Love

This film seems to get better the more I go back to it. Close to the source novel for the most part (the one big divergence being in the Water Party section but in the sense of the film the change is acceptable and gives a disturbing gloss to the story) and with sequence after sequence of powerful images, it has been much misunderstood and often dismissed but I would hope in time it is given the credit it deserves. 8/10

Ken Russell's adaptation of D. H. Lawrence's novel Women in Love is one of my favorite films. It explores the hearts and minds, personalities, and philosophies of four intelligent and educated young people in the beginning of 20-th century and their romantic relationships (heterosexual and homosexual, friendship, love and desire). They are played by Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, Glenda Jackson, and Jennie Linden.

Glenda Jackson who was relatively unknown at the time won her first Oscar for a magnificent performance in a most difficult role: her Gudrun is not a likable character, she is an self-centered predator, but she is honest and very interesting. I read some comments that she was not beautiful. Well, she may not have been pretty but I believe there is more than prettiness to make a woman loved, and admired otherwise a lot of women in this world would never be able to learn the feeling. Gudrun's intelligence, strong character, and self-confidence make her very attractive and desirable.

The film has many unforgettable scenes with two that stand alone after all these years. First of them is one of the most provocative and delightful sexual scenes ever filmed. It takes place during a picnic. Alan Bates dressed in a light white suite describes to the others how to eat a fig. He carefully holds it, and then pulls it open while he compares the process to a woman and looks teasingly at shy Ursula, Gudrun's sister (Jennie Linden). This little scene is as powerful as a famous wrestling scene, even though everybody who saw the film would recall the wrestling scene as a most memorable in "Women in Love".

The wrestling in the nude was Lawrence's (and Russell's ) solution to allow two men to relieve the horror and dreadfulness of the drowning tragedy that occurred shortly before. The scene takes place for long time, 5-10 minutes, with the fire from fireplace highlighting Reed's and Bate's bodies as each struggles against the other. The scene is extremely sensual but whether they engaged in sex or not we don't know…

This is a very special film that has not lost its beauty and appeal now even though it was made over 35 years ago. Extraordinarily striking and highly sensual, it is a must see for anyone truly interested in film.

Adaptation of the D.H. Lawrence classic concening the loves of two 'modern' sisters in Yorkshire during the 1920s.

At first glance this film is rather hard to take in. The story is difficult to follow and at times, barely visible. Almost as if its asumed we are all so familiar with the book, that a strict narrative is unnecessary. You are likely to finish watching and ask yourself wtf? The acting is rather remarkable however and Ken Russell puts up the usual visual wonderland, so its easily rewatched. As I did, I realized the plot isn't whats important to this film at all. I'm sure the book too leaves that very same impression. You are meant more to study the characters, listen to their musings, and if possible relate to them, rather than follow a traditional storyline with a beginning middle and end. Art imititating life for a change. A different sort of experience, sensually cerebral, if thats possible, but well made and worth a look. Jackson, Bates and Reed, three would be hams, each giving understated and marvelous performances.

Can you imagine the effect this movie had in 1969? I is still ahead of the times. Merit, in great part, of Larry Kramer who adapted DH Lawrence's work in a way nobody else could have. Scrumptious, subversive, extraordinary. Director Ken Russell with some startling titles to his name - his BBC production of Isadora Duncan with a sublime Vivien Pickles in the title role, for instance - reaches here some kind of mountain top. Glenda Jackson became a household name, Alan Bates confirmed what we all knew, that he was one of the greatest actors that ever lived. I devoured the film with utter pleasure 48 years after its first released. Literature and cinema in an insanely beautiful alliance.

Ken Russell's film (based on the novel of the same name by D.H. Lawrence) is an interesting piece in that he is able to use his camera to help the audience see one situation from two extremely diverse points-of-view, from that of the loving schoolmarm Ursula (Jennie Linden in a brilliant performance), to the manipulative Gudrun (Glenda Jackson.)

Russell has quite a knack of using his camera to create the emotions he wishes to extract from his audience. Russell's technique of turning his camera sideways as Ursula and Rupert (Alan Bates) run nude through the fields has been dismissed by some, but it is quite effective in creating the unreal state in which their romance seems to find them, one quite different from the hardness and madness that surrounds them. This too is achieved to stunning effect as the two lovers are seen twisted together in the mud in the same position that two deceased lovers had been found only hours before. The colors surrounding these two are always bright and warm, in stark contrast to the way the other pair of lovers, Gudrun and Gerald (Oliver Reed) are photographed.

Gudrun and Gerald's initial sexual encounter is harshly lit and edited, emphasizing the brutality of their situation. Their love is shown to be more of an addiction, rather than true love.

It would take more than 1,000 words to paint an accurate work picture of the films' creative genius and incredible cinematography. One scene in particular, a nude wrestling match between Rupert and Gerald quite defies description, and I urge you to see the film and experience it's mastery yourself.