D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover is one of those books that you hear so much about.  I certainly heard a lot about the book from a very early age with my dad telling me a story about how he read the book in his last year of high school.  I remember hearing from him and being told by others about the sex scenes described in the book.  As a young teenager being told all about this, I was certainly interested in reading about the book and so I did, ironically enough, during my last year of high school.  Unfortunately for me, Lawrence's writing did not quite click with me and I ended up being quite disappointed by the book.  I could understand why the book is as controversial as it is but I never could get into the book.  My interest in the book was rekindled when I heard about the BBC Wales' film, The Chatterley Affair, a film loosely based on the trial which took place between October and November 1960 that overturned the ban in publishing the book in the UK.

The trial, for those unaware of it, came about as a result of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 in the UK.  The Obscene Publications Act provided a narrower scope as to what material was viewed as art and what material was viewed as pornographic.  Sir Allen Lane, owner of renowned publisher Penguin Books, published the book in the UK on the basis that the book was a work of art as opposed to pornographic material.  Given the material in the book, the trial of this book was the first real test for the then-new Obscene Publications Act in British law.  As the film progresses, the question that was asked in the trial is whether the book itself would "deprave" or "corrupt" an individual who read, saw or heard the material.

Even though the film is loosely based on the trial, the events that take place outside of the trial are fictional.  The jury is told to read the book and whilst reading the book, two of the jurors, Keith (Rafe Spall) and Helena (Louise Delamere), are immediately attracted to each other and embark on a sexual affair akin to that in the book.  The question is whether this affair will affect Keith's marriage to his wife, Sylvia (Alyson Coote), and whether Keith and Helena have been "depraved" or "corrupted" by the book.

The trial is very well dramatised for the television screen.  The screenplay written by Andrew Davies for the courtroom scenes are authentic.  Davies places a lot of focus on whether the material "depraves" or "corrupts" an individual and this is what takes place during the courtroom scenes.  There is a great amount of drama between the various witnesses and the prosecution's lawyer Mervyn Griffith-Jones (Pip Torrens).  Even though the prosecution begins the case by infamously stating whether it is the type of material one's wife or servant should be reading, it is soon very clear that all the witnesses for the trial were in favour of the defence which results in Griffith-Jones pulling at strings to pull the trial in his favour referring to pages in the book that use swear words or, in his mind, graphically depict the sexual content of the book.  Torrens, who plays the role of the prosecution's lawyer Griffith-Jones, and Donald Sumpter, who plays the role of the defence's lawyer Gerald Gardiner, are perfect as the prosecution and defence lawyers.  The facial expressions are flawless from both lawyers but are better from Griffith-Jones whose facial expression grows more and more resigned as more and more witnesses support the fact that the book is one of artistic merit as opposed to pornography.  Although not based on the trial itself, the jury discussions add more to the drama of the film with dissenting opinions on whether the book should be banned or not.

As for the relationship in the film between Keith and Helena, it starts off quite abruptly.  I felt that the relationship develops too quickly for my liking and it almost feels as if Keith and Helena see each other and suddenly make love.  However, as the film progresses, there is a much more interesting development in the relationship.  We learn that Keith, an invoice clerk, is certainly a working-class man living with his working-class wife, Sylvia.  His relationship with Sylvia is going nowhere and this is clearly portrayed.  Keith is a shy man yet it is clear that something is missing in his life.  And that something is sparked by the presence of Helena.  Helena has recently divorced her husband and, despite a number of affairs, is immediately attracted to Keith (although it never explains what she does for a living).  Keith is a spark in her life as well and this spark adds a fire in their lives.  There is an interesting parallel between the relationship between Lady Chatterley and Mellors and Helena and Charles.  Both relationships start off with a chick being placed in a lover's hand before sex enters the relationship and one of the lovers in both relationships is in an existing marriage that is dead.  Even the feelings developed by the lovers are very similar in both relationships as both relationships progress.  The only difference between the two relationships is that Lady Chatterley, a lady, is the one who cheats on her partner in the book and Keith, a man, is the one who cheats on his partner in the film.  There are scenes of an older Keith (Kenneth Cranham) and an older Helena (Claire Bloom) recalling what took place during the time of the trial which are particularly crucial in explaining the ending.  However I felt these scenes were awkwardly placed throughout the film.

The film is set in the 1950s and the production design and costume design for the film perfectly capture life in the 1950s.  The atmosphere inside the Old Bailey is brilliantly recaptured.  From the wooden pannelled court rooms to the austere front lobby to the language used by the lawyers to the wigs and cloaks worn by the lawyers.  The court itself is very well presented to the audience.  Life outside the court is also brilliantly portrayed to the audience.  The apartments that both Helena and Keith reside in feel like the type of apartments built in the 1950s: small, crampt and thick doors with bolted locks.  The male and female suits worn by the jury definitely work as well.  The musical score, which is a combination of rock songs from the latter part of the 1950s and a subtle piano-driven musical score with sweeping strings, is more than suitable.

Rafe Spall does a fine job as Keith.  He is able to nail a working-class accent of Keith very well and one can feel his struggle between being faithful to Sylvia or giving into temptation with Helena.  Louise Delamere is also decent as Helena although I did feel she was wooden at times.  However her scenes with Spall are convincing.  Alyson Coote is also able to nail the working-class nature of Sylvia very well.  The scenes where she interacts with Spall have an air of awkwardness about them.  As I mentioned earlier, Donald Sumpter and Pip Torrens do a solid job as the lawyers appointed to the case.

Director James Hawes handles the material in the film with great care.  He respects the Chatterley case by staying as true to the case as possible.  The separation between the case itself and the affair between Helena and Keith is distinct yet neither story falters and I thoroughly enjoyed all 90 minutes of this film.  Hawes also takes advantage of some nifty camera work by projecting words from the text itself onto the screen whilst the jury read the book as the jurors take turns narrating the words that appear on screen.  There are also some brilliantly filmed montages of newspaper clippings of the case backed by the sound of snippets from the radio about the case throughout the film creating the feel that one is experiencing the case first-hand as opposed to 50 years later.

In terms of special features on the DVD, there are only short filmographies of the main actors and a brief history on the case.

All in all, The Chatterley Affair is an excellent dramatisation of the Chatterley case from October-November 1960.  There is certainly a lot to learn from in terms of the case that took place and, more importantly, what the book itself is about.  I would recommend that prior to seeing this film one should read the book itself and, because of the sexual content and generous coarse language sprinkled throughout the film, I would not allow anyone under 18 to see this film.  Otherwise I would recommend one to watch the film.

Thanks for reading the review.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD