Theres something here in this film that I reacted against. MARGARET: No, there's the sex, but where is the drama? What stood out was the poor and simply bad choice of shots by the director.
I read the book many years ago and I thought it was a masterpiece. The editing made even less sense with random and incoherent cut aways to next scenes.
Here are five of the steamiest period-drama love scenes that we just keep coming back to, over and over again.
Lawrence wrote three versions of his famous, banned, masterpiece Lady Chatterleys Lover. Oh, and yeah, I'd like a child and this is the way to get it."DAVID: Margaret! You know, the ultimate is such a wonderful, tragic story. MARGARET: And there's no sense of that in this and I think, well, why pick the inferior version to make a film about?
Change it too much and you’re left with something so crude – yes, even cruder than Lawrence! In particular, you lose its underlying preoccupation with social class, a system that its author sensed was in flux, the trenches having thrown up all sorts of in-betweeners (the novel was published in 1928).
In Mercurio’s hands, the narrative was – quite a rare feat, this – at once clichéd and anachronistic.
The problem for me is that its not only turgidly directed by Pascale Ferran and yes, Im very glad a woman has had a go at it, but as depicted by MARINA HANDS, Connie is terminally boring. In stark contrast the masterful directing of Ang Lee never once made the onlooker aware of the directing process.
She might have a great body, but she not only hides her intelligence from her husband shes pretty good at keeping it from the audience too. Pascale Ferran is shown up in this film as a rather clumsy director.