jery-tillotson-1
I had not seen this film since 1965 when I was a college student but remember how electrifying it was to see a young, charismatic Julie Christie at the beginning of her peak years. She's given some great scenes to show off her multi-faceted personality and she throws herself into the amoral model, Diana, who sleeps her way to the top. I can't imagine any other actress who could have done this without being repulsed by her naked greed and amorality. Christie had an inner radiance that makes her likable throughout this ground-setting import from London. England had become a hot movie center during this era, giving us such phenomenal movies like "Georgy Girl," "women in love," "Isadora," and many more. We can see this movie as a time machine which captures the raw energy of that era as our sexuality began to expand into new realms from the staid values of the past. This is a terrific movie to watch from time to time and watch an early phenomenon begin her golden career.
Tim Kidner
I find it rather shocking that Darling was released in the year that I was born - it's dated, a museum piece, almost and I'm glad that I think myself as being more open and less sneering and cynical.My film bible, Halliwells, before its demise, awarded Scheslinger's 1965 film a rare maximum 4 stars - they usually only gave 2 or 3 films per year such a rating and so I was really looking forward to watching this, as Julie Christie was indeed a fine and attractive actress.However, despite its cleverness and swipes at the glamour and beauty industry in the swinging '60s London, it's just too clinical, hard and unapproachable. Diana (Christie) is immediately presented just as she's telling us (via an overbearing voice-over commentary) that she's no home-breaker, but has already dragged successful TV journalist, Robert (Dirk Bogarde) from his wife and children and is fully enjoying their affair.From here-on in, it seems to be one gentleman suitor to the next, all the way up to foreign aristocracy. Dotted about and in-between are some wonderfully strange characters and scenarios, often in exotic European cities. Some fairly wacky and bohemian partying scenes remind me somewhat of the great Fellini, as in his La Dolce Vita. On my second viewing, this time, I cannot quite 'see' the scene/s that warrants the DVD's 15 certificate. There's no actual frontal nudity, or swearing, though some of the adult orientated (including 'homosexuality is becoming a menace in modern society') sort of attitude back then, they are hardly applicable now.The crisp, stark black and white photography should be a reason for celebration but it's like having the main central living-room light on all evening - it gets rather overbearing and head-achy, especially over its just over two hour running time.There are some real moments within, though, but the Oscar that Christie swooped misses me somewhat and the script, also Oscar-winning doesn't seem to stand out particularly. Back in its day, though, I'm sure it was quite different - and scathing enough to be seen as something profoundly exciting, especially for a British film.Is it worth buying today? The transfer quality is superb, but as far as the actual film is concerned, it will fall into two camps. Those who would have seen it and films of the like back in the day and want to be re-acquainted, or want to replace a worn out VHS and those exploring this era of Brit neo-realist cinema, like me. There are some real gems in this genre but some haven't stood the test of time that well and some have. Sadly, 'Darling' slots into the former but if you want to sample the most influential of them, then it is a must. It's a reasonable price at least and you may well enjoy it more than I did - and it still IS a good film.
secondtake
Darling (1965)A black and white, Mod London romance and its aftermath, over and over, with all the tumult and glitz of the times. The events race forward and create a real tornado of activity, centering around one woman, Diana Scott, who is perfectly played by Julie Christie. Diana is as charming and beautiful as the actress who plays her, and she is drawn to men, to the movies, to modeling, and generally to success and ruin, up and down, in a wild ride.British movies had a vigorous neo-realism (British New Wave) movement in the late 50s and early 60s, and by the time of this film it had segued into a purely celebratory pop mode, cashing in on the times, and the British Invasion in music. "Darling" is kind of in both worlds, I think, the same way the 1964 "A Hard Days Night" is in both, though they are very different films. But there is a frankness to the filming that belies the (at first) entertaining and largely fictional subject. And unlike the earlier neo-real innovators ("Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner" etc.), the focus here is on a privileged class, and on the rising fortunes of Diana as she moves from one relationship to another.The filming gives these seemingly flighty, alternately glib and sad events a somberness they need. Director John Schlesinger was a British New Wave upstart, and would later do the American masterpiece "Midnight Cowboy," which might be said to have the same mixture of inventive fiction and believable raw realism.Diana is a superficial woman who cashes in on her good looks and fun temperament, and her many men never seem to mind at first. She leads, but she also get towed along, falling in love, never seeming to be quite as happy as she should. Indeed, the movie begins with her explaining through a voice-over her inner yearning for what matters in life, since it's so hard to otherwise tell. Toward the end, in Italy (after England and France had been exhausted), she says to her newest man, "If I could just feel complete." And she means it. But then, in the next scenes, she's having fun again, telling lies and losing her bearings.Christie is a marvel, really, even though you might just say she's playing herself (though not acting out the events in her life, we hope). This is her breakout film (along with her next film, "Dr. Zhivago"), and she really does typify the Mod English girl, fresh and carefree. There is even a very brief nude shot, from behind, that is a sign of mid-60s liberation in both life and in filmmaking. Dirk Bogarde is certainly excellent, too, and subtle, and indeed the whole cast is first rate, maybe because everyone is playing their contemporary selves with fictional names.So the movie is terrific, even if it sometimes seems to keep meandering through the paces over the whole two hours. It wraps you in its world. Inevitably the outcome is as somber as the greys of the filming. What else would happen to someone who can't find love, or happiness, or meaning? It's impossible to really feel complete, as a person, if you search outside yourself too much, and hers is a superficial world of her own making, Diana is a superficial woman with lots of unexplored depth.The writing here is totally first rate, the filming is first rate, the editing and pace first rate. It's simply a well made movie about a contemporary dilemma. "Thank God it's never too late," she says at the end, and in fact you know that she should really say, "God, everything stays the same." I don't think there is meant to be an echo here of Grace Kelly in particular, but there is a similar arc to Diana's career (and her name, of course, predicts a later Princess Diana). Diana's apparent sexual freedom is laden with that old convention of marriage (which she early on wisely says she doesn't want) and so some extent she can be a freewheeling young woman partly because she is always taken care of, and increasingly so. An interesting take on whether this is an accurate picture at all of the times is in this short apolitical article: www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10813.This movie ranks, for me, almost up there with "Alfie" and "Georgie Girl" (two of my favorites) as a look at the times in England. Honest, sometimes disturbing, and artistically considered. Don't miss it.
