18 thoughts on “Lady Chatterley’s Lover (2022)

  1. Omg people can understand that clothing was different in ye olden times and still enjoy a movie or show that includes accurate hair and clothes! Please stop sending historical women to festivals. I gave up on many recent “frock flicks” due to modern clothes, hair and almost worse(?) speech in some cases. Ever think folks maybe want to see what it was like to live in a difficult era??

  2. Emma Corrin as Constance reminded me nothing so much as Keira Knightly in Collette and P&P (&P); a lot of schlumping around (clearly lacking any sort of period appropriate undergarments) with vaguely frizzy and ill-styled hair and generally not looking like a woman of Constance’s position in the world would. Which I get it, the film is supposed to be more about taking the clothes off for the sexy times than it is about what the characters are wearing but when compared to the gorgeous (and detailed) outfits the from 2015 version, it was just a bit of a let down.

  3. I probably will, because it’s the only version I can easily access. I haven’t read the book. I spent more time with the Russians because of my major requirements. Dostoevsky and I are not on good terms.

    1. The original novel is wonderful, and is highly, highly recommended.
      My parents had the Grove Press paperback edition that got published around 1959 after Barney Rosset won a landmark censorship battle. It resided in the bottom drawer of my Dad’s dresser, and I remember a photo of D.H. Lawrence on the cover staring up at me, daring me to defy my parents’ edict that I could read it when they decided I was old enough.
      It’s also interesting to track down and compare the variant version, JOHN THOMAS AND LADY JANE, that Lawrence produced first. At one point, both versions were available in a single volume.

  4. ‘I always had in my head, when it came to Connie, the sense of someone at Glastonbury Festival. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen that image of Kate Moss at Glastonbury Festival”
    Hard. Fucking. PASS.
    And, of course, THIS thing happens to be on something I subscribe to, while other. better shows reviewed here… 

    1. Boy, that comment pissed me off. She sounds like an amateur. What the hell is she going about?!

    2. OMFG. Given her era and background, Connie has a Modern Young Bohemian Seeking Freedom side to her, but Glastonbury? Kate Moss? I think I’ll skip this.

      1. Speaking of that era, I just finished watching the 1989 “Rainbow” (on Kanopy) with Imogen Stubbs as an impressive Ursula. Lovely, believable costumes, and what sounded like properly Lawrentian dialog. I also adored Jane Gurnett as her mother Anna Brangwen, although the series doesn’t pay as much attention to Anna as the novel does

  5. No, thank you. Maybe I’ll just watch Original Sin again. Hot sex, and great costumes. :)

  6. I’m not sure anything can match the chemistry and passion in the Richardson/Bean miniseries, (and btw, Sean Bean in my boyfriend) but I’ll give it a go. I’m very tired of the conceit of these costumers who think it’s ok to fiddle with the accuracy of the clothing. She’s certainly all over the first 35 years of the 20th c. with those you showed. The thing is, people watch these movies, and then I get to be pissed off later when they misidentify the period of the garment on facebook antique and vintage sites.

  7. Why did she not wear proper undergarments? It wasn’t a hidden secret! A chemise and several petticoats/shifts! Also, why is she wearing Beach pajamas in the middle of the countryside? Save that shit for Venice! Mothering Sunday did it better with historically accurate undies, if not the hair!

  8. Thank you for mentioning the bony bodies, and how they are difficult to reconcile. Between Emma Corrin in this, and then Keira Knightly in that 1940s flick, I feel like I am watching 20th century refugees coming to life. It is really disturbing and disorienting.

    1. I honestly thought at one point ‘maybe they’re supposed to be so skinny bec. of wartime rationing?’ since at the wedding at the start of the movie, a character mentions the guests having donated butter & sugar ration cards for the wedding cake. But yeah, it’s just a freaky modern movie star thing. shudder

  9. Agree with all… Viewers are not stupid and costumes do not need to be dumbed down or “modernized”. Those overall look like 1930s beach pajamas eyeroll. Which are in themselves a fabulous thing but in the wrong place in this film!

  10. I don’t know if it’s just me, but something that I found very distracting was the thin gold chain she wears around her neck. Especially the lock makes it look like something I could buy at a local H&M :S

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: