Filhos e Amantes

Freddie Francis's cinematography is in some ways the star. It is not showy or intrusive. It's totally organic to the unfolding of the plot. Yet it is exquisite -- both with landscapes and with actors. This is especially true with Trevor Howard, very powerful as a boozy miner.

The other star is that great actress Wendy Hiller. Her role is far from entirely sympathetic. She suffocates her favorite son, well played by Dean Stockwell. She is demanding in a quiet way and selfish in a manner passing itself off as martyrdom. But what a gorgeous performance! Mary Ure was a fine actress. Somehow, though, the character she plays doesn't entirely work in my view. It seems more from kitchen-sink realism, like the Shelagh Delaney plays that were filmed around this time. (And where have they gone? Why don't we ever see "A Taste of Honey" or "The Leather Boys" anymore?) Heather Sears is good but I have to admit, to my embarrassment, I found it hard to shake her excellent performance in the tile role of "The Story of Esther Costello" from my mind. Her being a bright young woman taken with Stockwell, therefore, startled me throughout. That is my own failing and surely not hers.

This is a superb movie. All of it is good. But for me, the scenes involving Hiller are the most compelling. Howard, too, is superb. And Stockwell as Paul. The family story is heart-wrenching.

Two mothers in this story control the destiny of their children and not in good ways. Believable performances across the board. Dean Stockwell seems to have acquired his "English accent" from Roddy McDowell but it only slips a few times.

Highlights of casting: the penultimate appearance of DR. Pretorius (Ernest Thesinger) and an early, all too brief, Donald Pleasance with an amazing combover.

Not a "fun" movie but enjoyable.

Sons and Lovers (1960)

D. H. Lawrence is at an all time low in popularity--both his books and the movies based on them. Why? Good question. It's more than just passing tastes. I think it has to do with the precious boundary breaking that once made Lawrence a daring darling of the literary set. Sexual taboos have since been so radically eclipsed, from Henry Miller to John Updike, not to mention hundreds of less mainstream authors, Lawrence is almost stuffy and pretentious.

Or so it would seem. "Sons and Lovers" is a love story set in a tough mining town in England early in the 20th Century. It's filled with the longing of a man to rise out of these pits and be "something" in the world--namely, a successful painter. The girl who loves him is overly devoted, and after a tryst (that was the radical part) there is a falling apart of things. How true this can be! I mean, this is great stuff--a sensitive story about the feelings most of us have had, where desire is mistaken for something deeper, where the world is calling and love, or shades of love, are not enough to keep you home.

The filming is straight out of the gritty, short period of British films known rough as the British New Wave or the Angry Young Men (or both). These films, a grown out of French New Wave and early Italian neo-realism, were a reaction against the slick and vacuous big studio filmmaking (Hollywood especially) from this period. There are more typical films from this group than "Sons and Lovers" but it's certainly part of that mood, looking at working class life, filming with great economy and directness, and using actors in a realistic, vaguely documentary way. For insight into this kind of film, try "Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner" or "Look Back in Anger." Even the first Beatles film, oddly enough, is influenced by this movement ("A Hard Day's Night"), in the raw, fast, black and white style.

But if that's the context, you still have to ask if this film is any good. And the answer is quite. It's a big movie, a deep movie, emotional and deeply serious. It is sad, too, overall, or perhaps melancholy is a better word, and this gloom is slightly wearing after a bit. Some people will find that talking about love is a peculiarly British and indirect way of being in love--the literary overwhelms the truth.

Director Jack Cardiff is a cinematographer above all. This might explain the visual emphasis, the sublime, restrained photography. Lead young actor Dean Stockwell is a perfect visual cast, and he really is good, somehow, in a way that is convincing, though he isn't always commanding. A small part of me didn't care what happened to anyone in the movie. It was all plain to see, and I knew what I was supposed to feel, but I didn't always get the force of those feelings.

The movie, like the book, is patient and deliberate, and quite nuanced and beautiful.

Jack Cardiff, the director of "Sons and Lovers" was one of the greatest cinematographers ever. Just think of "Black Narcissus" but as a director he lacked that extra something, call it egomania, single mindedness or whatever you want. "Sons and Lovers" is beautifully crafted but it doesn't have a real center and by that I mean, no real point of view, no personality. What a feast however. Trevor Howard got an Oscar nomination for his role here and he is truly wonderful. The marvelous Wendy Hiller manages to give a soul to the monstrous mother and make her sympathetic without betraying the misogynistic nature of DH Lawrence's vision. But the film belongs to Dean Stockwell. His truth and his beauty is what I took away with me and stayed with me, always.

How can there be so little attention and knowledge about this film? Nominated for SEVEN academy awards including Best Picture!

I have always felt that CinemaScope was made for B&W films. Scope films look really good B&W. And to my mind the best B&W photographed movie of All Time is SONS & LOVERS. This was a prestige picture for distributor 20th Century-Fox, as indicated by the rare lack of drum roll over the Fox Logo - instead the beginning of the outstanding music score is heard. In the Chicagoland area in 1960 and again at a theatre in Okland, CA in 1976 I had the pleasure to view the film with Mag Stereo Sound. I also saw a new print in NYC sometime in the early 80's. So why has Fox let this picture set in obscurity? My only knowlege of any TV exposure was on American Movie Classics Channel (scanned only) about ten years ago. This one NEEDS to be on DVD!!!!!!!!

One last comment. if you've ever read the book, you will really appreciate the great job that was done in "adapting" the novel. The screenplay, which is SO well done, is I'd say a good 80% original material.