Lady Chatterley's Lover

... this one's not bad ... but there are others quite-better ... not fault of the actors ... story here is just too-empty ... especially very uninteresting manner which they choose to end it

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.

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.)

Lady Chatterley's Lover has been adapted to film many times, which isn't surprising considering how controversial the subject matter was at the time the book was published. The present 2015 film has a strong cast but is decidedly modern and has freed itself of the nuance and delicacy of DH Lawrence's book. In the book, the chasm between Sir Clifford and the common people of the village is palpable, but it's practically never mentioned outright. It's the elephant in the room. In this film by contrast they never shut up about it. The characters are either bringing up how angry they are at the rich people or the rich are shown mistreating everyone. Even Lady Chatterley's ambiguous state as not precisely aristocrat but not lower class either is mostly tossed out the window.

The film does have its strong points, but it tends to melodrama. The unspoken feeling of the book's characters is gone, and I don't know if that's because the filmmakers believe the viewer is too thick to pick up on nuances or they just want to make sure we get it. The film isn't bad but it doesn't have the ring of truth because for me it feels too modern. Allegedly DH Lawrence originally entitled his book "Tenderness" and his narrative implies that the upper-middle-class Lady Chatterley feels the urge for tenderness that the common people feel, rather than people of Sir Clifford's ilk. This kind of narrative requires a sensitive handling of the subject and the present film takes a hammer and chisel approach with the characters frequently shouting their grievances at one another and fibrillating with anger.

There's a soap opera feel to the present film and it misses the class-conscious simmering feeling that the book speaks to. The 1981 version with Sylvia Krystel, though maligned, is perhaps more successful at accurately capturing the feeling and nuances of the book. The 1981 version also more adeptly showed the Chatterleys in their rural environment, which they are at once a part of and at odds with. And this is in keeping with DH Lawrence's thematic inclination both here and in his other works.

While I liked the movie for it's romanticism, I must say that it was an overall sad movie in my opinion.

This movie is about a wealthy newlywed couple who, after the husband returns from war paralyzed from the waist down, begin to drift apart. The drifting in mostly on the part of the wife due to the husbands frustrations and longing for an heir he can not provide them with. This sets the wife's eye on the estate's newly hired gamekeeper. Slowly falling for one another leads the adulterous couple down a complicated road.

I say it was sad only because I had some feelings about the husband's life change and how hard that would've been to deal with. The movie wasn't bad. It has some nice costumes and some beautiful camera work but it doesn't make it very far past an average film for me.