Lady Chatterley’s Lover (2022)

18

Netflix has a new version of a classic frock flick novel out, and they didn’t fuck it up quite as much this year’s Persuasion. The 2022 edition of Lady Chatterley’s Lover actually uses some of D. H. Lawrence’s prose and doesn’t overly modernize the whole thing. Oh there’s some modern fashions that are slipped in, and I’ll get to that. But the whole package isn’t as criminally “updated” as it could have been, and I’m thankful for that small mercy.

Now, I did read the book, and being the literary nerd here, I pulled out my copy that’s till highlighted and dog-eared from college (guessing I wrote a paper on it then). So that’s where I confirmed the language was mostly correct, such as some of the letters that serve as voiceover in the movie. But there are a few changes both to fit the novel into a two-hour movie and, I suppose, to make the story simpler.

Constance Reid (Emma Corrin) marries Sir Clifford Chatterley (Matthew Duckett) towards the end of World War I. He’s on leave from the front and returns after their wedding night, but he comes home injured and paralyzed from the waist down. Six months after the end of the war, Constance and Clifford move to his family’s country home, Wragby Hall, as his father has died and Clifford has inherited the house and title. Thus the majority of the story takes place in 1919 — which isn’t much different from the book, where they’re married in 1917, he’s injured and spends two years in the hospital, and they move into Wragby Hall in 1920.

The bigger changes, IMO, are to some of the characters. Clifford becomes more of a cartoon villain, and Oliver Mellors (Jack O’Connell), the gamekeeper Constance has an affair with, is even more of a vague cipher than in the book. Both men are sharp extremes that she ping-pongs between — arrogant, crippled, upper-class jerk or strong, silent, sexy lower-class mystery man. Not that Constance herself is drawn with particular subtlety either. She wanders into her marriage without much thought and then wanders out of it and into Mellors’ arms with the same casual carelessness. While there is some of the interior dialog via letter-reading in this production, a lot of the character motivations of the novel are lost here other than “Connie wants to get laid.” Also, Mrs. Bolton (Joely Richardson) is rather rewritten, which surprised me.

So how about the costumes? Well, they aren’t as beautiful or historically accurate as the BBC’s 2015 production, which Kendra raved about. The designer is Emma Fryer, who designed the first season of The Great. She’s done a lot of press for Lady Chatterley and the big takeaway is that she wanted to modernize the clothing — insert gagging sounds here. She told Women’s Wear Daily:

“I thought if Connie were here in 2022, what would she look like? What would be in her wardrobe? Where would she go shopping?”

Fryer concluded that modern Connie would shop at Selfridges, wearing luxury labels with a bohemian, romantic vibe like Zimmermann, Needle and Thread, Vilshenko, Reformation, and Galanthya. sigh

In Vogue, Emma Fryer describes her thinking about the few dressy outfits Constance wears at Wragby Hall:

“There are three evening events at the country estate [in the film], and what’s interesting is that Connie’s almost the only female at all of them. So she really had to stand away and look elegant and chic and beautifully glamorous. We’re seeing her less covered and a little vulnerable but also looking amazing.”

Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022)

IDK, it just looks modern or, maybe if I squint, 1930s. Photo by Parisa Taghizadeh/Netflix.

There are at least a couple period costumes rented from the usual costume houses. One recycled costume is this embroidered green gown Connie wears towards the end of the movie. In Vogue, Fryer said:

“When we went to Venice, we just completely changed the color palettes for Emma’s character. “Up until that point we see Lady Chatterley in a lot of greens, which I think just came out of the greens of the countryside. I just wanted her to pop a bit when we went to Venice.”

Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022)

Photo by Massimo Calabria Matarweh/Netflix.

Even watching the trailer, I was thinking I’d seen this red dress before but it’s not the same as the one in Tolkien (2019), nor was it in the remake of Howards End (2017). Nice though, and one of the few times she wears a hat (I think she has three hats in total).

Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022)

There’s a lot of blouse-and-skirt stuff that is conceptually fine, even if the execution leaves something to be desired from a historical standpoint.

Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022)

Photo by Seamus Ryan/Netflix.

In Vogue, Fryer says her inspiration here was fully modern:

“The skirt against the backdrop of the house is just a great color. That blouse you could wear today with a pair of jeans, and it would just look great. I always had in my head, when it came to Connie, the sense of someone at Glastonbury Festival. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen that image of Kate Moss at Glastonbury Festival, in almost like Wellington boots. You’re mixing the right things and wrong things — but you still look great.”

Then you get things like these:

Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022) Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022)

No idea. Don’t ask me. The first one is almost bearable, but I think the jumpsuit thing is hideous as modern fashion, much the less as something pretending to be late 1910s fashion.

Of course, since this is a flick about sex, Connie gets her kit off, with an obligatory turn from “heavyweight” fabrics to “floaty, sheer fabrics” according to the costume designer. Whatever. There are plenty of explicit sex scenes so you don’t have to look at ugly clothes like that, but you are subjected to frightfully bony bodies, which are also apparently fashionable.

I can’t say I really enjoyed this movie — it was a quickie version of the novel, focusing a lot on the sex, not much on the characters, and the costumes were either boring or ugly. But I managed to watch the whole thing, and I didn’t hate it, which is something of a step up. I might have to rewatch the 1993 miniseries with Sean Bean and Joely Richardson (I see what they did there), which I remember being both sexy and more interesting in terms of characters and costumes.

 

Will you bother with this Lady Chatterley’s Lover?

Tags

About the author

Trystan L. Bass

Twitter Facebook Website

A self-described ElderGoth, Trystan has been haunting the internet since the early 1990s. Always passionate about costume, from everyday office wear to outrageous twisted historical creations, she has maintained some of the earliest online costuming-focused resources on the web. Her costuming adventures are chronicled on her website, TrystanCraft. She also ran a popular fashion blog, This Is CorpGoth, dedicated to her “office drag.”

18 Responses

  1. Constance

    Omg people can understand that clothing was different in ye olden times and still enjoy a movie or show that includes accurate hair and clothes! Please stop sending historical women to festivals. I gave up on many recent “frock flicks” due to modern clothes, hair and almost worse(?) speech in some cases. Ever think folks maybe want to see what it was like to live in a difficult era??

    Reply
  2. Kat

    Emma Corrin as Constance reminded me nothing so much as Keira Knightly in Collette and P&P (&P); a lot of schlumping around (clearly lacking any sort of period appropriate undergarments) with vaguely frizzy and ill-styled hair and generally not looking like a woman of Constance’s position in the world would. Which I get it, the film is supposed to be more about taking the clothes off for the sexy times than it is about what the characters are wearing but when compared to the gorgeous (and detailed) outfits the from 2015 version, it was just a bit of a let down.

    Reply
  3. florenceandtheai

    I probably will, because it’s the only version I can easily access. I haven’t read the book. I spent more time with the Russians because of my major requirements. Dostoevsky and I are not on good terms.

    Reply
    • hsc

      The original novel is wonderful, and is highly, highly recommended.
      My parents had the Grove Press paperback edition that got published around 1959 after Barney Rosset won a landmark censorship battle. It resided in the bottom drawer of my Dad’s dresser, and I remember a photo of D.H. Lawrence on the cover staring up at me, daring me to defy my parents’ edict that I could read it when they decided I was old enough.
      It’s also interesting to track down and compare the variant version, JOHN THOMAS AND LADY JANE, that Lawrence produced first. At one point, both versions were available in a single volume.

      Reply
  4. hsc

    ‘I always had in my head, when it came to Connie, the sense of someone at Glastonbury Festival. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen that image of Kate Moss at Glastonbury Festival”
    Hard. Fucking. PASS.
    And, of course, THIS thing happens to be on something I subscribe to, while other. better shows reviewed here… 

    Reply
    • susan

      Boy, that comment pissed me off. She sounds like an amateur. What the hell is she going about?!

      Reply
    • M.E. Lawrence

      OMFG. Given her era and background, Connie has a Modern Young Bohemian Seeking Freedom side to her, but Glastonbury? Kate Moss? I think I’ll skip this.

      Reply
      • M.E. Lawrence

        Speaking of that era, I just finished watching the 1989 “Rainbow” (on Kanopy) with Imogen Stubbs as an impressive Ursula. Lovely, believable costumes, and what sounded like properly Lawrentian dialog. I also adored Jane Gurnett as her mother Anna Brangwen, although the series doesn’t pay as much attention to Anna as the novel does

        Reply
  5. Boxermom

    No, thank you. Maybe I’ll just watch Original Sin again. Hot sex, and great costumes. :)

    Reply
  6. susan

    I’m not sure anything can match the chemistry and passion in the Richardson/Bean miniseries, (and btw, Sean Bean in my boyfriend) but I’ll give it a go. I’m very tired of the conceit of these costumers who think it’s ok to fiddle with the accuracy of the clothing. She’s certainly all over the first 35 years of the 20th c. with those you showed. The thing is, people watch these movies, and then I get to be pissed off later when they misidentify the period of the garment on facebook antique and vintage sites.

    Reply
  7. Brandy Loutherback

    Why did she not wear proper undergarments? It wasn’t a hidden secret! A chemise and several petticoats/shifts! Also, why is she wearing Beach pajamas in the middle of the countryside? Save that shit for Venice! Mothering Sunday did it better with historically accurate undies, if not the hair!

    Reply
  8. Elise

    Thank you for mentioning the bony bodies, and how they are difficult to reconcile. Between Emma Corrin in this, and then Keira Knightly in that 1940s flick, I feel like I am watching 20th century refugees coming to life. It is really disturbing and disorienting.

    Reply
    • Trystan L. Bass

      I honestly thought at one point ‘maybe they’re supposed to be so skinny bec. of wartime rationing?’ since at the wedding at the start of the movie, a character mentions the guests having donated butter & sugar ration cards for the wedding cake. But yeah, it’s just a freaky modern movie star thing. shudder

      Reply
  9. Karin

    Agree with all… Viewers are not stupid and costumes do not need to be dumbed down or “modernized”. Those overall look like 1930s beach pajamas eyeroll. Which are in themselves a fabulous thing but in the wrong place in this film!

    Reply
  10. Oddivia

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but something that I found very distracting was the thin gold chain she wears around her neck. Especially the lock makes it look like something I could buy at a local H&M :S

    Reply

Feel the love

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.