Lady Chatterley's Lover

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 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.

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.

... 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

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.