Often described as a film of the swinging sixties, it of course is nothing of the sort but an important precursor. Even allowing for the lapse between the making and releasing of a film this is vitally, just before. For me the period is 1967 to 1972 and this film released in 1965 has none of the colourful craziness and there really still are youngsters walking about as if it is still the 50s. But never mind this definitely covers the concerns and changing attitudes to personal relationships. It is unfortunate in my view (though perhaps inevitable) that Schlesinger is more interested here in the male characters. Bogarde is absolutely brilliant here and Laurence Harvey who I don't usually like because he seems to stiff is fantastic here in what must be his best role. Julie Christie is fine and looking lovely throughout whilst having to go through far more emotional changes than the guys and there is a orgy in Paris without any flesh visible but where it is the guys taking off clothes faster than any of the girls. There are some marvellous street scenes, London more than Paris and some good ones down by the river near Kew Bridge and Strand on the Green where Christie begins her first affair with Bogarde throwing pebbles into the river. Lots of good stuff but a little overlong because it doesn't quite all hang together as we are asked to agonise of this and that when the issues no longer seem as relevant, never mind that homosexuality would be legalised in a couple of years.

Julie Christie is Darling and no one in the film even comes close to taking her crown away. She is devastatingly wonderful in every minute and you cannot take your eyes off her. Movie-making is a mystery there is no question about it but the greatest mystery is how the perfect script, perfect star and perfect director come together to produce such a perfect gem as Darling. I doubt a character in any movie has been written to match Darling. She is truly unique. No matter what she does you continue to adore her, to find her utterly charming and totally without guile. Alice in Wonderland, kind of. The descriptions right here at IMDb are completely wrong. I have no idea who wrote them but they miss the mark totally. They really need to take another look at the film. It's impossible to really define Darling she is so elusive, like a beautiful butterfly that brightens the day for an instant.

Darling (1965)A black and white, Mod London romance and its aftermath, over and over, with all the tumult and glitz of the times. The events race forward and create a real tornado of activity, centering around one woman, Diana Scott, who is perfectly played by Julie Christie. Diana is as charming and beautiful as the actress who plays her, and she is drawn to men, to the movies, to modeling, and generally to success and ruin, up and down, in a wild ride.British movies had a vigorous neo-realism (British New Wave) movement in the late 50s and early 60s, and by the time of this film it had segued into a purely celebratory pop mode, cashing in on the times, and the British Invasion in music. "Darling" is kind of in both worlds, I think, the same way the 1964 "A Hard Days Night" is in both, though they are very different films. But there is a frankness to the filming that belies the (at first) entertaining and largely fictional subject. And unlike the earlier neo-real innovators ("Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner" etc.), the focus here is on a privileged class, and on the rising fortunes of Diana as she moves from one relationship to another.The filming gives these seemingly flighty, alternately glib and sad events a somberness they need. Director John Schlesinger was a British New Wave upstart, and would later do the American masterpiece "Midnight Cowboy," which might be said to have the same mixture of inventive fiction and believable raw realism.Diana is a superficial woman who cashes in on her good looks and fun temperament, and her many men never seem to mind at first. She leads, but she also get towed along, falling in love, never seeming to be quite as happy as she should. Indeed, the movie begins with her explaining through a voice-over her inner yearning for what matters in life, since it's so hard to otherwise tell. Toward the end, in Italy (after England and France had been exhausted), she says to her newest man, "If I could just feel complete." And she means it. But then, in the next scenes, she's having fun again, telling lies and losing her bearings.Christie is a marvel, really, even though you might just say she's playing herself (though not acting out the events in her life, we hope). This is her breakout film (along with her next film, "Dr. Zhivago"), and she really does typify the Mod English girl, fresh and carefree. There is even a very brief nude shot, from behind, that is a sign of mid-60s liberation in both life and in filmmaking. Dirk Bogarde is certainly excellent, too, and subtle, and indeed the whole cast is first rate, maybe because everyone is playing their contemporary selves with fictional names.So the movie is terrific, even if it sometimes seems to keep meandering through the paces over the whole two hours. It wraps you in its world. Inevitably the outcome is as somber as the greys of the filming. What else would happen to someone who can't find love, or happiness, or meaning? It's impossible to really feel complete, as a person, if you search outside yourself too much, and hers is a superficial world of her own making, Diana is a superficial woman with lots of unexplored depth.The writing here is totally first rate, the filming is first rate, the editing and pace first rate. It's simply a well made movie about a contemporary dilemma. "Thank God it's never too late," she says at the end, and in fact you know that she should really say, "God, everything stays the same." I don't think there is meant to be an echo here of Grace Kelly in particular, but there is a similar arc to Diana's career (and her name, of course, predicts a later Princess Diana). Diana's apparent sexual freedom is laden with that old convention of marriage (which she early on wisely says she doesn't want) and so some extent she can be a freewheeling young woman partly because she is always taken care of, and increasingly so. An interesting take on whether this is an accurate picture at all of the times is in this short apolitical article: www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10813.This movie ranks, for me, almost up there with "Alfie" and "Georgie Girl" (two of my favorites) as a look at the times in England. Honest, sometimes disturbing, and artistically considered. Don't miss it.

I viewed this for the first time on TCM and that being said it deserves a few viewings, there are a few segue ways and tangents here, commentaries on the vacuity and corruption, success can be good bad or utterly destructive.Dirk Bogarde has a dark and attractive presence here, as we start out with Diana Scott (Christie) working her way up the ladder as a London model. Bogarde, intellectual and effete, is her married man lover, soon to become her live-in lover (he leaves his wife and child for Diana Scott).The prevailing theme has been done before, she meets Laurence Harvey, slick and cynical, he engineers her career, she becomes more sought after as a model, as a companion and as a swinging single icon of the times. Sounds trite but Christie delivers a believable performance. There are some very good visuals and original angles, we see her living in a "rat-trap" apartment with Bogarde (his heart is concerned with real things, people authors and culture) He is not superficial and shallow. She however, as we see her become the "Honey Glow" girl attracts all the detritus that success brings with it, money, yes, but users, hangers-on,exploiters and there are some demoralizing party scenes which one may want to watch closely, to catch the full meaning.Ultimately I will not divulge the ending as this film is interesting to watch in its entirety, give it a chance as it first unravels slowly, then fast-forwards as her life spins out. Highly recommended. 9/10.