Priest of Love

This concentrates on the last few years of D.H. Lawrence's life and, in particular, on his relationship with his wife Frieda. Lawrence's book "The Rainbow" was banned in 1915 for obscenity. That and the fact that Frieda was a German aristocrat exacerbated the scrutiny the Lawrences experienced in WWI Britain, ultimately having them being accused of spying for the Germans. After suffering the harassment in England the Lawrences left the country to began a self-imposed exile that took them to about a dozen countries. The movie collapses their peripatetic lifestyle to sojourns in the United States, Mexico, Italy, England, and France.

After leaving England the movie has the Lawrences landing in Taos, New Mexico where they were closely associated with the wealthy patron of the arts Mabel Dodge Luhan and the artist Dorothy Brett. In exchange for the original text of "Sons and Lovers" Dodge gave them a 160 acre ranch outside of Taos--a ranch that is now known as the Lawrence Ranch. The British artist Dorothy Brett lived on the ranch with the Lawrences, in a separate dwelling. Here is where the weakness of the movie started to become apparent to me and that is the lack of motivation for behavior. What was the basis of the Lawrence's relationship with Brett that resulted in their being close enough to come to the United States together and live on the same ranch.

The motivations for the various moves from country to country are not well established and the transitions are confusingly abrupt. Maybe what prompted the moves were no more than whims, but without any notice the Lawrences were all of the sudden in some place in Mexico, or some place in Italy, or some other place in Italy, on in Capri, or France. The same goes for the people in their lives. How did they ever get to know Mabel Dodge, or any of the other famous people that drifted in and out of their lives? There was no identification of these people beyond sometimes being given their names. For example, while in England we see the Lawrences socializing with John Middleton Murry and his paramour Katherine Mansfield, the latter not even being identified. People would suddenly appear, taking me some time to figure out who they were, like Lawrence's sister Ada. There were scenes that had Aldous Huxley visiting the Lawrences in Italy with the primary interaction between Huxley and Lawrence being over Huxley's painting an external wall lamp. Surely some relevant dialog could have been inserted there.

Ian McKellen gives a good performance as Lawrence, but even at that we get only a hint of an understanding of this complex man--I think I came away with a better understanding of Frieda than of her husband. We get only a hint of Lawrence's homosexual tendencies from an early scene that has him frolicking naked on the beach with a young friend. Dorothy Brett is portrayed as being a grinning simpleton. For her to have been a close friend to the Lawrences, surely there was more to the woman than what we see here.

Of course time is devoted to the writing and publication of "Lady Chatterley's Lover." The music accompanying these scenes is so irritatingly over the top, I suppose to emphasize the significance, that it would be more suitable for Henry's victory at Agincourt.

Some time is spent on Lawrence's efforts at painting in his last years, with the paintings in his exhibition in London being seized and the show closed down. Some of these paintings can now be seen at the La Fonda hotel in Taos. If you ever have a chance to see them, you will be convinced that it was best for Lawrence to devote his talents to writing. To call them erotic paintings, at least at this late date, is more than an overstatement.

I suppose this movie broke some ground as being a major commercial movie that had full frontal male nudity and, as McKellen notes with pleasure in his interview on the extras, it is the first commercial movie to portray an erect penis, albeit as a shadow on a wall.

I saw this in its original release in 1981 and have looked forward to seeing it again on DVD. The "director's cut" now on DVD has been edited from the original 125 minutes to 99 minutes. My memory is not good enough to remember exactly what was cut (I do remember a scene involving Lawrence's ashes that is no longer there), but what remains on the DVD I think is more disjointed and confusing than what was in the original. The cutting is puzzling, getting at an understanding of this complicated man demands a longer movie rather than shorter.

Perhaps the most positive result of seeing this movie would be to encourage you to read Lawrence's writings.

First things first: I lived and worked in Eastwood, (D H Lawrence's home town) for ten years. I still pass through the area regularly as my wife's family live there. I always found it interesting that D H Lawrences best work is located in that mining (now ex-mining of course) area between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. This film concentrates on D H Lawrence's life after he left the area.

The film is just a bog standard biopic done from the write by numbers playbook. It hardly ever come close to the real D H Lawrence. The facts and events are there, all the wandering around the world etc, but you only have to read Lawrence's collected letters to know that the picture given here is rather superficial It isn't helped by some amateur dramatics style acting, particularly from a way below par Ian McKellen and Janet Suzman. A pet hate of mine is the lazy generic Northern accent adopted by most actors doing D H Lawrence. Ian McKellen made him sound as though he was brought up in Yorkshire rather than Notts. Admittedly the Nottingham/Derbyshire accent is hard to do. Robert Lindsey does it well, but then he comes from Ilkeston.

The other thing missing in this film is a sense of D H Lawrence's wit and humour, which can be seen very well in his letters, short stories and some of his poems. I also didn't like the way the script writer (Alan Plater in his soap writing mood) somewhat lazily bought into the feminist critique of the 1980s. D H Lawrence, who wrote very sensitively on women's issues, is made to seem as though he was a male chauvinist. Again, a more careful reading of his works would have shown this to be untrue.

So, overall, a pleasant enough journey round the world with some nice scenery and some good support actors. As another reviewer has pointed out, a bit like a dramatisation of an encyclopedia entry.

I remember this movie very well from 23 years ago. It came out at the same time as did REDS, which is coming out in DVD soon. Why not Priest of Love? The film details D.H. Lawrence's stand against World War I, his stormy relationship with his wife Frieda, his conflict with the authorities, his bisexual leanings. Ian McKellan is excellent, as is his co-star, Janet Suzman, as Frieda. In many ways, D.H. Lawrence was a powerful forerunner of that great prodigal student of Freud, Wilhelm Reich, with his writings on human sexuality and its fundamental importance to our psychology. This is truly a great movie, well photographed, from what I remember, dealing with still controversial, relevant topics for today.

I must say, this poignant drama about one of the greatest authors/poets, filled with wonderful, top shelf actors rmade my movie night. POL is an engaging if engrossing drama, which recounts the banning of DH Lawrence's books, and paintings, which at the time, went against what was acceptable, where Lawrence's work was sort of pushing, pornographic boundaries, which today, would be seen in a much more normal light. It's opening sees the grand trashing of one of his awesome sellers, by authority. DH Lawrence was the guy responsible for the notorious and raunchy Lady Chatterly's lover, which Lawrence based on his older wife, who on impulse, just took off with him, leaving her three children and hubby. The story is a little bit patchy, but really, it's the awesome actors which take away from that, and the story is an interesting journey of a liternary geniius. There are some wonderfully shot locations, villa's where Lawrence spent time, while his cancerous health deteriorated, where on occassions he was coughing up phlegm and blood, one scene, quite alertiing. You can't go wrong when you have actors of McKellen's, Suzman's, Gardener's, Keith's stature. Their all A1, there's actually no real competition, as they're just all perfect here, as is the less shown Gielgud, a police seargeant, who banished and seized Lawrence's works, where one gets the impression, there's a more personal attack, grudge. I actually found it hard to believe Gielgud's character's earlier profession, as he seemed much different. Keith, who once was the ambassador for the Continental soup ads in the 80's, as was the great Robert Morley, is just a delight as a sort of, floozie tag along wirth DH Lawrence and wifie. Her character was probably my favorite, in some ways, sad, and pitiful. I really liked this close trio, living for today, not tomorrow. Lawrence had some pretty violent moodswings, his anger exploding out of nowhere, where mostly, it was physically transferred on older wifie, Suzman. Some scenes, which you can see in the prieview, use that special atmospheric which truly gives meaning to the scenes. Trivia note- another of Lawrence's trashed books, Kangaroo, which we see as another hit for the author here, became an Aussie film, with Colin Friels, but sadly cinema wise, made more of a thud. Great period piece film for 1981, I suggest, you see POL. It might just entice you.

I've seen many films of D. H. Lawrence's works including "Sons and Lovers," "Women in Love," "The Virgin and the Gypsy," "The Rainbow" and "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and enjoyed all of them. I was surprised and disappointed by this one.

Christopher Miles did a wonderful adaptation of "The Virgin and the Gypsy" 10 years before he made this film. He certainly is a scholar of Lawrence and a talented filmmaker, so why was this film so charmless and seem so shallow.

I will give a couple of reasons: First, I saw the 99 minute recut of the film. I imagine/hope that the apparently lost original 125 minutes was less choppy and jumpy.

Second, Ian McKellan was a terrible choice for the lead. He simply was too much of a stage actor at this point of his career and he plays most scenes for the the benefit of the baloney.

Third, the beginning shows Lawrence having a nude swim with a homosexual lover. The rest of the movie is about his love affair with his German wife. It is just confusing and undercuts the rest of the movie as we expect him to run off and leave his wife for a man at some point.

Fourth, the movie portrays Lawrence as a one dimensional lone victim of censorship, surely there were other writers being censored at the time and many powerful people supporting his rights to freedom of speech. Making the censor a buffoon (played dully by John Gielgud) doesn't help, but seems to trivialize the issue.

Fifth, Miles may have been to close to the material. He wants to give us a lot of factual information about Lawrence, but the history lesson feels like a history lesson, and there is little dramatic tension. Janet Suzman as Frieda Lawrence seems to carry the weight of whatever dramatic tension there is.

The movie does have nice cinematography. However all the movies adapted from Lawrence's work also have great cinematography and much better characters and stories.