Lady Chatterley's Lover (2015)

the audience applauded

good back-story, and good acting

The acting in this movie is really good.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

There have been at least five or six screen adaptations of Lady Chatterly's Lover, and this one adds nothing new or noteworthy. It is mediocre at best, and despite the ludicrous warning on Netflix that this version contains "strong sex", be assured it is decidedly tame. There is not so much as a nipple to be seen in this TV quality offering, which is so careful and safe that it feels like something aimed at schoolchildren studying the book.Since costume dramas are ten-a-penny these days, yet another version of Chatterly is surely surplus to requirements, unless, of course, it is willing to offer up a bit more flesh than, say, "The Tudors".Since graphic (at the time) sex was the main selling-point of the original book, causing much controversy and litigation, it would not be inappropriate for a modern screen adaptation to similarly push the boundaries. Otherwise, what's the point?And lack of sex aside, there is little else to recommend this film either. The script, acting, direction, and cinematography are every bit as flaccid as Lord Chatterly, and there is minimal visual splendour in terms of countryside or stately homes upon which to feast the eye.There is, however, one pretty good music cue, during the main "sex" scene. It's just a shame that the music was so good because it was making up for so much else that was missing.Having said all that, it passed the time pleasantly (if blandly) enough. I won't be re-watching it, however.

Friends complained that this new BBCtv adaptation was too slow and not naughty enough. They could not be more wrong. The pace was well-judged and if the novel's "John Thomas and Lady Jane" scenes were somewhat diluted, there was enough of that kind of "action" to explain why Lady C. threw caution and decorum out the window after she was captivated by the gamekeeper's rough manliness. Holliday Grainger and Richard Madden gave strong performances and both looked and felt in tune with the finely evoked post-World War One setting. James Norton brought pathos as well as rage to the role of Sir Clifford and was well-served by Jed Mercurio's screenplay which did not banish him to the sidelines once his wife started popping down to the woodshed. The script's one big flaw was to give the story a Mills & Boon ending which is not ruled out but not promised in the novel.The best-ever screen version of a D.H. Lawrence book was Ken Russell's WOMEN IN LOVE (1969), which did manage to work in the novel's intellectual element as well as the social and sexual. Christopher Miles's THE VIRGIN AND THE GYPSY (1970) was nearly as good. And so is this: beautifully photographed, with a subtle script and excellent acting; a touching tale of a love affair that crosses the class divide. I hope this weekend's reworking of THE GO-BETWEEN will be as good - and as subtle.

The only other version of Lady Chatterley I have seen was the 1993 version directed by Ken Russell, the Infant Terrible of British Cinema returning to BBC television. The series was a critical and ratings success and of course whipped up controversial headlines but this was Russell being respectful for the television medium although he still added a bit of his flair in which I believe was his last substantial directing project.This cut down version directed and adapted by Jed Mercurio once again shows that the good doctor tends to struggle outside the confines of a hospital ward.Constance Reid marries the upper class Sir Clifford Chatterley a wealthy mine owner who is paralysed in the Great War. Her sexual frustrations drives him to a passionate affair with the gamekeeper Mellors who also served in the trenches with her husband.Although DH Lawrence novel becomes infamous for its sex the book also examined the class relationships between the wealthy and the working classes.Holliday Grainger plays the sultry Lady but she looks more innocent and vulnerable, rejected by her wheelchair bound husband who she loves but he can no longer can get physical with her.James Norton plays Sir Chatterley and Richard Madden is Mellors but I felt both actors were interchangeable for each other's parts not something you can say about Sean Bean in the Russell version.The sexual content here was toned down. Mercurio did not want the sex scenes to overpower the drama but he also subdued the class war aspects of the novel as he made everyone too nice.Sir Chatterley is shown as the decent sort of landowner despite his snobbishness, injured doing his duty for King and Country, wanting an heir and its only towards the latter part of the film that the class divide is raised more explicitly.The tenderly short sex scenes robs Mellors of the animal passion that attracts both he and Lady Chatterley. In short the drama leaves him impotent because without the sex he really is not that interesting a character.The ending based on a draft of the novel does not entirely work for me. Both Lady Chatterley and her lover leaving together to an uncertain future seems far fetched for the time period. She has given up her title, wealth to a man who seemingly has no prospects now he has lost his job.

I think it was truly unfair for Lady Constance Chatterley to cheat on Sir Clifford just because he was so physically not able to give her a child. I suppose it really did hit her hard as she always was dying to have kids. At the same time, it was really wrong. It was too bad that there was no support back then on relation to having kids with a disability or even consider adoption. By god, there is so much better changes now, it's really amazing to get the support now with therapy, counseling, etc. I felt really sorry actually for poor Clifford since he truly had lost confidence and he just was always so teary, god help him! You wouldn't blame him!I honestly think this is a sad sad story that would make you sigh a lot after watching it....