Women in Love

Can you imagine the effect this movie had in 1969? I is still ahead of the times. Merit, in great part, of Larry Kramer who adapted DH Lawrence's work in a way nobody else could have. Scrumptious, subversive, extraordinary. Director Ken Russell with some startling titles to his name - his BBC production of Isadora Duncan with a sublime Vivien Pickles in the title role, for instance - reaches here some kind of mountain top. Glenda Jackson became a household name, Alan Bates confirmed what we all knew, that he was one of the greatest actors that ever lived. I devoured the film with utter pleasure 48 years after its first released. Literature and cinema in an insanely beautiful alliance.

No apology for including this with my 'extreme' movies because not only was it considered so in 1969 it has held up remarkably well and still packs a punch. Whilst I recall it was the fully nude male wrestling scene that attracted most attention originally, it is clear to see now that there was so much more going on that was of just as an extreme nature. For good and bad Lawrence seems extremely well represented with his, love hate relationship with women and his fondness of the work ethic. The full force and carnality of the sexuality in Lawrence's Lady Chatterly is somewhat more muted here but it is the questioning of the trueness of love and the inclusion of same sex relationships that helps this to still be as thought provoking and stimulating. Plus, the performances are fine and the photography excellent with the direction faultless. Runs longer than stated on the box and one wonders if in fact it was ever shown uncut in the cinemas.

Adaptation of the D.H. Lawrence classic concening the loves of two 'modern' sisters in Yorkshire during the 1920s.

At first glance this film is rather hard to take in. The story is difficult to follow and at times, barely visible. Almost as if its asumed we are all so familiar with the book, that a strict narrative is unnecessary. You are likely to finish watching and ask yourself wtf? The acting is rather remarkable however and Ken Russell puts up the usual visual wonderland, so its easily rewatched. As I did, I realized the plot isn't whats important to this film at all. I'm sure the book too leaves that very same impression. You are meant more to study the characters, listen to their musings, and if possible relate to them, rather than follow a traditional storyline with a beginning middle and end. Art imititating life for a change. A different sort of experience, sensually cerebral, if thats possible, but well made and worth a look. Jackson, Bates and Reed, three would be hams, each giving understated and marvelous performances.

This faithful adaptation by Ken Russell of one of D.H. Lawrence's best works is just as powerful & just as profound now, over 30 years after its initial release. The story is set in England a few years after World War I, at a time when many women of marriageable age were forced to examine their assumptions about relationships. When the Brangwen sisters complain about the lack of men, it's true. Many of the men who should have been available to them were lost in the war.

The film was made @ the dawn of the women's movement, once again a time when many women of a certain age were driven to examine their own assumptions about relationships, and looked to Lawrence (& then to Russell) for answers to questions beyond words.

This is not to deny the importance of the men in this story. Both Rupert & Gerald are drawn to the kind of women who ask these questions. Both of them have a myriad of other choices, but they're not satified by less.

So Russell finds a visual way to tell this story, & much of it would seem to be "over the top" were it not so obviously sincere & courageous. Glenda Jackson, a relative unknown at the time, won her first Oscar. We agree. She gives an extraordinary performance in a most difficult role: Gudrun is not likeable, but she IS honest.

This film is a masterpiece.

DH Lawrence has provided a wonderful story world for Ken Russell

to explore modern notions of romance, monogamy -- sex and the beast. Only the recent Thai film "Tropical Malady" has managed to grapple with these themes with such playful and erotic sensitivity. The sort of film which confronts the very notion of a moral fabric -- dangerous -- yet vital if audiences are willing to challenge their own notions of fairytale love, expectations for companionship and ultimately happiness.

The mismatched performance style (Glenda J's unusual mix of naturalism and

Brechtian facade -- is delightful when juxtaposed with Oliver Reeds hammy

closetted representational queer). Like "cAT ON A HOT TIN roof" this

performance contrast only serves to strengthen the academic rigour of the film's politics -- and ultimately serves as an emotional beacon to enlighten an

audience with an elusive mind.

Like "The Day of the Locust" -- this film is breathtakingly modern -- and before it's time.