Lady Chatterley

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.