D.H. Lawrence was always a bit of a troublemaker. Even decades after his death, his work has this uncanny ability to make people squirm, and the women in love tv series—specifically the 2011 BBC adaptation—is no exception. It’s raw. It’s messy. Honestly, it's a lot to take in if you're used to the polished, polite period dramas where everyone just drinks tea and pined for a duke.
Rosamund Pike and Rachael Stirling play the Brangwen sisters, Gudrun and Ursula. They are restless. They are looking for something "more," though they aren't quite sure what "more" looks like in a post-industrial England that feels like it's suffocating. If you've seen the 1969 Ken Russell film, you know the vibe, but the TV miniseries directed by Miranda Bowen tries to dig deeper into the skin. It’s not just about the scandal. It’s about the psychological friction between men and women who don't know how to be together without destroying each other.
What the Women in Love TV Series Gets Right About Lawrence
Most people think D.H. Lawrence is just about the "naughty bits." That’s a massive oversimplification. The women in love tv series works because it understands that Lawrence was obsessed with the "blood-consciousness"—this idea that we have a primal self that contradicts our civilized, talking self.
William Ivins once noted that Lawrence's prose is repetitive because it’s trying to hammer a feeling into the reader’s soul. The show does this visually. You see it in the way the camera lingers on the cold water of the lake or the dirt on the miners' faces. It’s tactile.
The casting was pretty spot on.
- Rosamund Pike as Gudrun is icy but vibrating with a weird, dangerous energy.
- Rachael Stirling brings a warmth to Ursula that makes her the emotional anchor.
- Rory Kinnear (Rupert Birkin) and Joseph Mawle (Gerald Crich) have this intense, homoerotic, competitive tension that is basically the backbone of the whole story.
Let's talk about that wrestling scene. Yeah, the one in the 1969 movie is legendary, but the 2011 version handles it with a different kind of desperation. It’s not just two guys fighting; it’s two souls trying to merge because they’ve given up on finding that connection with women. It’s uncomfortable to watch. It should be.
The Problem With Modern Adaptations
Sometimes, these shows try to modernize the dialogue too much. You lose the "Lawrentian" flavor. When characters start talking like they’re in a 21st-century therapy session, it breaks the spell. Thankfully, screenwriter William Ivory (who also wrote Made in Dagenham) kept enough of the period's poetic grit to keep it grounded.
The series actually mashes up The Rainbow and Women in Love. This was a bold choice. The Rainbow is the prequel, the backstory of the sisters' upbringing and their parents' marriage. By shoving them together, the show helps you understand why Ursula is so skeptical of traditional marriage. She saw her parents struggle. She saw the limitations of "happily ever after."
Why Gerald Crich is the Most Relatable Character (Unfortunately)
Gerald is the industrialist. He runs the mines. He’s all about efficiency, machines, and control. In our world of algorithms and productivity hacks, Gerald feels strangely modern. Joseph Mawle plays him with this hollowed-out look in his eyes. He’s a man who has everything—wealth, power, physical strength—and yet he is absolutely terrified of the void inside him.
His relationship with Gudrun is a train wreck.
It's a power struggle.
They don't love each other; they consume each other.
It’s "toxic," to use a word Lawrence would have probably hated but found accurate.
Gudrun is an artist. She wants to see things as they are, even if they're ugly. Gerald wants to dominate things so they don't scare him. When these two collide, it’s not a romance; it’s a chemical reaction that ends in an explosion. The scenes in the snowy Alps toward the end of the series are some of the most haunting pieces of television BBC has put out in the last twenty years. The stark white of the snow against their dark, miserable clothes—it’s visual storytelling at its best.
Rupert Birkin: The Visionary or Just Annoying?
Then you have Birkin. He’s the stand-in for Lawrence himself. He spends a lot of time talking about "star-equilibrium" and how men and women should be like two stars that orbit each other but never merge. It sounds great on paper. In practice? It’s exhausting.
Rory Kinnear plays Birkin with a frantic, sickly brilliance. You can see why Ursula loves him, but you can also see why she wants to shake him. He’s trying to invent a new way of living because he thinks the old world is dead. Remember, this story takes place around the time of the First World War. Millions were dying. The old Victorian certainties were gone. People were desperate for a new "religion" of the body.
The Production Design and the "Look" of the Series
Filmed largely in South Africa (standing in for both England and the Alps), the show has a lush, almost over-saturated look. Some critics hated this. They felt it didn't look "British" enough. But honestly? It fits Lawrence’s style. His writing wasn't grey and muted; it was colorful, vivid, and sometimes overwhelming.
The contrast between the grimy mining town of Beldover and the opulent, bohemian parties of the London elite shows the class divide without hitting you over the head with a mallet. You see it in the fabrics. The heavy wools of the working class versus the flowing silks of the "artistic" crowd.
Why You Should Re-watch It Now
If you haven't seen the women in love tv series since it aired, or if you missed it entirely, it hits differently in 2026. We’re in another era of massive technological change and social upheaval. We’re all wondering how to connect in a world that feels increasingly mechanical.
Lawrence wasn't a "feminist" in the modern sense—he had some very regressive ideas about gender—but he was one of the first to really explore the idea that women have an internal life that is just as complex, dark, and sexual as men's. The Brangwen sisters aren't looking for husbands to save them; they’re looking for a reason to exist.
Technical Mastery and Critiques
While the series is visually stunning, it does suffer from some pacing issues. Combining two massive novels into a two-part miniseries is a Herculean task. Some of the secondary characters, like Hermione Roddice (played by Janet McTeer), get a bit sidelined. Hermione is a fascinating character—an intellectual who tries to "will" herself into being passionate—and her rivalry with Ursula is one of the best parts of the book. In the TV show, it’s a bit of a footnote.
Also, the transition from the lush landscapes of the first half to the brutal cold of the second half feels a bit rushed. One minute they're at a wedding in the countryside, the next they're spiraling toward death in the mountains. Life moves fast, I guess.
✨ Don't miss: The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Ryan Gosling Mystery: What Really Happened
Key Takeaways for the Viewer
- Don't expect a typical romance. This isn't Jane Austen. There are no grand balls where everything is resolved with a proposal. It’s more like a psychological thriller.
- Watch the body language. Much of the acting in this series happens in the silences. Pay attention to how the characters stand near each other—or how they avoid touching.
- Context is everything. Read a little bit about the 1910s and the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the English psyche. It makes Gerald’s obsession with his mines make much more sense.
- Embrace the weirdness. D.H. Lawrence is weird. If a scene feels strange or "over the top," that's probably exactly how it was intended to feel.
The women in love tv series remains a bold, if flawed, attempt to capture the lightning in a bottle that is Lawrentian prose. It’s sexy, depressing, beautiful, and frustrating all at once. Just like real life.
Actionable Steps for Deepening Your Understanding
If you want to truly appreciate this adaptation, start by reading the "Man to Man" chapter in the original Women in Love novel. It provides the philosophical framework for the relationship between Birkin and Gerald that the TV series can only hint at through visuals.
Next, compare the 2011 version with the 1969 Ken Russell film. Notice how the 1960s version focuses more on the "sexual revolution" vibes of its own era, while the 2011 version focuses more on the internal, psychological isolation of the characters. Seeing these two interpretations side-by-side reveals how each generation projects its own anxieties onto Lawrence’s work.
Finally, look into the biography of D.H. Lawrence, specifically his time spent in "The Nightmare" of wartime England. Understanding his personal sense of alienation will make Birkin's rants about the "end of the world" feel much more urgent and less like the ramblings of a madman. Use these insights to re-watch the series; you'll find layers in Rosamund Pike's performance that you definitely missed the first time around.