Lady Chatterley (1993) User Reviews

See it for the Bean

[sharlyfarley · 8/10 · 22 May 2005]

Having read the book in high school, I thought I knew pretty much what I was in for, especially with Ken Russell at the helm. Joely Richardson is a pretty thing, and manages some sympathy for Connie - who just wants to be a decent human being. I was too often aware I was watching her Act, especially when naked. It couldn't have been easy. James Wilby had pretty much perfected the upper class twit, though the vitriolic nastiness he brings to Chatterley is probably the acme of his career. Special mention should be made of Shirley Anne Field's performance as Mrs. Bolton - the nurse who understands Everything - and conveys so much to us without a word. It's a truly marvelous performance.

But the movie belongs to Sean Bean, who gets his teeth in and doesn't let go. Nobody does bitter passion like Bean. He's less affecting in the love scenes than when he's simply trying to defend himself - His lady has no idea what a spectacular risk he's taking. Imagine the conflict is not class but race, and you'll get an idea. "Tar and feathers" was not a joke. The class divisions are laid out, but there's nothing like the sight of him shoveling coal to bring it home. And it's either break his back or starve. On top of all that, he found himself genuinely in love, which was still more frightening. Bean gives it all to us...His fears, his courage, his joys and his humiliations...no actor could be more naked than that.

There's a reason the book was called "Lady Chatterley's Lover." Lady Chatterley had Lawrence's sympathy, but the lover was his hero. Shifting the emphasis to her doesn't quite work. It would be more damaging if Bean wasn't so forceful.

I didn't expect to be so moved by this film. They even got the flower scene right. Lawrence's Mellors was a bit of a bully, too, and that left poor Connie choosing between jerks. Russell gives Connie -- and us -- a much better choice. And I was pleased with the altered ending. Lawrence's vision was awfully bleak, and had no room for Connie to grow up. It makes all the difference.

Well-realised drama

[merynefret · 8/10 · 7 February 2002]

One might expect that a film (or telly production) based on any book with the word "lover" in the title would have a lot of - er - "human relations exploration". This one does, certainly, but the love scenes are done tastefully and don't come off as pornographic in the least.

The well-crafted script draws upon the obvious "Lady Chatterley's Lover" but also incorporates material from two of Lawrence's lesser-known works. I found the drama unfolding on the screen interesting to watch, especially in the capable hands of Sean Bean and Joely Richardson.

I gave the film an eight because it does have rather a lot of sex in it, including a few brief shots of full frontal nudity (though this particular part has nothing to do with sex), as well as some coarse language. Those familiar with Lawrence's masterpiece, though, should find it interesting, and it may even prove useful as an introduction to the book (as well as a basic human-anatomy course). ---Arwen Elizabeth Knightley

P.S. Not recommended for viewers under the age of sixteen.

Very good, much better than the Nicholas Clay film

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 17 February 2014]

The French version is yet to be seen by me but it does look as though it will be even better than this BBC adaptation. This adaptation of the controversial Lady Chatterley's Lover is very good if not entirely flawless, and it is far superior to the Nicholas Clay film from 1981, much more involving and this actually has a lead actress who can act and it doesn't take the sexual nature of the book to extremes. The music here is inconsistent, sometimes it is very beautiful and lyrical but at other times and actually too often it is too loud and with too much repetition, it could have been toned down more especially in the love scenes. The ending doesn't work either, far too convenient and open-and-shut, also played like a farce which juxtaposes too much with the gentle restrained feel that much of the rest of the adaptation had. Wasn't entirely sure about Ken Russell writing himself in as the father(it's certainly better than when he did it for Salome's Last Dance though), the character does come across as too much of a caricature and Russell's performance to some extent is the kind that seems out of kilter with everything else. The best asset though of Lady Chatterley is the visuals, which are truly spellbinding. The period detail is very colourful and evocative, the settings especially the gorgeous(inside and out, particularly inside) house make you wish you were there and the photography is fluid and not TV-bound at all. The dialogue is emotionally impactful and intelligently written, that it is true to D.H. Lawrence's writing is a plus too(same thing with Women in Love around 25 years previously). The story is gentle yet sexy and compelling, the love scenes are done surprisingly tastefully considering Russell's tendency to use of excess, of everything Russell's done actually Lady Chatterley is one of his most restrained and cohesive. The characters are not easy to care for- not the adaptation's fault, in a way it's the same in the book too- and are not the most well-developed but chemistry between them is convincing and they don't frustrate you. Russell directs with respect and with room to breathe and not to make things too overblown. The acting is very good, Joely Richardson is sensual and sympathetic in the title role and Sean Bean is a handsome and forthright Mellors. James Wilby is loathsome personified which is exactly what Sir Clifford should be like. You may argue that it was caricature-like at times, it wasn't that apparent to me and Sir Clifford is one of those characters where it is difficult to not overdo things because of the type of character he is, of all the Lady Chatterley's character the most dangerous to pull off is Sir Clifford for this reason. Shirley Anne Field is very telling as Mrs Bolton, a lot of the time in a refreshingly subtle way like in the body language alone. Overall, a very good adaptation of a good if understandably controversial book. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

A successful adaptation of DH Lawrence's novel to the screen.

[BeNude · 22 April 2000]

Lady Chatterley, whose husband was paralyzed in a war, is faced with the prospect of living the rest of life completely unfulfilled sexually, emotionally and maternally. She then meets Mellors, the family gameskeeper, with whom she begins an affair. D.H. Lawrence's novels, from which the movie was adapted, addressed some very touchy subjects of the 1920's English culture: sexuality and the dichotomy of the social classes. The movie, filmed for TV in four segments, does an excellent job of portraying the lives of Lawrence's characters and the lifestyles and fashion of that era. While the movie seems to get somewhat slow in places, the story would somehow be less complete without them. Part of the controversy surrounding Lawrence's was the great detail with which he described the sexual encounters between Lady Chatterley and Mellors. The books, though banned for many years in England, were nevertheless quite popular and became an instrument of social change. Many movies that attempt to depict sexual intimacy somehow fail to capture the atmosphere or feeling of the moment quite as well as director Ken Russell did in this movie. The scenes were quite convincing and should be required viewing for anyone who wishes to avoid movies where the sex scenes were added solely for the sake of the box office. The actors Joely Richardson and Sean Bean did a superb job at presenting to the audience the sexual intimacy and how they were affected by the social ramifications of their relationship. Despite the rather long playing time of the movie, they manage to maintain the quality of their roles as people in a complex social predicament. While the movie contains some nudity, it is important to note that the only scene that depicts full-frontal nudity is one that is void of any sexuality; the couple, overwhelmed at having found true joy in their lives, run and frolic naked through the woods. A good lesson for future moviemakers and censors: nudity in movies need not - nor should it always be - associated with sex. The bottom line: Lady Chatterley is a good quality love story that includes all the social politics, the old-world class distictinctions, and the many other elements that make up the relationship of the couple involved. If you liked the books, you will most likely enjoy this movie as well.

Very good adaptation.

[rchalloner · 7/10 · 14 February 2010]

I agree that this is a very good adaptation indeed of the novel and the closest in spirit to what Lawrence was writing about in my view. If there is one stereotype however, that Ken Russell (and Lawrence before him) perpetuates beyond reason, it is that a woman can only be sexually stimulated and fulfilled by penetration. It seems ludicrous even for that day and age (when the sexual hypocrisy of Victorian and Edwardian England was still in play), that a man so apparently sophisticated and sexually aware as Sir Clifford does not even consider cunnilingus or manual stimulation of his wife. Sex is therefore reduced to a raw gratification of mutual lust between Lady C and Mellors. Where is the beauty, the sensuality and the giving of true sexual love in all that?

not in Russell's style

[altyn · 6/10 · 28 August 2006]

I found it too long and very different from the shorter Ken Russel works I know. His theatrical films have a gift of visionary concision which is utterly incompatible with a 3 1/2 hrs TV production. Connie's dream says much more about her than her visit to Clifford with only her face covered. I kept feeling that Russel was conveying all that was significant in a few short scenes and that most of the remaining screen time was simply decorative, exemplified by Connie and Hilda's tango: pure exercise in style. Some moments can even be enjoyed, but a film lover smells too many rats. Then the ending is so "B-movie", I start to suppose Russell was sneering at his TV audience. There is a feeling of tiredness throughout the film and you are constantly reminded that the plot is so well known, there isn't much to expect in the way of surprises. So you start to make amends... which is what you happens when you are trying to make the best out of something not really satisfactory. This is pleasant but not outstanding TV fiction. A pity that I had been expecting a typical Ken Russel work.

Splendid visuals.

[davidtraversa-1 · 9/10 · 23 January 2012]

An excellent work of art in a long and expertly made movie. Being almost totally visual, I must admit I'm carried away by visually beautiful movies, and this one is tops. The English countryside, so green, the gardens of these upper class people, practically loaded with incredible flowers (whole paths protected by walls of flowers, a superb and exquisite view) the house, something out of this world, its furniture and very valuable paintings, Connie's period costumes (Constance Chaterly, the actress Joely Richardson), I think on one scene she is wearing an authentic white pleated silk Fortuny gown; the open top cars, impeccable antiques used in several scenes..., briefly, a feast for the eyes.

Joely Richardson is a very pretty actress with a fantastic body and next to Sean Bean (another very sexy beauty) they make a perfect couple for the protagonists antics, which are several and most passionate (explosive?) showing us quite clearly the very difficult circumstances a socially mismatched couple could find in those 1920s, when this story is taking place, in the heart of England, a country populated by a lower class exploited to death by a handful of aristocrats (aristocrats according to the genealogical tree they fabricated for themselves, conveniently forgetting the dark and dubious origins they all came from just a few previous generations).

It's almost painful to watch those scenes where these super rich talk openly about their inferiors (servants present) making any possible hurtful remark as if they weren't standing next to them, silently waiting to satisfy any requirement. I hope that the English people ended once and for all that kind of abysmal social differences because nowadays that seems barbarian and so terribly unjust.

The visual contrast between those excessively manicured green gardens and the blackish, depressing mining town without any trace of greenery anyplace, is shown breathtakingly when Connie goes to the completely black environment of the mine, fully dressed in impeccably radiant white clothes.

The music accompanying most scenes is quite annoying, very loud and repetitive, invading many times, quite disruptively, what is going on. Could it be that Ken Russell, the director, was very gifted with the visuals of a movie but didn't have a sound musical education?

It must be remarked that Russell was very unique, very personal with the look and the choreography of his actors in his films, since in many scenes one realizes that only him could have made it that way, very much what we feel when watching an Almodovar film. And of course, this excessively odd personalities backfire sometimes, but when they hit the mark... the results are glorious.

The story is fascinating although very dated, nowadays we have seen so many examples of royalty marrying their chauffeurs, gardeners, street sweepers, delivery boys, etc, that all that fuss seems completely out of date. But placing ourselves in those dark 1920s (at least dark for the poor), we are perfectly able to follow our protagonists and feel the pain and anguish they went through.

The book by D. H. Lawrence is out of this world, a ravishing lecture, even after all these many years since he wrote it.

A very-very enjoyable film.

CLASS, PROPERTY, WEALTH, WAR AND SEX - CAMP STYLE

[frankiehudson · 6/10 · 3 November 2003]

At the beginning of the film, the point of view is from that of Clifford Chatterley (James Wilby), with lots of low camera angles showing how he sees other people. But, of course, he is hopelessly emasculated and useless to his wife, Lady Chatterley. He's also bitter, so nasty that he even tries to run over young poor boys in his Rolls Royce on his vast estate.

Contains the usual Ken Russell weirdo stuff, like with Lady Chatterley on her symbolic black horse surrounded by loads of fit young men, in this case hopelessly camped up and a bit like an O Level Film Studies/English effort. Sometimes Russell gets it right – like in the excellent Whore – but this time he seems a bit desperate. It's got all of the clichéd stuff, like Connie (Richardson) walking through a different kind of setting according to what mood she's in – violents and loads of flowers for a good mood, frosty, autumn scenes for when she's depressed. The usual stuff.

Sean Bean is adequate, really just playing himself, as usual. I prefer him in Essex Boys.

If you want a film with loads of stuff on the British class system then this is the one for you. However, even the sex scenes are not much good and not really convincing

Sean Bean Amazes Yet Again

[aly-5 · 10/10 · 1 September 2006]

As my mother used to say, "The man can read the phone book and I would be satisfied." A truly masterful performance for all involved. I did not even know this existed until recently and I sat to watch it in one sitting. Joely Richardson and Bean exuded the passion which was present, even more than in the books. And I loved Shirley Anne Field's Mrs. Bolton. It appeared as though she truly wanted Connie's happiness, or perhaps she just wished to have the master under her thumb, but either way, it was a stellar performance.

And Sean Bean...Oh, my. I have followed his career since seeing the Sharpe's episodes and in everything he is in, he takes the part and makes it his own. A simply wonderful effort and a beautifully touching love story.

Nearly there but Russell's self indulgence gets in the way of perfection

[bar-roberts · 7/10 · 24 March 2006]

I agree Bean was excellent but so was Richardson ( and very beautiful she was, too) I did not find Shirley Ann Field convincing at all. She was far too burnished and her accent was so forced that she came out as a caricature of a Northern woman. Her class was really not worked out, and as the film was about class above everything else we needed to know where Field was on the scale. She was too intimate at times, yet her strident Northern voice would have been more at home in a butcher's shop. The photography of the wood was perfect and echoed the out-of-this- world love story, so that the scenes in the village and forge were memorably upsetting. I didn't realise this was based on three books so found the end confusing. Lawrence would not have liked it so this is not a film for Lawrence fans, perhaps.

Lovely Woods

[cosmax10 · 5/10 · 5 December 2016]

I just happened to come across this on Netflix. I found it to be OK, however for a woman pining and longing for some male heat, the cottage dweller wasn't that good at it and lacked variety in his sexual performances. Maybe she didn't know any different. A lot of face grabbing and pressing bodies against things. The woods where some of the action happened was pretty. The guy in the wheelchair was kind of bi-polar, and said his parts were mutilated, yet his devoted nurse claimed they were intact when she bathed him down there. She seemed very excited about the whole thing. I never read the book, but some of these earlier English films cast the wrong actors/actresses for the part. I didn't think the actress was all that great, for someone wanting passion she was very bland, but very beautiful.

Super Adaption

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 7 March 2018]

A really good adaption of the book and the original 1981 film. It is very erotic... quite a bit of nudity and sex. Not recommended for under 16.

A beautiful, complicated love story I enjoyed.

[elinorw2002 · 13 May 2004]

This movie was very enjoyable as well as instructive. It was enjoyable because it was so faithful to the most popular version of the story and instructive about how people conducted their lives after WW1 in England. Joely Richardson is a new actress for me and I find her convincing as Connie. Sean Bean is a familiar handsome actor who has a long career I've followed. I feel these actors portrayed Mellors and Connie as reluctant lovers. They were strangers at first and only knew they needed what everyone needs, tenderness in their lives. It felt like I was watching two people desperate in their search, almost helplessly drawn to find happiness against all odds. I personally don't care if Sean Bean did not appear completely naked, and if the lovemaking was wooden at first, it felt right given the circumstances. These actors are bringing characters to life for us and it should not be forgotten this is not a view into an affair between the actors, it is the portrayal of characters brought to life by good acting and believable direction.

Outstanding performances

[nonsvch · 10/10 · 26 April 2003]

I'm a bit biased as Joely is a favourite of mine. Very faithfull adaptation, well scripted, some brilliant performances by Joely and Sean Bean (Boromir). I bought the DVD and its certainly a MUST own, as this is another trademark quality BBC production!

Must go and read the book again!

splendidly filmed

[RavenGlamDVDCollector · 9/10 · 2 October 2014]

I cannot stop pointing out how gloriously this was filmed. Beautiful, beautiful. England truly is a jewel. And Joely Richardson, which I knew from NIP/TUCK (that most-of-the-time not so beautiful show) is every bit as much in her heyday as Britain was back then. I've come to realize that she is actually one of the prettiest actresses on film ever, yet I didn't even know about this mini- series until a bit more than five, six weeks ago when I googled Joely Richardson after a NIP/TUCK episode. Oooh, sounds kinky :)

And there's a lovely nude scene, even with a glimpse of the male full frontal. But this is Joely's show, and even though Sean Bean is dashingly handsome, it is Joely that carries the show. Anyway, let me put it this way: it features the kind of nude scene (in the woods) that might appeal even to people who normally cannot stand nude scenes. It is that charmingly, beautifully, romantically filmed, and everybody who had anything to do with it, should be commended for the sheer beauty of it.

Great performances by all. Very evocative. A must-see.

This is the definitive Lady Chatterley's Lover

[GFDTommasino · 10/10 · 14 October 2019]

After having seen all the film adaptations of Lady Chatterley's Lover 1981 onwards, in my opinion none of them can hold a candle to (this) Ken Russell's version. It has beauty, poetry, squalor and vision. I write this in Oct 2019 and after viewing the previous versions. Joely Richard's radiant beauty and sensuality, Sean Bean's passion however roughly expressed and his earthiness are to be treasured. I just wish Ken Russell's version was available uncut in Blu Ray.

The 2015 adaptation is particularlyy bad and poorly cast, the characters look weak and project a superficial aura and do not make you care for either of the characters in the film. And have nothing of the feel of the period. Some of the stone faced house staff look like they were hired from some military regiment for their wooden expressions.

The 2015 version of LCL suffers from the same problem the 2015 version of Far From the Madding Crowd suffers. Poorly cast characters. Though of the two Far From the Madding Crowd is slightly better.

More here than meets the eye!

[pdianek · 2 September 2003]

** Spoilers**

The other reviews have hit all the important high points. This is, indeed, a lovingly filmed story, with lots to reflect on in the difference that social class made -- just after WWI -- in England. (And still does; see Michael Apted's Up films: 7Up, 14Up, 21Up, and so on.) The acting is superb, the relations between characters believable (catch Mellors's mother criticizing him as she hangs his clean laundry to dry), and although the ending is not as the book's, it's much more satisfying.

A reviewer below wonders why Mellors's face isn't shown during lovemaking. The whole point of the book, and the movie, is to show how this relationship, and her infidelity, is affecting Connie. It's not just that she's unfaithful -- she's unfaithful with a man `not our class, dear', which was a social sin greater than any dalliance. And as to their doing it `Greek' -- I perceive what's portrayed is simply rear-entry, like most mammals, what Lawrence referred to as `à l'italien'.

It's fascinating to recognize that Sean Bean a few years after this series worked in Lord of the Rings -- because both Tolkien and Lawrence wrote, in very different ways, of the contrast between the natural world and the mechanical world. Wragby Hall, where the Chatterleys live (because his older brother was killed in WWI, Sir Clifford has inherited the title and the place, though he has been paralyzed -- but not, we're led to believe by Mrs. Bolton, who cares for him, quite so paralyzed as to make some kind of intercourse with Connie impossible...if only he would want it) -- Wragby Hall is beautiful, but stony and cold. Mellors's cottage is small, dark, intimate. When Connie visits him there for the first time, flowers he's picked wait for her on the table. The gorgeous woods, where most of the Connie/Mellors relationship lies, are green, leafy, full of life -- and the contrast to the mining town Mellors came from and returns to, black and grim, is cruel. At one point Sir Clifford, trying to break a miners' strike, threatens to go down into the mine -- presaging the flight down into Tolkien's vision of Saruman's pit, where weapons of war are crafted and birthed.

Hilda, Connie's sister, totally disapproves of the illicit relationship and is taken aback when Mellors calls himself her brother-in-law. `Far from it, I assure you!' she retorts, scandalized. Yet Mellors means that he is married to Connie by nature -- and that is far more powerful than the dead, though legal, marriage of Clifford to Connie.

The themes of care, and of flight, run through the films. Connie, seeing a nest, says she'd like to be a bird, perhaps to escape her husband, who is irritable and cold. Mellors, as gamekeeper, patrols for poachers, but also raises pheasants for Sir Clifford by taking most of their eggs and putting them under sitting hens. One of the first things he says to Connie, when he indicates a bench she can rest on, is, `You've not been well, I know'. Soon the eggs have hatched, and a tender scene has Mellors and Connie watching the tiny chicks -- which she describes as `so unafraid'. Not long after, Mellors is doing the same thing for Connie -- she runs, flies, to the woods to be under him, with whom she feels warm and safe. At the end she persuades Hilda to race to Southampton, hoping to catch Mellors in his own flight to Canada.

Note about the music: It's so awfully florid, I wish Ken Russell would re-score the whole thing using public domain classical pieces. Other than that, though, this 2-DVD set is a fine piece of work, and was hugely popular in the UK when it first aired -- even referred to in `The Vicar of Dibley'. Ken Russell handled the story with great love as well as passion, and the thump you feel in the pit of your stomach may not be entirely due to the eroticism of this film.

Fantastic Adaptation

[QueenofBean · 19 October 2003]

D. H. Lawerence wrote some of my favorite books of all time, including Lady Chatterley's Lover, so at first, I was afraid to watch these short little missives. I was not disappointed, however. It held true to quite a few aspects of the "Sir John Thomas and Lady Jane" version of the book than the original publication, but Lawerence never seemed to be quite satisfied and was always changing. Joely Richardson was a beautiful Lady Chatterley, and Sean Bean seemed the perfect Mellors. James Wilby was so convincing as Clifford that by the end of this movie, you just wanted that horrid wretch to be left alone, wallowing in his misery, because like everything else in his life, Constance was a possession, not a human being. This movie is a timeless treasure for anyone who loves the idea of being in love!

A good version of D.H. Lawrence's novel

[andrewbanks · 30 September 2011]

It is interesting to compare this British television mini-series based on D.H. Lawrence's novel with the 2006 French film version. Both are quite faithful to the book, the main differences are that this version replaces the books indeterminate ending, which is retained in the French film, with a happy ending, and in the French version, Sir Clifford Chatterley is snobbish and condescending, whereas in this British version he is downright arrogant and nasty.

The main plus points for this production are the performances of the leading players and the excellent production design. Joely Richardson is very good as Constance Chatterley and Sean Bean is excellent as Oliver Mellors, and James Merifield's production design is a great asset to this mini-series. Merifield is a very talented production designer. His other credits include the 2008 BBC1 'Sense and Sensibility', one of my favourite Jane Austen dramatisations.

Ken Russell has also directed film versions of 'Women in Love' and 'The Rainbow', so he is clearly a great admirer of D.H. Lawrence. I think D.H. Lawrence was well served by this dramatisation of his most famous novel.

Not as good as it could have been

[ReluctantFan · 26 July 2008]

Many passages felt too slow-paced especially in the 1st and 2nd episode. On the other hand, I found Connie, Hilda and most of the other cast lived up to the characters I had imagined as a reader. Many lines of Mellors and Connie were taken straight from the book which was good. The pheasant chick scene was well portrayed. The sex scenes were not as gratuitous as happens so often on screen. In this case they are part of the story and were tastefully done on the whole. Contrary to some of the above comments, I think the series went quite far enough so far as sexual explicitness was concerned. What is acceptable in literature can easily become voyeurism when depicted on screen.

Sean Bean is a favourite actor of mine but I was disappointed with his impersonation of Mellors. I recall Mellors as a very proud man looking down at Sir Clifford in spite of his subservient position and I'm not sure Bean expressed this sufficiently. For instance he was good in his confrontation scenes with Connie or Hilda but played Mellors as too humble almost downtrodden before Sir Clifford and Mrs Bolton. Also in the book Mellors switches from dialect to standard English and back according to the situation and I felt this was not so much in evidence in the series.

My main disappointment however is the new glossy happy ending which is far too easy and banal. It seems at odds with the questions raised by the novel notably about the feasibility of relationships between social classes.

No male full frontal nudery: there never is!!!!

[alicecbr · 18 February 2002]

Yes, this is a fascinating movie. But it raises questions of yesterday's class differences, and today's male prudery. Here's the question: as they have it all ways, including Greek, why does Ms. Richardson have to portray her everything over and over, but M'sieu Bean, that hunk, is carefully covered so his 'dangly bits' don't show. Read the biography and you'll see how hard they had to work to make sure he DIDN'T portray full male nudery. How come, I ask? Is it because male directors are so afraid of their size problems, that they don't dare breech that frontier? If one shows, then the others will have to. And please!!! I'm not promiscuous or a nympho, but Richardson was obviously contemplating a dental appointment in the 'throes of her passion'. And Bean was obviously pushing a sack of potatoes up a hill. Why won't those directors make some shots from behind the woman's viewpoint, and let us see the male faces during intercourse? That is not obscene, and when there is both love and lust, there IS a difference as most human beings know. OK, and why aren't we shown the most telling and lasting scene from the book: where Connie wreathes Mellor's willy in flowers. I read this as a teen=ager and I still remember that mental image 40 years later. So why not, Mr. Russell? You're so 'outrageous', yeah. Not so. The gorgeous ENglish country house, oh, it's to swoon over with all the paintings. Yes, Russell can indeed photograph beautifully England. The lines about the colliers and the serving class right in front of them, and the photo switch to the maids' tight faces was genius, pure genius. Even if the paralyzed husband was a wee bit cartoonery in his outrageous insensitivity. D.E. Lawrence is known as a misogynist and this ditzy Connie was no exception. She was so flighty it's amazing and I'm wondering what Canada would have done to the REAL spoiled darling, beset with the turmoil and strains of pregnancy and a primitive culture. Of course, we have a class conscious culture here in the U.S., but I don't think it's quite as ludicrous as the English was. (I know Northern English salesmen with their wierd accents who are so cute. And the line where the sister asks Mellors to speak English 'properly' without the dialect is precious. can it be from the movie? So, OK, Sean. Now let's give them a movie where love-making is really shown as love on the face. Not as simply an animal maneuver.