Just Jaeckin’s 1981 Lady Chatterley’s Lover suffered the fate of all his films. Critics hated it because they hated Just Jaeckin. They had never forgiven him for the success of Emmanuelle and they never would. They were deeply upset that what they saw as a nasty little porno movie had smashed box-office records around the world. Prior to that erotic movies had been safely confined within the sex film ghetto and critics could ignore them. Suddenly Emmanuelle came sweeping out of that ghetto and invaded and conquered the mainstream. And made a lot more money that the depressing serious arty films that critics tended to like. The resentment of critics was focused on Just Jaeckin, and on Sylvia Kristel. Their careers would be permanently blighted.

Emmanuelle was bad enough, but it was based on an erotic novel. Lady Chatterley’s Lover was based on a novel by D.H. Lawrence, a proper writer of proper literature. Critics would have hoped that the novel would be given a dull serious arty adaptation, not fall into the hands of a man they regarded as a sleazy pornographer. And to have the lead character portrayed by a mere porn star (which is how they regarded Sylvia Kristel) was just too much to cope with.

In fact of course Jaeckin was the right director for such a project, and Kristel was the perfect actress. They were not going to be intimated by the eroticism of the subject matter. And Kristel was not going to have any problems doing nude scenes and sex scenes. Neither Jaeckin nor Kristel had any intention of making a porn movie. They intended to make a serious arty psychological erotic movie, with the eroticism being as essential an ingredient as the psychological elements.

Jaeckin and his cinematographer Robert Fraisse have chosen to use a very muted colour palette. Everything looks earthy. Which of course is just the look that Lawrence’s novel requires. Except for the opening sequence, when we see the bright red jackets of the fox hunters. It’s extremely jarring, and deliberately so. The jackets are the colour of blood and the men are engaged in a violent pursuit. That opening sequence takes place on the day that the First World War begins and a frenzy of bloodletting is about to rip these people’s lives apart.

It’s certainly going to tear apart the lives of Sir Clifford Chatterley (Shane Briant) and his new bride Lady Constance (Sylvia Kristel), whom everyone calls Connie.

Clifford returns from the war a cripple. It’s not just that he can’t walk. He can’t perform his husbandly duties in the bedroom. Given that Clifford is a young man, if they obey the social conventions that means that Connie will have to go without sex for the rest of her life. Clifford doesn’t think it’s reasonable to expect her to make such a sacrifice, and Connie doesn’t think she could do it.

You have to bear in mind that this is a story that is as much about class as sex. Clifford and Connie belong to the aristocracy, and the aristocracy consider rigid morality to be something for the middle class to worry about. The social rules don’t apply to the aristocracy. Clifford suggests to Connie that she should take a lover. He naturally assumes she will choose a man from their own class.

He certainly didn’t expect her to pick the gamekeeper, Mellors (Nicholas Clay). Mellors is lower class. As far as Clifford is concerned such people are barely human. You treat them the way you’d treat a dog or a horse.

But Connie does pick Mellors. They begin a passionate affair. Whether it’s love or not could be debated. They think it is, but Mellors is sure that Connie would never want a man like him for anything but sex. And if she had to choose, he is sure she would give him up rather than give up Clifford. There’s obviously the potential fir the situation to get very awkward if Clifford ever finds out that Connie is having sex with a mere servant.

The sex scenes between Connie and Mellors are sweaty and steamy without being crass. They are taking perfectly normal healthy pleasure in each other’s bodies.

The performances by the three leads are all excellent. Shane Briant as Clifford has a tricky rôle. He’s not a character that audiences in the 80s were going to find sympathetic, but the audience has to care what happens to him, at least to some extent. Briant handles it better than you might expect although the audience is never really going to be on his side.

Nicholas Clay as Mellors doesn’t overdo things. He doesn’t make Mellors too much of a cliché.

Sylvia Kristel is excellent. Connie is a woman who is very very confused about her emotions and her judgment is clouded by the strength of her sexual desire for Mellors. Given that this is Emmanuelle herself it’s no surprise that Kristel has no problems conveying the strength of Connie’s sexual urges. Her first glimpse of Mellors is of his naked body and Kristel very subtly and very economically lets us know how excited Connie is by the sight. She goes home and masturbates in what is probably the most tasteful female masturbation scene ever put on celluloid. And it’s an absolutely necessary and crucial scene. This is the point at which Connie realises that her desires have made her choice for her. She is going to sleep with Mellors.

The movie has a slightly artificial feel which I suspect is deliberate. This story was not going to work at all with an 80s look. The audience has to have the sense that this is a totally different world. It works for me.

This movie received poor reviews at the time and did indifferent business at the box office. Most online reviewers seem to approach it with the assumption that its poor reputation must be deserved so they don’t really give it a chance. If you approach it with an open mind you’ll find that it actually works pretty well. Jaeckin was trying to pull off a difficult balancing act, making the movie erotic without being a mere skin flick. I think he manages rather well.

Jaeckin’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover has enough of an authentic D.H. Lawrence feel to it, it has an interesting and effective visual style and a fine central performance by Sylvia Kristel. It’s much much better than its reputation would lead you to believe. Highly recommended.

A few years later Sylvia Kristel made another movie that has also been savaged by critics and reviewers. That movie (which I reviewed a while back) is Mata Hari and it’s also a whole lot better than its reputation would suggest.