Avaliações de usuários

I have seen the BBC adaptation of the DH Lawrence novel made by Ken Russell with Joely Richardson and Sean Bean and there is no comparison: I prefer the French adaptation even if the film is not always faithful to the book on some points (for example, in the book, Sir Clifford is having problems with his miners and his employees because he is very arrogant but in the film, Pascale Ferran does not mention these problems). The actors are maybe a little more good-looking in the BBC version but that's about it (sorry, Sean Bean). And if you want to see a film about a beautiful but bored, aristocratic woman whose sensuality is suddenly re-awakened by her meeting with the sullen, unsociable but virile Parkin/Mellors, then this film is for you. Pascale Ferran seemed to have focused her film on the love-story between Lady Constance/Connie and Parkin, the gamekeeper and the discovery or re-discovery of one's senses. That is why you have beautiful shots of nature, of magnificent trees in spring and why you have many scenes in which Constance is walking in the forest and just listening to the songs of birds. The forest is also the place where she discovers her own sensuality. The actors are brilliant, they magnificently show all sorts of emotions on their faces and the love-making scenes are all made with much reserve, with subtlety...It is all refined and very beautifully-done. I loved this Connie, I could relate to her and I loved the long pauses and the looks between the two leads, the big shots on the hands, on some legs or other parts of the body and some refined clothes. The costumes are also important. This movie reminds me a little of some scenes of The Piano by Jane Campion and if you enjoyed The Piano, I am sure you will like this French adaptation. Definitely a 'must-see'. It is a little long, more than 2 hours and a half, I think but if you are used to watching long BBC period dramas like me, you will have no fear in watching this!

First we may talk about the general atmosphere of this remarkable movie. All sceneries are very beautiful, accurate and full of meaning: the landscapes, the interiors and the characters' clothes like we would expect in a reproduction of events which take place in mid-twenties of last century. In what concerns the plot and story we must keep always in mind that at the time most Victorian moral values still prevail and we must see the movie against this background so what wouldn't be revolutionary nowadays was revolutionary indeed at the time. This is the well told, well acted and well directed story of a woman awakening for the physical side of love life. She is the aristocratic rich wife of a no less aristocratic and rich man who is nevertheless an invalid ridden to a wheelchair for life and sexually impotent of course. This awakening begins when she sees for the first time her husband's gamekeeper naked above his waist and washing himself. She is then overwhelmed by a great psychological trouble and the ensuing uncontrollable need of meeting him again leads her to go to see him once more and finishing by surrender herself to make love with him. The first two love scenes were so quick that she doesn't get to any climax and only during the third scene where she takes a more active part does she reach a full orgasm. It's curious however (but quite in accordance with social patterns of that time) that during the first love scenes between the two the relation master-servant maintains itself before and after sex and only later does it gain a more personal and intimate nature. After the third love scene she even thanks him for it like if it had been a service rendered by him which offends him a lot. This adaptation of the second version of the literary masterpiece novel by the British writer D. H. Lawrence is a great success indeed. This novel was banned as pornographic when it was published first time and only in the sixties of last century a court declared it not pornographic according to he real difference between pornography and eroticism which exists though many people still don't know it but it's out of the scope of this review to explain. Sex is a force of nature and indeed a part of human relations and the literary or artistic works based on it can be object of aesthetic (in the broad sense) evaluation notwithstanding any possible moral evaluations which are not within the scope of a literary or a film essay.

This version of the often-shot story of Lady Chatterley is in French with English subtitles, and I found the "look" of many of the actors to be decidedly French (big surprise) rather than English. The plot development was decidedly leisurely in the first half of the film, but this was not a game-breaker as far as my enjoyment of the movie. However, compared to all the other versions on this story that I've seen, I found this French effort to bring an element of earthy realism (best way I can describe it) to the story that the others lacked. The scene where the gamekeeper and Lady Chatterley "decorate" each other with flowers and subsequently disport themselves outside in the field and woods is a particularly interesting and memorable sequence. One minor quibble: the film seemed to both begin and end rather abruptly...you'll know what I mean when you watch it.

This film has a great deal going for it - it looks lovely and contains some wonderfully tender scenes. However, I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed in the portrayal of Lady C. I found her to be weak rather than vulnerable, sometimes silly rather than girlish and sorry to say - less interesting than the male characters. All of this is surprising considering a woman directed the film. It was clear what was intended but ultimately the sensuous awakening in Lawrence's writing did not quite make it off the page.

I so wanted to embrace this film fully. It does have some marvellous moments and the commitment to the essence of the novel was evident - something clearly lacking in many other film versions. It is certainly worth seeing this film but don't expect the same intensity as you find in the novel - it is more of a tribute than a true representation of the original.

I think DH Lawrence would be proud of this film...Pascale Ferran transformed this story we all imagine as an erotic cliché in a very sensible and sensitive movie. Because Lady Chatterley is not the story of a more or less sex-addict bourgeoise we have seen in so many rubbish erotic movies, inspired by the novel. It is much more about a woman who discovers the materiality of world threw a love story. She discovers also that "some people are not naturally made to command others" and in a way her love story with Parkin is a truly waking up to other people and life around her. She discovers her body and the world of the first industrial revolution has it used to be: unfair and unequal. Lady Chatterlay is not only an erotic story but also a very politic and subversive one. DH Lawrence is well known for being very critical about the British society of 1920's and the human side-effects of industrial development. Pascal Ferran perfectly understood the deep meaning of the novel. Moreover, she transmuted those ideas in a very french movie (but in fact the best french author cinema). The way she has filmed the two characters is very intimate but never silly, and that's a great achievement! In a way, her style is very closed to Piala's one. Harsh and poetic at the same time, precise and evocative, sensible and sensitive. This film is very precious!

The movie was real as the book. A good book lives on the reader's mind. A good movie does the same. Lady Chatterly was long, not really easy to consume. It was ,however, worth looking in. Except the theme of the movie seemed a little outdated. Female sexual liberation is old as Madonna. The rebellion against male dominance, or the bourgeois society had gone so long, now we do not really see discussing socialism over the dinner table. Except its message (Someone might argue it as if there was nothing new in the story, what was the point of movie making. I totally agree, but it is an enjoyable movie at its own rights.) The camera take an honest look on human & nature. Too real as the flesh in the movie, nothing was altered to exaggerate aesthetically in the movie. All too real. The movie starts slowly as Chatterly's mind and life until it starting to shape (A very slow transition). Then finally she starting to live her own life. It is predictable but consumable. the movie has its own charm as the female leader. Openly naive but innocently guilty. The ending was weak but bearable. If you enjoyed Jane Campion's movies, which were funk, this one is classic, more like a piece of Schuman. Warning you that if you are not going to enjoy D.H Lawrence's lengthy book of female liberation, don't buy a ticket. You would fall a sleep. It goes nearly 3 hours. If you are, however, a fan of Lawrence, then it is an enjoyable piece. Indeed, the charm of the movie, is coming after. Just like a good literature, would lives on your mind. I loved it in a rainy Saturday afternoon.

I have to admit that I could not get to the end of this screen version of D. H. Lawrence's second version ' John Thomas and Lady Jane ' and for those who do not know it John Thomas signifies the male genitalia and Lady Jane the female genitalia. This of course poses lots of questions on how to film ' Lady Chatterley's Lover ' in any of its three versions without falling into very explicit sexuality and so far this has not been achieved on screen. Three or perhaps it was four of the scenario's sexual scenes are in my opinion, in this French version as dull as ditch water. I also found the film very, very slow and although I like slow cinema ( Ozu and Bresson ) come to mind, I find this film did not again in my opinion justify its slowness. The countryside has been filmed to death and inevitably we see a lot of it. The one brief scene of miners in inclement weather did work, but that was followed by a lot of talk and a lot of taking time over every detail. The acting was good, but uninspiring. Perhaps one day the uninhibited ' Lady Chatterley's Lover ' will be made as Lawrence dared to write it, and until then I believe it should be left to the reader to make his or her imaginative version.

I didn't really expect too much from this movie and hearing the running time was just short of three hours, was fully prepared to leave after getting a flavour of it. How wrong I was, this is a very fine film and doesn't drag for a moment. It is beautiful, believable and nothing short of a wonderful sexy surprise. All the support acting is measured and helps provide a solid counterbalance for the central couple who gradually learn to let go their inhibitions and slide blissfully from lust to love. It is all very gradually done from Chatterley's first glimpse of the gamekeeper washing himself outside his hut and her consequent, and at the time seemingly over the top, need to sit to gather her senses, literally; to the powerful scene where she asks him to turn and display his erect penis and the wondrous scenes of the naked couple cavorting ecstatically in the pouring rain. All in all a fine mix of the wonders of nature, the manliness of the hand made, the power of sex and the need for love. The more overt political elements that Lawrence would probably have wanted put more to the fore are probably better dealt with here, kept more in the background. Brave film making, especially at a time when being so positive about 'sexual healing' seems so out of vogue.

Cynics might be inclined to dub this 'the hippie version' of "Lady Chatterley's Lover", (though, in fact, it is based on an earlier draft called, appropriately enough, 'John Thomas and Lady Jane'). Certainly there is some serious flower-power going on between her ladyship and the game-keeper after one nude romp in the forest. Indeed that nude romp may be seen as a metaphor for the whole movie as Lady Chatterley starts to commune with nature in every sense. Even her affair with Parkin, (as he is called here), might be seen as just another way for her to find her 'natural' self since Parkin is portrayed as the persona of man in his most natural state.

Pascale Ferran's film is long and leisurely, perhaps too long, but it is also passionate, erotic and ultimately quite moving despite Marina Hands' wan performance in the title role. Hands simpers her way through the film seemingly unsure of her feelings. It's a non-performance. A more polished actress might have been able to lift the movie into a different realm altogether. Jean-Louis Coullo'ch, on the other hand, catches the earthiness of Parkin perfectly. Like Hands it is a totally unpolished performance but it's the performance that the movie needs. It's he who raises the picture and he keeps you watching to the end. The film may be called "Lady Chatterley" but it is Parkin's (and consequently), Coullo'ch's picture.

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. We kept on thinking that it must get better due to it's good score of over 7 points on IMDb. But no. I just wonder what made the actors choose to be in the film after reading the script " two sentences. She walks in the forest. sex scene. Two lines and She looks through the window and Sex scene." Really boring and slow. The sex scenes are particularly disturbing. It starts of very stiff, no kissing, he just takes off his trousers and "does it", then stands up an puts them back on. Not the best performance by the actors and it just does not flow. Nothing ever happens. And it just goes on and on and on. a true waste of time I would say.

Wow. I really dislike slow moving romances, but the amount of artistry that was injected into this production, and the rendered result is just pure art in every sense of the word.

Every shot is an oil painting. I don't know what it is about the French and their history with art that makes them such masters, but not a single strip of film was wasted here. The lighting, the costumes, the camera angles, and composition of the frame and music, really were just given such care that it's a wonder this film hasn't gained more notoriety among D.H. Lawrence enthusiasts.

Then there are the sex scenes. Yes ladies and gentlemen, there is sex in this film, though it's rendered with a very gentle brush stroke by a master painter of film. There is nothing tawdry in the nature of the sex other than the fact that the couple is bucking societal convention. To find out what I mean, you have to watch the film.

This is a story about a woman's wants and needs. Whom she married because modern convention pushed her in that direction, and what she really wanted because her innate nature and the man in question succumbed to proper instincts.

One man has societal power and wealth, but cannot care for himself without the assistance that his wealth affords. Another can withstand adversity after adversity, and like so many men, prefers, prospers, and even thrives when he's alone. One is the master of men. Another is the master of himself, and cares for no other. Ladies, which do you prefer? Which do you say you want, and which one fires your heart, body and soul? That's what this movie is all about. On an even more intellectual level both males have a kind of female inner psyche working for them. One gains the world, the other gains something else.

I have two regrets about this film. Firstly that there are a couple of pans (and one awful zoom) that come lose to derailing the flow of the movie. But as visually jarring as they are, they pass quickly. Like a B-movie producer/director once told me, America makes the best dollies and tripods for professional movie cameras, and that is an unchallenged truth. If you look at any foreign film, and compare the camera moves with American movies, you'll note that American films have very smooth dolly shots, Steadicam shots, and the now occasional rare pan. Foreign films are still playing catchup, even for this film which was shot only ten years ago! Secondly; I streamed this film off of Amazon, and it is not a high definition transfer with muted colors. The colors I'm thinking were a creative choice of the director and cinematographer, and they may have even used a soft lens or a soft filter in front of the lens to add that bit of visual texture to give this film an even softer touch and intimate feel. Even so, I wanted to see more information on the screen, but whether it was the creative team being artistic or the limitations of the technology, I'll never know until I see this thing on bluray.

Here's the thing; I was forced to read D.H. Lawrence in high school, and hated his writing. It was slow, lethargic, seemed to cater to over emotionalism, and just downright boring as hell when compared to some of the sci-fi authors or military fiction authors I used to read (and get more out of), but this film (and the French really do love Lawrence) very much delivers a film maker's film. And, as usual from French cinema, gives us a character study of the gentler side of human nature. What is, what we'd like, and what ought to be.

I don't recommend this film to anyone who is not a cinema aficionado. If you like heavy psychology and films about how a trist can be mistaken or evolve into love, then this film is for you.

Otherwise, maybe give it a shot and see what you think.

Enjoy.

Ms. Hands is a terrific actress. The movie is beautifully shot. The movie was fine except for one thing....and it's big.

I realize that the story is probably radical at the time it was written regarding women's sexual liberation, but only in the social context (she being the one to sort of start the pursuit of him), but in the bedroom, it's kind of the usual "man not saying much and coming way too early" type of "man's world" gender politics. It's weird to me that people have not noticed that even an updated version still has outdated sexual "servanthood" for the female. I mean that it was still the man's game to come with no thought whatsoever to whether she did, or not.

I realize that people do not always have to orgasm to enjoy the experience (tell THAT to a man), but come on (no pun intended)! It reminds me of the Penthouse letters that the woman just was ready, bang, and then came in 2 minutes - no foreplay hardly at all. That must be a dream for guys, and unfortunately, we women have let you have it for too long. That's only cool maybe once or twice, but after awhile, you look like dweebs and are totally uncool to expect it often.

France may be seen as a more sexually open society, but is this what they mean? That guys have all the freedom, and women are there to service the man's needs first, if not only? Oy.

DH Lawrence's novels may be tough to translate to the screen, so much of his writing is dependent on the words on the page as they form images of extraordinary beauty and sensuality. His novels are quintessentially British and reflect on the dehumanizing effects of modernity and industrialization, confronting issues relating to emotional health and vitality, spontaneity, sexuality, and human instinct. During his lifetime he was even labeled a pornographer, but that was then and now is now, and under the gifted guidance of director/writer (with Roger Bohbot and Pierre Trividic) Pascale Ferran, Lawrence's exquisite tale of sexual awakening has found what for this viewer is the finest transition of the novel to the screen.

The place is England after WW I and Sir Clifford Chatterley (Hippolyte Girardot) is the paraplegic wealthy husband of Constance/Lady Chatterley (a radiant Marina Hands). Quite apropos for the era, Constance tends to her impotent husband, does needlepoint, and takes walks to while away her boredom. On one of her walks she encounters the gamekeeper Parkin (Jean-Louis Coullo'ch), seeing a partially nude man for the first time in her life. The impact awakens her somnolent sexuality and she manages to visit Parkin daily, gradually allowing her lust to unfold. Parkin is 'below her class' but is a masculine, sensuous embodiment of everything Constance has never experienced. They slowly bond and both of them become passionately in love, finding lovemaking in Parkin's hut, in the woods, in the rain - wherever they encounter. Constance wants to have a baby and convinces Clifford that she can become impregnated and the resulting child would be 'Clifford's' by pact. Constance travels to London, the Riviera, and other ports, only to return home believing that Parkin has reclaimed his ex-wife. But there are many surprises that greet her and the manner in which the story resolves (in Ferran's hands) leaves us unsure of the future.

The film is captured amidst the beauties of the natural world - flowers, trees, springs, brooks - and these aspects of the natural world are an influential part of Constance's sexual awakening. Yes, there are scenes of complete nudity and love making but they are photographed so well by Julian Hirsch that they become an integral part of the story. The musical score by Béatrice Thiriet finds the right quality of elegance and sensuality. If there is a problem with this nearly three-hour film it is in the editing by Yann Dedet and Mathilde Muyard that takes liberties with scene transitions that prove disruptive.

But it would be hard to imagine two actors who could match the subtlety and sexual tension that Marina Hands and Jean-Louis Coullo'ch to this film. It is breathtakingly beautiful to experience DH Lawrence's story in the hands of the French crew and cast. Grady Harp

As you enter the cinema, I think there are several instructions certain viewers must first take heed of, as regards this film.

Firstly, face facts, it's French, so don't be surprised if there are hardly four lines of dialogue in the first thirty minutes. This works marvellously as an introduction into the repressed yet sensual world of the characters, but if you know you're likely to get bored without having everything immediately explained, then please save yourself the bother.

Secondly, it ain't all about the sex. If you're seeking XXXX thrills, again, don't bother.

Finally, Lady Chatterley is based upon the second (earlier) version of the book, NOT the famously explicit and more widely published rewrite Lawrence ultimately settled on. Don't be expecting the clunky politics that isn't very relevant in the 2000's, instead enjoy a tale of love and freedom, of hope that two very different people can become a reason for one another's happiness within this overbearing world we're all inevitably a part of.

As for the film itself, acting honours go to Marina Hands for an exquisite portrayal of Constance, truly from her performance every emotion can be felt without a hint of exaggeration. It's delightful stuff. Jean-Louis Coullo'ch's Parkin/gamekeeper is a good fit, for what really is the less starry role, and he handles everything, including a touching confessional scene, with an admirable strength and gentleness.

Underpinning everything is the lavish production, sound and photography to make an audience feel as part of the forest setting, a tranquillity that intimates so much of what the story is trying to say.

This is superb stuff.

Pascale Ferran's "Lady Chatterley" arouses the intentions of an intellectual mind rather than the consummate capitulations to the cataract of passion, and other sensual stimuli. Arriving with a brag sheet that includes five 2007 Cesar Awards, including ones for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Photography, the Ferran's overreaching adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's "John Thomas And Lady Jane", clearly has pedigree and an elegantly realised French sensibility. But there has to be something said for its lack of transgressions, an unwelcoming throwback to the days of muddled visions of carnal congress that was better served by the imagination in bodice-ripping erotic literature. Even by the nature of its anti-revisionist material and its ideas of sexual awakening as a process that by extension has to entail bridled fervour, the film's divisions are so neatly devised that there's nothing left for us to react to in its hollow exercise in ardent romanticism.

This is a partly beautiful film with partly great lighting, fully fine interior design and scene making , perfectionist costuming, good rain, good miners shots in appropriately charred visages, a very appealing Lady Chatterly, a fairly convincing gamesman, fine secondary cast, a social fabric badly stitched in from time to time, with enough bad stuff to spray around on everybody from the too intense DH Lawrence to the muddled and too ambitious to cover the whole bloody waterfront script, to continuity missteps, to the socially unconscious Hallmark ending. To quote JD Salinger's Holden, sometimes Lawrence (and his adaptors) are as sensitive as a toilet seat.

Lawrence is a writer who fits an historic niche. Not a particularly good writer but fervent and fervid and heart in the right place at some point. Good for social history classes. Adapting this passionate mess (one of three versions, mind you) is not an easy task. Perhaps a thankless one. But this Frenchman gave it a good if uncritical enough a shot.

The film is endless. It is mushy, even literally so, with the ground giving out from under the poor Lord's industrial machine which then requires "manpower" and even woman power in this version, to get the poor cuckolded fellow back to the house. Rains and flowers and that awful gamboling together in the rain... kind of makes me think of commercials for antihistamines...

The performances are generally good. Hard to not like Lady Chatterly as a kind of beauty- symbol, but not much of a person. After all, in the end it is about lust, not mind. She is easy to lust after. The noble savage does a good job. Good jaw line, good build. Lord Chatterly is a bit of a mess of a character though I would not fault the actor but the director/script. As said before, the subsidiary parts are all very well played.

Beautifully composed interior shots in the first third or so of the film the interiors in particular. Very effective lighting. Then things sort of flatten out with all that Hallmark stuff and endless marches through the wood and field.

Why this has gotten raves from so many writers eludes me. Chaque un a son gout.

Considering the giant steps taken by cinema since the sixties, it's been a long wait for the real Lady C on her way to the big screen. Prurient or bland have been the previous attempts: Japan and Italy have had goes, Sylvia "Emmanuelle" Kristel starred predictably enough in a strictly 'B' version, and Ken Russell, who had had success with 'Women In Love', directed an out-of-character watered-down serial for television.

As it's a woman's story, it makes sense for a woman to direct it, and even more, to make a success of it. Ferran has taken an unknown, or forgotten earlier version of the novel, "John Thomas and Lady Jane" as the basis of her film.

It has been described as being less polemical than the final version, but it works well, in emphasising how active Constance Chatterley was in her striving for a better life, and in showing how she came to identify herself with the socialist struggle. In 1959, during the Penguin Books/Chatterley obscenity trial, it was infamously asked if this was the kind of book one would wish one's wife or servants to read. That has always been good for a laugh, if it was only about sex - but it was political. Sex and politics: a combination we now take for granted, but despite the few years since female emancipation, the combination was yet unthinkably hairy for the Fifties.

The novel itself was excessively wordy, often risibly so, with Lawrence's male-oriented phallus-worshipping view of the world to the fore. When the gamekeeper Parkin (Jean-Louis Coilloc'h, bearing a remarkable resemblance to Brando in 'Streetcar') reveals to Lady C, his worries about being too sensitive and perhaps too womanly, we hear the author's voice. By adding capitals to every part of the story, the director has made a film that could easily be followed as a silent: 'The House', The Forest', The Cabin', The Miners'…But replacing words with action, especially in the sex scenes, allows the intimacy and passion to live on, without the anachronistic wordplay and modes of speech which now distance us from the lovers. Plenty of time, too, is given to watching a girlishly clumsy Constance (Marina Hands) explore the forests and streams surrounding the House; also to the contrast with her bucolic little paradise when she is driven into town and sits in her car, her gaze lingering on more 'real men' as they emerge, begrimed, from the mine. Such a contrast, made in such visual terms, remains in the air when Sir Clifford (Hippolyte Girardot) jokes about the miners striking every winter, and Connie doesn't laugh. It's important to remember that the airs and graces put on by upper-class married couples were partly to avoid losing face in front of the servants; Sir Clifford is not the only stiff and distant husband in his world, and the supporting of attitudes and beliefs by corsets and tweeds was aped by the aspiring middle classes (as in 'Brief Encounter') until wars, jazz, rock 'n' roll, 'certain books' and the satire boom moved the concentration of gravity to The Whitehouse, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban's favourite cave.

The problem of getting a whole novel on-screen concurrently with a film in its own right has been solved by the use of intertitles, the director doing a voice-over; and the Lady's trip to France has been slotted in as a home movie, while Parkin's misadventures back home are covered in a letter from Sir Clifford's nurse (Anne Benoit), who tells it straight to camera. These changes in texture help to keep the pace up in this quite long film, just as earlier cuts are often a tranquil old-fashioned 'fade to black', to denote the passing of time.

Again; the scenes of intimacy are well told: they are acted and filmed in a manner which fools us into believing we are flies on the wall. There is no concentration on the 'plumbing' as there is with too much on-screen sex, and just a few fully-clothed scenes, a few words and minimal choreography are all it needs to put over the spirit of the novel, the return to the garden and the grace and honest beauty of making love.

Apart from the beautiful clothes, houses and landscapes, this overlong film goes nowhere very, very slowly. I must admit that I've never been a fan of D. H. Lawrence and this French production certainly faithful to its original.

I love movies with a slow, contemplative pace, such as Visconti's, and am a decided admirer of European - particularly French - films, but this one just produced an endless stream of yawns. Its director has tried every trick in the book to create a "meaningful" movie: long shots, dreamy facial expressions, gurgling creeks, slow, al fresco sex, pseudo profound conversations. Nothing works. It's just pretentious tripe, so devoid of any interest that it may well get all kinds of Oscar nominations.

My advice? Regardless of whether you are in the Hollywood or European movie camp, avoid this one.