Lady L

I had stayed away from this film because the critics panned it so viciously. Serves me right, because it was absolutely wonderful from beginning to end. Ustinov punctuates the rich satire in the script just perfectly with his grandiose direction. The cinematography is lush, and Sophia is outrageously good, as the strongly principled woman ahead of her time, who sees and is amused by all the rich ironies of life. Cecil Parker gives the movie it's opening tone and it never misses a best. But the writing is the strongest single aspect of the work, always remaining true to its characters, while making pungent observations on UK moral codes, class struggles, the battle of the sexes, the institution of marriage, and many others. Enjoy! 10/10

This film was directed by and the screenplay was written by Peter Ustinov. You even see him in a bit part as a Prince and he's apparently dubbed his voice into the film a few times.

"Lady L" begins in what appears to be about 1965. Everyone in this English tableau is celebrating the 80th birthday of their beloved Lady (Sophia Loren). Soon she begins talking about her life story for a biographer and the movie begins in earnest. About 60 years earlier, Louise (Loren) is a laundress who works for a house of ill repute. Along the way, she meets a handsome revolutionary, Armand (Paul Newman) and she inexplicably falls for him. I say inexplicable because apart from being handsome, there's never an apparent reason for her loving him--even after he neglects her and spends most of his time plotting to kill nobles since he's an anarchist. There also isn't much chemistry between them--just a woman putting up with a neglectful man. Along the way, she also meets the nicest Duke you could imagine (David Niven). He gives her everything, treats her like a queen and loves her...yet, she still holds on to her love for Armand during much of the film. It never makes any sense whatsoever....but at least the leads look nice and the film obviously cost a lot to make because of all the great costumes and sets. However, like a pie made out of just meringue, this film looks great but never really satisfies--much of it also because the humor never really pays off. A lovely looking misfire.

This movie is a "bit of fluff" but a very lovely "bit of fluff". The costumes are wonderful and Sophia Loren makes them look even better. Entertaining story told in vignettes about a pretty racy lady who may, or may not, be even racier than intimated. Also, she has a chauffeur to die for. Yum!!!

In this charming romantic period piece directed by Peter Ustinov, Sophia Loren starts the movie off completely unrecognizable from her usual 1960s glamorous appearance. She's elderly with a padded matronly figure, wrinkles, white hair, and stooped posture. Her voice is wobbly and she barely recognizes her own family. When asked to tell the story of her life, she treats us all to a gigantic flashback.

A poor girl rises to the top in very unlikely circumstances. A laundress in a brothel, she meets Paul Newman when he's running away from the scene of the crime. He's just planted a bomb in a bank, and he seeks refuge by pretending his alibi was at the brothel. Since he's cute, she agrees to cover for him. The movie will have you think they fall in love, but if you're paying attention you'll see that she falls in love with him and he treats her like garbage. All he cares about is his anarchist rebellion and occasional bombs and assassinations. When Sophia meets David Niven, an extremely wealthy and powerful man, she tries to steal from him so she can pass the jewels onto her lover.

Why does she keep holding a torch for Paul Newman? The Niv is handsome, classy, a legitimate member of society, wealthy, forgiving, generous, and loves her. Paul is a scoundrel, a criminal, and cruel. Just as an example: The Niv gives Sophia an exquisite necklace, she lets Paul pawn it, The Niv finds out about it and brings it back from the pawnbroker to give to her for a second time, and Paul rips it off her neck and throws it to a homeless woman. How horrible is that? Adding insult to injury, the homeless woman is so shocked, she dies on the spot.

I love the comic touches of Peter Ustinov, and I can only imagine how much funnier the overall film would have been had he written the screenplay, too. Sophia is beautiful in the movie, and her comic timing is great. But why does Paul have to be so rotten? The Niv is sheer perfection, so how is there any contest? Watch the movie to see if you agree. You'll get to see some beautiful costumes and enjoy a couple of twists in the plot.

Sophia Loren is cast in the title role of Lady L whom we first see like Jeanette MacDonald as an 80+ woman who with some prodding from her dear friend poet Cecil Parker is about to tell her scandalous life story. Believe me this woman has seen things and done things that would shock the proper British society that she's married into. MacDonald in Maytime had a story to tell in flashback and come to think of it so did James Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Back in the day Sophia was a laundress and one of her main clients was a prominent French brothel and it was there she met thief and anarchist Paul Newman and her later husband David Niven who provided a title and the good life in the United Kingdom. How both effect her life and story is the basis of Lady L.

Loren while in old lady character sounds a lot like Martita Hunt, I wouldn't be surprised if she dubbed her, if not Sophia does a real good imitation. Newman is not quite right for the part, they should have gotten someone really French like Yves Montand.

As for David Niven he just saunters through the film as David Niven. His good friend Peter Ustinov both wrote and directed Lady L and Code restraints being what they were Niven if it were done today would be more explicitly gay. That would far better explain his position and the relationship that develops afterward between all three of the principal characters.

Lady L is not bad, but it suffers from some miscasting and too much Code imposed discretion.