Friday, May 04, 2007

Sans Perspective: Pascale Ferran's Lady Chatterley

Screened at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival.

Click here to listen to Christina Kotlar's podcast interview with director Pascale Ferran at our partner site, Zoom In Online.
_______________________________

By Keith Uhlich

The uproar caused by D.H. Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley's Lover is well-documented and need only be brought up here in passing comparison to Pascale Ferran's deathly dull film adaptation, a 168-minute condensation of a 220-minute French television miniseries that swept the César Awards (and so has strengthened the impish little cynic on my shoulder). Indeed, Lady Chatterley, as it's titled, is little more than a summa cum laude graduate of the Merchant-Ivory school of Classics Illustrated, tarted up with a few languorously empty nature shots and (Quel scandale!) a full-on close-up of a half-erect penis.

Perhaps the inflammatory nature of Lawrence's novel (unread by this reviewer) was a byproduct of its time, lightning in a bottle that no cinema translation could ever hope to capture. Still, we should expect more than this middling trifle, which is interesting only for its nonchalant development of the intimacy between the upper-crust Lady Constance (Marina Hands) and her proletarian gamekeeper lover Parkin (Jean-Louis Coullo'ch). Their first encounter is infected by a clear-cut case of the repressives: awkward, fumbling, and embarrassingly quick, it is not exactly a love that moves the earth. With each successive sex scene, their comfort level increases, more clothes come off, and -- in the film's best passage -- they frolic around naked in the rain, carefree and oblivious to anything but the moment they're in.

I can't attest in anything but the superficial as to the film's faithfulness to Lawrence's text (reportedly it is based on the second version of the novel, entitled, in French, Lady Chatterley et l'Homme des Bois; in English, John Thomas and Lady Jane). A colleague more up on the author's work crinkled his nose at the mere mention of the title, dismissing it, with a pungent exhale, as "trash." In the Pauline Kael sense of the term, Ferran's film might have benefited from such a perspective; as is, it has no perspective beyond the indistinct one forced upon it by the words "Action" and "Cut."
___________________________________________
Keith Uhlich is managing editor of The House Next Door, a staff critic for Slant Magazine, and a contributor to a variety of print and online publications.

5 comments:

Fernando F. Croce said...

Thanks for the heads up on this one, Keith. It was on my to-see list here at the San Francisco fest, and I'm relieved that my suspicions now won't require 168 min. to be confirmed. How I wish I had also listened before sitting through Gardens of Autumn -- take my word, bailing out early was a wise, wise choice.

Daniel said...

I'm glad to hear this perspective Keith, I too saw it at Tribeca and was so underwhelmed I really felt like I had nothing to say about the film and ended up not reviewing it. I suppose I'm marginally curious about the longer cut...

Keith Uhlich said...

I recommend everyone take a listen to Christina Kotlar's podcast interview with the director. I've only talked to and heard from men in response to the film (all negative), and I wonder if this is a work where the reaction is breaking strongly down along gender lines.

My mind isn't changed by hearing Ferran, Christina, and the translator speak, but still a point of interest.

Thank you for your comments Fernando and Daniel, and glad to hear, Mr. Croce, that my instinct to bail on Gardens was quite correct.

Anonymous said...

i thought it was great. i think you seriously missed the mark here. merchant-ivory? are you for real?

gender lines comment is rubbish. see, for example, a.o. scott's adoring take in his berlin piece.

Keith Uhlich said...

Yeah, I'm for real, anonymous. Thanks for pointing out A.O. Scott's review, though.

My gender-lines comment was just a toss-off observation based on my own experience with colleagues. In hindsight, too much of a simplification. Mea culpa.