Darling review – Julie Christie’s romantic satire of swinging 60s has a terrific punch

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Julie Christie Stars in John Schlesinger's Timeless Satire 'Darling' Re-released for 60th Anniversary"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

John Schlesinger's film 'Darling,' released in 1965 and now re-released for its 60th anniversary, retains a unique charm despite some dated elements. The film stars Julie Christie as Diana Scott, a model and aspiring actress navigating the vibrant and often superficial world of swinging London. The screenplay, penned by Frederic Raphael, cleverly channels the influence of the French New Wave while depicting Diana's rise from an innocent young woman to a figure entangled in complex relationships with two men: Robert Gold, played by Dirk Bogarde, and Miles Brand, portrayed by Laurence Harvey. The film's exploration of themes such as love, ambition, and societal expectations is underscored by its wry humor and a keen eye for cultural critique, particularly in its portrayal of media and advertising. Schlesinger's direction captures both the glamour and the absurdity of the era, making the film a fascinating reflection on the social dynamics of 1960s Britain.

As Diana becomes increasingly embroiled in her romantic entanglements, the narrative cleverly juxtaposes her personal evolution with broader societal issues. Robert Gold, who hosts a television show addressing cultural concerns, becomes a pivotal figure in her life, leading her into a world of more sophisticated social circles. However, the film does not shy away from the darker aspects of their relationship, revealing Robert's possessive tendencies and the emotional toll it takes on Diana. The film's incidental details, such as the contrasting vehicles driven by the characters and the satirical portrayal of charity events, add layers to the narrative, highlighting the era's contradictions. Christie's performance as Diana is marked by a blend of innocence and resilience, standing in stark contrast to the more flamboyant portrayals of her male counterparts. Overall, 'Darling' is a poignant and incisive commentary on the complexities of love and ambition against the backdrop of a rapidly changing society, showcasing Schlesinger's talent for storytelling with a sharp edge.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The review of "Darling" offers a reflective look at a film that encapsulates the essence of swinging London while also highlighting its dated elements. The film, initially released in 1965, showcases themes of romance, ambition, and societal critique through the character of Diana Scott, played by Julie Christie. The retrospective nature of the review suggests both admiration for the film's artistic value and a recognition of its shortcomings in contemporary context.

Cultural Commentary

The review seems to aim at evoking nostalgia for the 1960s while also questioning the cultural ideals of that era. By examining Diana's journey through her relationships and societal expectations, the review portrays a critique of the superficiality and moral dilemmas of that time. The mention of abortion and divorce as experiences devoid of societal shame indicates an attempt to normalize discussions around these subjects, which were often taboo.

Audience Perception

By situating a classic film within the current cultural landscape, the review seeks to engage audiences who appreciate both cinema history and social commentary. The language used, particularly phrases like "brittle, sophisticated chatter," suggests a nuanced view that may resonate with modern audiences who are familiar with both the film's original context and its reception today. This duality may create a connection with those who value cultural reflection and critique.

Potential Omissions

While the review does a commendable job of exploring the film's themes and execution, it may gloss over the complexities of the societal issues presented in the film. The portrayal of Parisian scenes as "a rather saucer-eyed English view" could imply a certain bias or limitation in understanding cultural differences. This presents an opportunity for deeper exploration of how different societies perceive and handle similar themes.

Manipulative Elements

The review does not overtly manipulate its audience; however, the use of nostalgic language could evoke a longing for an idealized past. While the review acknowledges the film's dated elements, it still frames them within the context of ambition and artistic expression, which could influence readers to view the film through a more forgiving lens.

Trustworthiness

The review appears to be a balanced analysis, recognizing both the merits and flaws of the film. It does not aim to mislead but rather to reflect on a significant work's impact over time. The insights shared are drawn from a place of appreciation, albeit with a critical eye towards how societal norms have evolved since the film's release.

This analysis reflects on the film's historical significance as well as its cultural implications, providing a nuanced perspective that invites further discussion on the intersection of art and society.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Some of it feels a bit dated now, and that brittle, sophisticated chatter in the cocktail party scenes has a fingernails-down-the-blackboard screechiness that can’t have been intended at the time. But John Schlesinger’s winsome adventure from 1965 still has verve and ambition, a romantic satire of swinging London now on rerelease for its 60th anniversary.

Julie Christie plays Diana Scott, a model and actor who enjoys an insouciantly upward rake’s progress in smart-set London: an innocent, almost childlike Becky Sharp-type character, for all her dissolute encounters, and abortion and divorce are notably presented without sorrowing dismay and disapproval. The wry, Oscar-winning screenplay from Frederic Raphael imports and anglicises the influence of Godard, Resnais, Varda and the French New Wave; fashion models and advertising are vitally important; there is a media interview with a writer (English author and don Hugo Dyson has a cameo as a supposed author of provincial decency and integrity); and we get the occasional gloomy brooding about the bomb. Interestingly, however, the scenes set in Paris where Diana witnesses a live sex show, are a rather saucer-eyed English view of the naughty French, and would never pass muster in an actual French film. Having said which, Schlesinger manages freeze-frame images quite as well as the continentals.

Christie’s ingenue is a girl from a good English family, who got married too young to a decent but boring chap. Soon she is caught between two lovers played by two acting thoroughbreds whose faces have an amazing and sometimes near-gargoyle expression of worldliness: Dirk Bogarde and Laurence Harvey. Bogarde is Robert Gold, who fronts an earnest TV show about culture called Art and You. We see him conducting interviews in the street about what passersby think is most shaming in modern British society. Schlesinger gives us what looks like hilarious, genuine voxpop footage in which people declare that Britain’s most shaming things are, variously, traffic problems and the prevalence of homosexuality.

One of Robert’s interviewees is Diana who soon finds herself in an extramarital entanglement with him. When they go to a hotel room, Robert has to pretend they are a married couple by buying a suitcase and making it feel respectably heavy for the bellboy by covertly filling it with copies of the old London Evening News – the headline of which is an irresistible madeleine for non-swinging Britain: MINERS – ALL HOPE VANISHES.

Without any great agonising, Robert leaves his homely wife and children to move in with Diana in her swinging London flat (she is thrilled by the “gorgeous negroes” upstairs, a very 1965 script moment) and Robert introduces her to an elegant new stratum of society where she meets oleaginous smoothie Miles Brand, an adman played by Harvey; he gets her on his books and his German clients love Diana’s “Aryan” look. Diana also befriends a gay fashion photographer Malcolm (played by actor turned author Roland Curram) who accompanies her on holiday.

The film is full of incidental detail that will grip all fans of bygone Britain. Uptight Robert drives an Austin 1100 (like the one beloved of Basil Fawlty) whereas Miles drives a groovy Volvo sports car – the kind that Roger Moore had playing Simon Templar in The Saint. But the parade of ironies continues. Miles gets Diana promotional work at a grotesque charity event where people donate to famine relief while gorging themselves on food and wine, and even secures her a walk-on role in a sub-Hammer movie. She also plays the role of a Renaissance principessa in a silly TV ad for chocolate, filmed at the palazzo of a suave and recently widowed Italian nobleman who is entranced by Diana – and she reaches the Grace Kelly moment in her career.

Christie is always in danger of being upstaged by Bogarde and Harvey, pouting male divas both, and her performance is in fact a model of restraint and self-effacement compared with these preening exquisites. Bogarde shows us a flash of something spiteful and even sinister in the way he treats Diana at the very end, and also in his spasm of jealous rage when he realises she has been cheating on him, dragging her down an escalator in the London underground and bellowing the word “whore” in that refined voice. The bland, amiable, noncommittal Diana certainly doesn’t deserve that label. It’s directed with terrific punch with Schlesinger, who – as in Midnight Cowboy and Far from the Madding Crowd – has a flair for showing us innocents who wish to survive.

Darling is in UK cinemas from 30 May and on 4K UHD and Blu-ray from 16 June

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian