Lady Chatterley

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.

Lady Chatterley, whose husband was paralyzed in a war, is faced with the prospect of living the rest of life completely unfulfilled sexually, emotionally and maternally. She then meets Mellors, the family gameskeeper, with whom she begins an affair. D.H. Lawrence's novels, from which the movie was adapted, addressed some very touchy subjects of the 1920's English culture: sexuality and the dichotomy of the social classes. The movie, filmed for TV in four segments, does an excellent job of portraying the lives of Lawrence's characters and the lifestyles and fashion of that era. While the movie seems to get somewhat slow in places, the story would somehow be less complete without them. Part of the controversy surrounding Lawrence's was the great detail with which he described the sexual encounters between Lady Chatterley and Mellors. The books, though banned for many years in England, were nevertheless quite popular and became an instrument of social change. Many movies that attempt to depict sexual intimacy somehow fail to capture the atmosphere or feeling of the moment quite as well as director Ken Russell did in this movie. The scenes were quite convincing and should be required viewing for anyone who wishes to avoid movies where the sex scenes were added solely for the sake of the box office. The actors Joely Richardson and Sean Bean did a superb job at presenting to the audience the sexual intimacy and how they were affected by the social ramifications of their relationship. Despite the rather long playing time of the movie, they manage to maintain the quality of their roles as people in a complex social predicament. While the movie contains some nudity, it is important to note that the only scene that depicts full-frontal nudity is one that is void of any sexuality; the couple, overwhelmed at having found true joy in their lives, run and frolic naked through the woods. A good lesson for future moviemakers and censors: nudity in movies need not - nor should it always be - associated with sex. The bottom line: Lady Chatterley is a good quality love story that includes all the social politics, the old-world class distictinctions, and the many other elements that make up the relationship of the couple involved. If you liked the books, you will most likely enjoy this movie as well.

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.

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.