Office Christmas Party
Another reminder that allowing your cast to madly improvise instead of actually providing a coherent script with a scintilla of inherent logic often leads to…
Just the other night someone was telling me, with a wistful tone, that they ought to do another version of "Emmanuelle," everyone's favorite soft-porn fantasy. They did, I said. The people who made the original "Emmanuelle" did the first two sequels, and there were three dozen rip-offs by other filmmakers. But nobody ever quite recaptured the charm and the eroticism of that original film.
Now here are the "Emmanuelle" people again. Just Jaeckin, the director, and Sylvia Krlstel, the star, are back with "Lady Chatterley's Lover," which has been shot with great care and dedication and no end of soft-focus filters and glistening lips--but, alas, it just doesn't work. Here is the most controversial erotic novel of the 20th century, reduced to the visual style of one of those Penthouse layouts where the model in pantaloons goes down to the stable to tickle the groom with her quirt.
It's no use comparing the book and movie versions of "Lady Chatterley's Lover." They do not exist in comparable terms. They have nothing to do with one another. There's no rule that says a movie has to be faithful to the book it's based on, but this movie goes beyond infidelity and takes indecent liberties with the defenseless pages of D. H. Lawrence. There has to be something more to Lawrence's original story than closeups of Lady Chatterley pushing back the shrubbery for a closer look at Mellors taking his bath.
In atonement, this movie has sporadic fits of conscience, In scenes that genuflect in the direction of Lawrence's original subjects. Those subjects (as the movie sees them) are the difference between the impotent upper classes and the animalistic working classes; society's need to deny the normal sexual feelings of young women; and the inevitable victory of the system.