HeadlinesExotic Boring

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Martin Bradley Freddie Francis won a much deserved Oscar for his superb black and white, widescreen cinematography on this 1960 screen version of "Sons and Lovers" which was directed by another great cameraman, Jack Cardiff. It was a huge success in its day, tying with "The Apartment" for the New York Film Critics' Best Picture prize but apart from Francis' cinematography it has very little to recommend it. This is a sanitized, unbearably literate treatment of Lawrence's novel with a hugely miscast Dean Stockwell in the crucial role of Paul Morel, Lawrence's alter-ego. The American Stockwell just about manages the accent but makes Morel a soulless, spoiled brat. As his coal-miner father Trevor Howard also struggles but, as always, Wendy Hiller is superb as the clinging, overly possessive mother and an Oscar-nominated Mary Ure isn't bad as Clara Dawes. It may have felt reasonably daring in 1960 but Lawrence deserves better than this kid-gloves approach.

bandw This is an admirable adaptation of the 1913 D.H. Lawrence novel of the same name. The story concentrates on young Paul Morel and the relationships among him, his parents, his brothers, and his two lovers. This is a case where the title provides a good synopsis.The relationships are complex. Paul's father is a rough coal miner and his relationship with his wife is quarrelsome. We get a glimpse into how that relationship came to be, when in fact they were lovers. The intense relationship between Paul and his mother is at the core of the story--the dynamics of all the relationships are spin-offs of this central one. Paul talks of wanting to be free while being uncommonly devoted to his mother; this emotional tug-of-war is central to Paul's personality.Trevor Howard is wonderful as the father and the rest of the cast does not lag far behind. Contrary to some opinions, I found that Dean Stockwell was well cast as the sensitive, emotional young Paul.The filming is truly outstanding, earning Freddie Francis an Oscar for best cinematography. The composition of every scene reflects the work of a superb visual artist. Francis' ability to exploit the black and white CinemaScope format is a joy to behold. The 2.35:1 aspect creates a tremendous sense of freedom, making any other format seem rather claustrophobic. Black and white photography is ideally suited to the stark emotional and physical environment of this movie, a movie that depends a lot on facial expressions. I sincerely regret the passing of the art form of this super wide screen black and white filming. The most recent movies to film in this format, exclusively in black and white, are Woody Allen's "Manhattan," and "The Elephant Man" in 1980. Think how the facial closeups would lose impact if filmed in color, and how the scene with the young couple frolicking on the beach would be made insignificant. The final scene between Paul and his first girlfriend, Miriam, is so beautifully filmed as to make it hard to forget.The dialog is subtle and insightful, thanks to a good screenplay, but also thanks to D.H. Lawrence I assume. Consider this comment Miriam makes to Paul when he suggests they call it quits: "I could hate you for making me love you. Making me fail you."The only minor negative comment I can come up with is that the music gets a bit too aggressive on occasion.This movie deserved its seven Oscar nominations and it puzzles me as to why it is not more honored in film history.

secondtake Sons and Lovers (1960)D. H. Lawrence is at an all time low in popularity--both his books and the movies based on them. Why? Good question. It's more than just passing tastes. I think it has to do with the precious boundary breaking that once made Lawrence a daring darling of the literary set. Sexual taboos have since been so radically eclipsed, from Henry Miller to John Updike, not to mention hundreds of less mainstream authors, Lawrence is almost stuffy and pretentious.Or so it would seem. "Sons and Lovers" is a love story set in a tough mining town in England early in the 20th Century. It's filled with the longing of a man to rise out of these pits and be "something" in the world--namely, a successful painter. The girl who loves him is overly devoted, and after a tryst (that was the radical part) there is a falling apart of things. How true this can be! I mean, this is great stuff--a sensitive story about the feelings most of us have had, where desire is mistaken for something deeper, where the world is calling and love, or shades of love, are not enough to keep you home.The filming is straight out of the gritty, short period of British films known rough as the British New Wave or the Angry Young Men (or both). These films, a grown out of French New Wave and early Italian neo-realism, were a reaction against the slick and vacuous big studio filmmaking (Hollywood especially) from this period. There are more typical films from this group than "Sons and Lovers" but it's certainly part of that mood, looking at working class life, filming with great economy and directness, and using actors in a realistic, vaguely documentary way. For insight into this kind of film, try "Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner" or "Look Back in Anger." Even the first Beatles film, oddly enough, is influenced by this movement ("A Hard Day's Night"), in the raw, fast, black and white style.But if that's the context, you still have to ask if this film is any good. And the answer is quite. It's a big movie, a deep movie, emotional and deeply serious. It is sad, too, overall, or perhaps melancholy is a better word, and this gloom is slightly wearing after a bit. Some people will find that talking about love is a peculiarly British and indirect way of being in love--the literary overwhelms the truth.Director Jack Cardiff is a cinematographer above all. This might explain the visual emphasis, the sublime, restrained photography. Lead young actor Dean Stockwell is a perfect visual cast, and he really is good, somehow, in a way that is convincing, though he isn't always commanding. A small part of me didn't care what happened to anyone in the movie. It was all plain to see, and I knew what I was supposed to feel, but I didn't always get the force of those feelings. The movie, like the book, is patient and deliberate, and quite nuanced and beautiful.

filmkr How can there be so little attention and knowledge about this film? Nominated for SEVEN academy awards including Best Picture!I have always felt that CinemaScope was made for B&W films. Scope films look really good B&W. And to my mind the best B&W photographed movie of All Time is SONS & LOVERS. This was a prestige picture for distributor 20th Century-Fox, as indicated by the rare lack of drum roll over the Fox Logo - instead the beginning of the outstanding music score is heard. In the Chicagoland area in 1960 and again at a theatre in Okland, CA in 1976 I had the pleasure to view the film with Mag Stereo Sound. I also saw a new print in NYC sometime in the early 80's. So why has Fox let this picture set in obscurity? My only knowlege of any TV exposure was on American Movie Classics Channel (scanned only) about ten years ago. This one NEEDS to be on DVD!!!!!!!!One last comment. if you've ever read the book, you will really appreciate the great job that was done in "adapting" the novel. The screenplay, which is SO well done, is I'd say a good 80% original material.