I am pretty sure D. H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers" was considered a rather shocking book when it debuted in the early 20th century. The book had a male lead (Paul) who was sexual--sleeping with both his girlfriend as well as having an affair with a married woman. In the book and in this movie, this could have been a lot more explicit but due to conventions of the day it's somewhat muted--but still very much a groundbreaking sort of story (the same can be said for Lawrence's later book, "Lady Chatterly's Lover"). So in that sense, the film is interesting to any film student since it is rather frank and unusual when it comes to sex.
The acting is quite nice. While Dean Stockwell was an American, he did a credible job playing a Brit in the lead. As for the rest of the cast, they are also quite good though two performances struck me. Trevor Howard usually played refined roles--upper or at least middle-class gentlemen. Here, he's a crude coal miner--and not the least bit likable through much of the film. The other performance, though not exactly a huge or important role, was that of Ernest Thesiger as Paul's benefactor. I loved seeing Thesinger, as this was a HUGE departure from his most famous role--an evil scientist in "The Bride of Frankenstein"! So, with a groundbreaking sort of story (that has MANY Freudian overtones) and very good acting, I loved the film, right? Well, no...not especially. This brings me to a major problem with the film--I just didn't particularly like anyone and felt very detached from them. Paul was rather selfish and cold and no one seemed particularly interesting or likable. You may not mind this--I did. Worth seeing--just not a must-see film.
The acting is quite nice. While Dean Stockwell was an American, he did a credible job playing a Brit in the lead. As for the rest of the cast, they are also quite good though two performances struck me. Trevor Howard usually played refined roles--upper or at least middle-class gentlemen. Here, he's a crude coal miner--and not the least bit likable through much of the film. The other performance, though not exactly a huge or important role, was that of Ernest Thesiger as Paul's benefactor. I loved seeing Thesinger, as this was a HUGE departure from his most famous role--an evil scientist in "The Bride of Frankenstein"! So, with a groundbreaking sort of story (that has MANY Freudian overtones) and very good acting, I loved the film, right? Well, no...not especially. This brings me to a major problem with the film--I just didn't particularly like anyone and felt very detached from them. Paul was rather selfish and cold and no one seemed particularly interesting or likable. You may not mind this--I did. Worth seeing--just not a must-see film.