Honestly, if you mention women in love ken russell to most film buffs today, they immediately start talking about the wrestling. You know the one. Alan Bates and Oliver Reed, stark naked, grappling in front of a roaring fireplace while the shadows dance across the walls. It’s the "infamous" scene. But here’s the thing: focusing only on the nudity is kinda like looking at a Picasso and only talking about the frame.
Ken Russell wasn’t just trying to shock people in 1969. Well, okay, maybe a little bit. But what he actually did was take a "unadaptable" D.H. Lawrence novel and turn it into a visceral, sweaty, loud, and deeply weird exploration of why men and women basically find it impossible to get along. It’s a movie that feels more like a fever dream than a period drama.
The Chaos Behind the Camera
When Russell signed on to direct, he was mostly known for his BBC documentaries about composers. People expected something "prestige." Instead, they got a director who wanted to capture the "phallic frenzy"—a term actually used to describe the energy of the source material. Russell didn't want a dry literary adaptation. He wanted something that felt alive.
The casting was a bit of a gamble. Oliver Reed wasn't the "blond, Nordic" type Lawrence described for Gerald Crich. He was a dark, brooding, heavy-set force of nature. But Russell knew Reed could channel that specific brand of industrialist rage. Then you had Glenda Jackson. At the time, she wasn't the household name she’d become. She was just this incredibly intense stage actress who looked like she could eat the scenery for breakfast.
Why the Wrestling Scene Almost Didn't Happen
That wrestling match? It wasn't even in the original script. Larry Kramer, who wrote the screenplay and later became a massive figure in AIDS activism, hadn't included it. It was Russell and Reed who pushed for it. Russell actually thought the censors would never let it fly. Surprisingly, the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) passed it without cuts, largely because the chief censor, John Trevelyan, thought the film was a work of art.
✨ Don't miss: Austin & Ally Maddie Ziegler Episode: What Really Happened in Homework & Hidden Talents
They even made a "secret pact." Kramer and Russell took Trevelyan out to lunch and kept him in the loop during the whole process. They dimmed the lights during the shoot to make the "homosexual overtones" feel more "discreet." It worked. It became the first time many British audiences saw full-frontal male nudity in a mainstream cinema.
Breaking Down the Plot (The Non-Boring Version)
The story is set right after World War I. The "Lost Generation" is trying to figure out what the hell to do with themselves now that the old world has been blown to bits. We follow two sisters: Ursula, a schoolteacher (played by Jennie Linden), and Gudrun, an artist (Glenda Jackson).
They meet two friends. Rupert Birkin (Alan Bates) is a school inspector who’s basically a stand-in for D.H. Lawrence himself. He’s bearded, pretentious, and hates humanity. Then there’s Gerald Crich (Oliver Reed), who owns the local coal mines.
- Rupert and Ursula: Their relationship is the "successful" one, though it’s filled with Rupert’s weird rants about how he wants a relationship with a man that is as "eternal" as his marriage to a woman.
- Gerald and Gudrun: This is the train wreck. It’s a battle of wills. It’s toxic. It’s dark. It ends in the freezing snow of the Swiss Alps.
The Visual Language of Ken Russell
Russell’s style in women in love ken russell is way more restrained than his later stuff like The Devils or Tommy, but you can see the seeds of his madness everywhere. Take the scene where Gudrun does an interpretive dance in front of a herd of highland cattle. It’s absurd. It’s funny. It’s also deeply uncomfortable.
🔗 Read more: Kiss My Eyes and Lay Me to Sleep: The Dark Folklore of a Viral Lullaby
He uses color like a weapon. Ursula starts in vivid, flowery prints—connected to nature. As the film goes on and she gets more grounded, her tones become earthier. Meanwhile, the lighting in that wrestling scene? It was all about the golden glow of the fire, meant to contrast with the cold, mechanical world of the mines.
What Most People Miss About the Ending
The movie ends with a conversation, not a climax. After Gerald meets his fate in the snow, Rupert and Ursula are back in England. Rupert is still complaining. He still wants that "additional" love with a man. Ursula tells him it’s impossible. He says, "I don't believe that."
It’s a bit of a "wait, what?" moment for audiences who want a happy ending. But that’s the point. Russell was highlighting the fact that these characters weren't just looking for sex; they were looking for a way to exist that didn't feel like a cage.
Glenda Jackson’s Historic Win
We can't talk about this movie without mentioning that Glenda Jackson won the Oscar for Best Actress. She beat out Ali MacGraw from Love Story, which was the huge mainstream hit of the year. It was a massive deal. It signaled that the Academy was finally paying attention to this new, grittier, more European style of filmmaking coming out of the UK.
💡 You might also like: Kate Moss Family Guy: What Most People Get Wrong About That Cutaway
Actionable Insights: How to Watch It Today
If you’re going to dive into women in love ken russell, don’t go in expecting a Jane Austen adaptation. It’s not "pretty" in that way. Here is how to actually appreciate it:
- Look for the 4K Restoration: The BFI and Criterion have released stunning restorations. The cinematography by Billy Williams is legendary for a reason—the way he captures the grain of the Derbyshire countryside is beautiful.
- Read the Novel First (or After): Larry Kramer’s script uses a lot of Lawrence’s actual dialogue. Seeing how Russell translates Lawrence’s dense, philosophical prose into visual metaphors (like the drowning scene at the water party) is a masterclass in adaptation.
- Watch the Companion Piece: Russell later directed The Rainbow (1989), which is the prequel novel. Glenda Jackson even returns to play the mother of her original character. It’s a great way to see how Russell’s style evolved over twenty years.
- Ignore the "Period Piece" Label: Treat it like a psychological thriller. The tensions between the four leads are incredibly modern. The questions they ask about monogamy and gender roles are the same ones people are arguing about on TikTok right now.
The film remains a powerhouse because it refuses to be polite. It’s loud, it’s sweaty, and it’s deeply cynical about the human heart. Ken Russell didn't just make a movie about people in love; he made a movie about the struggle to be human in a world that wants to turn everyone into a machine.
To get the full experience, track down the Criterion Blu-ray. It includes a 1989 self-portrait documentary where Russell talks about his own career—it's the perfect chaser for this particular cocktail of 60s avant-garde cinema.