You're an extraordinary woman. So why do you have to follow the usual path?
Lonely wandering through the snow-capped peaks of the mountains Oliver Reed. Mad dance of lonely Glenda Jackson in front of confused bulls staring at her with bewilderment. Swimming a naked couple in front of everyone. The lifeless look of a man who has lost his love. Boring talk about the meaning of life from Alan Bates. A fight between two men. Two drowned at the bottom of the lake. Glenda Jackson's naked. .
Each of these moments is incredibly expressive. Camera staging. Actors play. Tension. Expressiveness. Relationship to the main story. It's all good here.
But at the same time, Ken Russell unfolds a fairly straightforward and unpretentious story before us. Two sisters and two friends. There is a special contact between them. There is an additional ambiguous context. And in fact, it all comes down to the description of the joint growing up of these people.
At first glance, nothing extraordinary. But the theme of the relationship between a man and a woman is eternal, and the level of production of the tape adds to its significance. It is enough to appreciate the unquestionably laconic elevation of the scene in which a drunken miner molests Glenda Jackson. Oliver Reed will soon appear with two ladies who can be quickly forgotten. It is enough to assess the views of the actors on each other. This is what real life is like.
The only thing I didn’t like was the final. Alan Bates' confessions seem superfluous. And they're not too believable. The picture is nothing more than a poetic essay on the relationship between a man and a woman. But these accents are precisely the right of interpretation that the audience has.
8 out of 10
I love you, Glenda Jackson!
Do you like him? asked Ursula.
- Not that I like it, I just think it's perfect in its kind.
A stunning film and free film adaptation of the subtle and deep novel by David Gelbert Lawrence. Erotic drama "Woman in Love" was a revolutionary film in its time and gave a new direction in world cinema. The surreal, sensual film was far from easy. It harmonizes intellect and philosophy, as well as human passion and desire.
British painting has outgrown its time, and for the late 60s it is a hypnotic masterpiece. The master of provocations, director Ken Russell, has often surprised and shocked audiences, but this film, personally, is his favorite and most special. The picture turned out not banal, playing with the viewer and embarrassing him, asking mysterious, compromising questions.
Sisters Gurdun and Ursula want love and experience all the joys of this feeling themselves, feel it quickly and live it themselves. They meet respectable intellectuals Rupert and Gerald. The fates of these heroes are intertwined, and before us is the story of a love quartet. . .
Love is a direction that negates all other directions. It's ... freedom for two.
It is actually the story of a traditional girl, feminist, bisexual and pansexual. I want to shout this book and this movie: I loved the story so much. The film undoubtedly has its value, and like the book it was at one time insanely popular. The movie looks mysterious. It was shot in an unusual atmosphere. Everything looks like one big and long dream.
The director boldly approached the film adaptation of the book "Women in Love" and presented the story in the cinema is truly unusual. Here was felt and understood in detail each of the characters, so the choice of actors was not mistaken. The sisters played Glenda Jackson and Jenny Linden, and the curious and deep men from this story were performed by Alan Bates and Oliver Reed.
The actors played perfectly, but of course Glenda stands out. Oh, how good she is in this film adaptation and played amazingly. I can’t forget the scenes, like the hypnotic scene in nature with the bulls. She played the role of intelligent women, feminists. That was her role. The film was nominated for an Oscar and for the best director, script, operator (by the way, the camera work is really remembered), but the winner of the statuette was actress Glenda Jackson and received her first Oscar for Best Actress.
Very interesting characters from this story, and it was interesting to watch their story and watch how they built their lives, sought their happiness. Sisters hungry for love stood two friends from this story. The two men were far from banal, with their secrets and skeletons in the closet. I remember the bisexual character: he was a very intelligent and interesting person. The scene of the men’s fight here has remained a cult in the world of big cinema, and is one of the highlights of this mysterious and difficult film.
I am convinced that this unusual film deserves close attention. Personally, I love this picture and consider it special. Well, Glenda Jackson is a goddess here, and it's impossible to get away from her. This film is very deep and difficult, and it is for those who are looking for answers to questions, those who want to appreciate a wise, mature film about a mysterious life and its secrets.
Women in Love is a British, cult, arthouse drama from 1969. Bottom line, this movie is for all time. He's so good, and I say yes a thousand times. Thank you very much.
You can't weave such different threads of life. You cannot meet and love a woman and a man.
- Are you sure?
This film adaptation of the novel by the English writer D. Lawrence.
The novel takes place in the early 20th century in England at the outset of the Victorian era. In the provincial mining town returns from study in London Gudrun, sister of Ursula.
Together, the girls begin to dream, to indulge in dreams about what could be their female happiness and what kind of love awaits them ahead. Despite their different temperaments and opposing views on the role of women in a relationship, they both meet two gentlemen from the aristocracy who are fully realized by their dreams.
Gentlemen also turn out to be close friends and now the author’s focus shifts to their relationships and the search for their happiness, which are also not so unambiguous.
Further action of the novel takes place against the background of the relationship of a man and a woman, as well as men and women among themselves.
In addition, the very system of mores of the Victorian era with its glorified idealism, romanticism and pragmatism is criticized.
The author begins to conduct verbal duels, passing episode after episode, as in a theatrical production. Dialogues are like a fun word game. The detail with which the complexity of the relationship between men and women, men among themselves only to a small extent reveals the motives of the further actions of the heroes.
The historical format of this film creates an additional palette of meanings, affecting specific cultural codes of the aristocracy at the breaking of eras, but they do not help to reveal to the viewer the essence of what is happening on the screen.
Despite the abundance of tragic events in this story, it does not have a big impact on the lives of the heroes. Relationships between couples last, frozen in one pore. Built on acting, the film does not reflect the development of characters in the course of action. Romantic relationships develop in the format of bad infinity.
A series of events that will lead to the death of one of the heroes will also not reveal the mystery of what was happening in his soul.
The relationships between the people in this picture, their inability to find something in common that would unite them, lead to schism and tragedy. But tragedies in a new sense, when it is not the hero who dies, but the chorus.
I'm not sure Lawrence's original novel was all about it.
Russell’s film production with a stretch can be called successful, despite the “generally correct cinematography”, porridge remains in my head after watching.
It is impossible a heavy film to perceive, but this version is still more understandable than the second version of 2011, in which it is generally difficult to make out anything: there is a cutting of footage, you do not have time to follow the dialogues, the indistinct reactions of the characters, even watch what is happening as if on the run, since we are given ready-made reactions, and we miss something important. We are interfering in disputes about what is unknown, and the viewer is constantly slowing down, does not keep up with events in which there is some chaos, routine and confusion.
The word “lovers” can be safely taken in quotation marks, since in the film they are not at all, no one loves anyone there, but only requires love and understanding from others, the characters are simply not able to explain their desires and feelings to themselves or others. They kind of live on a whim. Too treacherous ladies and humiliated by them stupid and talkative men. Unpleasant sight.
I am repulsed by the oppressive atmosphere of general hostility among people, their alleged claims to each other, only negative thoughts and feelings, empty tears, vulgar erotic actions that do not lend themselves to any logic, do not cause any feelings in the viewer except disgust.
I'll celebrate the actresses. Two sisters Ursula (Jenny Linden) and Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) say one thing all the time, and behind their backs they often do the opposite. Their hypocrisy is kind of spontaneous, so the female lies in the film rule and harm everyone.
Men Rupert (Alan Bates) and Gerald (Oliver Reed) are also inadequate, although the guys are quite decent, good friends, but they are always guilty, weak, get solid backs of the head from their “loved ones”. Male fates are the most tragic in the film. The actors are amazing.
This version is still close to the work of Lawrence, so expect a miracle from this film, alas, is not necessary.
5 out of 10
Love can come unnoticed. It happens that we are desperately waiting for it or looking for it carefully, but at the same time we may not notice that your soul mate may be very close. Having grasped this feeling, we try diligently not to lose it. Paying so much attention, a person may not notice how gradually he will start to go crazy and doom himself to mental suffering. This idea was laid in the basis of the psychological drama “Women in Love”.
England, 1920s Sisters Ursula and Gudrun dream of love, passion, men with whom they could spend the rest of their lives. Ursula is in love with Rupert, a young intellectual, and Gudrun is always drawn to Rupert’s best friend Gerald, who is disillusioned with women and does not believe in love. However, real passions flare up between the heroes, which eventually lead to a dramatic denouement.
Game of actors In general, all the actors perfectly performed their roles, creating characters with a special mindset and psychology. However, most of all I would like to highlight Oliver Reed, Glenda Jackson and Alan Bates. I’ll start with Alan Bates, who plays Rupert, a young philosopher who believes in the unity of nature and man and prefers freedom despite love. The charismatic Oliver Reed plays Gerald, a young industrialist who has long been disillusioned with women and love because he sees them as deception. The most interesting, most mysterious and, perhaps, the most cute role was played by Glenda Jackson, playing Gudrun, a young sculptor who, like her sister Ursula, dreams of love, about sex, and therefore tries to find her among those people with whom a sane person would not contact. But suddenly she finds this love in Gerald.
Directorship Without a doubt, "Women in Love" is an art house. Director Ken Russell didn't try to make a beautiful love story with a tragic or happy ending. The style of his work deserves a standing ovation, because the depth of the study of human nature and the transmission of it to the screen was, in my opinion, successful. The director shows us the characters from the inside, that is, usually in films, love manifests itself externally in the form of dates, kisses, etc. Here you get a whole psychedelic, replete with surreal and frank scenes. Moreover, it is worth noting that male or female nudity did not look vulgar, but formed a form of human unity with nature. I think Russell wanted to tell us that love comes from nature, and therefore it must be obeyed, not resisted, as Oliver Reed's hero did, for which he paid the price.
The script "Women in Love" is definitely an intellectual movie. The film is replete with dialogue, reasoning and judgments about the theme of love, women, marriage and, of course, the meaning of life. It should be noted the abundance of events in the plot of the picture, because by the end of the film it seems that you saw the whole series. The reason lies in the changes in the images of the main characters, who occupy one position at the beginning of the film, and towards the end can defend the opposite.
Result Women in Love is a very specific movie. It starts unexpectedly and ends unexpectedly, after which you can not understand what happened on the screen for another three or four minutes. I'm not going to say that the movie is an amateur. I just want to say that this film is not typical for cinema in the late 60s and early 70s. But this is what distinguishes the film, making it bright and unforgettable.
"Bewildered and constantly dissatisfied men," not "Women in Love."
I would have called this movie.
It is not by chance that the performers of male roles are the first in the roles, although by the title and synopsis you can think that women will set the tone. Alas, more space is occupied by male doubts, arguments about their hobbies and preferences, about marriage and love, relationships with parents (Gerald’s family is shown in great detail) and with each other.
Strange sisters. Ursula loves Rupert, constantly demands reciprocal confessions of love, is upset that she alone is not enough for him (in all senses): he needs communication with other people. Despite all this, they do not have children (and their absence is not explained in any way, although in the 1920s modern contraception was not available), but this couple lacks a child: for the mother he would be a clear fruit of their love, and the father would have less time for empty thinking. Another sister is harsh to follow her name - Gudrun (in honor of the heroine from mythology), more selfish and secretive. The man she got suspicious and insecure: probably, on the principle of supplementation, but hot-tempered and jealous.
The story of the two sisters cannot be called the film: it shows too small a period of life. How, under the influence of whom or what their life principles were formed is also unclear: we see sisters as grown girls.
The movie is long: Rupert wanders for a long time among the grass; too long is the scene of Gerald and Rupert fighting naked, etc. To reduce in the middle of 20 minutes would not be so tedious for perception.
The picture leaves a dual feeling: I looked for a reason, but the characters do not cause much sympathy or sympathy. You look at them like a naturalist at the phenomena of nature.
As a result, the film did not hit the soul and I will not recommend it to my friends for viewing, but I will read the novel: I like to compare the film adaptation with books. That’s why I read it (although I usually read it first). For his time, he, apparently, was very shocking: a lot of erotic scenes, the ending is ambiguous (whether Rupert, in modern language, is bisexual and wants to become Gerald’s lover, or the director just wanted to intrigue the audience), there are gay characters. It’s often in British movies.
Beautiful landscapes of Britain and Europe. The actors play well. I don't remember the music.
I do not know whether to attribute to the advantages or disadvantages of film adaptation the need to read a book to understand the details: after all, the film is a work of another genre and should be self-sufficient. In general, I estimate neutral and put 7 points.