Sons and Lovers (1960)

Wow! Such a good movie.

Thanks for the memories!

hyped garbage

Excellent adaptation.

In this fine adaptation of the Lawrence novel, the son of a coal-mining family aspires to become an artist. The only American in a British cast, not only does Stockwell flawlessly adopt an English accent, but he also turns in an excellent performance. This is certainly one of the high points of a career that has spanned a remarkable eight decades from the 1940s to the 2010s. Howard and Hiller play his parents and the latter is particularly good. Supplying the love interest are Ure and Sears, two actresses who both died too soon. After a long, distinguished career as a cinematographer, Cardiff scored his first directorial success with this drama.

I am pretty sure D. H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers" was considered a rather shocking book when it debuted in the early 20th century. The book had a male lead (Paul) who was sexual--sleeping with both his girlfriend as well as having an affair with a married woman. In the book and in this movie, this could have been a lot more explicit but due to conventions of the day it's somewhat muted--but still very much a groundbreaking sort of story (the same can be said for Lawrence's later book, "Lady Chatterly's Lover"). So in that sense, the film is interesting to any film student since it is rather frank and unusual when it comes to sex.The acting is quite nice. While Dean Stockwell was an American, he did a credible job playing a Brit in the lead. As for the rest of the cast, they are also quite good though two performances struck me. Trevor Howard usually played refined roles--upper or at least middle-class gentlemen. Here, he's a crude coal miner--and not the least bit likable through much of the film. The other performance, though not exactly a huge or important role, was that of Ernest Thesiger as Paul's benefactor. I loved seeing Thesinger, as this was a HUGE departure from his most famous role--an evil scientist in "The Bride of Frankenstein"! So, with a groundbreaking sort of story (that has MANY Freudian overtones) and very good acting, I loved the film, right? Well, no...not especially. This brings me to a major problem with the film--I just didn't particularly like anyone and felt very detached from them. Paul was rather selfish and cold and no one seemed particularly interesting or likable. You may not mind this--I did. Worth seeing--just not a must-see film.

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.

The limitations of space for comments make it impossible to detail this film's many virtues. The film is so good that I couldn't begin to do justice to its merits with my words. Don't miss the opportunity to see this film.There is an excellent script by Gavin Lambert aided by T.E.B. Clarke, which does a fine job of putting into 103 minutes a long, complex novel. Each scene in this film has a purpose to reveal character and make thematic points. There are no wasted scenes or aimless dialogue, yet the dialogue and action all seem natural. The characters are real and immediately involved me.There is a complexity to the characters. Paul's mother wants the best for him, yet at the same time she wants him for herself. Paul both wants to be free of his mother and is inextricably bound to her, so much that he refuses an all-paid education at a London art school to stay home with her, saying he doesn't want to see her alone with her abusive husband.Gertrude and Walter Morel's marriage is a complex one that befuddles Paul as he tries to understand the complex connection between the sensitive mother and the outwardly angry, rough father, who is, underneath, a very sensitive man, too. Walter fully understands the close relationship between his wife and Paul and knows he's locked out of that. He's both jealous of and angry at their closeness.Many excellent scenes here could stand alone. One such is the scene leading up to Paul and Clara having sex for the first time. There is good use of close-ups here in which Clara and Paul must convey much with their eyes.A certain restraint to the performances here give the characters an intensity they might not have were their performances more flamboyant, if they'd been given "big" scenes to play with shouting, tears, and so on.The cast in this film is perfect. I don't know of another film about which I could make that statement. I don't see a single poor performance. I can't imagine any other actors doing these roles. Each one fully inhabits the character that he/she is playing. It was a pleasure to see Heather Sears and Mary Ure again; both died far too young. And Dean Stockwell is at his youthful, handsome best. Wendy Hiller and Trevor Howard are both excellent. The excellence extends to the supporting players.The film is beautifully photographed in black and white. I'm sure this derives partly from director Jack Cardiff's background as a photographer, though Freddie Francis was the cinematographer here and won an Oscar for his work. Gavin Lambert and cast members Hiller and Howard didn't think much of Cardiff as director, whom 20th Century Fox forced upon producer Jerry Wald. Hiller and Howard both said they directed themselves throughout the film.The film was made in Cinemascope and should be seen in that form, for it doesn't scan well. (Another IMDb commentator has written well about this; see his comments.) Cardiff made good use of close-ups, but every part of this film is excellently framed, the positions of the characters in the frame, their relation to various items in the landscape. And the landscape adds a lot to the mood of the film.The film has an excellent score (It should be seen in a theatre with a fine sound system), but it is not overscored, and the theme song doesn't become intrusive. This theme never became a hit like the theme from "A Summer Place" did, though the theme did turn up on a number of instrumental albums back in the 60s. People often didn't know from what film it came.I'm glad to know this film and appreciate its virtues.The film will probably send viewers to the novel, where they can find complete details about the Morel family yet also realize how well the film conveys the novel.A PBS version of this novel, starring Eileen Atkins as Gertrude Morel, Tom Bell as Walter Morel, and Karl Johnson as Paul, was shown in 1981. It has never been shown subsequently on PBS or elsewhere to my knowledge nor was it ever issued on video. Was it that bad?