Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by hepclassic

  1. Of course, that would have set off a string of studio Shakespeare films leading to which one would get the highest box office, and maybe even would have jumpstarted Olivier's Shakespeare in film desire. It is a shame no one back then thought about it. 

    • Like 1
  2. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I can deduce that since his sisters were both younger than him, maybe his parents were actually better parents to his sisters than to him, and his mother knew it, and his father didn't care enough to change anything before he died. 

    As for Gudrun, I remember reading how sexually liberating the 1920s were for women and since Britain got the head start on civil rights for women, Gudrun represents what was ahead that maybe Lawrence wanted to show and explore. 

    • Like 2
  3. 5 minutes ago, Jlewis said:

    Glenda Jackson is very talented but a bit too much of a "look at me!" actress. I think Gundun the character must always have an audience. This is why she enjoyed Loerke  so much, since he dressed her up as Cleopatra and cheered on her performance. Gerald wasn't the ideal "audience" she needed to keep her happy. Instead he just gets jealous and runs off into the snow after his attempted strangling of her.

    I think given the time period she was in and what the film explores "look at me!" is a good approach to performance- particularly in a barrier-breaking film such as Women In Love (1969). We did talk about the film before at ye olde Classic Film Union. I think her need was more than just sex, though. Before Gerald makes the next room wish they had what their room had, she does say to him that she wants more because she doesn't really know if he loves her the way she wanted to love him. Loerke at least paid attention to her and treated her like a person. 

    • Like 1
  4. 14 hours ago, Jlewis said:

    I re-watched it again and, as usual, caught little details here and there not caught before.

    The statement that Rupert says to Ursula in the finale is pretty bold: that you can have two kinds of love towards people of each gender. To be fair, Ursula's experience with the only-loves-men artist Loerke didn't suggest much "love" to her. He came across as one with no interest in commitment. Not to mention his lack of consideration annoyed her, dropping his cigar ashes into the whipped cream she is eating. Therefore she is clueless what the heck Rupert is talking about when he suggests love lost on Gerald's passing.

    This brings me to horses. She comments that Loerke sculpted the horse as too "stiff" and that such animals need a sensitive approach. Earlier in the film, she is horrified by the way Gerald abuses a horse in front of a train. Gundun, in contrast, just thinks he is showing off.

    It is interesting that Gerald first uses the L-word with Gundun after she frightens the cattle, which he thinks is totally crazy. Never mind the fact that he was crazy on a horse!

    The first sex scene between Gerald and Gundun is edited with shots of his VERY crazy mother laughing at the time of his father's funeral. Gerald is really thinking of her instead of Gundun, whom he is actually in cahoots with. Then he falls asleep on her, now that Mother is out of his system. We get extended sequences of Gundun trying to figure out how to get his dead-weight body off of her.

    All of the talk about women causing him so much suffering is dictated to Rupert. It is no wonder he starts to question if THEY should be lovers. He very much enjoys Ursula as the antidote to his bad experiences with Hermione, but that wrestling scene with Gerald must have still been a turn-on for him.

    Probably a more accurate comparison to Rupert and Gerald is François Truffaut's Jules and Jim. They attended the Turkish bath houses together and displayed plenty of brotherly love (and possibly more), also fearing one might shoot the other by accident during the Great War (since one was on the French side and the other German). That is, as long as Jeanne Moreau's Catherine isn't around... and even when she is around, one is happy the other is with her. (The most frequently re-shown clip in movie documentaries shows her dressed as a guy with a drawn-mustache running away from them, since she knows what get-up will prompt both of her boys to chase her.) Pity she is the one who destroys the bro-mance at the end by driving the car off the bridge so that one is left to suffer as a widower losing "two kinds of love".

    One final note on the camera compositions. The clever edit of Rupert and Ursula in embrace matching that of the drowned newlyweds Laura (Gerald's sister) and Tibby is the most frequently discussed in movie circles. Yet equally intriguing is the scene of Rupert and Gerald discussing in front of a large mirror so that Rupert is seen, back-view, talking to two Geralds and vice versa. One wonders if both have split personalities and are only revealing one of these to the other.

    Jlewis, I know its been a while, but I do miss reading your film analyses. If I can add something to this, is that when it came to the mirrors into Gerald's cold, sad soul, that maybe they reflect his desires- the first towards Rupert, who he is, the second away from Rupert towards Gudrun, who he is absent to, and the third, himself- conflicted, and going with convention. 

    I also wanted to add that I guess we can count it progress that Rupert and Gerald are a step above Ben Hur and Massala, although I am sure Massala was freer in Rome. 

    • Like 2
  5. As for the gay men at the ski resort, I did notice a jealousy from Gerald and a greater upset that Gudrun preferred the artist over him.  I think maybe Gudrun wanted Gerald to be free to be himself as she was free to be herself. Why else would she passively say "truth is best?" 

  6. I've read Sons and Lovers and read Women In Love. I have yet to read Lady Chatterly's Lover. 

    I don't think that Rupert Birkin is gay from recent viewing. There is a genuineness in his attraction to Ursula that Gerald doesn't have towards Gudrun. I think Birkin might be bisexual, and Ursula is the traditional romantic, innocent of the world. Gudrun is more realistic to me, who wants the reality of love. Gerald just seems like a person who prefers the iron closet. Gerald rejects Rupert's love too, especially at the end of the Sweden trip before Gerald's death. 


    • Like 1
  7. The Criterion Collection recently released a restored version, and its been a short while since I saw it, and it was really interesting. The film is controversial in its time, and explores sexual liberation and sex on film. But, given the late 60s, early 70s of the time of its original release then the American release, and the subsequent Oscar afterwards for Glenda Jackson, I saw something I didn't see before. 

    Gerald Crich's sexuality or lack thereof, and Gudrun Brangwen's relation to him, and relationship to him. When I first saw it, I was thinking Jackson's Gudrun is a feminist force of nature (and she still is in this film and in real life), but I also saw, what I hate to say- this film and what I remember of the original novel of their relationship- is that she is Gerald's beard, and Gerald needs her to be so because he can't accept who he is- which is a suppressed mess brought on by emotionally distance from his parents and the weird obsession with women as pedestaled perfection he can't reach. Maybe I am analyzing more than I need to, but it amazes me how Gudrun picks up on this, asks for more in their relationship, and ends up not getting what she needs. 

    I know this is a novelization of D.H. Lawrence's ideal of the perfect coupling, and there seems to be an absolute that suggests that bisexuality is a no-no (and Russell seems to not be judgmental it seems), but I can't help but wonder- is this really about the struggle of a beard? 


    • Like 2
  8. 20 hours ago, kcselectrical56@gmail.com said:

    I can add three or more members for the application. Maybe more.

    From the Rocky River and Berea areas.

    I would like to tie the Chapter in to the restoration of the Variety Theater.

    If we could be up and running by the re-opening I would like to get statewide exposure, possibly national for the event.

    I think there are some movie venues on the West Side that could serve as temporary viewing locations for the group.

    I have an email in to ldemarco@plaind.com

    She wrote a great piece on the restoration efforts:



    In 2002 a local councilwoman, Dona Brady, recognized the need to restore the Variety Theatre. Brady worked with Gretchen Moore, a commercial director at Westown Community Development Corporation, to establish the Friends of the Historic Variety Theatre, a nonprofit group dedicated to restoring the theater. The Friends raised funds to have a replica marquee built based on photographs of the original, but it has yet to be installed. The group was able to purchase the building on June 12, 2009, after receiving grants and other funding. The apartments in the theater complex have been restored, and are being rented to supplement the restoration of the building. The Variety Theatre will become a multi-use venue when the restoration is complete. [Site description by Matt Lambros - check out his website, After the Final Curtain, here.]




    Hi, I saw you also message me privately and will answer- this seems like an amazing undertaking/effort. However, I think we can build into this restoration by holding events/fundraisers. 

    If we were to meet, I know the Capitol Theatre in Gordon Square shows classic movies from time to time. It is usually in the morning, and maybe we can meet each other there and get brunch or lunch in the area afterwards? Thoughts? I don't want to neglect anyone on the East Side either. 

    • Like 2
  9. Just now, TopBilled said:

    I assume you mean MORNING GLORY (which I love) and CHRISTOPHER STRONG (which I loathe).

    Yes, I mean those. I've only seen Morning Glory (1933), and I just got it on DVD. Do you mind me asking why you loathe Christopher Strong (1933)? I've never seen it, and outside of my favorable bias towards Katharine Hepburn, I haven't exactly read a negative review. 

  10. On 4/25/2018 at 3:45 PM, TopBilled said:

    Not long ago I watched the 1932 version of A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT. It was Kate's motion picture debut and she did a nice job. I especially enjoyed her scenes with leading man David Manners. Has anyone else seen this movie?

    Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 7.26.47 AM.jpg

    I have, and it's a good debut. Though its Katharine Hepburn's only supporting role, the film is really John Barrymore. His portrayal as a shell-shocked WWI veteran really touched me, particularly when he tries to win back Billie Burke. 

    She made two more before the Production Code- have you seen those? 

    • Like 1
  11. I have been catching up on this thread, and I for one, encourage the OP to keep at it. It would be nice to look at Norma Shearer's life and see through scandals mentioned and see a woman who did all she could do for her work, to preserve Irving Thalberg's memory, and directly and indirectly discover talent. 

    Mary, I still want to send you my CFU blog post on the making of Marie Antoinette. Would it be easier if I posted it here? 

© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...