This films has a lot remarkable qualities going for it: it has an abundance of clever direction and writing, Julie Christie is dazzling and backed by a strong supporting cast, and it's a fascinating snapshot of its era. My only issue is the narrative flow: it often moves too fast, robbing scenes of emotional impact and creating confusing transitions. Still, it kept me engrossed and eager for a second viewing.
The film is exceptionally twee. Charming and light hearted from the start, it keeps me as a viewer at a distance not feeling the emotional depth that I was anticipating. The film is does contain bright spots in the acting performances by all of the main actors. All of them are spot on and do redeem the film. Without them there would be no reason to watch, though ultimately that is not enough to keep me invested.
Extra star added bc this is the Julie Christie show. She owns every scene, yet I prefer Billy Liar for early Schlesinger. One can't argue however that this is the better time capsule of mid-60s UK. There is a snarky view of high society here that I enjoy, almost as much as the Three Stooges having pie fights with dudes in tuxedos. Maybe bc I am poor I enjoy seeing the seedier and sillier sides of the rich. 4 stars
It's too long and has a total of zero redeeming characters, but it's one of the better films to capture the 1960s. Christie's behavior is repellant only in that she's a woman. Male characters in movies have been acting horribly since the first talkie. I wasn't prepared for the boundary-pushing: nudity, openly gay characters, blatant allusions to sex -- no innuendo here. An important if flawed film.
"Put away your Penguin Freud, Diana." This was full of lines like this gem, which is a jab aimed at JC's character. But I wouldn't agree with the synopsis that Diana is shiftless or "drifting"—this film is pleasant and fresh because she makes a lot of deliberate (and unconventional) choices, regretting all of them for only a moment before hunting happily onward.
(2.5 stars) Julie Christie is such a good actress and Schlesinger is a very accomplished director. HOWEVER... this film is a straight up character study of its main character, who is completely vapid, conniving and quite flighty. I just have zero interest in her lying, cheating and manipulating her way to fame. I don't watch the Kardishian TV shows as I have no interest in this kind of story in the least.
The film as a whole is a bit like the lead character, a mess. However there are individual scenes that make the 'Darling' experience worthwhile. The same applies to the camera work, framing and editing decisions. The opening credits sequence is a favourite. Also how the director works a room when there are lots of characters milling about, dancing or even doing nothing.
Julie Christy and Dirk Bogarde are predictably superb, and perfectly calculated cinematography eloquently highlights this very cynical picture of London society in 1965. The only thing wrong with DARLING is that, like the society it portrays, it is too tightly wound-up.
terrific movie, creative mise-en-scene by Schlesinger, he's clearly inspired by Godard and Antonioni. Great performances by the guys, Dirk Bogarde and Laurence Harvey. Julie Christie, on the other hand, is awful-incredible to think she won an Oscar for this. It's not the first time the Academy got it wrong. Jennifer Lawrence is the most recent example of the Academy's horniness for young, semi talented women.
Julie Christie deserved her Oscar. So did the scriptwriters--"Should Popes be ancestors?" And no on screen sex when it is much about sex! When the lead character becomes a princess one is reminded of Princess Diana's own life. Both are Dianas. A very unusual, complex work from Schlesinger. I did not appreciate the film when I saw it in the Sixties; now I do. What a great year for Christie--this and "Dr Zhivago."