It was late 1967. The world was changing, but cinema was still catching up. Then came movie The Fox 1967, a film that essentially dropped a bomb on the remaining fragments of the Hays Code. It wasn't just a movie about a farm. It was a claustrophobic, sweaty, and deeply controversial exploration of repressed sexuality that still feels strangely modern in its discomfort.
Based on the 1923 novella by D.H. Lawrence, the film stars Sandy Dennis, Anne Heywood, and Keir Dullea. It’s a trio that shouldn’t work on paper, but on screen? It's electric. Or maybe "volatile" is the better word. You have two women, Jill and March, trying to run a failing poultry farm in the snowy isolation of Canada. They are struggling. The fox is killing their chickens. Then, a man shows up. Paul. He’s the grandson of the farm's former owner. He doesn't just want the farm; he wants March. And that is where things get messy.
Honestly, if you watch it now, the pacing might feel a bit slow at first. But stay with it. The tension builds like a slow-moving storm.
The Sexual Politics of Movie The Fox 1967
When movie The Fox 1967 hit theaters, it was scandalous. Truly. It featured a scene of female masturbation that was unheard of for a mainstream release at the time. It also delved into lesbian themes with a bluntness that shocked audiences. But here’s the thing: D.H. Lawrence, the original author, wasn't exactly a feminist icon. His stories often featured a "dominant male" figure coming in to "fix" or "awaken" women. Director Mark Rydell kept a lot of that baggage, and it makes for a very complicated viewing experience today.
Is it a queer classic? Some say yes. Others see it as a cautionary tale or even a "conversion" narrative because of how Paul disrupts the relationship between Jill and March.
✨ Don't miss: Why the Cast of Hold Your Breath 2024 Makes This Dust Bowl Horror Actually Work
Sandy Dennis is incredible as Jill. She plays her with this high-strung, bird-like energy that makes you feel her desperation. Anne Heywood’s March is the opposite—stoic, strong, and deeply repressed. When Keir Dullea (who you might recognize from 2001: A Space Odyssey) enters the frame, he’s like a predator. He is the human personification of the fox that has been terrorizing their coop.
Behind the Scenes and the Lalo Schifrin Score
One thing nobody talks about enough is the music. Lalo Schifrin, the legendary composer behind the Mission: Impossible theme, did the score. It’s haunting. It doesn't sound like a typical 60s drama. It sounds like a thriller. It uses these sparse, chilling arrangements that highlight the isolation of the Canadian wilderness.
The filming itself was a bit of a marathon. They shot on location in Ontario during a brutal winter. That snow you see? It’s real. The shivering? Probably real too. The environment is practically a fourth character. It traps the three leads in this pressure cooker of a house where every look and every sigh feels heavy.
Rydell, making his directorial debut here, made some bold choices. He leaned into the symbolism hard. The fox isn't just an animal; it’s a catalyst for the characters' hidden desires. When Paul kills the fox, he’s basically claiming his territory. It’s primal. It’s a bit "on the nose," sure, but in the context of 1967 cinema, it was revolutionary storytelling.
🔗 Read more: Is Steven Weber Leaving Chicago Med? What Really Happened With Dean Archer
The Controversy That Wouldn't Die
The film received an R rating, which was a relatively new concept then. Critics were split. Some called it a masterpiece of psychological drama. Others, like the legendary Pauline Kael, were a bit more skeptical. She found the "symbolism" a bit thick. But you can't deny the impact. Movie The Fox 1967 was one of the first times a major film really looked at the power dynamics of a three-way psychological war without blinking.
People often confuse the ending of the film with the ending of the book. In the novella, things are a bit more ambiguous regarding the fate of the characters. In the movie, Rydell goes for a more "final" and tragic conclusion. It’s a choice that still sparks debates among D.H. Lawrence purists. Did Jill have to die? Was it an accident, or was it Paul’s subconscious will?
The scene involving the falling tree is one of the most discussed moments in 60s cinema. It’s sudden. It’s violent. And it changes everything for March.
Why You Should Watch It (Or Re-watch It)
If you're a fan of psychological thrillers or LGBTQ+ cinema history, this is essential viewing. It’s not "comfortable" in the way modern movies try to be. It doesn't give you easy answers. It's sweaty, weird, and often problematic by today's standards. But that’s exactly why it’s interesting.
💡 You might also like: Is Heroes and Villains Legit? What You Need to Know Before Buying
It captures a moment in time when Hollywood was experimenting with what it could show and say. It’s a bridge between the old-school studio system and the "New Hollywood" era of the 70s.
Look at the lighting. The cinematography by William A. Fraker is moody and gorgeous. He uses the white of the snow to make the interiors feel even more cramped and dark. It’s masterclass-level visual storytelling. You don't need a lot of dialogue when you have shots that convey that much loneliness.
Final Practical Insights for Film Buffs
Watching movie The Fox 1967 today requires a bit of context. You have to remember that in 1967, seeing these themes on screen was like seeing fire for the first time for some audiences.
- Seek out the uncut version. Some older television edits chopped out the most important character-building moments to satisfy censors. To get the full psychological weight, you need the original theatrical cut.
- Compare it to the novella. D.H. Lawrence's prose is very different from Rydell’s visual style. Reading the short story first gives you a much deeper appreciation for what Anne Heywood is doing with her performance.
- Watch for the symbolism of the fur. There’s a specific scene where March interacts with the fox’s skin. It’s one of the most erotic and bizarre moments in the film, and it perfectly encapsulates the movie's obsession with the line between human and animal instinct.
The film serves as a stark reminder that the "swinging sixties" weren't just about peace and love. They were also about the terrifying process of breaking down internal walls. It’s a dark, cold, and fascinating relic of a time when movies weren't afraid to leave you feeling a little bit haunted.
If you’re hunting for it, look for the Warner Bros. Archive Collection releases. They usually have the best transfers that preserve the grain and the intended color palette of the snowy Ontario landscape. Don't expect a feel-good ending. Expect a film that will sit in the back of your mind for a few days, making you question the motives of every character on screen.