Lady Chatterley's Lover

The cast drew me in... and although I didn't suffer through it because of positive performances from Jodie Comer & James Norton. More was left desired from Richard Madden, but mostly Holliday Garainger. From my perspective she didn't match the level from the rest of the cast. Especially the dialogue and facial expressions that got me, cause I just didn't buy it (and yes, I know what sort of movie I was getting into but I usually feel okey by the somewhat awkwardness, but unfortunately not here.)

Compared to earlier versions of the Lawrence novel on film and television - for example, Ken Russell's 1993 television version or Sylvia Kristel's porno-fest (1981) directed by her then-husband Just Jaeckin, Jed Mercurio's telefilm is relatively chaste in terms of sexual content. We see Mellors (Richard Madden) and Connie (Holliday Grainger) making love, but it is tastefully filmed by the fire in Mellors' shack, using lighting strongly reminiscent of Russell's WOMEN IN LOVE (1969).

Director Mercurio seems far more interested in exploring the consequences of class-difference in a highly stratified society. Clifford Chatterley (James Norton) views his mine-workers and servants as sub-humans, whose sole function consists of serving the rich. In one sequence he sits in his motor-cycle and sidecar and lets Mellors push him out of a rut, even though this proves injurious to Mellors' health. He treats Ivy Bolton (Jodie Comer) with equal disdain - that is, until the climactic moment when Bolton confronts her master with the news of Lady Chatterley's affair.

The contrast between rich and poor could not be more stark. The film opens with a mining accident in which Ivy's husband Ted (Chris Morrison) is crushed to death by an underground fall of coal. Left with little or nothing to survive on, Ivy can only eke out an existence serving the rich. By contrast Clifford lives a life of comfortable gentility, indulging in frequent parties whose guests dance to Scott Joplin rag-times played by a servile band.

It is these class-differences that inspire Mellors' resentment. The reason for his feelings is clearly explained towards the end; suffice to say that he believes that the landed gentry have little or no conception of what it is to live on the bread-line, at the beck and call of the upper classes. We might be persuaded to see his affair with Lady Chatterley as a means for him to take revenge on all the social slights he has experienced throughout his life.

Yet Grainger's performance proves that this is clearly not the case. As Lady Chatterley she spends much of her time caring for her husband, even though it is a thankless task. Frustrated by her husband's impotence, she looks for love and compassion; and finds both in Mellors. She resembles a ship without a rudder; constrained by the conventions of a restrictive upper class, she longs to express herself both emotionally and sexually. Grainger proves extremely good at suggesting this frustration through small facial gestures puncturing her veneer of social respectability.

To be honest, this version of LADY CHATTERLEY does not make any attempt to explore sexual feelings in any great depth, as in Lawrence's source-text. Director Mercurio sees the story as a tussle between duty and emotion, which reaches a climax at the end when the three protagonists at last confront one another.

This is a thoroughly satisfying production of the Lawrence classic, marred only by some syrupy music (by Csrly Paradis) that sometimes directs our attention away from the characters' emotions.

I really turned to this well cast film more as a distraction to fill time than a sought out choice. The fact that the chemistry of the actors left me with a sense of connection is the ultimate mark of success from actors and director.

The obstinance of the rich and powerful revealed in their disregard of the working class is highlighted frequently on this retelling of the 1928 classic novel.

Grainger's performance accurately reflects the wide variety of emotions that Constance's life experiences take her through. Madden as the infamous lover's performance grows stronger as the film moves forward.

The contrasts between joy and restrictive sadness and between hope and inheritance challenge us to wonder what life is supposed to offer.

This 2015 adaptation tries to bring D. H. Lawrence's classic forbidden love story to life but kinda misses the mark. What should be a bold, emotional journey about passion across class lines ends up feeling a bit flat and distant.

One thing this version has over the 2022 Netflix adaptation is that it has some scenes, which is missing in the Netflix version. Those scenes actually help build the story and explain the characters' choices better. Without them, the emotional progression in the Netflix version feels rushed or confusing, so this older version wins points there.

That said, even here, the romance doesn't quite land. The chemistry between the leads feels like it's almost there but never really clicks. You keep waiting for that spark, but it never fully lights up. And visually, the color grading doesn't help either, it's dull and washed out, not giving off the warm or passionate vibe you'd expect from a story about secret love.

In the end, it feels like the film gets caught up in the heaviness of war and class, and forgets to bring the forbidden romance to life. It had potential, but the emotion just doesn't hit the way it should.

I am convinced than the novel of D. H. Lawrence deserved be not adaptated for cinema. Because, more than an adultery or the scenes of sex, it represents a provocative source of reflection for each of its readers.

But, sure, it is tempting to remind/ reinterprete the story of a sentimental trio , to show nice landscapes and clothes and to offer to new actors, the roles of characters.

And, yes, Richard Madden offeres a not bad oliver Mellers , not real faithfull to the novel, but interesting one.

A serious fist of cliches and a nice try to reflect a world . And the only real sin remains the too forced end.

But, sure, good intentions, familiar scenes, forced introduction of characters, gestures, attitudes, reactions, impression to be more an adaptation of Anna Karenina, a profound unrealistic and fake Mr. Chatterley and the useful kick to read, again, the novel.