Of all the British love stories written, perhaps none was more scandalous than 'Lady Chatterley's Lover,' which unfairly categorized D. H. Lawrence as a pornographic author. 'Chatterley' may appear tame by modern-day standards, but the complete novel was deemed graphic and 'destructive' enough to be banned in England until 1960, when a famous obscenity trial at the Old Bailey allowed for its publication.Lawrence wrote the original version of 'Chatterley' as an ill man in 1926. He rewrote the novel twice and its final version appeared in 1928, when Lawrence funded its printing in Italy. Ravaged by critics for its frank language and depictions of sex, 'Chatterley' was banned in 'unexpurgated' form by the British and American censors for three decades. In 1960, just after the complete novel was legalized in America, Penguin Books founder Sir Allen Lane tested England's newly-created Obscene Publications Act by printing 'Chatterley,' the only Lawrence novel absent from his catalogue. Lane was arrested on charges of 'publishing an obscene article,' tried, and found not guilty, which paved the way for greater literary freedoms in the United Kingdom.'The Chatterley Affair,' a 90-minute film produced for the BBC, is a combination of Lane's trial and a 'what if' romantic scenario. Using an imaginative script by Andrew Davies of 'Bridget Jones's Diary,' the film depicts actual courtroom proceedings with fictional jurors who decide Lady Chatterley's fate. And in ways similar to Chatterley's trysts, two jurors become smitten: Keith (Rafe Spall), a married, working-class man, with Helena (Louise Delamere), a wealthy divorcée who is living alone.It may seem bizarre to combine fact with fiction, but Davies uses considerable skill to make things work. He supplies equal attention to the trial and budding affair, which results in parallels with the literary material being covered. The plot alternates between hours at court and time spent at home: during the trial, we see opening and closing arguments, key testimonies, and moments in the jury deliberation room. On off-hours, Keith and Helena spend time in bed while his adoring, pregnant wife Sylvia (Alyson Coote) is unsuspecting. Kenneth Cranham and Claire Bloom intermittently appear as the modern-day Keith and Helena in mock interviews. As we already know, 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was not found by the jury to 'deprave and corrupt' its readers. Davies, however, asks the question a second time when Keith and Helena become aroused by the novel's content and leap into an affair behind Sylvia's back.While the affair is finely portrayed, Chatterley's best moments are in court. Courtroom dramas still abound on television but rarely offer something new; 'The Chatterley Affair' is a different story, as we can feel the shock, surprise, and hilarity of these proceedings. As evidence is presented at trial, director James Hawes shows people around the courtroom to remind us of a straitlaced atmosphere in 1960. Class differences on sex and language are particularly exposed, such as when audience members react to passages from the novel. The present-day reflections of Keith and Helena are intended as running commentary; these moments are interesting but unnecessary, since the plot easily stands on its own two feet.British TV veteran Donald Sumpter plays Gerald Gardiner, the attorney who defended Penguin Books. Sumpter is excellent as a lawyer who makes constructive arguments rather than abrasive ones. Pip Torrens ('Pride & Prejudice') shines as Mervyn Griffith-Jones, a highfalutin prosecutor who is obnoxious yet strangely likable. While asking working-class jurors if 'Chatterley' is a novel 'they'd even wish their wife or servants to read,' Torrens somehow wins respect for a lawyer who determinedly made his case without a single witness. Griffith-Jones is also heard futilely - and amusingly - reciting Mellors's northern dialect from the book.Karl Johnson is dignified and quite funny as Justice Byrne, the older trial judge; Byrne wasn't happy about Lawrence's writing and looks exhausted by the profanity and sexual descriptions that are filling the courtroom. 'Harry Potter' alumnus David Tennant masters the role of Richard Hoggart, a university lecturer who gave important testimony for the defense. A man of working class origins, Hoggart called the novel 'highly virtuous and puritanical,' after which followed some of the most bizarre cross-examination that you will ever hear. James Hawes never overlooks the book itself as a character, frequently showing its orange jacket in close-up. It's perhaps no coincidence that the novel looks bright and spirited amidst drab surroundings.Cinematographer James Aspinall gives a somber quality to this film and underlines the austere, 1950ish environment. Imaginary moments deriving from the book are also shown in flashback style to great effect. Nicholas Hooper's music emphasizes piano, which adds to the wistful setting. 'Chatterley' is excellent in depicting a society on the verge of upheaval, both public and private.Even if you haven't read D. H. Lawrence's work, 'The Chatterley Affair' is a moving, highly entertaining, and often light-hearted drama with unexpected surprises. As a writer, it's certainly one of my favorite films based on literary topics and is successful in a purely dramatic sense. The film is now available on DVD in the United States through Acorn Media and can be found at major retailers such as Borders and Barnes & Noble. 'Chatterley' is presented in 16:9 widescreen with Dolby stereo; the disc includes cast filmographies, biographical information on Lawrence, and information on the 1960 trial. With 'Chatterley,' the BBC adds yet another film to its list of impressive productions.*** out of 4Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr

In 1960 the famous trial for obscenity began with a jury of twelve British men and women sitting in judgement on DH Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley's Lover. As the trial progresses two of the younger jurors find themselves caught up in the sexual nature of their temporary new task and start an affair. The slightly rough Keith has a wife at home in a small house with little excitement and falls aggressively into intercourse with the more upper-class and free Helena.Imagine my lack of surprise to find an Andrew Davies script rich in sexual material and fruity language! I have nothing at all against that but at times I do struggle to shake the feeling that he is doing it for the sake of doing it. The Chatterley Affair in particular seems to revel in the use of very strong language (even by today's standards) in the courtroom sequences but the meat of the story is in the entirely fictional affair between jurors Keith and Helena. Here we see characters but awakened and damaged by an increasing understanding of sexuality within themselves and it is this that provides the value in the film. It is not perfect though because the film doesn't make this as much of a focus as one would have hoped and perhaps the developments are not as smart and insightful as the script would like to think. That said though, the main relationship is still engaging though and it does just about carry the thing along.The film surprised me by perhaps not being as strong on the actual case itself. In this regard it did very much seem to wallow in the use of strong and sexual language. I didn't get that engaged in the actual debate within the case and it did strike me that Davies was not particularly interested in it as much as he was the more fictional aspect. It is a shame because I do think it would have been a more rounded film if he had managed to actually make the court case interesting rather than just having it in the film as a frame more than anything else. The approach does work for the cast though and it gives both Spall and Delamere good material to work with together. Perhaps not perfect but the two of them do work well off one another. The supporting cast give lesser performances but they do turn out solid enough period caricatures in mostly unremarkable ways. Hawes' direction is reasonable enough but suffice to say you are never in any doubt that you are watching a BBC drama.Overall then, an interesting and obviously sexual drama but one that is weakened by the fact that the court case is little more than a frame and Davies has done little of interest with it on its own. The relationship aspect is just about enough to carry it and make it worth seeing but I was disappointed that it didn't do more outside of this main thrust.

A coupled getting laid in layers:We have the book, something fairly tepid by the standards of only a few decades later. Its a serious book.We have the trial over its publication in Britain. It continues to remind us how penetrating government nannies can be. We can never get enough reminding. The trial presented here uses words from the actual trial, and when you see it, you see a dramatization of what really happened. Its enough to make you cry, especially with the current trend in the US to choose judges like the nitwit revealed here. This bit of the film is remarkably well done.We have a jury-room layer, where we encounter the twelve diverse people who collectively will decide for a nation whether sex deserves recognition when depicted artistically. This part is dreadful. We see some bluster. We have a John Gielgud-like figure who eventually convinces everyone that the thing "isn't corrupting." Coming after 12 Angry Men, and knowing the importance of the event, this is pale stuff, horribly written with no clear dynamics. Its very, very bad, this.We have a layer of two jurors, strangers who are attracted to each other. This happens before the subject of the trial is known. But as they read the book, they begin a week-long affair during the trial where they replicate the sex in the book. The woman isn't quite the class of Lady Chatterley, and actually does seem ungrounded. In fact we have no reason at all to know her, even if her part were written to reveal her. We do get to know the man, someone completely lacking in will, influenced by both the book and the woman. What's happening is that in fact, he is "corrupted" by the book, or at least the notions of the book. This could have been turned into something brilliant. But it isn't.Then we have another layer: the two characters revisited in interviews forty years later. These are two brilliant actors and they are written deeply. This part is fantastic, but exists in only 5 minutes or so. These moments are interspersed throughout and provide a distance. Its a very good thing, this: watching, commenting.And then there's the final layer: this is a TeeVee show. It has nudity, close to explicit sex, and all of the words that the prosecution found so repellent. The existence of this layer is a statement of sorts. Everything the prudes worried about is available on TeeVee. Hard to see who won, when this has so little actual merit.All in all, its an intelligent construction. Too bad the writer wasn't up to it. There are some very clever notions that we can dimly see but not reach. he's no Lawrence, even though he knew how to read him.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

What a clever idea! The complementary story of the two lovers and the tedious stuffy dialogue of the trial were neatly interwoven so that we were constantly wondering how things would turn out, even though everyone knows the book was eventually published. And has it depraved and corrupted us all? Well maybe it has. There were two people who certainly wondered about that, at the end. Excellent acting, especially in the court. Tennant was wonderful as Hoggart. The young wife who couldn't make out what was going on did a splendid job with a small part, totally convincing. Perhaps more so than the woman juror who made such an obvious pass at her husband. Nevertheless a great film that should have critical success.