akademiaduncan

First, let me state that I am a fan of anything "DH Lawrence", and, particularly, WOMEN IN LOVE (in both of its novelistic forms and its 1969 Ken Russell/Glenda Jackson film adaptation). A HUGE fan.

The above vote of 10 stars is for accepting this adaptation on it's own particular terms. Those terms are established on the melding of themes from the text of THE RAINBOW and WOMEN IN LOVE and the incorporation of thematically related "bits" from other of DHL's writings --- some borrowings from his early THE TRESSPASSER as well, perhaps? We also are back with the sisters themselves instead of the quasi-closeted homo erotic preoccupations of the Ken Russell/Larry Kramer film and, well, Lawrence's book (WIL) itself. (The notorious wrestling scene is intact, but differently)The scriptwriting is an act of brilliant,rejuvenating, irreverence towards a Standard 20th Century Classic. The direction (importantly) executed by a woman, maneuvers the viewpoint away from the potentially sensational --- though, there's enough of that intact ---- and skewers our attention towards psychologically fascinating CHARACTERS and how they think, act, talk, feel and interact. In other words, we are dealing with real people with all of their complexities and the unusual and carefully chosen actors are more than up to the challenge. Metaphysical richness makes itself known through the in-the-viewers'-faces relationships of its characters not unlike the terrain of Ingmar Bergman's SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE. In many ways this and the 2006 LADY CHATTERLEY directed by Pascale Ferran stand together as the beginning of a much-needed "Woman-ist" (or dare I say "Feminist") questioning and restatement of Lawrence's absorption in The Sexes. As a result, we start to get a more complete and therefore more interesting whole picture. This is THE RAINBOW and WOMEN IN LOVE as it might have been written by a woman instead of a man. Perhaps this heralds a trend where more women will delve into Lawrentian territory for cinematic subject matter. The result could be a revelatory body of work for us all.

This is hard and demanding cinema. There's little likable. It is often bleak and sometimes downright ugly --- very little of the pretty or the Romantic to leaven the situation. But, remember, the gist of Lawrence's book, under the purpled prose and poetic flights, was actually that way, too.

So, this writer suggests you --- particularly if "you" are a DHL/WIL Fan --- put away your cherished expectations and your wishes to return to hallowed literary grounds. Open your mind, fight your wish to reject and submit to something totally 180 degrees different and new. It isn't either book --- it's a uncompromising restatement of them.

Many thanks to BBC4 for funding something this radical and risky. It's been a long time since a literary adaptation made me think and feel so long and so deeply in its aftermath.

Bravo! to all involved.

I saw ZP when it was first released and found it a major disappointment. Its script seemed forced and arch and too fakey '60s. It's politics too upfront and ridiculous. And let's face it, I was still under a love-spell known as BLOWUP : and I still haven't completely shaken it. Now the "love" is twisted up with all sorts of nostalgia it evokes and, oh well . . . Good Luck to me!

But time marches on and time has been kind to ZP and time has been a teacher to me. I revisit this film about every ten years and it just gets better and better with age. And ZP is it's own "experience"and is only really linked to BLOWUP through its creator, the late,great Mr. Antonioni.

Twelve years ago, I had the great good fortune to see an absolutely pristine print, projected at its correct size (immense), restored by an Italian government cultural agency who knows a good work of art when they see it and knows the importance of keeping such a thing of beauty in good shape. To this day I remember the gasp from the audience when the first shot of Death Valley appeared. It was like a thousand volt visual shock Antonioni had intentionally delivered to wake us up to a new level of awareness. And indeed what follows from that point is an entirely different sort of "place".

What is astonishing to me is how this film is coming into its own.

I remember the second time around seeing it --- the early 80s --- I had begun to feel affection towards the film as a whole and towards Daria and Mark in particular. Whereas, before these two seemed like a smart-alecky shadow version of Zefferelli's Olivia and Leonard (read: Romeo and Juliet)they now were engaging me --- particularly The Girl in her insistent slo-motion-ality. She-took-her-time . . . To Live. Everything, EVERYTHING dies around her.

Upon exciting the theater the daylight of Reality quickly began to erase my new found "enjoyment". The encroaching shoulder-padded, big haired 80s whispered "But that's a hippie fantasy --- let it go"

The force of Antonioni's vision had, I had realised, already worked itself inside of me the FIRST time around so I answered "80s" with an "Uh-Huh" and guarded my "love" secretly, possessively and jealously.

But, this, then is what good art does it lives inside of you, and, if you wish it has its way and "loves" you back: secretly, jealously, and possessively. And you get "changed".

Was thrilled to see that Turner Classic Movies had decided to show ZP in its March lineup. Undoubtedly, ZP must be seen on a gigantic screen so that it can truly take you into its constructed environment. But, hey, sometimes even a glimpse of the Beloved in a newspaper photo is no better than no glimpse at all.

Today reality hit, ZP has been withdrawn mysteriously and replaced with the whiney antics of ALICE'S RESTAURANT.

So, it is still too "difficult", too "disturbing", too "what"?

Maybe it's that, as with all good art, it Lives while everything dies around it.

Peace.