Lady Chatterley

Wow. I really dislike slow moving romances, but the amount of artistry that was injected into this production, and the rendered result is just pure art in every sense of the word.

Every shot is an oil painting. I don't know what it is about the French and their history with art that makes them such masters, but not a single strip of film was wasted here. The lighting, the costumes, the camera angles, and composition of the frame and music, really were just given such care that it's a wonder this film hasn't gained more notoriety among D.H. Lawrence enthusiasts.

Then there are the sex scenes. Yes ladies and gentlemen, there is sex in this film, though it's rendered with a very gentle brush stroke by a master painter of film. There is nothing tawdry in the nature of the sex other than the fact that the couple is bucking societal convention. To find out what I mean, you have to watch the film.

This is a story about a woman's wants and needs. Whom she married because modern convention pushed her in that direction, and what she really wanted because her innate nature and the man in question succumbed to proper instincts.

One man has societal power and wealth, but cannot care for himself without the assistance that his wealth affords. Another can withstand adversity after adversity, and like so many men, prefers, prospers, and even thrives when he's alone. One is the master of men. Another is the master of himself, and cares for no other. Ladies, which do you prefer? Which do you say you want, and which one fires your heart, body and soul? That's what this movie is all about. On an even more intellectual level both males have a kind of female inner psyche working for them. One gains the world, the other gains something else.

I have two regrets about this film. Firstly that there are a couple of pans (and one awful zoom) that come lose to derailing the flow of the movie. But as visually jarring as they are, they pass quickly. Like a B-movie producer/director once told me, America makes the best dollies and tripods for professional movie cameras, and that is an unchallenged truth. If you look at any foreign film, and compare the camera moves with American movies, you'll note that American films have very smooth dolly shots, Steadicam shots, and the now occasional rare pan. Foreign films are still playing catchup, even for this film which was shot only ten years ago! Secondly; I streamed this film off of Amazon, and it is not a high definition transfer with muted colors. The colors I'm thinking were a creative choice of the director and cinematographer, and they may have even used a soft lens or a soft filter in front of the lens to add that bit of visual texture to give this film an even softer touch and intimate feel. Even so, I wanted to see more information on the screen, but whether it was the creative team being artistic or the limitations of the technology, I'll never know until I see this thing on bluray.

Here's the thing; I was forced to read D.H. Lawrence in high school, and hated his writing. It was slow, lethargic, seemed to cater to over emotionalism, and just downright boring as hell when compared to some of the sci-fi authors or military fiction authors I used to read (and get more out of), but this film (and the French really do love Lawrence) very much delivers a film maker's film. And, as usual from French cinema, gives us a character study of the gentler side of human nature. What is, what we'd like, and what ought to be.

I don't recommend this film to anyone who is not a cinema aficionado. If you like heavy psychology and films about how a trist can be mistaken or evolve into love, then this film is for you.

Otherwise, maybe give it a shot and see what you think.

Enjoy.

I didn't really expect too much from this movie and hearing the running time was just short of three hours, was fully prepared to leave after getting a flavour of it. How wrong I was, this is a very fine film and doesn't drag for a moment. It is beautiful, believable and nothing short of a wonderful sexy surprise. All the support acting is measured and helps provide a solid counterbalance for the central couple who gradually learn to let go their inhibitions and slide blissfully from lust to love. It is all very gradually done from Chatterley's first glimpse of the gamekeeper washing himself outside his hut and her consequent, and at the time seemingly over the top, need to sit to gather her senses, literally; to the powerful scene where she asks him to turn and display his erect penis and the wondrous scenes of the naked couple cavorting ecstatically in the pouring rain. All in all a fine mix of the wonders of nature, the manliness of the hand made, the power of sex and the need for love. The more overt political elements that Lawrence would probably have wanted put more to the fore are probably better dealt with here, kept more in the background. Brave film making, especially at a time when being so positive about 'sexual healing' seems so out of vogue.

This version of the often-shot story of Lady Chatterley is in French with English subtitles, and I found the "look" of many of the actors to be decidedly French (big surprise) rather than English. The plot development was decidedly leisurely in the first half of the film, but this was not a game-breaker as far as my enjoyment of the movie. However, compared to all the other versions on this story that I've seen, I found this French effort to bring an element of earthy realism (best way I can describe it) to the story that the others lacked. The scene where the gamekeeper and Lady Chatterley "decorate" each other with flowers and subsequently disport themselves outside in the field and woods is a particularly interesting and memorable sequence. One minor quibble: the film seemed to both begin and end rather abruptly...you'll know what I mean when you watch it.

I have seen the BBC adaptation of the DH Lawrence novel made by Ken Russell with Joely Richardson and Sean Bean and there is no comparison: I prefer the French adaptation even if the film is not always faithful to the book on some points (for example, in the book, Sir Clifford is having problems with his miners and his employees because he is very arrogant but in the film, Pascale Ferran does not mention these problems). The actors are maybe a little more good-looking in the BBC version but that's about it (sorry, Sean Bean). And if you want to see a film about a beautiful but bored, aristocratic woman whose sensuality is suddenly re-awakened by her meeting with the sullen, unsociable but virile Parkin/Mellors, then this film is for you. Pascale Ferran seemed to have focused her film on the love-story between Lady Constance/Connie and Parkin, the gamekeeper and the discovery or re-discovery of one's senses. That is why you have beautiful shots of nature, of magnificent trees in spring and why you have many scenes in which Constance is walking in the forest and just listening to the songs of birds. The forest is also the place where she discovers her own sensuality. The actors are brilliant, they magnificently show all sorts of emotions on their faces and the love-making scenes are all made with much reserve, with subtlety...It is all refined and very beautifully-done. I loved this Connie, I could relate to her and I loved the long pauses and the looks between the two leads, the big shots on the hands, on some legs or other parts of the body and some refined clothes. The costumes are also important. This movie reminds me a little of some scenes of The Piano by Jane Campion and if you enjoyed The Piano, I am sure you will like this French adaptation. Definitely a 'must-see'. It is a little long, more than 2 hours and a half, I think but if you are used to watching long BBC period dramas like me, you will have no fear in watching this!

First we may talk about the general atmosphere of this remarkable movie. All sceneries are very beautiful, accurate and full of meaning: the landscapes, the interiors and the characters' clothes like we would expect in a reproduction of events which take place in mid-twenties of last century. In what concerns the plot and story we must keep always in mind that at the time most Victorian moral values still prevail and we must see the movie against this background so what wouldn't be revolutionary nowadays was revolutionary indeed at the time. This is the well told, well acted and well directed story of a woman awakening for the physical side of love life. She is the aristocratic rich wife of a no less aristocratic and rich man who is nevertheless an invalid ridden to a wheelchair for life and sexually impotent of course. This awakening begins when she sees for the first time her husband's gamekeeper naked above his waist and washing himself. She is then overwhelmed by a great psychological trouble and the ensuing uncontrollable need of meeting him again leads her to go to see him once more and finishing by surrender herself to make love with him. The first two love scenes were so quick that she doesn't get to any climax and only during the third scene where she takes a more active part does she reach a full orgasm. It's curious however (but quite in accordance with social patterns of that time) that during the first love scenes between the two the relation master-servant maintains itself before and after sex and only later does it gain a more personal and intimate nature. After the third love scene she even thanks him for it like if it had been a service rendered by him which offends him a lot. This adaptation of the second version of the literary masterpiece novel by the British writer D. H. Lawrence is a great success indeed. This novel was banned as pornographic when it was published first time and only in the sixties of last century a court declared it not pornographic according to he real difference between pornography and eroticism which exists though many people still don't know it but it's out of the scope of this review to explain. Sex is a force of nature and indeed a part of human relations and the literary or artistic works based on it can be object of aesthetic (in the broad sense) evaluation notwithstanding any possible moral evaluations which are not within the scope of a literary or a film essay.