Women in Love

A Two Part British Miniseries: Taking On A D.H. Lawrence Classic From The Female Perspective
In many ways, this literary adaptation (or interpretation) must be accepted on its own terms to be truly appreciated. If you are a D.H. Lawrence purist, you may be upset with some of the liberties taken with the source material. That said, I found this two-parter courtesy of BBC absolutely fascinating. Melding themes and story lines from both "The Rainbow" and "Women in Love" into something that feels distinctly different from both the book and the notorious Ken Russell film from 1969, this is more like a complete re-imaging from the feminine perspective. If that thought discourages you, maybe it's best that you steer clear. If, however, you enter into this experience with an open mind and a lack of preconceived expectations, there is much to be admired in this handsome film.

Presented in two segments, each part of "Women in Love" is somewhat self contained. In Part One, we meet the Brangwen family, their friends, and those in the surrounding community. The piece...

An Excellent Production
Adapted from D.H. Lawrence's legendary controversial novel, WOMEN IN LOVE is a powerful 2-part miniseries that follows the romantic and erotic adventures of two sisters from Britain's industrial Midlands, Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen, during the years before, during and following World War I. This three-hour production also incorporates aspects of Lawrence's earlier banned novel, THE RAINBOW, which deals with the same characters.

This production, adapted by William Ivory and directed by Miranda Bowen, is remarkably different to the two films of Lawrence's novels that were directed by Ken Russell in 1969 (WOMEN IN LOVE) and 1989 (THE RAINBOW), both of which co-starred Glenda Jackson.

It's been several years since I've seen either movie, but as I recall, unlike in this new version, there were no World War I battle scenes, nor did the 1969 picture delve into the confused sexual identity of Rupert Birkin, played in the original version by Alan Bates and in this one by...

An Enjoyable Adaptation
On the whole, I liked the earlier Ken Russell version better, but this was an enjoyable and interesting adaptation. The photography of the new setting was beautiful. Rachael Stirling seemed to be the stronger performance of the two ladies of the title. And the two male leads certainly gave a 100% effort, particularly in the famous (or infamous) wrestling scene. Students of D. H. Lawrence will enjoy comparing the two versions.

Click to Editorial Reviews