Well, he notices it a few times, which means he's checking her out. :p which means he's turned on ;) which means he's bewitched. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Printable View
Well, he notices it a few times, which means he's checking her out. :p which means he's turned on ;) which means he's bewitched. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This may be true, but I think we need to separate what the women mean to Coutts and what they mean to the reader. For Coutts, his fiancee (got it right that time) means a very controlled and repressed life, but that doesn't mean that his wife (fiancee, I mean) is a controlled and repressed woman. No, it's just Coutts' perspective which makes it appear that way. Similarly, Winifred appears to him free and uninhibited, but only because she represents an escape to a more sensual life. Of course, that doesn't mean that Winifred is a sensual woman. Far from it, she's very controlled herself, and that's part of what Coutts picks up on as the story moves forward. So, when Coutts sees the uncorseted body of Winifred he may be thinking "Wow, what an uninhibited woman!" But, that doesn't mean that she is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:D Yes of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Yes, Quark, well that is what the story is all about, isn't it? Coutt's perception and Coutt's temptation so I would agree with this for the most part. Yes, as it turns out Winifred is as constrained as Connie is. I think this is the whole gist of the story. We are lead along through the temptation and his following after it step by step and then the crucial moment arrives and she pulls away from him or turns her head and stops his kisses, thus showing her true self and not the one being projected to Coutts as he is being lead on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:lol: , Virgil you are a funny guy!.... and you do tend always to express so well the typical male response.:brow: Exactly, Antiquarian, where would we be without that male point of view? ;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Ah, the male point of view! LOL Where would we be without it?
(You know I'm joking, right?)
I guess I was pointing out the obvious, but I thought someone needed to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil's been particularly on during this story--spotting the phallic imagery, checking out the un-corseted women. This story must have overstimulated him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
No, Quark, glad you did point that out. It made it a lot clearer actually. You sort of summed it up nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:lol: I guess it does not take much for Virgil to get into that state....:lol: Why do you think he likes Lawrence's work so much?;) But then again, you were the one who first made mention of a yellow marker while reading "Sons and Lovers"!:lol:Quote:
Virgil's been particularly on during this story--spotting the phallic imagery, checking out the un-corseted women. This story must have overstimulated him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:lol: :lol: Yeah, well, there are a few places. Wini's arms do come across as pretty sensual to me. :brow: I think I beginning to understand Coutts better. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You should ask Janine about some of her porno flicks. :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
You two are a riot! I will get to that part in a minute. First about this:
Antiquarian, Which one do you have - the miniseries with Sean Bean and Joely Richardson? That is the best one, so they say. It is directed by Ken Russell. I did see another version I liked, years back with a friend, but that is racier...hahhahah:lol: Didn't matter - we were in the mood for 'racy' then.:brow: Good lead into the next part of this post.......Quote:
(I have the DVD of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" but I haven't had the courage to watch it yet. )
Quote by Virgil
:lol: :brow: I did not know that arms turned you on so; but then I certainly should not know, and don't want to know either.:blush: I think for Lawrence he did like the arms and the neck areas. They seem to be emphasised in many of his writing; oh and don't let me forget those intriguing 'thighs' so prominent in Lawrence's works! You know the man was not called a 'sensual author' for nothing. Back then, to show a wrist or an arm was something, even an ankle; so no wonder, they banned his books! He goes as far as to keep empaphasising the bare body parts.Quote:
Yeah, well, there are a few places. Wini's arms do come across as pretty sensual to me. I think I beginning to understand Coutts better.
Quote by Antiquarian
Antiq, like I said before, 'why do you think Virgil loves Lawrence's writing so much?' Also, I have to admit, I see sensuality in most all of Lawrence's work. Sorry, Quark, but I don't feel that much in Chekhov's, but then times were different, too....maybe too I have not read his sensual works yet....(?)Quote:
And here I thought Virgil just loved Lawrence's genius with a pen!
Quote by Virgil
:lol: hahaha - and they are period pieces as well. Yes, the earlier film by Ken Russell of "Women in Love" has a lot of nudity in it, probably more than his later rendition of LCL. However, WIL is not a pornographic film; where you been Virgil? ....living secluded under a rock; never see naked men before? :lol: hahah. It is really a beautiful film, just departs some from the plot of the novel somewhat, but in itself, it is a fine film and a good period piece; a little dated now though, but still worth owning. At the time it came out it, was quite acclaimed. Now a few others you are alluding to, Virgil, are a little risque, but James Joyces was no angel, you know...so the film "Nora" is a little bit blantant and ourspoken, but still I thought a very good film. That stars Ewan McGregor, who has no hangups at all, believe me; if you think so see his film "Young Adam"; good film though in my opinion; he plays opposite Tilda Swinson, who apparently has not hang-ups either. He plays a fine James Joyce in "Nora" - very convincing, I thought....good acting and he even sings/plays his guitar in parts.Quote:
You should ask Janine about some of her porno flicks.
Ha - you should see my real risque film collection? hahaha - I even have "8 1/2weeks"...hmmm... and the film "Original Sin" with Antonio Bandaros/Angelina Jolie - that one is something else. And the film version of "Wide Sargasso Sea" is pretty racy, too. I will have to reorganise and recategorize my film collection, I guess!
Quote by Antiquarian,
Yes, you must ask me. haha - funny, most of the the risque ones, actually are the period pieces/art house films!Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
I also have the new period film by a different director - adaptation of "Sons and Lovers"; stars Sarah Lancaster as Lawrence's mother. It is a 2 DVD set, directed by Stephen Whittaker. I thought it a little bit of a departure from the novel, but it was good, anyway. I try to enjoy these films as separate unities and not exact copies of the novels.
I am hoping to buy the older film version of 'The Lady and the Gypsy" next; I keep it in my 'wishlist' in Amazon, to check the prices daily. I actually have a nice collection of Lawrence adaptation films by now.
Antiquarian, why are you afraid to watch LCL? If it is the film I own it is quite good and nothing to fear - not all that risque. I thought it a very sensual film, but actually I felt the "Women in Love" film that I own the most sensual of all three. I think that held up well overtime. I just have a few complaints about it, now that I know the novel so much better; and of course, I understand that it could not convey all of Lawrence's ideas, but it did present some to the general audience, at the time. I think most people who went to see it, had already read the novel and were Lawrence fans - that was back in the 70's I think or maybe early 80's.
You guys certainly like to go off track, when I'm not around - oh and talk about me behind my back....;) :lol: I wasn't here and missed out on all this fun!:bawling:
Oh, and if Quark is not on here for awhile, it is because he is now out feverishly looking for those films I mentioned. :lol:
Antiquarian, well, that is a good one! Here I thought all along that women were the ones with the hang-ups. How funny - I went to art school and we had live nude models - after awhile that did not mean a thing to me. I was busy drawing for anatomy class. I told Virgil and I thought he would have a fit. I laughed and laughed. I can't believe your hubby would be that way, being French. Some of those films are really racy, even for me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Anyway, can't you watch the film while he is at work? It is set up into episodes I believe since it was probably shown first on BBC TV. I thought the film was finely done. If you already read the book you will enjoy it. It also stars James Wilby - he plays the complex Clifford. I really did like this film very much. Now you have me wanting to see it again and I have watched it many times before. It has some stunning scenes of nature in the woods and the estate is lovely.
The film adaptation I really wish to buy but can't find it "The Rainbow" - you can watch trailers on Youtube and it looks to be a fine production. Imelda Stubbs plays Ursula. She is a fine Bristish actress.
No way, did he he really??? :lol: Is he the type of guy who turns the lights off first?Quote:
"The Sheltering Sky" with John Malkovich and Debra Winger was a lovely film, but it had some "racy" parts. My poor husband covered his eyes. LOL
No, actually I never encountered the least trace of sensuality in Chekhov's work.Quote:
I don't think Quark will look for the films, though. He reads Chekhov and there's nothing racy in Chekhov. ;)
I don't know about Quark not looking for the L films - he used his yellow highlighter in the racy parts of "Sons and Lovers" quite liberally or so he told me on here, one night late. It was a scream - that conversation we were having (we were both overly tired and silly) when no one else was around. Ask Quark about his yellow highlighters.;) :lol: He never read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" so I advised him to invest in a whole box of markers for that read!:lol:
No, I never knew that at all, Antiquarian. I thought French men, especially, were much more uninhibited and free thinking and acting about such things. How funny to find this out, after all these years. You mean then, American men are worse? How about other countries besides France? Italy or Greece, even England today, for instance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
I believe it entirely; but really it is a good film and very 'psychological', like all Lawrence's films are. Try to see it someway. Your husband might enjoy it. It is much more than nudity, believe me. I can only think of one very blantant nude scene, when Connie goes into her husband's bedroom unclothed - but that was all there was to it. Maybe there were a few nude scenes, when they run in around in the rain later in the film, but they are not long and not a major part of the film. Gee, I must refresh my memory and watch this film tonight.Quote:
I bought the DVD mainly for the nature scenes and the cinematography. I know no one but you will believe that, but it's true. LOL
Remind me to tell you a very funny art school story; this involves a good friend's daughter who is attending art classes now. The story is hilarious.
Wow, you are in some dilema. That is why I have my own TV upstairs now. If I wanted to watch anything subversive or even deep, meaningful downstairs they would hang around and keep commenting about it and ask what I saw in it. I hate that; really ruins the film for me. I have actually watched a few films with sex in them with my mother, but they were tastefully done - she usually will comment like this 'oh wow' - I think she actually enjoys those parts. :lol: She is still pretty lively at 86 and she can still dream, you know.:DQuote:
I can't watch while he's at work because then my oldest brother will be hovering about and that's far, far worse than my husband. My husband would just say, "Oh!"
yeah.....:lol: he better!:lol:Quote:
I've read Lady Chatterley's Lover and yes, Quark better get a box of yellow highlighters for that one. LOL
I heard of that book, but what is that about? Can you say on here or is this one he needs a few boxes of those markers for? :lol:Quote:
If he wants to drift into stranger territory, he could read The Story of O. I've read that one, too.
Well I can tell you in Italy they are pretty flittacious. When we were there, one night, there was a group of men hagning outside in front of the window of our hotel and kept trying to call up to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:lol: I kind of pictured it that way - those hot Italians! ;) :lol: Just look at our own Virgil; he gets excited about naked arms! ;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
If I don't post the rest of the text to the story in here soon, our thread might be censored for obscenity. Either that or the mod, probably Scher is laughing her head off right now! :lol:
I just looked that word up - 'flittacious' and I don't think that is a word; did you mean 'flirtatious', Dark Muse? You need a copy of this book I own called "Webster's New World 33,000 Word Book - most used words spelled and syllabified" - I keep this by my computer always - it is fast and easy to look up just the spelling.
You forgot breast men. :brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Yeah let's hear it for Italian men. ;) Flittacious? Is there such a word?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
:lol: I'm rolling in laughter. I can't stop. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
LOL, like Coutts *evil grin*Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
So it is a word - sorry Dark Muse for doubting you or mistaking the word. Yes, but I think this word would apply to more than just 2 women. There is probably another equally obscure word for flitting between two women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Virgil, glad I made you laugh so much! I forgot to mention the fact you are always interested also, in the phallic symbolism of church steeples in L's works. :confused: :lol: :D