Salisbury, and his family remains a leading set in the British Aristocracy to this day (one of them, Robert Gascoigne Cecil, Marquis of Salisbury, was Queen Victoria's last Prime Minister from 1895 - 1902).
A good film about Raleigh would actually concentrate on his various careers as writer, explorer, and would-be colonist. It would show his major achievement as a writer: THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and go into his attempts to finance exploration of North America (the "Lost Colony" of Roanoke was created by Raleigh's plans). It would end in the tragedy of 1618, and the ingratitude of a particularly obnoxious monarch. Raleigh did not find El Dorado, and his oldest son died in the attempt to settle a colony in South America. However, his expedition created the British territory of British Guiana (now the nation of Guyana)which is the only English speaking country in South America.
That, alas, is not the case with THE VIRGIN QUEEN. Set in the 1580s, Raleigh arrives in the court dominated by the Queen's oldest (and probably truest love), Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Herbert Marshall), and by Leicester's rival Hatton (Elizabeth's fairly able Chancellor of Exchequer). Leicester goes to lead a military team who are assisting the Dutch. He died in the Netherlands in 1587 (his death occurs off screen here). Hatton, happy to be rid of his rival finds Leicester's place filled by that upstart Raleigh, and this goes into a long, increasingly bitter rivalry that ends with the death of Dan O'Herlihy. Raleigh decides to leave the court, as he has fallen in love with Bess Throckmorton (which displeases the Queen) and he wishes to explore the New World, but Elizabeth convinces him to remain at court - even allowing him to marry Bess (which he did do).
It's not an exciting story at all. They try to pump excitement into it, but Douglas (while good as Hatton) seems to frivolous a character to take seriously. Actually this is quite true in a sense: Elizabeth actually was first attracted to Hatton by his graceful dancing. It just turned out he was a competent public servant as well. The tragedy of O'Herlihy's death is sad but not enough to really make the film tense and interesting (it also comes too late in the film to do much good). While well mounted it is not a good historical movie.
Ironically Davis was closer in age to the age of Elizabeth when she made this film, as opposed to ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, where she was playing an older version of Elizabeth when she (Davis) was younger. I think I prefer her performance when she was younger.