Directed by Pascale Ferran. Based on the novel by D.H. Lawrence. Released by Kino International.
Lady Chatterley is a French film set in rural England in the 1920’s. Constance is the wife of a paralyzed war veteran and wealthy mine owner. She begins to take walks down to the gamekeeper’s hut to enjoy the beautiful scenery. Her visits to the hut became a daily habit and she eventually has an affair with Oliver the gamekeeper. Lady Chatterley was nominated for 11 César awards and won 5, including Best French Film and Best Actress.
Since it’s been a little while since I watched Lady Chatterley, I thought I’d go to the official website to refresh my memory. One of the interesting things I read on the site was that the movie is based on the second of three versions of the erotic novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence. The author rewrote the manuscript from beginning to end instead of modifying any of the previous versions. The second version, known in English as John Thomas and Lady Jane, takes place mostly outdoors. The infamous third version, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, takes place indoors and contains much more dialogue. Knowing that, I’m interested in reading the two versions to compare. However, I do think basing the movie off the second version was a better choice. Nature becomes a third character in this film and adds many layers that might not have been there with an adaptation from the more well-known third version.
There are some incredibly beautiful scenes in this film. One particular scene I thought was done really well was when Oliver is decorating Constance in the nude with wildflowers. The film also had an amazing feeling to it. I’m not talking about the intimate scenes specifically. I’m talking more about the scenes of discovery. When Constance discovers Oliver with his shirt off near the beginning of the film, the camera shows her hand and I felt the tingling that might have been in her hands. When Oliver slides his arm across Constance’s back and you know it’s the beginning of the affair, I felt butterflies in my stomach like she might have felt. The characters developed from empty to whole, accompanied by the background of changing seasons. There is so much more to be discovered in this seemingly simple film that I might just have to watch it again.
I liked it too, but I don’t really have much to add.
One thing I will say is that I disagree with Nick’s friend that it’s “boring as hell.” Of course, I’m not familiar with the source novel (I’m not familiar with too many source novels), but I didn’t find it boring. It’s definitely slow, but it takes its time getting to know these people, in very subtle ways. It’s more of a cumulative effect than a case of outstanding individual scenes.
Not something I’ll particularly want to watch again, but worth a viewing.
Well, the guy studies literary science, so what he considers boring might not be what us mere mortals consider boring. But we tend to agree on films, so I listened to him this time. Never read the novel (original or otherwise) but I’m familiar enough with the works of Lawrence to know that he does favor the slow moving approach. That and it being a French erotic drama with an inevitably tragic ending with a moral to the story is somewhat of a turnoff to me. At least for the moment. Maybe I’ll want to watch it in the future.
But great review. Well written!
I might clarify that I’m probably too impatient to get through either of the books. I’d like to read a just few chapters to see how they compare, if at all.
Being a nature lover (and a chick) might have had something to do with me enjoying this film more than some. Like Constance, I wouldn’t mind spending all afternoon bird watching and picking wildflowers. Although, I should be careful not to raise suspicions about gamekeepers that live on nature trails around here. ;)
Actually, the ending wasn’t really all that tragic, and there’s not really a moral, either. It is a French erotic drama, though, no way around that.
Which brings up another point, as it happens. One thing that was deeply strange to me was that it is French, but the filmmakers kept the English setting and names. Very jarring. Then I realized that this is what the rest of the world deals with all the time when watching American movies – the setting and the language simply don’t match up. Rare to see it the other way around, though.
I feel like I’ve shed a layer of ignorant cultural imperialism from my worldview. It’s all very exciting.
Literary Science? Seems like an oxymoron. I have good friends who are literature professors and I’ve never heard that term used, must be a European thing.
Litteraturvetenskap is what we call what you call Literary Studies, i.e. reading lots of old books and talking about them (right?). Vetenskap being Swedish for science.
I agree it’s an oxymoron.
Interesting. We just call that English Lit, or possibly Literary Theory.
I rented this the other day. Agree with Brian–very slow, but not particularly boring. There’s no reason it needed to be as long as it did. Watching it on DVD I could pause it and do some things and come back to it. I might have had a far more vitriolic response if I had had to watch it in a theater.
I read Lady Chatterly’s Lover back in college for a D.H. Lawrence class, don’t remember too much about it.