D.H. Lawrence got the CinemaScope treatment in 1960 in this adaptation of his 1913 novel. The result is a not half bad movie, even if it provides further evidence that Lawrence was difficult to adapt to the screen.
His contributions to modern literature aside, I think D.H. Lawrence is just downright silly to read much of the time, and that silliness is usually amplified when actors try to bring his characters to life on screen. The most egregious example is Ken Russell's bold but quite awful adaptation of "Women in Love" from 1970, which is one of the best bad movies you'll ever see because of how unintentionally hilarious it all is. "Sons and Lovers" as a novel is more subdued to begin with, so the movie adaptation fairs much better. It looks fantastic under cinematographer-turned-director Jack Cardiff. Probably because he was a cinematographer first, Cardiff knows how to use wide screen CinemaScope to his advantage, and he brings a real sense of place to this small mining town at the beginning of the 20th Century. Dean Stockwell is quite good as Paul Morel, while Trevor Howard and Mary Ure were singled out with Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominations, respectively, for playing Paul's alcoholic father and the married woman with whom he strikes up an affair. If we're being honest, Howard's is really a supporting role, but perhaps the Academy wanted a chance to recognize him for the numerous fine screen performances he'd given before this. Mary Ure is breathtaking; I couldn't take my eyes off of her. Puzzling is that the best performance in the film comes from Wendy Hiller as Paul's overbearing mum, yet she's the one who received no attention from the Academy. And it's not like competition was just so fierce that year that there was no room for her. Elizabeth Taylor won for "Butterfield 8" for Pete's sake.
"Sons and Lovers" won the Oscar for Best Black and White Cinematography courtesy of Freddie Francis, and in addition to its acting nominations found itself also competing for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Art Direction (B&W). It's somewhat surprising to me that it did quite so well with the Academy, as it's a perfectly solid movie but nothing spectacular, and certainly not Best Picture worthy.
Grade: B+
His contributions to modern literature aside, I think D.H. Lawrence is just downright silly to read much of the time, and that silliness is usually amplified when actors try to bring his characters to life on screen. The most egregious example is Ken Russell's bold but quite awful adaptation of "Women in Love" from 1970, which is one of the best bad movies you'll ever see because of how unintentionally hilarious it all is. "Sons and Lovers" as a novel is more subdued to begin with, so the movie adaptation fairs much better. It looks fantastic under cinematographer-turned-director Jack Cardiff. Probably because he was a cinematographer first, Cardiff knows how to use wide screen CinemaScope to his advantage, and he brings a real sense of place to this small mining town at the beginning of the 20th Century. Dean Stockwell is quite good as Paul Morel, while Trevor Howard and Mary Ure were singled out with Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominations, respectively, for playing Paul's alcoholic father and the married woman with whom he strikes up an affair. If we're being honest, Howard's is really a supporting role, but perhaps the Academy wanted a chance to recognize him for the numerous fine screen performances he'd given before this. Mary Ure is breathtaking; I couldn't take my eyes off of her. Puzzling is that the best performance in the film comes from Wendy Hiller as Paul's overbearing mum, yet she's the one who received no attention from the Academy. And it's not like competition was just so fierce that year that there was no room for her. Elizabeth Taylor won for "Butterfield 8" for Pete's sake.
"Sons and Lovers" won the Oscar for Best Black and White Cinematography courtesy of Freddie Francis, and in addition to its acting nominations found itself also competing for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Art Direction (B&W). It's somewhat surprising to me that it did quite so well with the Academy, as it's a perfectly solid movie but nothing spectacular, and certainly not Best Picture worthy.
Grade: B+