Maurice

‘Maurice' had a deep emotional impact on me when I first saw it in my early teens, more than ten years ago. I just saw it again for the first time since then and I was a bit worried that I would be disappointed, but then I was definitely not. It still had the same magic.

To me, this is the #1 Merchant-Ivory work. I find this movie astoundingly profound compared to several other of their movies. This movie is above all accomplished by the excellent acting. It tells a pure and convincing story about struggling to be true to oneself in a world of not only prejudice and firm standards but even serious legal sanctions.

I think ‘Maurice' is far more romantic, and sexy, than most heterosexual love stories I have seen. The love and longing of these men seems so real and pure, especially by the fact that they are consistently being told that their inclination is `unspeakable', and their futures and careers are at stake.

It is great to see Hugh Grant in an early role (his first real movie role?) that is so different from the mainstream comedy entertainer he has become. The ending is stunning. I love that the movie ended exactly where it did, although it is a dread to acknowledge that the war would break out soon after. The music score is enthralling. And Alec Scudder is so beautiful that it hurts.

This is the most emotional love story I have ever viewed. I first saw the film when I was about 14, and I had no problem sitting through the entire two and a half hours of rich period drama. Merchant and Ivory are two of the best filmmakers ever, and they treat this delicate subject with grace and tact. It makes being a gay teenager a little more bearable, because it is one of the few movies in which the gay lead finds love, and survives. An altogether edifying experience.

I remember I saw this movie I was about 17. I'd read the book and fell in love. It tells a love story between two men and the way they have to carry it out despite society rules (with some changes it still happens nowadays...).

The general message would be "love conquers all" but is it really so? Are Maurice and Scudder able to live happily ever after? I doubt, and on the beginning of the XXth century it would be even worse.

Despite all, it's lovely to watch the same kind of story we're used to watching in movies that portray society in different times, but now speaking about love between men! Although James Ivory's work is beyond criticism, in my point a view, there were some scenes in the book (the one when they are in London, sitting naked by the fire, for instance) that really should be in the movie.

But it's a tender and romantic approach of of book (only published after E.M. Foster's death) that surely would have pleased it's author.

Similar to goldilocks-78, I watched Maurice again - I saw it when I was in my 20s, when it was first released. There is some very good acting, and a very good sociological recreation of the Edwardian period. Maurice, the novel, might well not be considered as EM Forster's finest work. But similar to Lady Chatterley's Lover (not considered among Lawrence's best), the work raises issues of class, gender, and sexuality. The three leads are good - Hugh Grant gives a plausible portrayal of a more refined, upper-class man, who denies his homosexual urgings and marries. He clearly shows (after this conversion of sorts) his ambivalence and almost forced denial. Hugh Grant, almost effortlessly, shows the two sides to this character. James Wilby,as Maurice, moves from self-disgust, despair and guilt, to self-acceptance. Rupert Graves as Scudder (similar to Mellors) is really good. The scenes he shares with James Wilby are not forced. The supporting cast are good - the women, Simon Callow (who introduces us to the Edwardian conformist ideology) are equally good. And Ben Kingsley, as the hypnotherapist nicely shows the push-pull in the then-British psyche. My favourite Merchant-Ivory film is Room with a view. Maurice is darker, but just as well filmed, with enough humour to balance the seriousness of the film. The naive, happily-ever-after ending (EM Forster's) doesn't quite work, but leads to good discussion. Of all the DVD-shown deleted scenes, the final 'confrontation' between Maurice and Durham should be, in my opinion, restored. It's a fine film, both engaging and unsettling. Sensitively adapted, directed, acted and shot. Kudos

When E M Forster wrote "Maurice" homosexuality was considered a mental illness, a criminal offence, an aberration, a sin against God, (it still is in some quarters). It wasn't so long since Oscar Wilde was jailed for sodomy and Forster, had his own homosexuality become public knowledge, would certainly have found himself in a similar predicament and would never have enjoyed the literary eminence that he did. So consequently, moved though he was to write the book, gave instructions that it should not be published until after his death, and Forster lived for a very long time. When "Maurice" eventually did see the light of day, it seemed terribly dated. 'I'm an unspeakable of the Oscar Wilde sort', Maurice tells his doctor in a feeble attempt to be 'cured' of his 'affliction', and a line which the movie retains. Gay literature had come a long way in the interim and homosexuality was no longer seen as an illness nor a crime.

But Forster's view of homosexuality was, surprisingly, not a tortured, shame-filled one but touchingly, if ridiculously, romantic. When Maurice finally does find true love, it cuts across all barriers including class and has the lovers retreating, like some gay Adam and Eve, to 'the greenwood'. It seems unrealistic but at the same time liberating long before the term 'gay liberation' was ever coined.

James Ivory's screen version is remarkably faithful to the original and consequently risks ridicule in this so-called more enlightened age. But Ivory's intelligence as a film-maker has long been over-looked in favour of an emphasis on his prettified recreations of the past. Yet he remains the pre-eminent chronicler in British cinema, (though American and consistently working with an Indian producer, Ismail Merchant), of a particular period in British history mostly through adaptations of novels by writers of the period or by contemporary authors writing about the period. But when Ivory did adapt 'classic' literature, he concentrated on the best and working mostly with the great writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, brought to bear on these adaptations a deeply felt and genuine appreciation of their worth.

Hence "Maurice" is as fastidiously good as we have come to expect, the difference being that this time the script is not by Jhabvala but by Ivory himself and Kit Hesketh-Harvey. In every other respect it looks and feels typically 'Merchant-Ivory', a term some people believe stultified British cinema at a time when other directors were making edgy, contemporary 'new-wave' films. But that is like condemning well-acted, well-crafted Shakespeare just because it's old.

"Maurice" is a superbly acted, visually gorgeous film, though at times its fidelity to its source means that sometimes certain scenes feel stilted, (you make want to give these people a good shaking). And did they need to cast actors as beautiful as James Wilby (Maurice), Hugh Grant, (his first great love, Clive Durham), and Rupert Graves, (the game-keeper Scudder, shades of a gay Lady Chatterly, the boy he finally falls for)? All three play wonderfully well and Ivory populates his film with a cast of wonderful character actors, (Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot, Billie Whitelaw, Judy Parfitt), all playing at the top of their form.

Of course, both book and film have now largely been set aside as dated and irrelevant in the annals of gay literature and cinema. Surely not. The film remains as much an integral part of the history and consequential progress of main-stream gay movie-making as "Brokeback Mountain", (though by no means as commercially successful), as it is an integral part of the Merchant-Ivory stable. Anyone remotely interested in either should seek it out.