University of Virginia Library

CINEMA

Lawrence Adaptation Short On Substance

By Paul Chaplin
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

It has often been said that at
some time in a young man's life, he
discovers D.H.Lawrence, and
idolizes him. I am afraid that the
movie establishment, while not in
adolescence, has also realized that
Lawrence exists as a greatly
potential box office author, like
Arthur Hailey. The comparison is
unjust - everybody would read
Hailey and know what to expect in
a film based on his novel, whereas
Lawrence enjoys a limited audience
of readers. Most people, however,
associate Lawrence with sex, and
sex is money in films these days.

The philosophical implications
of Lawrence's novels are, for the
most part, abandoned in screen
adaptations, and this is the basic
failure of "The Virgin and The
Gypsy." I find that very little
action occurs in the novels, and
films still require that something
takes place. The adaptation here
may be too close to what happened
in the book.

The film is dull, though, due,
primarily I think, to the
faithfulness of the script and the
tame direction of Christopher
Miles. The other extreme would
have looked like "The Fox" where
the direction started out being
subtle, but was knocked aside with
the blatant lesbian theme. Of the
three Lawrence adaptations, I
preferred "Women in Love," which
was a combination of faithfulness
and some daring in direction, with
excellent acting.

This is not to imply that the
acting in "The Virgin and the
Gypsy" is bad; actually it isn't there
on the part of the titled characters.
Joanna Shimkus is lovely to look
at, but seems so bland in her part.
She is too cool to be thought of as
a nineteen year old on the verge of
sexual discovery, especially when
one considers the erotic dreams she
has. Franco Nero gets a chance to
speak with his real voice in this
film, his last being "Camelot,"
which was dubbed. His character
has nothing to do, except stand
around and look like a sexy male
with fiery blue eyes.

The biggest problem with any
Lawrence film is going to be found
in the symbolism. In a novel, the
author can use just about anything
he wants as a symbol such as a fox
as a symbol of animalism,
primitivism. In a film, the visual
representation of a fox cannot
suggest as much as it did in the
literary work. Symbols from a book
cannot often be effectively
transferred to the film If they are
used directly, they look somewhat
silly and ridiculous, just as dialogue
from a play sounds terribly stilted
and stylized in a film.

This direct use of symbols is a
primary fault with "The Virgin and
the Gypsy." I did not find this to
be an especially enjoyable film, due
to the familiarity with the material
and thematic treated here. By no
means am I saying someone else
might not enjoy the film; there is a
nice usage of color and one instance
of clever techniques that one might
find interesting. There is not
enough substance here, however, to
elevate the film above being a nice
effort.

Franco Nero (The Gypsy) and Joanna Shimkus (The Virgin)

(Now at the University)