Lady Chatterley

D. H. Lawerence wrote some of my favorite books of all time, including Lady Chatterley's Lover, so at first, I was afraid to watch these short little missives. I was not disappointed, however. It held true to quite a few aspects of the "Sir John Thomas and Lady Jane" version of the book than the original publication, but Lawerence never seemed to be quite satisfied and was always changing. Joely Richardson was a beautiful Lady Chatterley, and Sean Bean seemed the perfect Mellors. James Wilby was so convincing as Clifford that by the end of this movie, you just wanted that horrid wretch to be left alone, wallowing in his misery, because like everything else in his life, Constance was a possession, not a human being. This movie is a timeless treasure for anyone who loves the idea of being in love!

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

Having read the book in high school, I thought I knew pretty much what I was in for, especially with Ken Russell at the helm. Joely Richardson is a pretty thing, and manages some sympathy for Connie - who just wants to be a decent human being. I was too often aware I was watching her Act, especially when naked. It couldn't have been easy. James Wilby had pretty much perfected the upper class twit, though the vitriolic nastiness he brings to Chatterley is probably the acme of his career. Special mention should be made of Shirley Anne Field's performance as Mrs. Bolton - the nurse who understands Everything - and conveys so much to us without a word. It's a truly marvelous performance.

But the movie belongs to Sean Bean, who gets his teeth in and doesn't let go. Nobody does bitter passion like Bean. He's less affecting in the love scenes than when he's simply trying to defend himself - His lady has no idea what a spectacular risk he's taking. Imagine the conflict is not class but race, and you'll get an idea. "Tar and feathers" was not a joke. The class divisions are laid out, but there's nothing like the sight of him shoveling coal to bring it home. And it's either break his back or starve. On top of all that, he found himself genuinely in love, which was still more frightening. Bean gives it all to us...His fears, his courage, his joys and his humiliations...no actor could be more naked than that.

There's a reason the book was called "Lady Chatterley's Lover." Lady Chatterley had Lawrence's sympathy, but the lover was his hero. Shifting the emphasis to her doesn't quite work. It would be more damaging if Bean wasn't so forceful.

I didn't expect to be so moved by this film. They even got the flower scene right. Lawrence's Mellors was a bit of a bully, too, and that left poor Connie choosing between jerks. Russell gives Connie -- and us -- a much better choice. And I was pleased with the altered ending. Lawrence's vision was awfully bleak, and had no room for Connie to grow up. It makes all the difference.

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.

An excellent work of art in a long and expertly made movie. Being almost totally visual, I must admit I'm carried away by visually beautiful movies, and this one is tops. The English countryside, so green, the gardens of these upper class people, practically loaded with incredible flowers (whole paths protected by walls of flowers, a superb and exquisite view) the house, something out of this world, its furniture and very valuable paintings, Connie's period costumes (Constance Chaterly, the actress Joely Richardson), I think on one scene she is wearing an authentic white pleated silk Fortuny gown; the open top cars, impeccable antiques used in several scenes..., briefly, a feast for the eyes.

Joely Richardson is a very pretty actress with a fantastic body and next to Sean Bean (another very sexy beauty) they make a perfect couple for the protagonists antics, which are several and most passionate (explosive?) showing us quite clearly the very difficult circumstances a socially mismatched couple could find in those 1920s, when this story is taking place, in the heart of England, a country populated by a lower class exploited to death by a handful of aristocrats (aristocrats according to the genealogical tree they fabricated for themselves, conveniently forgetting the dark and dubious origins they all came from just a few previous generations).

It's almost painful to watch those scenes where these super rich talk openly about their inferiors (servants present) making any possible hurtful remark as if they weren't standing next to them, silently waiting to satisfy any requirement. I hope that the English people ended once and for all that kind of abysmal social differences because nowadays that seems barbarian and so terribly unjust.

The visual contrast between those excessively manicured green gardens and the blackish, depressing mining town without any trace of greenery anyplace, is shown breathtakingly when Connie goes to the completely black environment of the mine, fully dressed in impeccably radiant white clothes.

The music accompanying most scenes is quite annoying, very loud and repetitive, invading many times, quite disruptively, what is going on. Could it be that Ken Russell, the director, was very gifted with the visuals of a movie but didn't have a sound musical education?

It must be remarked that Russell was very unique, very personal with the look and the choreography of his actors in his films, since in many scenes one realizes that only him could have made it that way, very much what we feel when watching an Almodovar film. And of course, this excessively odd personalities backfire sometimes, but when they hit the mark... the results are glorious.

The story is fascinating although very dated, nowadays we have seen so many examples of royalty marrying their chauffeurs, gardeners, street sweepers, delivery boys, etc, that all that fuss seems completely out of date. But placing ourselves in those dark 1920s (at least dark for the poor), we are perfectly able to follow our protagonists and feel the pain and anguish they went through.

The book by D. H. Lawrence is out of this world, a ravishing lecture, even after all these many years since he wrote it.

A very-very enjoyable film.