Women in Love (1969)

This film is a masterpiece.

DH Lawrence has provided a wonderful story world for Ken Russell

to explore modern notions of romance, monogamy -- sex and the beast. Only the recent Thai film "Tropical Malady" has managed to grapple with these themes with such playful and erotic sensitivity. The sort of film which confronts the very notion of a moral fabric -- dangerous -- yet vital if audiences are willing to challenge their own notions of fairytale love, expectations for companionship and ultimately happiness.

The mismatched performance style (Glenda J's unusual mix of naturalism and

Brechtian facade -- is delightful when juxtaposed with Oliver Reeds hammy

closetted representational queer). Like "cAT ON A HOT TIN roof" this

performance contrast only serves to strengthen the academic rigour of the film's politics -- and ultimately serves as an emotional beacon to enlighten an

audience with an elusive mind.

Like "The Day of the Locust" -- this film is breathtakingly modern -- and before it's time.

Fmovies: At first glance, Ken Russell's "Women in Love" may look like one of the many movies exploring the new permissiveness of the silver screen (and in fact it got released around the same time as "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice"). But it is also important to pay attention to its focus on England's class system. In my opinion, probably the most effective scene is during the opening credits, as Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) and Ursula Brangwen (Jennie Lind) - both dressed in fancy aristocratic clothes - walk through an economically depressed neighborhood, barely if at all moved by the poverty surrounding them. Of course, it's hard not to remember Rupert Birkin (Alan Bates) and Gerald Crich (Oliver Reed) fighting each other. That scene probably goes to show the falsity of the rich English lifestyle: they act like these refined individuals, but the whole time they're ready to explode. Back when D.H. Lawrence wrote the novel, he probably never guessed that the movie would look like this.

All in all, this is certainly one that I recommend. I often say that the period from about 1967 to 1973 saw some of the greatest movies released, and this backs that up. Also starring Eleanor Bron (the woman in "Help!") and Michael Gough (Alfred in the Batman movies from 1989 to 1997).

I've never heard of people cutting open figs and eating only the inside. I've always just eaten the whole fig.

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

Women in Love fmovies. One of the other commenters stated that this film was based on a Thomas Hardy novel. Hardly! This is novelist D.H. Lawrence (and, incidentally, director Ken Russell) at his best. The cinematography, lighting, set design, and composition are stupefyingly gorgeous. And the film delves deep, deep into the hearts and minds of intelligent people and romantic relationships (heterosexual and homosexual). Glenda Jackson is (to use the adjective in current favor) awesome. Anyone truly interested in film has to see this one for all its many wonderfulnesses.

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 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.