Lady Chatterley

Yes, this is a fascinating movie. But it raises questions of yesterday's class differences, and today's male prudery. Here's the question: as they have it all ways, including Greek, why does Ms. Richardson have to portray her everything over and over, but M'sieu Bean, that hunk, is carefully covered so his 'dangly bits' don't show. Read the biography and you'll see how hard they had to work to make sure he DIDN'T portray full male nudery. How come, I ask? Is it because male directors are so afraid of their size problems, that they don't dare breech that frontier? If one shows, then the others will have to. And please!!! I'm not promiscuous or a nympho, but Richardson was obviously contemplating a dental appointment in the 'throes of her passion'. And Bean was obviously pushing a sack of potatoes up a hill. Why won't those directors make some shots from behind the woman's viewpoint, and let us see the male faces during intercourse? That is not obscene, and when there is both love and lust, there IS a difference as most human beings know. OK, and why aren't we shown the most telling and lasting scene from the book: where Connie wreathes Mellor's willy in flowers. I read this as a teen=ager and I still remember that mental image 40 years later. So why not, Mr. Russell? You're so 'outrageous', yeah. Not so. The gorgeous ENglish country house, oh, it's to swoon over with all the paintings. Yes, Russell can indeed photograph beautifully England. The lines about the colliers and the serving class right in front of them, and the photo switch to the maids' tight faces was genius, pure genius. Even if the paralyzed husband was a wee bit cartoonery in his outrageous insensitivity. D.E. Lawrence is known as a misogynist and this ditzy Connie was no exception. She was so flighty it's amazing and I'm wondering what Canada would have done to the REAL spoiled darling, beset with the turmoil and strains of pregnancy and a primitive culture. Of course, we have a class conscious culture here in the U.S., but I don't think it's quite as ludicrous as the English was. (I know Northern English salesmen with their wierd accents who are so cute. And the line where the sister asks Mellors to speak English 'properly' without the dialect is precious. can it be from the movie? So, OK, Sean. Now let's give them a movie where love-making is really shown as love on the face. Not as simply an animal maneuver.

The French version is yet to be seen by me but it does look as though it will be even better than this BBC adaptation. This adaptation of the controversial Lady Chatterley's Lover is very good if not entirely flawless, and it is far superior to the Nicholas Clay film from 1981, much more involving and this actually has a lead actress who can act and it doesn't take the sexual nature of the book to extremes. The music here is inconsistent, sometimes it is very beautiful and lyrical but at other times and actually too often it is too loud and with too much repetition, it could have been toned down more especially in the love scenes. The ending doesn't work either, far too convenient and open-and-shut, also played like a farce which juxtaposes too much with the gentle restrained feel that much of the rest of the adaptation had. Wasn't entirely sure about Ken Russell writing himself in as the father(it's certainly better than when he did it for Salome's Last Dance though), the character does come across as too much of a caricature and Russell's performance to some extent is the kind that seems out of kilter with everything else. The best asset though of Lady Chatterley is the visuals, which are truly spellbinding. The period detail is very colourful and evocative, the settings especially the gorgeous(inside and out, particularly inside) house make you wish you were there and the photography is fluid and not TV-bound at all. The dialogue is emotionally impactful and intelligently written, that it is true to D.H. Lawrence's writing is a plus too(same thing with Women in Love around 25 years previously). The story is gentle yet sexy and compelling, the love scenes are done surprisingly tastefully considering Russell's tendency to use of excess, of everything Russell's done actually Lady Chatterley is one of his most restrained and cohesive. The characters are not easy to care for- not the adaptation's fault, in a way it's the same in the book too- and are not the most well-developed but chemistry between them is convincing and they don't frustrate you. Russell directs with respect and with room to breathe and not to make things too overblown. The acting is very good, Joely Richardson is sensual and sympathetic in the title role and Sean Bean is a handsome and forthright Mellors. James Wilby is loathsome personified which is exactly what Sir Clifford should be like. You may argue that it was caricature-like at times, it wasn't that apparent to me and Sir Clifford is one of those characters where it is difficult to not overdo things because of the type of character he is, of all the Lady Chatterley's character the most dangerous to pull off is Sir Clifford for this reason. Shirley Anne Field is very telling as Mrs Bolton, a lot of the time in a refreshingly subtle way like in the body language alone. Overall, a very good adaptation of a good if understandably controversial book. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

A really good adaption of the book and the original 1981 film. It is very erotic... quite a bit of nudity and sex. Not recommended for under 16.

This movie was very enjoyable as well as instructive. It was enjoyable because it was so faithful to the most popular version of the story and instructive about how people conducted their lives after WW1 in England. Joely Richardson is a new actress for me and I find her convincing as Connie. Sean Bean is a familiar handsome actor who has a long career I've followed. I feel these actors portrayed Mellors and Connie as reluctant lovers. They were strangers at first and only knew they needed what everyone needs, tenderness in their lives. It felt like I was watching two people desperate in their search, almost helplessly drawn to find happiness against all odds. I personally don't care if Sean Bean did not appear completely naked, and if the lovemaking was wooden at first, it felt right given the circumstances. These actors are bringing characters to life for us and it should not be forgotten this is not a view into an affair between the actors, it is the portrayal of characters brought to life by good acting and believable direction.

Many passages felt too slow-paced especially in the 1st and 2nd episode. On the other hand, I found Connie, Hilda and most of the other cast lived up to the characters I had imagined as a reader. Many lines of Mellors and Connie were taken straight from the book which was good. The pheasant chick scene was well portrayed. The sex scenes were not as gratuitous as happens so often on screen. In this case they are part of the story and were tastefully done on the whole. Contrary to some of the above comments, I think the series went quite far enough so far as sexual explicitness was concerned. What is acceptable in literature can easily become voyeurism when depicted on screen.

Sean Bean is a favourite actor of mine but I was disappointed with his impersonation of Mellors. I recall Mellors as a very proud man looking down at Sir Clifford in spite of his subservient position and I'm not sure Bean expressed this sufficiently. For instance he was good in his confrontation scenes with Connie or Hilda but played Mellors as too humble almost downtrodden before Sir Clifford and Mrs Bolton. Also in the book Mellors switches from dialect to standard English and back according to the situation and I felt this was not so much in evidence in the series.

My main disappointment however is the new glossy happy ending which is far too easy and banal. It seems at odds with the questions raised by the novel notably about the feasibility of relationships between social classes.