Rachael Stirling or Rosamund Pike?
I liked this adaptation even though it was a bit soft-focusy, if you know what I mean. It was unrecognisable from the Ken Russell film but that is all I have to go on because I haven't read the book. I'm glad it's its own thing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rachael Stirling was better by far. She is an ideal Lawrentian woman.
Rosamund Pike, on the other hand, was not. She did not have a firm concept of the character and I suspect was miscast. It was an umpteen *insert posh totty* here performance from Die Another Day to Jane Bennett (unlike her comedic turns like in An Education in which she is great).
Mawle and Kinnear were both fine, but the best performance was by the father - Ben something or other? I've not seen him in anything else from memory, but he was certainly a cut above.
Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents and everyone is writing a book - Cicero
I felt that both Pike and Stirling were wrong for their parts. Maybe they would have worked better the opposite way. Stirling was too butch for playing the very feminine Ursula and made her look like the dominating sister when it should be exactly the contrary. The sweeter and more delicate Rosamund would have been more believable as Ursula rather than Gudrun. The dynamics of the couple was just wrong.
Rosamund also seemed to play her character like she was mentally unbalanced, making less despicable what she does to Crich at the end. I didn't care for this interpretation. Gudrun should actually realize very well what she's doing and do it in cold blood, without showing any remorse.
Stirling was artificial and hyper-theatrical (as usual), constantly forcing her voice and trying to outact her co-star so obnoxiously that the relationship between the two sisters got completely distorted.
So I wasn't impressed with any of the two in this production, although I usually like Rosamund. Stirling on the other hand basically gave me the same impression in everything I saw her in: she always seems to do an impression of her mother. And I suppose it's part of the problem, since I'm not a fan of Mummy either.
Rory Kinnear was also terribly miscast as Birkin. He just played the character like a pussy. Rupert's theories about the perfect male relationship have obviously strong homosexual implications, but he is a cheeky ,hot-blooded, very virile man. Kinnear looks just like a shy, self-hating homosexual who feels ashamed of exposing the views he's actually supposed to be very proud of. He looks so spineless and effeminate that you can't buy for one second that Ursula could possibly be attracted to him.
Joseph Mawle is just plain awful as Gerald and all the other cast members rank from insignificant to abysmal.
Only Rachael Stirling and her "parents," although they barely figure into the WOMEN IN LOVE novel and such manipulation of time, place, and events goes completely contrary to Lawrence's intention. The best scenes of THE RAINBOW I have yet to see captured, but at least this Ursula has depth. However, the script reeked with language not apropos of these characters and their era.
Overstated dialogue insists on pointing out, for instance, Gerald's relation to his horse and other philosophical posings. Character statements are lifted wholly out of context and put elsewhere. Russell nails so many scenes as exactly as one can read them (the picnic scene, the "Gladitorial" nude wrestling one, and so forth) or utterly improves them as when Hermione becomes the main dancer instead of a mere spectator. Larry Kramer's script creates the "fig" scene so renown that when Alan Bates was remembered at the Oscars, that table scene was THE CLIP. And where does Rory Kinnear come close to the literary Rupert Birkin or film predecessor? In one cannot remake something better, why bother? Just compare the visual details in Gudrun's room at her folks' house from the 1969 to the 2011 and you'd think the dates were reversed. The art direction from streetcar to night market were not only impeccably done, but Russell's wit walks a fine line between absurdity and realism continuously through the 1969 version. There are condensings--Gerald does not intentionally seek out Gudrun that night his father dies (and certainly does not have sex with her previously).
Pike has been immensely watchable in other things but the fierceness of Glenda Jackson as Gudrun makes her real and surreal as the iconic Isadora Duncan and certain feminists in the 1969 vapor. The earlier film blends four musical themes effectively to make the film an audio journal as well as a visual feast. Certain aspects of the color film cinematography make Russell's WOMEN IN LOVE as important to post-war cinema as CITIZEN KANE is to black and white. Look at the in-depth focus with the flea market scene. Clearly, Russell's work is one of the greatest literary adaptations ever.
None of them. They were all miscast. Certainly Rosamund and Rachel should have played each other's parts. Rory Kinnear played Rupert as a wimp, which he certainly wasn't,. Lawrence based the girls on his wife and Katherine Mansfield. This production didn't capture them at all. also, why take them all off to the desert instead of Switzerland, I have read the books several times and seen Ken Russell's magnificent version over and over again. This was an interesting TV movie but nothing to do with Lawrence.
share