User reviews

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.

Now that the audience can "look" beyond the "frontal" male nudity along with Ken Russell's staging of D. H. Lawrence's "wrestling match" between peers, male at that, the film itself stands on its own as a "brave new world" of sexual "ideologies." Methinks the switching of genders in the title would obviate much of the confusion amongst the audience of this film. Lawrence was not so much a "writer" as he was an explorer and pioneer in the psychologies of "sex," the "frictional" variety that is, as he himself puts it. As the Aztecan? guru spiritually sublimates the physical needs of the matron in "Plumed Serpent" so does the Alan Bates character overtly name his love, as in "I offered him." Women find one answer in Gudrun's cool/"cold" acceptance of her own polarities, even as she trots off to sample Teutonic variations on a theme called "love." But I found the Bavarian? exemplar of "gayness" herein a bit too fey and much too overt, for his day surely. All in all, a literally beautiful evocation and visualization of times and personae past. Figs, anyone"?

I have just watched this Lswrence/Kramer/Russell movie again, and I find myself, perforce,"moved" to bring my personal. subjective reactions "up to date," belated as it is. Which is to say, again, that this "flick" eludes EVERYone, onsofar as each of us brings to our individual "witnessings" our own idiosyncratic "baggage" of preconceptions and presumptions. The naysayers here, the "macho" types who cannot see themselves as a Gerald, haven't a clue and not a hope of ever achieving one. The subtleties AND the "truths" Lawrence enounced will ever elude them, which, of course, is what they deserve. Gerald's realization that he never really "wanted" the "frictional" fruition of his lust for Gudrun before he traipses off to his need for "sleep" is just one of the profound insights herein. Gudrun's perfervid knowledge of same and HER need for self-validation is equally insightful. But it is the closing two "scenes" that aptly sum up Lawrence's vision and Lawrence's perceptions: 1: The author's fictional personification who, tearfully, pronounces: "He should have loved me. I offered him." 2: The closing dialog between "man" and "wife," that,ruefully, evinces the "gulf" between "normality" and "perversion. Alan Bates was a revelation in "Georgy Girl," and his performance here is no less full and professional AND persuasive. Lawrence was much less "physiczl," forget healthy, but Bates captures the essence of the author's "spirituality." Some find Reed "hammy" and one-dimensional, but his performance here is deeper than that. Finally, I believe that, in its own inimitable way, this conjunction of author, fan, and cineaste is nonpareil, likr the Merchant/Ivory "Maurice" or "today's" "Brokeback Mountain." That Glenda Jackson looks like Tony Curtis in drag is amusing of course, and that macho types can't abide the slow "pace" of superficial crawlings must be expected, as in "get on with it." They will NEVER perceive, much less understand, just exactly WHAT is that is ongoing. "Love" and "lust" and fruition and loss are herein embodied in the ripemess of a mere "fig," as in figment or figurative.

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.

Lunatic director Ken Russell and screenwriter Larry Kramer, adapting D. H. Lawrence's battle-of-the-sexes novel, give us two portraits of passion in "Women in Love", delineating how some desires can destroy lives while others come to be expected (usually by those who take love--or the romantic act of love--for granted). Glenda Jackson and Jennie Linden play close sisters in 1920s England who are curious about sex, though one may be searching for a semblance of true love while her sibling isn't so old-fashioned--she sees sex as a conquest. Russell isn't interested in character content as much as he is in creating a gorgeous-looking picture...and, indeed, this is a marvelous-looking piece of work. However, there isn't very much emotion in the narrative (not even under the surface), rendering the final tragic events cold, maybe even indifferent. The performances from the ladies are good, if not convincing; Jackson did win a Best Actress Oscar, but Alan Bates and Oliver Reed are more compelling as the men in their lives. The scenario is sexually-charged, but not with passion--the lust is always undercut with anger. The nudity and caressing images aren't even that erotic because the film is so aloof, with conflicts that aren't investigated and dialogue that doesn't reveal personality. **1/2 from ****

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.

Ken Russell's "Women in Love" was adapted from a novel written at the awakening of the roaring twenties by D. H. Lawrence. I haven't read the book but judging from the film, this must be one of these long works with interminable monologues expressing the kind of inner thoughts destined challenge the intellect maybe a little more than arouse your senses.

I guess I expected more in the sensorial side from the film and it sure has its share of graphic and yet strangely hypnotic imagery but let not that make sound like a heterosexual prejudice but I was kind of frustrated not to see more sensuality between men and women and I'm afraid after that extraordinary wrestling scene between two naked Alan Bates and Oliver Reed, the film never lives up to that promise and becomes a series of engaging build-ups to one climax that never dares to happen.

I blame it on the title, "Women in Love", I don't know the perspective from which the film was written but "Men in Quest for Love" would have been more appropriate. I might be too analytical but I don't hold that judgement against the film, nor the treatment of Ken Russell that feature some of the best cinematography British cinema ever offered. However, I learned from classics such as "Ryan's Daughter" and "Far From the Madding Crowd" that the greatest efforts in bringing a life of its own to small towns or natural settings don't amount to much when you don't have a story to justify it.

Ken Russell's directing and Billy Williams's cinematography are perfect and worthy of their Oscar nominations as far as technicality is concerned and there's an extraordinary sensual scene between Bates and Jennie Linden shot in a dizzying horizontal style that must have been quite a sight in the cozy intimacy of dark rooms in 1969 but the images were still too feeble given the turmoils that kept tantalizing the bodies of our protagonists.

Let's get to the two women arguably in love, they're not much in love as they're in love with a certain idea of what love is. That these two sisters share opposite views create a perfect juxtaposition of ideas and values that ironically find equal contentment from men who have also their different vision. The two sisters are Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) and Ursula (Linden), Gudrun is the kind of woman who embraces the liberation of mores after the first World War. She enjoys walking past a group of black-clad miners and hearing their raunchy comments have an ambivalent effect, she knows she had the potential to turn on men, which entitles her to sell at a high price the treasure of her hidden passions not any man has the key to.

Paradoxically, despite her hedonistic approach to life and her penchant for teasing men, she's acting both as a woman ahead of her time for her constant seeking of the basic pleasures of life and yet she accepts the separations of classes that make her inaccessible to the common man. In a crucial scene, where she teases one of the miner with a comment on flesh and thighs, the man is first puzzled and yet can only react through a desperate burst of 'toxic masculinity'. Notice that the mere sight of Gerald, his boss' son, played by Oliver Reed, is enough to put the man in his place.

Interestingly, Gerald is also man caught between two times, he doesn't share the benevolence of his sickly father (Alan Webb) and is much aware of his privilege and yet he doesn't hesitate to assert his masculinity by getting into the mine himself of forcing a poor horse to cross a railway while a freight is passing, much to the horror of Gudrun and even more from Ursula. He's the most enigmatic character as he probably doesn't know himself where he stands. Beyond his pose as a macho man, he shows genuine care for his father and disdain for her mother (Catherine WIllmer), a woman at the edge of insanity who can't cope with this mix of classes.

That Gerald works for the industrial world makes him a rather traditional model where he's got enough to content the appetites of Gudrun but maybe not what would make the package complete. It's only during an escapade to the Alps that Gudrun meets Loerke, Vladek Sheybal, a German who describes himself as a homosexual fan of secret games, that she finds the closest to a soulmate. In fact, she's a sapio-sexual and her vision of pleasure operates in the body contact as well as the intellect, a man who makes her come is one thing, but one who makes her think is a superior league. And Gerald, with all his masculinity must endure Loerke's harsh blow about his physicality, only the expression of mass in grotesque motion... while ironically he's the most capable of homoeroticism.

"Women in Love" is the tale of the incompatibility of love in couples where one seeks more than the other has to offer. .Ursula is the most ordinary as the least demanding, however Rupert can't get over the gap left by an exclusive relationship with a woman and that a man only can fill. It makes sense that his first woman was Hermione (Eleanor Bron) a dark woman of the dominating side but too enamored with her own image to be capable of anything mutual. Definitely Rupert finds the perfect partner in Gerald, as only a man can complete him and be him, as magnificently shown in the 'fight' scene.

British cinema was going through the same revolution as the New Hollywood with movies questioning love and sex (one that could be paralleled with the 20s), on that level "Women in Love" succeeds in both intellectualizing love and making it something more than a basic carnal need... needless to say that there's no room for pure love, for the only couple showing it, dies in a freak accident...

After the production code ended and before political correctness started there was an era of almost complete cinematic freedom. This film is of that time.

Glenda Jackson and Jennie Linden play Gudrun and Ursula, a pair of sisters in 1920s England with unconventional views on love. One day while rubbernecking at a wedding, they see the brother of the bride (Oliver Reed) and his best friend (Alan Bates) and after another meeting or two begin torrid relationships. The two couples fornicate their way through life, spouting philosophical nonsense, until another man shows up on a ski trip in Switzerland.

I think the scene that summed it all up for me was when Gudrun and Ursula wandered off at a garden party. Ursula is singing, and a herd of cattle show up, frightening her. Gudrun confronts the cattle -- with interpretive dance. The cattle, suitably baffled, wander off, realizing that the film already has enough BS and doesn't need theirs.. Oh, and the couple that got married at the beginning drown themselves at the garden party to get out of this turkey.

Jackson won an Oscar in a weak year for actresses. I can't blame her; she does the best she can with the leaden material. I give this one a 5/10 for cinematography and for the historical value of being what passed for sexual shock value in 1969.

One of the best literary adaptations ever to grace the screen this wonderful movie does justice to Lawrence's novel but more importantly to his vision. The cast is magical bringing to life Lawrence's characters at perfect pitch. Alan Bates IS D. H. Lawrence/ Rupert Birkin and Oliver Reed, Jennie Linden and Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar for her role, are superb. The script is excellent and draws on Lawrence's writings in addition to titled novel. For instance the scene where they are having lunch in the garden and Rupert (Bates) expounds on the fig fruit is actually taken from a poem by Lawrence called The Fig. It is little touches like this that really show the research and respect that went in to the adaptation. I don't know of a braver writer of relationships then Lawrence and this film is unflinching in its portrayal of every kind.

This film is adapted of course from D.H. Lawrence's novel, which continues on from 'The Rainbow' and has the Brangwen sisters, Ursula and Gudrun, contemplating men and marriage. They're played by Jennie Linden and Glenda Jackson, respectively, and the two soon find themselves in relationships with characters played by Alan Bates and Oliver Reed. I found Glenda Jackson to be the star here, though she's given lines that are sometimes overwrought (e.g. "How are your thighs? Are they strong? Because l want to drown in flesh. Hot, physical, naked flesh.") As with a lot of Lawrence's work, the story explores sexual freedom, monogamy, and life and death. It also explores homosexuality, and in one somewhat shocking (and extended) scene, Bates and Reed strip down to wrestle naked in front of a roaring fire, ending up glistening with sweat and on top of each other. It's liberating in its depiction of sexual honesty, but it's a bit bleak in its outlook about whether its characters will find happiness. The movie is certainly not shy about showing the naked body, both male and female, consistent with the movie having been made in the 'Age of Aquarius'. There is quite a bit of frolicking in nature and putting on performances of one sort or another, and the film is quite often gorgeous in its cinematography. Overall it lacks cohesion and is a little silly at times. Maybe that's how life is though.

Well, you might not actually SEE any women in love in this movie, but you'll certainly hear women TALKING about love, and men talking about love, and women talking about men, and men talking about women, and men talking about men, and everyone talking about death, and talking, and talking, until you yourself will want to scream and do something that requires no talking at all, like paint your bedroom or water your plants.

Welcome to the world of D.H. Lawrence, where psycho-babble reigns supreme, and where no one can get down to living a productive life because everyone is too busy talking about how unproductive their lives are. Spending time with the characters in a D.H. Lawrence novel is like being locked in a closet with a group of your most self-absorbed acquaintances who you would run away from if you met them at a party. When I read "Women in Love," I so desperately wanted to strangle every single character in it, but since I couldn't, I was hoping they would at least strangle each other. Alas, only one of them dies, not by strangulation, and I won't spoil it for you by telling which one, in case you actually give a damn about this story or any of these people.

To give director Ken Russell his due, he makes this filmed version about as entertaining as it's possible to make this essentially unfilmable novel. He throws out much of the psychological mumbo-jumbo that Lawrence adored, and focuses instead on all of the naughty parts, so we get lots of histrionic lovemaking in beds and fields, two buck naked men wrestling by firelight, and one embarrassing scene featuring Alan Bates (yup, buck naked again) roaming around in a meadow making love to bushes and grass (I'm not kidding). Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance as Gudrun, the more dominant of the two sisters at the story's focus, and she certainly tries her hardest to do something with this material; anyone would deserve an Oscar simply for having to bear Russell's decision to give her a scene where she has to dance wildly in front of a herd of mystified-looking cattle. Oliver Reed has one expression, an intense glower. The whole thing is over-written and over-directed, and it's deliriously campy. Indeed, this vies with "Mommie Dearest" as perhaps the most unintentionally hysterical movie I've ever seen.

Grade: D

Film versions of great books are expected to be lesser beings than their inspirations, but Ken Russell's adaptation of D. H. Lawrence's masterpiece refuses to obey any rules. It's smaller than the book, of course, but compensates by working on multiple levels to create a striking density. The gaudy, almost baroque cinematography actually compliments the sincere and subtle performances (even Oliver Reed!) to create a web of cross-references; every moment connects with every other. Kudos especially to the fine cast, not least Eleanor Bron, who forever cemented her cult status here, and is no mean hand with a paperweight, either.

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

This faithful adaptation by Ken Russell of one of D.H. Lawrence's best works is just as powerful & just as profound now, over 30 years after its initial release. The story is set in England a few years after World War I, at a time when many women of marriageable age were forced to examine their assumptions about relationships. When the Brangwen sisters complain about the lack of men, it's true. Many of the men who should have been available to them were lost in the war.

The film was made @ the dawn of the women's movement, once again a time when many women of a certain age were driven to examine their own assumptions about relationships, and looked to Lawrence (& then to Russell) for answers to questions beyond words.

This is not to deny the importance of the men in this story. Both Rupert & Gerald are drawn to the kind of women who ask these questions. Both of them have a myriad of other choices, but they're not satified by less.

So Russell finds a visual way to tell this story, & much of it would seem to be "over the top" were it not so obviously sincere & courageous. Glenda Jackson, a relative unknown at the time, won her first Oscar. We agree. She gives an extraordinary performance in a most difficult role: Gudrun is not likeable, but she IS honest.

The battle of the sexes and relationships among the elite of Britian's industrial Midlands in the 1920s. Gerald Crich (Oliver Reed) and Rupert Berkin (Alan Bates) are best friends who fall in love with a pair of sisters: Gudrun the sculptress (Glenda Jackson) and Ursula the schoolteacher (Jennie Linden).

I just wanted to mention the nude wrestling scene. Wow. To have this in a film is pretty incredible, but then to have it with a notable actor (Reed) is even more incredible. A bold move for everyone involved.

The film won the Golden Globe Award for Best English-Language Foreign Film, an honor they discontinued in 1973 when it occurred to everyone that this makes no sense.

Ken Russell's overly precious screen version of the D H Lawrence novel "Women in Love" is all tactile sensuality and much naked abandonment, not to mention a hell of a lot of high flautin' dialogue courtesy of producer Larry Kramer. It was a huge hit when it came out, (the nudity may have helped sell it), and won the then unknown Glenda Jackson an Oscar as Best Actress. The problem I have with her, and indeed everyone else for that matter, is they aren't playing flesh and blood people but just aspects of Lawrence. There are several great set-pieces that might convince you that you are watching a real film and it's superbly photographed by Billy Williams but ultimately it's a very patchy piece of work that just doesn't live up to its reputation.

I probably would have admired it greatly back in 1969, in my youth. But time moves on. Used to love Glenda Jackson back in the day. On news of her passing last week, I thought I should check out this one of hers which I never saw. I still found the Glenda Jackson magnetic and hypnotic. The cinematography was quite good ... considering the year this was made. Indeed everything about the production was letter perfect .. directing, casting, acting. The problem is that it was, likely due to it's fidelity to the book (although I haven't read it, but others here have said), very, very dated. The actors' lines were pretentious and self-conscious - although probably accurate to the period. And a much, much younger me, still trying to understand the world, would have lapped it up. But the world has changed. (OTOH, I generally enjoy period pieces .... regardless of the period. So, not sure why this was sticks in my craw). But I do miss Glenda Jackson.

D.H.Lawrence and Ken Russell. A potential train wreck. This film works and is the closest rendition I have ever seen that reflects and adapts a novel so well and accurately to the screen. D.H. Lawrence was a master writer and to have a director like Ken Russell depict it so beautifully was heavenly to watch. If people could only let themselves go and get rid of their hangups they might enjoy and understand this film. The novel, however, is the prize. Only a handful of scenes are taken from the book for this movie as so much of it is left out of the film. But what is portrayed is accurate and beautiful to watch. Oliver Reed is miscast as Gerald, the heir to a lucrative coal mining operation in the Midlands of England where D.H. Lawrence grew up. However, his rugged appeal and animalism on screen was perfectly portrayed and only an actor of the stature of Oliver Reed could have brought it off. Bates and Reed together exude magnetism and are thrilling to watch. Their wrestling match in the glow of the warm fire gives a sense of life and relaxation following a cold death scene. A crude display of homosexual behaviour is not what this is about. It is about life itself in all its raw and powerful conflict and struggle. Birkin played by Alan Bates is supposed to be a self-portrait of Lawrence, and he does an admirable job as the brooding man who is on a life quest for romantic fulfillment. This is a wonderful movie that should be shown to all literary students at the University level. I doubt there are enough good teachers out there who would know what they were teaching but perhaps Lawrence's novel "Women in Love" would help to disseminate the truth of what Lawrence was trying to say. I highly recommend this film to all who believe that raw sensual power in life is attainable for all who dare let themselves go 100% into a relationship without any drawbacks, doubts or hangups to hold them back - to indulge fully the carnal and spiritual fusion that is a worthy endeavour to be attained at all costs lest we just live out our lives with no purpose, few memorable experiences and little zest for life. To live life fully and healthy with love as the focus - this is the goal for Lawrence. The issues of death and male friendship are also fully explored along with the two love relationships - one that is destructive in a fierce competitive clash in a battle of the wills that corrodes the relationship towards a spiritual ruination (represented by Gerald freezing to death in the snow in the "solar plexus" of the world - the Alps in Europe) - and the other that works towards success which is highlighted by a loving and sensual regard for the other while allowing each other to grow in love. Get this film! Own it and Love it! Till Death do you Part!

I was engaged right from the off as it still looks and feels fresh which is praise indeed for a film over 50years old now. The script too is engaging but does become repetitive, pretentious and ponderous the longer the films goes on and it does go on too long.

Fine performances and direction too, particularly the scenes which have passed into cinematic history but there are plenty others too in the quieter more sombre moments.

All of this being said the characters are simply too wrapped up in their own self centred worlds to be wholly sympathetic and this is a problem for the drama to really take hold and for me to have any kind of empathy toward them.

A fine piece of cinema if flawed.