a rare, beautiful crisp sunny day here, and I’m just taking a few illicit moments away from work to enjoy my own thoughts.
I’m warmed from inside this morning - my mind is soft and misty and my thoughts are sensual.
Last night I found myself watching ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ on Channel 4 - at first I switched it on expecting to see the Sean Bean production - he made a wonderful game-keeper - dark and brooding, with a perpetual snarl on his lips, like a fire-cracker waiting for the blue paper to burn far enough down - a partially-twisted man capable of harshness and perhaps a little brutality.
It started at a ridiculously late time - almost 11pm, and I thought, I’ll just watch a little before I go to bed. However, it turned out to be a french subtitled production, which did not overly enamour me, because really the subject matter is quintessentially english - to do with station and class divides (it’s been a long time since I studied the story in an academic sense, so I am open to be corrected), but anyway when I watched it, I didn’t look for the academic pointers, I just let it wash over me warmly, like an ordinary prosaic viewer.
I was held absolutely captive, from the first moment - this was much stronger than the Sean Bean version, and though I’m sure the french director took a lot of artistic license as there was no real brutality in the game-keeper, he was just brooding and unreadable, and there was real tenderness and love between the lovers, at the end.
A quick Google has thrown light on the above - I was just wanting to know why the gamekeeper was called Parkin in the french version, and Mellors in the Sean Bean version - turns out that Lawrence wrote three versions of the story, and this was actually the second version - so there was no artistic license taken, it’s just that Lawrence changed the character in the final version to include the enbittered, hard qualities in the gamekeeper. He also seemes to have given the second version a traditional happy-ish ending, as the lovers wait for each other, as the child is expected.
The french gamekeeper was not overly attractive, in the conventional sense, though he seemed a very powerful man, he was possessed of an unflattering ‘basin’ hair-cut, and he obviously had never given much creedence to foreplay in love-making. I wonder exactly when foreplay ‘came to the fore’, as it were - perhaps also it is not a question of time, but more a question of situation, or social class ?.
However I felt that what the french production did well was to use the absence of words to convey both feeling, awkwardness, need, and a lack of mutual understanding. Especially at the beginning, the silence at points was almost palpable, making your teeth grate, almost wanting to look away. Had it been me, I couldn’t've functioned in that thick silence - I would’ve had to throw in some meaningless words to fill it - I think this may be the modern disease that most of us would say we’re affected with - we don’t do silence, do we.
So there was no small talk, and also, on the part of the game-keeper, no smile when he met her, almost no preliminaries by way of speech or gesture at all. And the french mans face was a study in unreadability, though the actor doubtless had the ability for much expressiveness, he kept his face neutral with an everyday manner veneered with a patina of sadness, particularly effective when undoing her stockings and stroking the insides of her thighs, during which he did not look at her face at all, just the skin of her thighs.
There was a very real progression between the two, from at first, just making love quickly, functionally, inexpertly and self-consciously, with the clothes on for 30 seconds or so, to eventually running naked and wild, outside in the rain, and making love on the muddy ground, and drying their skin next to an open fire, decorating each others bodies with wild flowers. And in this version, you sensed that love had grown in this time, though there were no real visual clues to this - the clues must’ve been very subtle, which is what french films often do well. Perhaps concealed in a word or a gesture, or just in a facial expression.
I was sorry when it ended. There are not many programmes that grab me so conclusively, and make me sit and be quiet, but this was one of them.
I think some women will always have fantasies about what is colloquially known as ‘a bit of rough’, meaning a man who embodies the rough-and-ready male characteristics -
- Immobile face - does not often smile
- Does not cry, because it would mean he is irretrievably broken
- Is not even aware of womens feelings, so don’t even try
- May not even be aware of his own feelings - will certainly never speak about them, even if he does
- Resembles a fighting dog when challenged, sexually or otherwise - the teeth bare and you can almost feel the guttural growl
- Does not give a damn how anybody feels about him - it never even enters his head
- You may find him in the more ‘brutal’ jobs - butchery or abattoir work, assassin, because the ‘finer’ feelings are absent
- His house will be functional but he won’t wash up every night like ‘new’ men - there may be somebody to do this for him
Please be aware that this is a playful list, and yes, I am aware that in the totality, above, I have created a bit of a monster - I was just trying to quantify the basic characteristics of ‘a bit of rough’.
I wonder if there are many real “men’s” men even existing these days, now that mining and the whole working-class culture has grown up and melded into the modern world, and been sanitised and Health and Safety’d - you wouldn’t've caught Mellor twittering away on his Palm Pilot, or using hair gel, or downloading ringtones. I wonder if our society has made Mellor a thing of the past now.
Real men do cry now, may even carry their own handkerchiefs, and they are encouraged to be in touch with their feminine sides, and once they are, they call themselves ‘New’ men.
Men may use cologne and facial products, sometimes even make-up, just like women.
Men may be being feminised by the high levels of oestrogen in the water supplies.
Social provision for one-parent families means that even what small role men may have once had as ‘provider’ has been eroded
Heaven only knows what the Sean Bean/Mellor would’ve thought !
Footnote:
This is a ‘playful’ article
I am very much a dyed-in-the-wool feminist
I condone neither violence against women or men
I approve and demand foreplay
I could not live with a man I couldn’t talk to
Posted in Love, Men, The Heat, Women | Tagged abasement, baby grouse, gamekeeper, illicit, Lady | 32 Comments »