Liebende Frauen

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

No apology for including this with my 'extreme' movies because not only was it considered so in 1969 it has held up remarkably well and still packs a punch. Whilst I recall it was the fully nude male wrestling scene that attracted most attention originally, it is clear to see now that there was so much more going on that was of just as an extreme nature. For good and bad Lawrence seems extremely well represented with his, love hate relationship with women and his fondness of the work ethic. The full force and carnality of the sexuality in Lawrence's Lady Chatterly is somewhat more muted here but it is the questioning of the trueness of love and the inclusion of same sex relationships that helps this to still be as thought provoking and stimulating. Plus, the performances are fine and the photography excellent with the direction faultless. Runs longer than stated on the box and one wonders if in fact it was ever shown uncut in the cinemas.

This film is a masterpiece.

DH Lawrence has provided a wonderful story world for Ken Russell

to explore modern notions of romance, monogamy -- sex and the beast. Only the recent Thai film "Tropical Malady" has managed to grapple with these themes with such playful and erotic sensitivity. The sort of film which confronts the very notion of a moral fabric -- dangerous -- yet vital if audiences are willing to challenge their own notions of fairytale love, expectations for companionship and ultimately happiness.

The mismatched performance style (Glenda J's unusual mix of naturalism and

Brechtian facade -- is delightful when juxtaposed with Oliver Reeds hammy

closetted representational queer). Like "cAT ON A HOT TIN roof" this

performance contrast only serves to strengthen the academic rigour of the film's politics -- and ultimately serves as an emotional beacon to enlighten an

audience with an elusive mind.

Like "The Day of the Locust" -- this film is breathtakingly modern -- and before it's time.

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.

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.