A seaman named Paul, on-leave for two weeks, returns to his grandfather's chicken ranch only to discover two women, Jill and Ellen, residing there instead; they welcome him in, but soon he begins lusting for Ellen, who is seen as sexually unfulfilled and is therefore drawn to this handsome stranger. This drives a wedge between the two ladies, whose close relationship is ultimately steeped in the hypothetical (they sleep in the same bed, but back to back). Mark Rydell directed this adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's novella, and he's infinitely helped along by beautifully desolate, wintry Toronto locales and by William Fraker's incredible cinematography. The three-person sturm and drang which develops is blanketed by ambiguities and eye-rolling symbolism, however the cast is first-rate. Keir Dullea's performance is flattened out a bit in the last third by Rydell, who has a penchant for cheap melodrama, and also by composer Lalo Schifrin, whose 'suspenseful' music cues become repetitive (you almost expect Norman Bates to come running in). Sandy Dennis and Anne Heywood do extremely well with difficult characterizations, but the notion that Heywood has to pleasure herself in private weakens the bond we sense between the women--this is truly the love which dare not speak its name!--and the final events feel tacked on, with the psychological contest between Jill and Paul leading to an unsatisfying climax. **1/2 from ****
30 Reviews
Here's a film way ahead of its time...
Doylenf28 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Leave it to D. H. Lawrence to pen a story about a lesbian relationship that really does ring true without coming across as an exploitation film. In fact, the film is so subtly presented that you wonder how they ever marketed it back in the '60s in order to give its subject matter a wider market.
All of it is low-key--the settings in a rustic cabin, the Canadian wilderness, the warmth of a fire, the chill of the winds adding the proper atmosphere to a story that becomes more tense as the relationship between the two women deepens. SANDY DENNIS is the more fragile of the two and a bit of a shrew in knowing how to win the sympathy of ANNE HEYWOOD when they both feel threatened by the arrival of KEIR DULLEA, a young man who used to work on the farm they both strive to run.
***** POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD *****
The subtlety of their involvement with each other is played with great style and nuance, all of them at their best. The tree cutting sequence provides the most chilling moment as it becomes a clash of wills between Dennis and Dullea and leads to a tragic ending.
Summing up: Intriguing story is given first class treatment, handsomely produced and photographed with exquisite taste.
All of it is low-key--the settings in a rustic cabin, the Canadian wilderness, the warmth of a fire, the chill of the winds adding the proper atmosphere to a story that becomes more tense as the relationship between the two women deepens. SANDY DENNIS is the more fragile of the two and a bit of a shrew in knowing how to win the sympathy of ANNE HEYWOOD when they both feel threatened by the arrival of KEIR DULLEA, a young man who used to work on the farm they both strive to run.
***** POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD *****
The subtlety of their involvement with each other is played with great style and nuance, all of them at their best. The tree cutting sequence provides the most chilling moment as it becomes a clash of wills between Dennis and Dullea and leads to a tragic ending.
Summing up: Intriguing story is given first class treatment, handsomely produced and photographed with exquisite taste.
Foxes
sol-13 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Two women who run a chicken farm together live a serene life with the exception of a pesky fox who preys on their livestock, but their harmony is disrupted when a metaphorical fox, in the form of a dashing young man, starts to prey on the ladies themselves in this highly symbolic melodrama. Sandy Dennis and Keir Dullea play the more outspoken woman and young man respectively, but while a less prolific star, Anne Heywood delivers the best performance as the more reserved woman (justly earning a Golden Globe nomination). Dennis has strong moments too, but much of her performance consists of whining whereas Heywood has many great opportunities to let her face convey all as she silently listens to the others argue. And arguments certainly arise as Dullea wants to marry Heywood, who Dennis is clearly in love with. It is also clear that her love is not reciprocated, but the bond between them is undeniable. Intriguing as this might sound, the film is undone by a bizarre ending in which Dennis essentially commits suicide by allowing a tree to be lopped on top of her (!). This ending provides some nasty overtones too with the implication that the others are better off for it, and it is hard to agree with the notion that Heywood needs a man to make her life complete. The pacing is also little off here. The film is still worth a look though for the very unusual set- up (young women choosing to live a farming life), Lalo Schifrin's Oscar nominated score that effectively varies from enchanting to atmospheric and Heywood's performance. The overall tale is just not for all tastes.
Way ahead of its time!
verna5516 November 2000
Based on a D.H. Lawrence novella, this daring drama about a pair of lesbians(Sandy Dennis and Anne Heywood) and what transpires when a male stranger(Keir Dullea) enters their lives is one of Hollywood's finest attempts to bring a literary genius and one of his finest creations to the screen. It's a magnificent achievement. The original story(written in 1918) has been modernized, which, of course, means that the sexual themes have been made more explicit. Surprisingly, this doesn't hurt the dramatic impact of the story one bit(let's face it, so many great literary works have been botched up when adapted for the movie screen), and, in some ways, the updating even adds to it. A fine scripting job by Lewis John Carlino and Howard Koch. The performances by the two femmes are striking, with top honors going to the great Sandy Dennis who, although ladylike, is the more dominant party of the relationship. Lalo Schifrin's haunting score received a much deserved Oscar nomination. Released just before they started issuing MPAA ratings, this film nevertheless features some steamy scenes. The film would probably qualify for an "R" rating, even by today's standards. Not for all tastes, but required viewing for those who are game. ****!
Well-crafted, well-acted gem except for the awful ideology
petrelet25 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a well-crafted film. The screenplay portrays complex interactions among the characters with subtlety. The acting is flawless; it is well shot and well edited. I think the score is too intrusive, but otherwise, what's to complain about? What? Hmm?
It depends on whether you think your artistic judgment can be walled off from your moral and rational evaluation of the assumptions underlying the work.
The case of the DVD declares this to be a "bold examination of lesbian love." Well, it is bold compared with ignoring its existence. However, what do we now say to a "bold" look at the psychological tragedy of women afflicted by lesbianism, whose sexual growth is immature and thwarted, who can be deemed as cured only when they can experience fulfillment through vaginal orgasm with a man? That was the bold Freudian view a century ago, and it is pretty much what we see in the film. Also, that a woman's "No" always means "Yes".
Here is the story viewed through the ideological goggles which it seems that the screenplay intends us to wear. (The screenwriters may plead they were only following the orders of D. H, Lawrence.) School crushmates Jill Banford (Dennis) and Ellen March (Heywood), stuck at a juvenile stage, are playing house on a farmstead in rural Ontario, possibly in the 1930's, sharing a bed like girls. Banford, the more pre-sexual of the two, cheerfully plays the wife, while March plays the husband and does the heavy chores. She broods, because her own sexuality is awakening and she has no outlet for it; she is aroused by Banford's touch but doesn't act on it. She plays the male role but can't actually use a shotgun on a male fox.
Paul Renfield arrives, a true Man, a sailor, gun-wielder, and tree-chopper. Banford sees him as a new playmate, but March fears him - the neurotic always fears the cure. But she wants to protectively distract Renfield from Banford. She succeeds beyond expectation; Renfield senses her blooming sexuality and must take her and master her. He abruptly proposes marriage and forces her assent by refusing to let go of her wrists until she gives him a yes. March tries to equivocate and stall, but Renfield won't have it; he proves his superiority by solving the fox problem, and then initiates her into the ecstasy of womanhood, without much in the way of the technicalities of consent.
Banford sees her juvenile play-couplehood coming to its end. With Renfield on a trip, she uses her neediness and newfound sexual wiles to suck March back into the dream. March writes Renfield that she and Banford are happy and tells him not to come back, but we already know how much weight he is going to give to her words. He knows what she needs and wants much better than she. This isn't ironic, he really does.
In short throughout the movie I was rooting for the women's relationship and booing down Renfield's macho-man tyrannical approach, but the writers were apparently on the other side. Well, how much of this are we willing to put up with for the sake of admittedly good movie-making? Yes, I've heard the response that it's a good thing if it starts conversations, but how far does that argument go?
To be fair, there is another way to interpret the whole movie: it may be a tragic naturalistic portrayal. The characters are living in an ignorant age. The women have never learned a moral framework from which to oppose Renfield's entitlement-based actions, much less understand their own sexualities. And March may be only bi-curious at best, unintentionally leading Banford on to disaster. And maybe she is a natural sub and she and Renfield will get on as well as he expects. It's just three people in a particular setting, not a manifesto! some will say. Others will respond that the personal is the political. In this case, anyway. And I see no real evidence that the writers meant it this way, especially Lawrence.
It depends on whether you think your artistic judgment can be walled off from your moral and rational evaluation of the assumptions underlying the work.
The case of the DVD declares this to be a "bold examination of lesbian love." Well, it is bold compared with ignoring its existence. However, what do we now say to a "bold" look at the psychological tragedy of women afflicted by lesbianism, whose sexual growth is immature and thwarted, who can be deemed as cured only when they can experience fulfillment through vaginal orgasm with a man? That was the bold Freudian view a century ago, and it is pretty much what we see in the film. Also, that a woman's "No" always means "Yes".
Here is the story viewed through the ideological goggles which it seems that the screenplay intends us to wear. (The screenwriters may plead they were only following the orders of D. H, Lawrence.) School crushmates Jill Banford (Dennis) and Ellen March (Heywood), stuck at a juvenile stage, are playing house on a farmstead in rural Ontario, possibly in the 1930's, sharing a bed like girls. Banford, the more pre-sexual of the two, cheerfully plays the wife, while March plays the husband and does the heavy chores. She broods, because her own sexuality is awakening and she has no outlet for it; she is aroused by Banford's touch but doesn't act on it. She plays the male role but can't actually use a shotgun on a male fox.
Paul Renfield arrives, a true Man, a sailor, gun-wielder, and tree-chopper. Banford sees him as a new playmate, but March fears him - the neurotic always fears the cure. But she wants to protectively distract Renfield from Banford. She succeeds beyond expectation; Renfield senses her blooming sexuality and must take her and master her. He abruptly proposes marriage and forces her assent by refusing to let go of her wrists until she gives him a yes. March tries to equivocate and stall, but Renfield won't have it; he proves his superiority by solving the fox problem, and then initiates her into the ecstasy of womanhood, without much in the way of the technicalities of consent.
Banford sees her juvenile play-couplehood coming to its end. With Renfield on a trip, she uses her neediness and newfound sexual wiles to suck March back into the dream. March writes Renfield that she and Banford are happy and tells him not to come back, but we already know how much weight he is going to give to her words. He knows what she needs and wants much better than she. This isn't ironic, he really does.
In short throughout the movie I was rooting for the women's relationship and booing down Renfield's macho-man tyrannical approach, but the writers were apparently on the other side. Well, how much of this are we willing to put up with for the sake of admittedly good movie-making? Yes, I've heard the response that it's a good thing if it starts conversations, but how far does that argument go?
To be fair, there is another way to interpret the whole movie: it may be a tragic naturalistic portrayal. The characters are living in an ignorant age. The women have never learned a moral framework from which to oppose Renfield's entitlement-based actions, much less understand their own sexualities. And March may be only bi-curious at best, unintentionally leading Banford on to disaster. And maybe she is a natural sub and she and Renfield will get on as well as he expects. It's just three people in a particular setting, not a manifesto! some will say. Others will respond that the personal is the political. In this case, anyway. And I see no real evidence that the writers meant it this way, especially Lawrence.
set it off
SnoopyStyle30 September 2018
Jill Banford (Sandy Dennis) and Ellen March (Anne Heywood) are raising chickens in the remote Canadian wilderness. They keep losing chickens to a wily fox. One day, Paul Renfield (Keir Dullea) arrives looking for his grandfather who was the late previous owner. The girls allow him to stay. He slowly insinuates himself in their lives dividing them when he proposes to Ellen.
I don't know much about the D. H. Lawrence novella. The movie builds up to a nice tension with the conflict between Jill and Paul over Ellen. He should have stayed with them to continue building that tension. When he leaves, the movie takes a break and it has an uptick for the climax. There could have some great conflict opportunities with a more direct climax. As it stands, it has a literary distance despite the emotional powder keg. I'm ready for it to set it off but the climax is more a metaphor than anything else.
I don't know much about the D. H. Lawrence novella. The movie builds up to a nice tension with the conflict between Jill and Paul over Ellen. He should have stayed with them to continue building that tension. When he leaves, the movie takes a break and it has an uptick for the climax. There could have some great conflict opportunities with a more direct climax. As it stands, it has a literary distance despite the emotional powder keg. I'm ready for it to set it off but the climax is more a metaphor than anything else.
A film ahead of its time in handling lesbian issues
DennisJOBrien11 June 2005
"The Fox" is a rare cinematic gem that deserves to be appreciated by a wider audience today. At the very least, it needs to be released on DVD. I saw it in a theater when it first came out, and several times again when it was shown on the Bravo cable channel. I have read the book and feel this adaptation into a contemporary setting is without blemish. Production standards and acting quality are very high. The photography and musical score are excellent. Never did the Canadian winter wilderness seem so romantic.
Some have complained that this film is supposedly dated because of some alleged Hollywood idea in the 1960's that lesbianism should be frowned upon or seen as something that happens only when male partners are not available. That is simply not the case. The film follows the book. This is an intelligent, subtle, and very adult study of human sexuality. There is nothing cheap or tawdry about this picture. D. H. Lawrence had incredible intuitive observations into the motivations and desires of his characters' sexual lives. It is high class all the way.
The three talented lead actors (Sandy Dennis, Anne Heywood, Keir Dullea) can be very proud of their work in this "high-brow" art film. Highly recommended for everyone, not just gay audiences.
Some have complained that this film is supposedly dated because of some alleged Hollywood idea in the 1960's that lesbianism should be frowned upon or seen as something that happens only when male partners are not available. That is simply not the case. The film follows the book. This is an intelligent, subtle, and very adult study of human sexuality. There is nothing cheap or tawdry about this picture. D. H. Lawrence had incredible intuitive observations into the motivations and desires of his characters' sexual lives. It is high class all the way.
The three talented lead actors (Sandy Dennis, Anne Heywood, Keir Dullea) can be very proud of their work in this "high-brow" art film. Highly recommended for everyone, not just gay audiences.
Beautiful film, good acting, lousy message
fenian215320 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
There be Spoilers here!
The Canadian winter is as much a cast member as Ms. Heywood and the others. The cinematography is stunningly beautiful. Two city gals buy a backwoods chicken ranch and the mood is upbeat. They have a "special" friendship, but they're shown sleeping in the same bed, back to back and wearing flannel nightgowns. Enter The Man: Keir Dullea breaks in, scaring the hell out of the girls. Seems his family used to own the ranch. Sexual tension builds and the 1960s mindset that gays/lesbians just need some good old hetero-lovin' to set 'em right raises its head (no pun intended). In the end, The Good Lesbian (the one willing to change teams) rides off into the sunset with The Man. The Bad Lesbian gets flattened by a falling tree! WTF!? Seriously, WTF?
The Canadian winter is as much a cast member as Ms. Heywood and the others. The cinematography is stunningly beautiful. Two city gals buy a backwoods chicken ranch and the mood is upbeat. They have a "special" friendship, but they're shown sleeping in the same bed, back to back and wearing flannel nightgowns. Enter The Man: Keir Dullea breaks in, scaring the hell out of the girls. Seems his family used to own the ranch. Sexual tension builds and the 1960s mindset that gays/lesbians just need some good old hetero-lovin' to set 'em right raises its head (no pun intended). In the end, The Good Lesbian (the one willing to change teams) rides off into the sunset with The Man. The Bad Lesbian gets flattened by a falling tree! WTF!? Seriously, WTF?
No Nudity?
CGMCC23 August 2005
Robert Morgan's comments about no nudity are true only because he saw the censored version which did get a PG rating. The original version has a fair amount of nudity at the proper time. I'm certain he saw this on some cable channel which prohibits nudity. I am opposed to such censorship. If TV channels are going to show a film at all, they need to show the entire film!
Excellent film, and a bit shocking for its time.
The two lead actresses (Anne Heywood and Sandy Dennis) were very believable, and Kier Dullea gives his usual fine performance. It's been many years since I saw this, so it's hard to be more specific.
I am also interested in seeing this film released on video/DVD.
Excellent film, and a bit shocking for its time.
The two lead actresses (Anne Heywood and Sandy Dennis) were very believable, and Kier Dullea gives his usual fine performance. It's been many years since I saw this, so it's hard to be more specific.
I am also interested in seeing this film released on video/DVD.
I'm glad we've overcome this movie's thoughts
Theodor167 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First of all to the formal qualities of the movie: it is well done regarding the score, the cinematography and the actors' performances. Nevertheless, it was extremely hard to watch till the end because it made me furious how it depicted men and women. If it's true that, according to other reviewers, the movie truthfully adapts the novella of Lawrence and his opinions, then it doesn't say any good about Lawrence's work either.
As a straight man, I'm not very fond of 90% of men (most of them haven't got the heart, openness, and sensibility that I can easily find in many female friends), but the guy in this movie was extremely disgusting and is shown as a typical 1960s smug, self-opinionated alpha male who doesn't ask a woman once he has made up his mind, and who isn't interested in her thoughts, doubts or feelings (this being another ugly stereotype in this movie: a man doesn't have second thoughts, doubts or too much feelings, while women are so despicably weak that they consist of nothing else). He unperturbedly returns to the farm despite Ellen's letter saying that she doesn't love him and can't marry him, and even then, he doesn't ask, doesn't wonder. What communication skills, what a role model to be married with!
The movie's/Lawrence's hate towards lesbians is clearly shown in the short dialog between Paul and Jill where he wonders why she would be a lesbian as she's "not bad-looking, features are good, nice legs" (we are to understand: you become a lesbian because no man wants you, i.e. as a last resort). Then he tries to "convince" her that it only needs a real man to convert her (yes, he means himself!). What a subtlety! At that moment, if I hadn't been a man, I would have sworn to become lesbian myself.
Furthermore there's the ridiculous tree cutting scene at the end where the movie/Lawrence finally gets rid of the stupid, stubborn dyke who stands in the way of another unhappy, but holy marriage of an idiot with a weak-willed woman who doesn't love him. Here again, the man doesn't falter, whereas Ellen stands around like a prop. Women are such ridiculous sheep-like creatures that they show no solidarity, not even in precarious situations. And they aren't supposed to as their foremost allegiance must be to their husband.
Is that what you wanted us to learn, Mr Lawrence (author) and Mr Rydell (director)? I'm glad we've overcome the stench of those times and thoughts.
As a straight man, I'm not very fond of 90% of men (most of them haven't got the heart, openness, and sensibility that I can easily find in many female friends), but the guy in this movie was extremely disgusting and is shown as a typical 1960s smug, self-opinionated alpha male who doesn't ask a woman once he has made up his mind, and who isn't interested in her thoughts, doubts or feelings (this being another ugly stereotype in this movie: a man doesn't have second thoughts, doubts or too much feelings, while women are so despicably weak that they consist of nothing else). He unperturbedly returns to the farm despite Ellen's letter saying that she doesn't love him and can't marry him, and even then, he doesn't ask, doesn't wonder. What communication skills, what a role model to be married with!
The movie's/Lawrence's hate towards lesbians is clearly shown in the short dialog between Paul and Jill where he wonders why she would be a lesbian as she's "not bad-looking, features are good, nice legs" (we are to understand: you become a lesbian because no man wants you, i.e. as a last resort). Then he tries to "convince" her that it only needs a real man to convert her (yes, he means himself!). What a subtlety! At that moment, if I hadn't been a man, I would have sworn to become lesbian myself.
Furthermore there's the ridiculous tree cutting scene at the end where the movie/Lawrence finally gets rid of the stupid, stubborn dyke who stands in the way of another unhappy, but holy marriage of an idiot with a weak-willed woman who doesn't love him. Here again, the man doesn't falter, whereas Ellen stands around like a prop. Women are such ridiculous sheep-like creatures that they show no solidarity, not even in precarious situations. And they aren't supposed to as their foremost allegiance must be to their husband.
Is that what you wanted us to learn, Mr Lawrence (author) and Mr Rydell (director)? I'm glad we've overcome the stench of those times and thoughts.
i saw this movie in 1970
jewelsthecat22 August 2006
I loved this movie. I wish it were on DVD or VHS. I have no idea why it was never released for either medium. Some people now would find it a bit trifling, but it was very moving. The visuals and soundtrack were stunning.
There is the love between the two women. The love between the man and the woman. The pain and agony of both. The mysterious. And all of this in the cold and beautiful and desolate loneliness of winter. Picture the fox at the stream in the midst of the snow and barren trees. The warmth of love of the two women. The searing passion of the man and the woman. Why wouldn't anyone love this movie? Why isn't is available?
There is the love between the two women. The love between the man and the woman. The pain and agony of both. The mysterious. And all of this in the cold and beautiful and desolate loneliness of winter. Picture the fox at the stream in the midst of the snow and barren trees. The warmth of love of the two women. The searing passion of the man and the woman. Why wouldn't anyone love this movie? Why isn't is available?
Subtle, enthralling film
namdc30 January 2001
It does not get any worse than this....
buzzerbill6 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I am indebted to TCM for showing this film as part of their recent survey of gay images in film. It played cheek by jowl with "The Killing of Sister George" and "The Boys in the Band," both of which merit comment on their own.
It is a bit of a truism that classics need revaluation, in order to affirm the great and purge the trivial. (My personal valuation of the AFI's 100 best list was 58 yes, 18 no, 20 borderline, and 8 of historical interest only.) And if ever there were a film accorded some degree of classic status that needed to be reevaluated, "The Fox" is it.
This is a film with essentially no redeeming features whatsoever.
Performances: Keir Dullea is decorative and smoldering. Ann Heywood is gorgeous and enigmatic--so enigmatic, indeed, that one wonders if there is anything to be enigmatic about. And Sandy Dennis--ah, Sandy Dennis--gives another carbon copy of her standard performance that is in essence one long twitch. Twitch after twitch after twitch.
Story and screenplay: The screenplay is based on a story by D. H. Lawrence of the same name. Ellen March (butch), played by Anne Heyward, and Jill Banford (neurotic femme), played by Sandy Dennis, live on and manage a chicken farm in remote Canada. It is not a financially going concern. Paul Renfield (Keir Dullea), grandson of the man who used to own the farm, visits and stays for several weeks. He proposes marriage to Ellen, who is Unsure but goes along with a tryout in the barn by the fire. Ellen may be Unsure, but Paul, on the other hand, like any male character in Lawrence, growls "I must have you" to Ellen, who is smitten with this deep dark belly tension between Man and Woman. (I unapologetically borrow from Stella Gibbons' "Cold Comfort Farm", which satirizes the Hardy-to-Lawrence agricultural depression style better than anyone else.} Paul goes off to his ship to collect back pay, sure of Ellen's wavering consent. She then writes him that it's all off, after a cozy little female smoldering with Jill. Paul returns and, for reasons best known to God, offers to chop down an oak tree. Jill, for reasons either best known to God, or in order to remove herself so that Paul and Ellen Can Be Happy Together, or just from terminal stupidity--a kind of Darwin moment--stands in the likely path of the tree and is squashed like an insect--a twittering insect. Paul and Ellen sell the farm and go off to an uncertain future.
I have so far related the plot. Like the bulk of Lawrence, the symbolism is crashingly heavy handed and the general impression extremely silly. The screenplay is short on dialogue and long on Smoldering Glances, Pregnant Pauses, and Meaningful Silences. One might say that the general effect is that of Pinter with an severe overdose of hormones.
Cinematography and Music: One must speak of these in concert with the screenplay. Everything is telegraphed in advance--particularly with the tree cutting. Steping into a hen house is accompanied by a score that sounds like The Night of the Vampire. The camera dwells extensively on snow and icicles until the exasperated viewer is ready to shout, "All right, I get it, trapped passion waiting to be awakened, stop, stop, stop!" The fox of the title keeps killing the chickens. Jill hates it; Ellen is fascinated by it. It is clearly Male Passion. Guess what! Paul kills it and symbolically makes it his by nailing on the barn.
This is the sort of film that is praised for its treatment of lesbianism and for being Subtle and Nuanced and Deep. Let me clarify what that really means: 1. It's a real positive view of lesbianism to let your boyfriend kill your lover in order to marry him.
2. Subtle=boring. This film is only slightly more entertaining than watching paint dry. A little skin and a parade of absurdities is not really enough.
3. Nuanced=slow. I would think that you could make a pretty interesting 30 minute film on this story.
4. Deep=pretentious. This is nothing more or less than paint by number symbolism and allegory. One feels faintly embarrassed in watching this.
The final verdict? This is one dreadful film that commits just about every conceivable offense against common sense, good storytelling, and realistic human behavior. Give this one a wide berth--not even worthwhile for the historical value.
It is a bit of a truism that classics need revaluation, in order to affirm the great and purge the trivial. (My personal valuation of the AFI's 100 best list was 58 yes, 18 no, 20 borderline, and 8 of historical interest only.) And if ever there were a film accorded some degree of classic status that needed to be reevaluated, "The Fox" is it.
This is a film with essentially no redeeming features whatsoever.
Performances: Keir Dullea is decorative and smoldering. Ann Heywood is gorgeous and enigmatic--so enigmatic, indeed, that one wonders if there is anything to be enigmatic about. And Sandy Dennis--ah, Sandy Dennis--gives another carbon copy of her standard performance that is in essence one long twitch. Twitch after twitch after twitch.
Story and screenplay: The screenplay is based on a story by D. H. Lawrence of the same name. Ellen March (butch), played by Anne Heyward, and Jill Banford (neurotic femme), played by Sandy Dennis, live on and manage a chicken farm in remote Canada. It is not a financially going concern. Paul Renfield (Keir Dullea), grandson of the man who used to own the farm, visits and stays for several weeks. He proposes marriage to Ellen, who is Unsure but goes along with a tryout in the barn by the fire. Ellen may be Unsure, but Paul, on the other hand, like any male character in Lawrence, growls "I must have you" to Ellen, who is smitten with this deep dark belly tension between Man and Woman. (I unapologetically borrow from Stella Gibbons' "Cold Comfort Farm", which satirizes the Hardy-to-Lawrence agricultural depression style better than anyone else.} Paul goes off to his ship to collect back pay, sure of Ellen's wavering consent. She then writes him that it's all off, after a cozy little female smoldering with Jill. Paul returns and, for reasons best known to God, offers to chop down an oak tree. Jill, for reasons either best known to God, or in order to remove herself so that Paul and Ellen Can Be Happy Together, or just from terminal stupidity--a kind of Darwin moment--stands in the likely path of the tree and is squashed like an insect--a twittering insect. Paul and Ellen sell the farm and go off to an uncertain future.
I have so far related the plot. Like the bulk of Lawrence, the symbolism is crashingly heavy handed and the general impression extremely silly. The screenplay is short on dialogue and long on Smoldering Glances, Pregnant Pauses, and Meaningful Silences. One might say that the general effect is that of Pinter with an severe overdose of hormones.
Cinematography and Music: One must speak of these in concert with the screenplay. Everything is telegraphed in advance--particularly with the tree cutting. Steping into a hen house is accompanied by a score that sounds like The Night of the Vampire. The camera dwells extensively on snow and icicles until the exasperated viewer is ready to shout, "All right, I get it, trapped passion waiting to be awakened, stop, stop, stop!" The fox of the title keeps killing the chickens. Jill hates it; Ellen is fascinated by it. It is clearly Male Passion. Guess what! Paul kills it and symbolically makes it his by nailing on the barn.
This is the sort of film that is praised for its treatment of lesbianism and for being Subtle and Nuanced and Deep. Let me clarify what that really means: 1. It's a real positive view of lesbianism to let your boyfriend kill your lover in order to marry him.
2. Subtle=boring. This film is only slightly more entertaining than watching paint dry. A little skin and a parade of absurdities is not really enough.
3. Nuanced=slow. I would think that you could make a pretty interesting 30 minute film on this story.
4. Deep=pretentious. This is nothing more or less than paint by number symbolism and allegory. One feels faintly embarrassed in watching this.
The final verdict? This is one dreadful film that commits just about every conceivable offense against common sense, good storytelling, and realistic human behavior. Give this one a wide berth--not even worthwhile for the historical value.
One man between two women spells trouble!
rudi-2917 February 2005
Great sexual tension, but quite subtle. Symbolism relating to the fox is very clever. The film is atmospheric, you can feel the cold as you watch it, plus the atmosphere of the ending will impact upon any feeling person. Anne Heywood is gorgeous, tantalizing; after I saw the film I wanted to see more of her. Her relationship to the fox will delight you. I felt sorry for her though and you may understand what I mean after you've watched it yourself. Sandy Dennis does not come across as a very sympathetic character. She plays the part of a shrew and is unpleasantly shrill. I can say that she is a fine actress and does the part very well even if you don't like the character she portrays. I found the story depressing in parts because of the bleakness of the women's situation before the man enters the scene. I had the feeling that they weren't going to make it on their own. If you don't like this film you need to ask yourself why and realize that perhaps you should expand your horizons. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I'm confused
mls41827 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I recently moved to a new town and my neighbor invited me to come along to one of her friends house for a ladies movie night. I was under the impression Fox was a simple little film about two spinsters running a farm. Boy was I misled!
First of all, the nude scene after the bath was completely unnecessary. Then the character appears to self pleasure herself. Do we really need to see that?
It is never made clear if the two ladies are dear friends or in a romantic relationship.
Along comes a male drifter who out of the blue tells Ellen he wants to marry her. She seems to resist the idea. Jill gets upset and panicky and tries to hang onto Ellen. Ellen seems to waffle back and forth not knowing what she wants.
Out of the blue Ellen ditches all the flannel and comes downstairs in a peach rayon dress and matching shoes. What? She goes out into the night with the man and later Jill hears them having intimate relations and is crushed.
Then a dead tree falls onto Jill and kills her. The end.
What the hell?
First of all, the nude scene after the bath was completely unnecessary. Then the character appears to self pleasure herself. Do we really need to see that?
It is never made clear if the two ladies are dear friends or in a romantic relationship.
Along comes a male drifter who out of the blue tells Ellen he wants to marry her. She seems to resist the idea. Jill gets upset and panicky and tries to hang onto Ellen. Ellen seems to waffle back and forth not knowing what she wants.
Out of the blue Ellen ditches all the flannel and comes downstairs in a peach rayon dress and matching shoes. What? She goes out into the night with the man and later Jill hears them having intimate relations and is crushed.
Then a dead tree falls onto Jill and kills her. The end.
What the hell?
Reflective. Personal. Way ahead of its time.
hrare27 October 2000
Another Sandy Dennis movie that ought to be on video. Love to see a revival of this one. Keir Dullea--2001 star--plays a very different cutting edge role! Captures the essence of Lawrence's take on men, women and nature.
I LOVE THIS MOVIE--A Great Love Triangle
Anitracape11 June 2006
This movie follows D.H. Lawrence's novel exactly, word for word. It is a visual masterpiece and treat for all the senses. It's the story of two women trying to maintain their independence on a small farm in Canada. Although opposite personalities, they maintain a deepening friendship and gather strength from each other. It is only when a male stranger appears on the scene that the deeper, sexual tension begins and, thus, a heated competition ensues. The correlation between the stranger and the fox draws you into a vivid world of raw passion and intrigue. Georges Delerue's magical blend of beautiful music with outstanding photography will carry you through this mesmerizing film of complex characters. The cast (Anne Heywood, Sandy Dennis and Keir Dullea) is at their best under the direction of Mark Rydell. Sadly, it has become a cult film and will be pigeonholed and lose its deserving credit as a beautifully-photographed love story. Nevertheless, it deserves to be seen in its entirety for the breathtaking masterpiece it is. Soundtrack may be purchased from ScreenArchives.com for $20.
A ridiculous movie
janes7 March 1999
A ridiculous movie that plays to the '60s-style stereotype that a lesbian is a woman who hasn't found the right man yet, so bides her time with another woman. If she doesn't, heaven forbid, want a man, then she's an evil temptress and must die in the end. Of course, there's the usual batty performance from Sandy Dennis and some interesting imagery with Keir Dullea and the fox. The relationship was almost redeemed when the word 'love' was finally uttered near the end of the film, but it was too little, too late for this dated and cowardly film.
"The Fox" was an unusual movie for it time.
jillibatise28 October 2006
I have been looking for this movie ever since videos first became available. I saw it when I was twenty and was deeply moved by this honest look at sexuality, especially for its day. The subtle introduction of the animal, a fox, and the male visitor, fox like, was a great work of art.
I would love to view it again in light of today's more open sexual expression and see if it indeed was as good as I remember. I have never met another person who has seen the movie and wonder if it had wide screening. I lived in Southern California, which might explain why many did not have a chance to hear of it. For its day, it was a real eye opener to relationships and beautifully composed. I look forward to the day that it is put on DVD.
I would love to view it again in light of today's more open sexual expression and see if it indeed was as good as I remember. I have never met another person who has seen the movie and wonder if it had wide screening. I lived in Southern California, which might explain why many did not have a chance to hear of it. For its day, it was a real eye opener to relationships and beautifully composed. I look forward to the day that it is put on DVD.
Head Scratcher
Kiiya17 April 2023
Saw this movie listed to be shown in my cable lineup. Was going to be on at 4 in the morning, so I set the box to record it.
I grew up in the 60's, so I like to sometimes watch a movie from back then, especially when it deals with a somewhat divergent topic.
Now I am heterosexual, but the lesbian theme of the movie did not bother me. What did bother me though, was mostly the casting of Anne Heywood. I could not get past the fact that she was too physically perfect to make her role believable in my eyes. I don't know about you, but if I was living on an isolated chicken farm in the middle of nowhere, I sure wouldn't be worried about my eyebrows being perfectly groomed, or my hair being styled, or wearing just the right shade of lipstick. Along with my refined touch of a British accent. And Sandy Dennis's character, Jill...I just could not figure out how many jars of Dippity Doo and rollers it would take for her to keep up her hairstyle everyday. Also, her character just seemed too ditzy and insecure to me to be out there in this situation trying to make a living.
Getting back to Anne Heywood's character...she looked like she did covers for Vogue magazine. So I thought to myself- why would someone that looked like her be on a chicken farm in the middle of nowhere? And if Sandy Dennis's character was worried about making a living on the chicken farm and expenses to run the place...well why didn't Anne Heywood's character Ellen jump up and say "Jill darling, don't worry about those pesky bills and money- I'll just jet over to Paris and do another cover for Vogue, that should keep us solvent for a while!" And like another reviewer pointed out...why did she come down to dinner in that one scene in that peach dress and high heels? What sense did that make? Why would you even have something like that with you if you lived in that place? Oh yes, the bedroom arrangement was odd as well. Why did they not have separate bedrooms to start with? Sigh. I really just could not get past these strange random thoughts.
I fast forwarded through most of the movie. Enjoyed the scenery very much. Kier Dullea's character seemed ok.
For me, what would have been an interesting topic and movie was thwarted by the casting and character quirks. Just too odd to me.
I grew up in the 60's, so I like to sometimes watch a movie from back then, especially when it deals with a somewhat divergent topic.
Now I am heterosexual, but the lesbian theme of the movie did not bother me. What did bother me though, was mostly the casting of Anne Heywood. I could not get past the fact that she was too physically perfect to make her role believable in my eyes. I don't know about you, but if I was living on an isolated chicken farm in the middle of nowhere, I sure wouldn't be worried about my eyebrows being perfectly groomed, or my hair being styled, or wearing just the right shade of lipstick. Along with my refined touch of a British accent. And Sandy Dennis's character, Jill...I just could not figure out how many jars of Dippity Doo and rollers it would take for her to keep up her hairstyle everyday. Also, her character just seemed too ditzy and insecure to me to be out there in this situation trying to make a living.
Getting back to Anne Heywood's character...she looked like she did covers for Vogue magazine. So I thought to myself- why would someone that looked like her be on a chicken farm in the middle of nowhere? And if Sandy Dennis's character was worried about making a living on the chicken farm and expenses to run the place...well why didn't Anne Heywood's character Ellen jump up and say "Jill darling, don't worry about those pesky bills and money- I'll just jet over to Paris and do another cover for Vogue, that should keep us solvent for a while!" And like another reviewer pointed out...why did she come down to dinner in that one scene in that peach dress and high heels? What sense did that make? Why would you even have something like that with you if you lived in that place? Oh yes, the bedroom arrangement was odd as well. Why did they not have separate bedrooms to start with? Sigh. I really just could not get past these strange random thoughts.
I fast forwarded through most of the movie. Enjoyed the scenery very much. Kier Dullea's character seemed ok.
For me, what would have been an interesting topic and movie was thwarted by the casting and character quirks. Just too odd to me.
A great film!
Julcharity17 January 1999
Until I saw "The Fox", I had believed that the book was always better than the movie. A superb cast of extremely complex characters make this a worthwhile film. Also, anyone who is a fan of Sandy Dennis will enjoy her performance.
Surprisingly good
niborskaya28 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
What to say about this film. This was very engrossing, although I found the directing a little heavy-handed...the lighting was not subtle at all, and the long-held close ups of Dullea whenever he said something pithy reminded me of Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible Part I....
Loved the juxtaposition of the fox staring down Helen and then the man's doing the same. Wonderfully done.
Sandy Dennis is a phenomenon...not phenomenal. I'm wondering whose choice it was to make her character so shrill and annoying. I have not read the book, so don't know if Lawrence intended her to be that way or if it was just the "Dennis Touch".
Reminded me of another weird Sandy Dennis movie...That Cold Day in the Park.
I actually enjoyed this movie very much, Helen's ambivalence, the man's menacing presence. How he could be so attractive to Helen and so threatening to Sandy...and how determined he was. And interesting too how he never told Helen that he loved her, just that they belonged together and that he needed her. Very elemental. Whereas Sandy's character finally confesses she does love Helen.
Interesting and complex. I would recommend it. I did, however, think the one love scene between the women looked a little uncomfortable for them. Still, very fun to realize it was made in the 60s...Go CANADA!
Loved the juxtaposition of the fox staring down Helen and then the man's doing the same. Wonderfully done.
Sandy Dennis is a phenomenon...not phenomenal. I'm wondering whose choice it was to make her character so shrill and annoying. I have not read the book, so don't know if Lawrence intended her to be that way or if it was just the "Dennis Touch".
Reminded me of another weird Sandy Dennis movie...That Cold Day in the Park.
I actually enjoyed this movie very much, Helen's ambivalence, the man's menacing presence. How he could be so attractive to Helen and so threatening to Sandy...and how determined he was. And interesting too how he never told Helen that he loved her, just that they belonged together and that he needed her. Very elemental. Whereas Sandy's character finally confesses she does love Helen.
Interesting and complex. I would recommend it. I did, however, think the one love scene between the women looked a little uncomfortable for them. Still, very fun to realize it was made in the 60s...Go CANADA!
I have seen D H Lawrence's the Fox
judith.e24 August 2006
I saw it on BBC TV in 1977 before video recorders unfortunately,it is well acted there is good chemistry between the stars adding to sufficient tension. Scott Walker recorded the theme song, I can't find that either' it's memorable! with regard to films about lesbianism this cannot be seen as positive because it does not have a good ending, but if Anne Heywoods character is seen as bisexual It's admissible. The entertainment value is excellent and there is no gratuitous sex. Lets hope it emerges somewhere, In a charity shop maybe! I heard the BBC were going to concentrate on Twentieth century writers maybe someone working for them reading this could give them a nudge, though they might think the Fox to dated to make in today's slightly more liberal climate
Pretty good!!
chaplins_charlie30 June 2003
I can't really remember why I sat and watched this movie years ago. I guess because it was late at night and there was nothing else to watch on t.v. The movie is about two women who live in a log cabin in the middle of the woods during the whitest and coldest winter. It is not really obvious that they are lesbians, they just look like good friends at first, but then the secret gets out and catches you by surprise(especially that explicit scene where they make-out on the bed and then one of them starts to kiss the other on the neck, shoulders and chest). All hell breaks loose when one of the lovers soon becomes romantically and physically involved with a man who wanders slowly but painfully into their lives. The other woman gets jealous and will stop at nothing to win the heart of her lesbian lover back!! Pretty good acting!!
Ahead of time
cheer8814 September 2015
I remembered I watched this movie at 14 the first time. Although I had little idea what it was about, I could feel its furor then. That might be why it is classic. You don't need to be mature to understand but you would feel it. I am over 50 now. I went back to watch it again. I still have the same pathos 40 years ago.
I did not see the sexual scenes the first time which probably were cut then. However, it still showed strong emotions which lingered around from the time being. I often think there is a blur line between homosexual and heterosexual. The objects of affections might introduce you different faces with disguises. The more being analyzed, the more bewildering it might become. This kind of concept conveyed in several homosexual films already. As we follow the train of thought, we won't discriminate against others with different sexual preference anymore.
I did not see the sexual scenes the first time which probably were cut then. However, it still showed strong emotions which lingered around from the time being. I often think there is a blur line between homosexual and heterosexual. The objects of affections might introduce you different faces with disguises. The more being analyzed, the more bewildering it might become. This kind of concept conveyed in several homosexual films already. As we follow the train of thought, we won't discriminate against others with different sexual preference anymore.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
