Recensioni degli utenti

I remember I saw this movie I was about 17. I'd read the book and fell in love. It tells a love story between two men and the way they have to carry it out despite society rules (with some changes it still happens nowadays...).

The general message would be "love conquers all" but is it really so? Are Maurice and Scudder able to live happily ever after? I doubt, and on the beginning of the XXth century it would be even worse.

Despite all, it's lovely to watch the same kind of story we're used to watching in movies that portray society in different times, but now speaking about love between men! Although James Ivory's work is beyond criticism, in my point a view, there were some scenes in the book (the one when they are in London, sitting naked by the fire, for instance) that really should be in the movie.

But it's a tender and romantic approach of of book (only published after E.M. Foster's death) that surely would have pleased it's author.

Many viewers and critics have criticised the happy ending of this film as being 'unrealistic' or even 'impossible'. After all an upper class and working class man could never live as a couple in Edwardian England? In fact E.M. Forster's inspiration for writing the book Maurice was a real gay couple, one upper class and the other working class, who lived together openly in England for about 35 years until 1928. They are buried in the same grave.

Edward Carpenter was a close friend of E.M.Forster, who named Carpenter's working class gay partner, George Merrill, as the inspiration for his novel Maurice. He had visited Carpenter and Merrill at Millthorpe in Derbyshire on several occasions: once, in 1913, Merrill "touched my backside - gently and just above the buttocks. I believe he touched most people's. The sensation was unusual and I still remember it, as I remember the position of a long vanished tooth. He made a profound impression on me and touched a creative spring" That was the origin for the writing of Maurice.

Similar to goldilocks-78, I watched Maurice again - I saw it when I was in my 20s, when it was first released. There is some very good acting, and a very good sociological recreation of the Edwardian period. Maurice, the novel, might well not be considered as EM Forster's finest work. But similar to Lady Chatterley's Lover (not considered among Lawrence's best), the work raises issues of class, gender, and sexuality. The three leads are good - Hugh Grant gives a plausible portrayal of a more refined, upper-class man, who denies his homosexual urgings and marries. He clearly shows (after this conversion of sorts) his ambivalence and almost forced denial. Hugh Grant, almost effortlessly, shows the two sides to this character. James Wilby,as Maurice, moves from self-disgust, despair and guilt, to self-acceptance. Rupert Graves as Scudder (similar to Mellors) is really good. The scenes he shares with James Wilby are not forced. The supporting cast are good - the women, Simon Callow (who introduces us to the Edwardian conformist ideology) are equally good. And Ben Kingsley, as the hypnotherapist nicely shows the push-pull in the then-British psyche. My favourite Merchant-Ivory film is Room with a view. Maurice is darker, but just as well filmed, with enough humour to balance the seriousness of the film. The naive, happily-ever-after ending (EM Forster's) doesn't quite work, but leads to good discussion. Of all the DVD-shown deleted scenes, the final 'confrontation' between Maurice and Durham should be, in my opinion, restored. It's a fine film, both engaging and unsettling. Sensitively adapted, directed, acted and shot. Kudos

‘Maurice' had a deep emotional impact on me when I first saw it in my early teens, more than ten years ago. I just saw it again for the first time since then and I was a bit worried that I would be disappointed, but then I was definitely not. It still had the same magic.

To me, this is the #1 Merchant-Ivory work. I find this movie astoundingly profound compared to several other of their movies. This movie is above all accomplished by the excellent acting. It tells a pure and convincing story about struggling to be true to oneself in a world of not only prejudice and firm standards but even serious legal sanctions.

I think ‘Maurice' is far more romantic, and sexy, than most heterosexual love stories I have seen. The love and longing of these men seems so real and pure, especially by the fact that they are consistently being told that their inclination is `unspeakable', and their futures and careers are at stake.

It is great to see Hugh Grant in an early role (his first real movie role?) that is so different from the mainstream comedy entertainer he has become. The ending is stunning. I love that the movie ended exactly where it did, although it is a dread to acknowledge that the war would break out soon after. The music score is enthralling. And Alec Scudder is so beautiful that it hurts.

That's one of the most good-looking movies I've ever seen. The actors, the set, the style - everything was gorgeous! I would be glad to just sit and watch it so I could enjoy the aesthetics again. But why I give 7 then? Well, if we leave the beautiful shots behind, the storyline was also good but I didn't find it THAT interesting in the last 30-40 minutes. The love between Maurice and Scudder wasn't captivating or real enough for me and I wanted something more between Maurice and Clive. For me they were the true gem of the story and after Clive's missing from the screen, the story became a little plain. That's very personal opinion because I watched the movie for Hugh Grant so that's probably the reason I didn't like the second part as much as the first. But even if it was not so interesting in the end, I fully recommend the movie. Maybe it's not the best but it's so beautiful that you wouldn't want to miss it.

I ran into this movie a long, long time ago, watching the TV news one evening back in 1987. I felt as I couldn't miss it as soon as I realized it had been shot in Cambridge, my favorite place in the world, but all my feelings went much beyond that when I saw it. I didn't feel uneasy about homosexuality at all but it was with that movie that I finally realized it was only love, no matter whether it involved a man and a woman, or two men, or two women.... The set is magnificent, the actors at their best (a great Hugh Grant who was so great as to show how Mr E.M.Forster had become tired with Clive...), and I must say that Mr Ivory did a pretty good job with his version of the story, very well adapted. In fact I do believe the book is superior in many moments but, on the other hand, the film is far far superior in many other moments, and you can't really say this all the times. I suggest everybody should watch it and enjoy it, no matter what your sexual preferences are. A masterpiece, indeed!

E.M. Forster's subtle novels have been a rich source of material for director James Ivory, including 'Maurice', in which Forster explored his own homosexuality with uncommon directness. The first part of this film is lush and predictable, a story of beautiful young chums at Cambridge, but it takes on an edge as life in the real world forces choices upon its characters. A young Hugh Grant is unexpectedly good as Clive, who makes the transition from floppy haired boy to Edwardian moralist. While it lacks the panache of 'A Room with a View', 'Maurice' grows to become a deeper work. My only quibble is with the end, which suddenly swivels back to Clive's point of view, a viewpoint largely abandoned throughout the film's second half - the ending fits the synopsis, but somehow not the execution. Nonetheless, a good film.

I really liked this movie when I first saw it in 1987. I like it even more today. This is the story of two gay men in the early 20th Century, how they fall in love, how they fall apart, and how they eventually take very different paths. One that leads to a life of sadness and regret. The other to acceptance, love, and fulfillment.

James Wilby gives a powerful performance as Maurice, a middle class gentleman who discovers his homosexuality while away for college at Cambridge University. It is there he meets and falls in love with Clive Durham, played brilliantly by Hugh Grant, an upper class gentleman who lives in a decaying English manor, called Pendersligh Park, that was built by his grandfather's grandfather. They enter into a passionate, albeit sexless, relationship that most viewers will see as doomed from the start. Maurice, once he overcomes his internal conflict over who and what he actually is, is drowning in love for Clive. Clive on the other hand, though he is in love with Maurice, is perhaps more in love with the idea of Maurice, than Maurice himself. When outside circumstances intervene, their world together comes crashing down, and the results are painful for both.

One of the plot devices that I found intriguing, and not having read the book I don't know if it is part of the original story, is Simcox, Clive's butler, played menacingly and effectively by Patrick Godfrey. He informs the viewer of the disapproval and judgment directed at Maurice and Clive that IS Edwardian England. Simcox delivers even the most banal lines with an almost imperceptible sneer. Even when he has no lines he is lurking in the background of the scene with a stone cold gaze that says, "I know what you're up to." He is the warden. Edwardian England is the prison. And Pendersleigh Park is Clives cell.

I missed many of the finer points of this film the first time I saw it in 1987. Back then the ending disappointed me because I identified with Maurice and I felt like he waked away with the second prize, Alec Scudder. And Clive caved to the pressures of Edwardian England and entered into a marriage he was never suited for. All of that was true then, and is still true today. However, with 20 plus years of maturation behind me I now understand that when the credits role at the end of this film Clive is as deeply in love with Maurice as he ever was.

The finale of the film is a window into the lifeless, hopeless, longing, that is Clive's future, contrasted with that of the fulfillment and joy that will be Maurice's. After Clive and Maurice have their final words, Clive returns to his waiting wife inside Pendersleigh. Simcox asks, "will there will be anything else sir?", and then proceeds to close the house shutters for the night. You can almost hear the sound of cell doors closing for lights out in a penitentiary. Clive approaches his wife, who is seated in front of her vanity mirror. He leans in to kiss her cheek and they look up together into the mirror in front of them. They expect to see a happy couple. They don't. There is a sadness in Clive's eyes that they are both unprepared for. It is more shocking to Clive because now he is no longer fooling even himself. He pulls uncomfortably away from his wife and like a prisoner resigned to his confinement, he finishes closing the shutters, (the cell doors of Pendersleigh) one by one. As he comes to the last one he takes a final look out the window at freedom. Clive has chosen to accept society, and turn its turmoil toward him inward where he will always be conflicted and never know a moment of peace. Maurice has decided to accept who he is and deal with the turmoil in the world outside. It is heartbreaking.

James Wilby carries this movie from start to finish. As Maurice it is his story to tell and tell it he does. From adolescent bewilderment, to revulsion with Clive's initial advances, to falling in love with Clive, then heartbreak, and finally to his own sunset to walk into. He never has a foot out of place. It is an honest and compelling performance. But it is Hugh Grant's complex and multi layered Clive that you're left with ricocheting around in your soul. When Clive says to Maurice, "It's like the good blundering creature that you are to try and comfort me, but there are limits," Grant conveys a sense of defeat, resignation, and emptiness that is almost too difficult to watch. At times he stares very far away. Probably to the place where he wishes he could be, but seems impossible to reach. I think because initially I was so personally disappointed in his characters evolution throughout the course of the movie, that I missed what a brilliant performance this was. Forgive me Mr. Grant. You are a truly talented actor.

This is a brilliant film. It's all there: beautiful story, beautiful landscape cinematography, great script(small problem though with the editing and non-sequitur dialog when Scudder meets Maurice in London), great direction, perfect score, and above all two brilliant performances from James Wilby and Hugh Grant and many others in the supporting cast. This one is a must see.

A very good-looking film from Merchant-Ivory, it is well shot with excellent choices of lighting, and the sets and costumes are as good as would be expected. Once again Richard Robbins takes to writing the music for the film and he does an excellent job, composing music that fits the film and is also beautiful on its own. However, there is not much else that is noteworthy about this production other than the technical aspects. Sure, the film manages to say a few things on coping with homosexuality during a rigid, traditionalist period in the history of Britain, however the storyline is far too drawn out, making the film more than just slightly too long. It also injects a second romance that is underdeveloped and most of the supporting characters are only lightly developed themselves. There is an interesting small supporting role for Ben Kingsley, but otherwise the acting is a tad bland. Do not be mistaken though - this is certainly a good film, especially of its type - just not nearly as perfectly made as some of Merchant-Ivory's future films would turn out to be.

E. M. Forster's novel, "Maurice," is given a first-rate screen adaptation by this British production. James Ivory's direction is very cinematic, conveying the multi-layered story through a series of dramatic scenes, with just a bit of over-voice narration. Its impact comes through an incremental effect, reaching moving proportions by the end of the lengthy presentation. James Wilby, Hugh Grant, Rupert Graves and Helena Bonham Carter are all excellent, heading a superior cast. Every aspect of the production has been carefully prepared and executed.

What emerges for me is the tragedy of societal constraint, under the guise of virtue. It is a tightrope to walk for the free-wheeling, independent thinker in this society: he who steps outside the bounds of regularity is subject to scorn and persecution. That the drama's heros do not fall into the mode of so-called "normalcy" leave them open to a lifestyle of tension and risk. Forster beautifully conveys this in the novel, and Ivory transfers it to the screen with great skill.

Certainly "Maurice" is one of the top motion pictures of the 80s. Kudos to all who took part in bringing this poignant novel to the screen.

James Wilby is at his best here depicting the eponymous E. M. Forster character who takes rather a shine to his university colleague "Clive" (Hugh Grant). Of course not only is same sex fun illegal, it's looked upon very unfavourably by the Oxford set - even if most of them have had the odd dabble themselves. "Clive" is not really the commitment sort - he cares more for conforming and taking his well-heeled place in society, but "Maurice" seems more dyed-in-the-wool. His sexuality less fluid and his frustrations ever increasing. It's on a trip to see his friend and new wife "Anne" (Phoebe Nicholls) that he encounters their charming under-gamekeeper "Scudder" (Rupert Graves) and despite the differences in their social standing, at at some peril to his reputation, they embark on something that could just change both of their lives. Whilst the whole thing is set amongst the rarified environment of the English upper classes, it's still a potent reminder of life in a proscriptive society that though nothing of jail with hard labour for men caught with other men. There's a strong supporting cast, typical of these quality Marchant Ivory productions - Simon Callow, Billie Whitelaw and Judy Parfitt to name but three (I'm sure I saw Helena Bonham Carter in here too) and the look of the film - the settings, costumes and overall production design give it an authenticity and sheen. For me, the film belongs to Graves. His cheeky, well meaning and naive young character epitomising just what was wrong with the very fabric of a society that abhorred and punished his sexuality. With a swipe at the medical professional - and quackery in general - along the way, this whole thing is a classy and stylish assessment of a life that never, quite, feels real.

Well-produced costume drama (as you would expect from Merchant and Ivory) about a gentleman (the titular Maurice, played by James Wilby), who discovers he is gay at university and tries to find love in a time when it was forbidden.

The first half is a decent story of the relationship between Maurice and fellow student Clive Durham (Hugh Grant) as they grow into young adulthood. But the second half is disappointing, as Maurice's attention is caught by groundsman Alec Scudder (Rupert Graves), and he seeks the help of an American hypnotist (Ben Kingsley).

Graves and Kingsley give poor performances which render the film melodramatic and unbelievable. Wilby is not very convincing either.

Hugh Grant's charisma stands out, but despite the modern marketing, his is only a supporting role.

Yes, there are gay scenes, which may have been shocking in the 80s but not any more. What's left is a minor film that is little more than a footnote in Grant's rise to fame.

I saw MAURICE when it first appeared in theaters in the mid-80s and enjoyed it. I was surprised on a second viewing on DVD last night at how much I had forgotten about this film. This story of a thwarted love affair between two upper- class men during their years at Cambridge is a deeply absorbing and entertaining adaptation of Forster's posthumously published novel, which I read at in 1971. I thought the book rather dull. The movie seems anything but, which makes me wonder if I shouldn't pull it off my library shelves and give it another go.

Though James Wilby's Maurice Hall is the main character, it is Hugh Grant young aristocrat that is most intriguing here. Clive Durham (Grant) is a spoiled and deeply entrenched member of Britain's snobbish ruling class. It is Durham who pursues Wilby (not the other way around as some of these reviews would have you believe). Initially spooked by Durham's admission of his love for Maurice, he pursues Durham with a naive passion. But that passion is ruined when a fellow classmate from Cambridge is set up by a soldier in a bar and arrested by the police. This young man's future in politics and society is ruined (horrified, Durham says no to him when he asks to testify on his behalf), and he is found guilty and sentenced to six months in jail and hard labor. His picture is splashed across the headlines of London's tabloids. The realization that this could happen to him forces Durham to reject Maurice, pursue and marry a young girl from his class and move himself deeply into the closet. So much for the politics of homosexuality in Britain, circa 1912.

Maurice is devastated by his friend's rejection of him. Miserable, he seeks every avenue he can to reverse and cure his own homosexual longings. He even subjects himself to the quackery of a hypnotist-therapist (Ben Kinsley in a hilarious turn). Maurice finally gives in to his feelings when he finally falls deeply in love with the gamekeeper of Durham's estate (well played by the young and very handsome Rupert Graves).

This Merchant-Ivory film is, typically, gorgeous to look at, its pacing is novelistic and deeply rewarding. Hugh Grant showed early star appeal as the superficial and ultimately defeated victim of his class and society. He would rarely get the chance at so fine a part in the future despite his great success as a light comedian in a string of international hit movies (ABOUT A BOY being one such terrific film performance from this very appealing actor). James Wilby is pitch perfect as the perplexed and emotional Maurice. The expert supporting cast under the commanding direction of James Ivory delivers this period piece superbly. It's period look is typical of Merchant-Ivory productions--detailed, richly appointed and very beautiful. Kudos also to Kit Hesketh-Harvey's excellent screenplay.

One viewer here complained that ending was far too upbeat and unrealistic for its time, but I really didn't see it that way. There were many men and women who set up housekeeping in both London and New York, living their lives in discreet harmony under the noses of hostile societies. Still others preferred to move abroad to live their lives in discrete peace and tranquility. I prefer to think this is just what Maurice and Scudder do. If Maurice were as much of a snob as Durham, this might not have worked. But we see Maurice's slow understanding of the hypocrisy of his class in the aftermath of his affair with Durham, and he comes to realize that even he is somewhat constrained by his own upper-class upbringing in his initial interactions with Scudder's far lower standing.

This is a deeply affecting movie and holds up superbly. Highly recommended.

Before I watch Maurice, I almost had no idea of the life of gays. I used to hold the notion that homosexuality was unacceptable and disgusting, which was under the influence of some so-called orthodox thinking. As the time goes by, I gradually realized that you can't make a judgment before truly knowing something about it. Truth is not told by "everybody" but explored and medicated by yourself. And the movie "Maurice" has provided me with a good chance to have a better look at the true life of gays, to perceive their pure and pristine affections towards the same sex, to feel their struggle and desperation under public prejudice and pressure. Though my life is a far cry from that of Maurice and Clive portrayed in the movie, it seems that I can understand them perfectly and are quite empathetic with them. I think that is because what is expressed in the movie is undoubtedly part of human nature, which can strike a chord in the depth of every human being's heart. For that reason, one line in the movie stroke me deeply. When Maurice's psychological doctor advised him to emigrate to countries such as France and Italy where homosexuality was no longer criminal, he said:" England has always been disinclined to accept human nature."

A great movie!

E.M. Forster (1879-1970) as a gay man lived long enough to see the Stonewall Rebellion happen across the pond the year before his death at the age of 91. Though close friends knew he was gay, as prescribed by the mores of the times, Forster led a quiet, discreet, and circumspect life. He was not a political person, first and foremost he was a novelist, though in his writings you can some trenchant comments about the political, never more so in his A Passage To India.

My guess is that if Stonewall didn't happen here and other developments such as the Wolfenden report recommending decriminalization of homosexuality in the United Kingdom hadn't happened, Maurice might never have seen the light of day. My guess is that Forster would have opted for a time capsule, hoping this novel of young same sex love would see the light of day in more enlightened times. He got to see those enlightened times come before he died, so Forster's novel Maurice was published in 1971 and came to the screen in 1987.

Forster's protagonist is Maurice Hall a young man with some unwanted gay feelings, unwanted because at the time those things were not discussed. Young Maurice forms an attachment with school chum Clive Durham. To put it in more modern terms they're the British boarding school equivalent of Ennis Delmar and Jack Twist.

And they view their relationship differently as did Jack and Ennis. Maurice truly hates the stifling conformity of Edwardian Great Britain, but Clive wants to put it behind him, get married and do as proper British society demands of him.

James Wilby is Maurice and Hugh Grant in one of his earliest roles is the shallow Clive. Maurice takes a path that E.M. Forster took in life as a gay man, as open as he could be, but most discreet.

I do wonder who the Clive character was based on. I also wonder if in the future, the proper Mr. Clive might have been giving the toe tapping signal in some bathroom stall looking to satisfy his real and closeted lusts.

There is also a great performance by Rupert Graves as Alec Scudder the stable-hand at Clive's estate who Maurice eventually does establish a relationship and some measure of happiness. It will be a tough road for them, not very many places on the earth will be that hospitable in the years just before World War I.

Maurice was written around 1910, a decade or so after the Oscar Wilde scandal and six years before Roger Casement's diaries were opened to the public to justify hanging him as a traitor in the Easter Rebellion. The gay baiting there was a deliberate tactic by the British government to shake popular support away from the rebels in Ireland. These were not good times for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered people.

E.M. Forster wrote the novel and tucked it away. It's a beautiful work and a beautiful film made from same. I'm glad in the final couple of years of life, Forster saw the more enlightened times come so we could have a glimpse of what life was like for a young gay male in Edwardian Great Britain.

Being a movie that was so commercialized, I expected more from him. Unfortunately, it is a long film, long but without justification ... it could have been much more condensed, richer in events, in feelings, in inner states. I know that the British are a cold people, who extremely censor their inner life and manifestations in the relations they have with each other, and this film once again confirmed to me that this is the situation. The story of Maurice, a boy from a high society who discovers his sexuality and finds that it is in total conflict with the tolerance of the English society of the 1900s, could have been much better and more beautifully told ... the good part is that the film is happy end!

"Maurice" (prononced "Morris") is the film adaption of the book by E.M. Forster and stated to be semi-autobiographical of his life. The book was banned for many years and it wasn't until 1987 that this visually splendid film was released from Merchant-Ivory - ("A Room With A View", "Howard's End"). Set in early 19th century England, it details the coming of age story of Maurice Hall, an upper-class aristocrat who falls in love with fellow classmate Clive Durham (Hugh Grant). Shortly after their romance begins, a fellow student is entrapped and imprisoned for soliciting a military officer. Out of fear of losing his inheritance and political future, Clive decides to get married. Although hurt and feeling very alone, Maurice continues a close platonic relationship with Clive. After attempts to "cure" his homosexuality fail, Maurice finds himself falling in love with Clive's gamekeeper, Scudder. With the threat of exposure and blackmail always a real possibility, they must risk everything to build a future together. Supporting performances by Denholm Elliot, Helena Bonham Carter and Ben Kingsley help make this a true classic. The lush and elegant score is available as part a 3-disc set of Merchant-Ivory film scores. Guys, if you're looking for a great "first-date" video, it really doesn't get much better than "Maurice"!

Maurice (1987) -

I have tried to enjoy this film, but even Rupert Graves lovely bottom and massive schlong didn't seem to win it enough points for me. I'm not saying that it's a bad film and I'm sure that I will watch it again sometime in the very distant future, but the story itself was just not that interesting for me personally.

I suppose that in some ways I am very fortunate that I do not come from a time where homosexuality was considered such an aberration.

Growing up, I had always known that life would be slightly tough for me, but my sexuality has never been classed as illegal within my lifetime. What I mean is that I might not have been able to fully appreciate the pressure that the two leads in this film were under. Not just the need to conceal their sexual preference, but also a demand on them to continue the family name and show a certain face to the world.

However, I didn't think that the story was that exciting either. Hardly any of their moments together seemed to be that risky and the danger was only on the periphery, happening to supporting characters. I didn't get the feeling that the drama that they were enduring was that dangerous, based on their performances or perhaps it was the direction and or editing?

There is supposed to be a larger psychological element to the book that was filmed, but cut. I'd love to see a modern take on the story with more of a focus on those issues to show what the characters were truly feeling in order to bring the drama it deserves and do justice to the work and the characters.

It also had a very old fashioned feel to its direction too, it seemed a bit out of date in the way that it was filmed, as if it had been made 4 or 5 decades earlier.

The whole thing moved quite quickly, but yet it still seemed slow. I suppose that things were less of a rush in the early part of the last century, but it really was a bit of a dawdle.

The Edwardian era really does feel alien over 100 years later and, as such, some of the script and I assume therefore the source novel is very twee and a bit too innocent for todays tastes.

A troubled relationship from the get go. Hugh's character Clive was not particularly attractive actually, because he was so volatile and treated Maurice's attention as a hobby that he had grown tired of.

And Maurice himself was so vulnerable and wet, but I was definitely on his side and I wanted him to find a true love, but knew from the start that it wouldn't be that simple.

Despite the graphic nudity, there is no graphic sex, so it didn't feel homoerotic, so much as clumsy and awkward and not just because of the time period, but the way that it was filmed too. It felt like straight actors kissing and not very sensually. Perhaps worried what their Mums would think.

Hugh and James played their parts well enough and Rupert was ok, but his contrasting and exaggerated accent really did jar against the rest.

Overall I think that the basis for the story had merit, but the delivery was somewhat lacking. However I can see that it was probably an important film in the struggle against homophobia and censorship in cinema at its time of release.

601.99/1000.

When E M Forster wrote "Maurice" homosexuality was considered a mental illness, a criminal offence, an aberration, a sin against God, (it still is in some quarters). It wasn't so long since Oscar Wilde was jailed for sodomy and Forster, had his own homosexuality become public knowledge, would certainly have found himself in a similar predicament and would never have enjoyed the literary eminence that he did. So consequently, moved though he was to write the book, gave instructions that it should not be published until after his death, and Forster lived for a very long time. When "Maurice" eventually did see the light of day, it seemed terribly dated. 'I'm an unspeakable of the Oscar Wilde sort', Maurice tells his doctor in a feeble attempt to be 'cured' of his 'affliction', and a line which the movie retains. Gay literature had come a long way in the interim and homosexuality was no longer seen as an illness nor a crime.

But Forster's view of homosexuality was, surprisingly, not a tortured, shame-filled one but touchingly, if ridiculously, romantic. When Maurice finally does find true love, it cuts across all barriers including class and has the lovers retreating, like some gay Adam and Eve, to 'the greenwood'. It seems unrealistic but at the same time liberating long before the term 'gay liberation' was ever coined.

James Ivory's screen version is remarkably faithful to the original and consequently risks ridicule in this so-called more enlightened age. But Ivory's intelligence as a film-maker has long been over-looked in favour of an emphasis on his prettified recreations of the past. Yet he remains the pre-eminent chronicler in British cinema, (though American and consistently working with an Indian producer, Ismail Merchant), of a particular period in British history mostly through adaptations of novels by writers of the period or by contemporary authors writing about the period. But when Ivory did adapt 'classic' literature, he concentrated on the best and working mostly with the great writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, brought to bear on these adaptations a deeply felt and genuine appreciation of their worth.

Hence "Maurice" is as fastidiously good as we have come to expect, the difference being that this time the script is not by Jhabvala but by Ivory himself and Kit Hesketh-Harvey. In every other respect it looks and feels typically 'Merchant-Ivory', a term some people believe stultified British cinema at a time when other directors were making edgy, contemporary 'new-wave' films. But that is like condemning well-acted, well-crafted Shakespeare just because it's old.

"Maurice" is a superbly acted, visually gorgeous film, though at times its fidelity to its source means that sometimes certain scenes feel stilted, (you make want to give these people a good shaking). And did they need to cast actors as beautiful as James Wilby (Maurice), Hugh Grant, (his first great love, Clive Durham), and Rupert Graves, (the game-keeper Scudder, shades of a gay Lady Chatterly, the boy he finally falls for)? All three play wonderfully well and Ivory populates his film with a cast of wonderful character actors, (Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot, Billie Whitelaw, Judy Parfitt), all playing at the top of their form.

Of course, both book and film have now largely been set aside as dated and irrelevant in the annals of gay literature and cinema. Surely not. The film remains as much an integral part of the history and consequential progress of main-stream gay movie-making as "Brokeback Mountain", (though by no means as commercially successful), as it is an integral part of the Merchant-Ivory stable. Anyone remotely interested in either should seek it out.

Set in 1909, this follows the struggles of two Cambridge undergraduates Maurice (James Whitby) and Clive (Hugh Grant) who fall desperately in love with each other at a time when not only is homosexuality illegal which can result in prison, but is considered morally entirely corrupt by pretty much everyone. When one of Clive's friends is caught with another man and sentenced to 6 months, Clive becomes frightened and determines to fight his instincts and gets married. With Clive now in denial, totally bereft without him, Maurice finds solace in the arms of game keeper Scudder (Rupert Graves) but will this be true love or big trouble.

Based on EM Forster's book which remained unpublished for sixty years because of its subject matter, this is a compelling tale reflecting the impossible life homosexuals had at the beginning of the century and the steps that needed to be taken to keep everything hidden. It's well acted, convincing and has a tremendous sense of time and place.

A very nice production of what I imagine is an interesting and very brave novel. It is kind of sweet but drags on a bit for a story which is not very convoluted nor requires 2.5 hours. Also doesn't say a great deal and is a fairly predictable love story. I imagine the novel has more depth regarding the psychological and societal travails of being gay at this time. It's interesting to see a very young Hugh Grant and how it was clear right from the start of his career that he has wonderful stage presence which combined with his good looks was always going to make him a star.