Darling (1965) Poster

(1965)

User Reviews

Review this title
80 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
The Rise of the Celebritocracy
JamesHitchcock29 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"Darling" is a good example of that short-lived genre, the "Swinging London" film of the sixties. ("Georgy Girl" and "Blow-Up" are others that come to mind). The film is among London's high society, not Society in the traditional aristocratic sense but the new high society of the up-and-coming class of the era, the celebritocracy of film and television personalities, of pop and sports stars, of fashion models and photographers. "Blow-Up" was set in the same social milieu, but whereas Antonioni's film was concerned with more philosophical issues, "Darling" is a social satire.

The central character is Diana Scott, a glamorous young fashion model, and the film follows her complicated love life as she seduces one powerful lover after another in an attempt to sleep her way to the top. She abandons her young husband, Tony, for Robert Gold, an influential television journalist, causing the break-up of his own marriage. (Robert's surname is clearly intended to have a symbolic significance, emphasising that Diana is a gold-digger). Diana then moves on to Miles Brand, a film producer who offers her more in the way of advantages than Robert, and ends up marrying Cesare, an Italian prince. Feeling trapped in an unhappy marriage, Diana attempts to return to England and to Robert, only to find that he no longer wants her. (The film's references to a "Princess Diana", unhappily married to an older man, have in recent years taken on a resonance they did not have in 1965).

Another reviewer has commented that whereas most satirical films have attacked authority figures or the traditional Establishment, the satire in "Darling" is aimed at the swinging jet-set themselves. (British literature has a long tradition of satire written from a conservative viewpoint, from John Dryden and Alexander Pope to Evelyn Waugh and Michael Wharton, but there does not appear to be a similar tradition in the cinema). For most of the film Diana seems cold, heartless and amoral; only at the end, after the failures of her marriage to Cesare and of her attempted reconciliation with Robert, does she show any sincere emotion. The other members of the celebritocracy that we see, with the partial exception of Robert, are equally shallow, selfish and given over to the pursuit of pleasure and self-interest. Cesare himself represents older, traditional values; the Italy that we see here is not the "Dolce Vita" world of Fellini and Antonioni but an older world of reserved, gentlemanly, Anglophile aristocrats. Cesare speaks a courtly, old-fashioned English, dresses like an English country gentleman and has decorated his palazzo in the style of an English stately home. Perhaps the fact that he is a foreigner has prevented Diana from realising what a conservative figure he is; given their completely different sets of values, the failure of their marriage comes as no surprise.

Julie Christie's Oscar for her role as Diana was in my view well deserved, but it seems to have come as something of a surprise, as Julie Andrews was expected to take the award for her role in "The Sound of Music". Certainly, "The Sound of Music", sentimental, warm-hearted and advocating family values, is the sort of film that the Academy have traditionally favoured. "Darling", by contrast, is an example of what in the sixties was a newer style of film-making: cool, deliberate and unemotional, taking a clear, cold-eyed look at society. (Another British film in this style is "Get Carter" from a few years later, which subjected the criminal underworld- a subject which in films is often glamorised or mythologised- to a similar scrutiny). Besides Christie, there is also a very good performance from Dirk Bogarde as Robert.

A term which is sometimes used about this film is "dated". Certainly, some of its aspects- the fashions, hairstyles, cars and slang of the sixties- have now all passed into history. It was among the last of the mainstream movies to be made in black and white, which in itself gives it an old-fashioned look to the modern generation, although in the sixties the photography was no doubt seen as crisp, clean and stylish. A modern film on a similar subject would doubtless be made in colour with more explicit sex scenes; references to matters such as homosexuality (it is implied that a photographer who befriends Diana is gay) and drug-taking would be more overt.

The subject-matter of the film, however, does not seem dated at all. Our own era has an even more all-pervasive cult of celebrity than did the sixties. Indeed, the very concept of celebrity has been debased. Whatever else it may have been, the celebritocracy of the sixties, the world of the likes of Terence Stamp, David Bailey, Jean Shrimpton, George Best, the Beatles and Julie Christie herself, was a meritocracy of talent, style and beauty. Today, television and the tabloid press are obsessed with the doings of people who have no greater claim to fame than being the ex-wife of a retired footballer, or a topless model, or someone who once took part in a "reality" TV programme. A modern remake of "Darling" might make for some interesting viewing. 8/10
44 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The sixties come alive
goldgreen29 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
There is a good argument to be made for labelling this as the most outrageous film of the 1960s. Firstly it came out in 1965 when the world was still unprepared for the hippie, let-it-all-hang out revolution of the next few years. Secondly it is not looking to preach to the converted but is aimed straight at your average cinema goer regardless of age. While the film works on many levels what struck me as most outrageous was the steady and blatant references to a full gamut of sexual adventure. It is almost as if the writers wanted to see how much they could get away with. It starts out with adultery and the full impact of this on a family, followed by oral sex, an orgy, a private sex show, sex between different races, homosexuality, lesbians. Perhaps most outrageous is the scene where the Italian waiter first gets off with the male photographer and then the next night gets off with Diana. Arguably there is also a whiff of incest when Diana first fancies the son of the Italian duke and then marries the Duke himself. Of course this being 1965 this is a million miles from porn, but simply referencing this stuff in a film is incredible enough.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
window into a sliver of social history
mukava99128 August 2010
Darling is known generally as an iconic "Sixties" movie. It is at once a product of its time and a still-born anachronism. Though conceived and shot in 1964-65, there is nary a hint of the Beatles and their ilk, who by the time this film went in front of the cameras were unquestionably the major pop cultural phenomenon on earth, and certainly in Britain where this story takes place. The characters who parade before us in this slickly packaged satire are far more evocative of the earlier "La Dolce Vita" period. Perhaps the newly emerging youthful counterculture is absent because the groupings visited here are, in contrast to the many- millioned teenage Beatles fans, older, more rarefied and further up the social ladder in corporate boardrooms, haute-couture industry gatherings, mainstream television production units, the profit-driven B-movie exploitation industry, and the haunts of continental royalty. Sparkling and memorable as it is, the musical scoring by John Dankworth was also dated by mid-1965 when this film came out.

The satire is often from the finger-pointing, underscoring school. Best example: A portly dowager in furs at a charity function stuffs an hors d'oeuvre into her mouth with a bejeweled hand as a speaker pompously thanks those present for fighting the scourge of hunger in the world.

Screenwriter Frederic Raphael and director John Schlesinger organize their material in semi- documentary fashion with voice-over narration by the title character, Diana Scott (Julie Christie) in order to reveal her hypocrisy as she describes various episodes in her life while the unfolding screen actions ironically contradict her words. She portrays herself verbally as innocent, sensible and basically decent when in fact she's selfish, dishonest and miserable. The underlying causes of her selfishness, dishonesty and misery are neither explained nor explored, but she is presented in a way that encourages us to regard her as a micro-consequence of the crass, materialistic, soulless macro-society around her. The episodes in her bumpy road to despair succeed one another briskly enough to keep us diverted and shaking our heads at the imperfect human types on display. The arc of the story takes Diana higher and higher on the material plane until she can rise no more, only to find emptiness at the top. The point seems to be "looks, money and prestige aren't everything – but look how entertainingly we're presenting that platitude."

This film and Doctor Zhivago, released shortly after, made Julie Christie the most honored and publicized actress in the world for about a year and it's interesting to compare her Diana Scott with her Lara character in David Lean's epic. Lean, a stern and experienced taskmaster, got more solid acting out of her. Schlesinger's grip is looser, resulting in a more uninhibited but less disciplined performance. As one flavor of the media-created "It" girls of the Sixties (Ann Margret, Twiggy, Goldie Hawn being other flavors) she embodied a certain attitude toward life that was in the air in the industrialized world in those days, an informality of demeanor which some would call proletarian or others would call "beatnik"; hers was a looser, more naturalistic look, a beauty outside the parlor. Julie Christie was beautiful without a speck of makeup while the wind was blowing her hair in four different directions and seemed to be an entirely different person depending on which angle she presented to the camera or what kind of light was bouncing off her partly chiseled, partly soft and sensuous features. Her very presence lent a depth that may not have been written into the character. With another actress, one can only wonder how effective this film would have been. Her chief fellow players, Laurence Harvey and Dirk Bogarde, give splendid support, as does the rest of the cast. But the spotlight is definitely on Julie; it is her showcase.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the very best
trpdean25 October 2003
I find this movie unique. If you have read of, or can remember the mid-1960s, you know that the character Julie Christie plays was absolutely the one adored by everyone- by all who considered themselves "in" and "trendy" and "modern". And she is completely taken apart by this movie.

I can think of only one other movie at any time in any language that so thoroughly demolishes the pretensions of the very people whom the smart set aspired to be at the time the movie was coming out. Amazingly that movie was 'Alfie', that came out about that same year. (A movie like La Dolce Vita is in a different mode - the people are the new meretricious post-war haute bourgeois class - a frequent target through history, and in that way, like The Ice Storm or Interiors or American Beauty as an attack on such values).

Virtually all "serious satires" take on targets that the "chattering classes" consider suspect - the hidebound, the hypocritical, the "authority figures" whom youth wish to overturn. Not this one. Astonishingly, in the midst of mod London, the very middle of the swinging 60s, you get a movie that looks at its non-committal "live for the moment" hedonistic experimentation and blasts its moral character with a cannon.

This just doesn't happen in movies - compare say, "If" or "O Lucky Man" or say, "Network" (to name three I like), and you'll see the targets as the familiar powers that be - from school to television. But Julie Christie's character is what people thought was new and wonderful - and its superficiality is blown to bits.

It's as if a movie now were to look at a poor black woman raising a child alone - and blast her for any behavior that contributed to this state. It just won't be done - the sympathies are all running FOR that character. So were the sympathies for the Julie Christie character in that time - and the movie is very very brave in running so utterly against the current.

I just love the movie - it's a step up from Schlesinger's earlier ones -the script is superb, the performances are excellent without exception. (Lawrence Harvey is particularly good - but of course it's Christie's movie).

Do see it. It's also full of wonderfully imaginative touches - such as the ending scene.
58 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Christie and the film's script are both stunning
JuguAbraham25 March 2017
Julie Christie deserved her Oscar. So did the scriptwriters--"Should Popes be ancestors?" And no on-screen sex when the film is considerably 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."

The social commentary is hard hitting--young black boys serving snacks and drinks to perverted white adults, the facetious interest of the idle rich in feeding the hungry around the world as the rich gobble food they do not need to eat, of rich princes busy renovating their palace's washing closets.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Darling Just Darling
irajoelirajoel5 October 2007
I first saw this film when I was a teenager and it made a big impact on me, and I'm happy to report that after 40 some odd years the film stills holds up and entertains one very well indeed. Of course at the center is the beautiful Julie Christie who is in every scene. The story is about a beautiful but basically empty young woman and the shallow life she lives in mod London of the 60's. The film is a bit dated and some of the points that Schlesinger makes are sometimes labored, heavy handed and overdone ie the charity ball, the orgy like party in Paris, but these are small qualms. The film has a terrific performance by Bogarde and Christie was the best choice for an Oscar that year. The people on this list who harp about her not deserving an Oscar and that Julie Andrews was robbed because she didn't win for the soppy unwatchable Sound Of Music do not know what they are talking about. It was bad enough that they gave Andrews an Oscar for Mary Poppins the year before. And besides the Oscars rarely give the award to the "best" performance or film of the year anyway. Just take a look at what and who has won in the last few years. Crash Julia Roberts, Gweneth Palthrow, Gladitor I could go on and on.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The living proof that the most adorable women aren't necessarily the most likable...
ElMaruecan8225 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Let's admit it, we've all known girls like that, joyful, bubbly, free-spirited and cute as a button. Half girls-next-door, half Hollywood starlets, they weren't too tall because high stature could impress men and be a source of insecurities, their blond hair triggered accessibility (brunettes are more mysterious) and their faces held such a radiant joie-de-vivre smile anything coming from their mouth had the resonance of a mermaid's melody.

Well, that's Julie Christie as Diana Scott, one of these girls who embraced life with shining insolence, hovering over it from a socle built upon years of unending compliments. They made pretty girls look ordinary to the point of plain mediocrity, they could catch husbands' eyes while their misses were paying the cashier, they could take a five minute stroll in a job fair and be hired anywhere. Diana was like this: blessed by the Gods, having any doors opened to her without the burden of knocking. All it took for her was just existing. Other women could hardly sympathize with her and men would only wish to possess her or if the film was made today, get committed to her for the sole satisfaction of sharing pictures on Facebook and making other guys jealous.

Yes, there's an ugly word for that and it's "trophy girl" and while this could have worked as a title, John Schlesinger and writer Frederic Raphael had the right instinct by titling the film "Darling" which is certainly a deserved attribute for Diana ... at first glance. At the end, we'd think twice before using that epithet for "Darling" is the story of a girl who could have so many things in her life she never got properly satisfied, a girl that could have inspired every lyric from Elvis Presley's "You look like an angel". Indeed, this is a woman whose first accomplishments in the span of twenty minutes is to cheat on her dull husband and wrecks a happy family. Hardly the material that invites for empathy... and yet femme-enfant types tend to be forgiven, like we forgive children.

That's the nature of the beast and Julie Christie is such a spectacle by herself that watching her smiling, flirting, crying, pretending, make all the experience worth it. Christie was born to play that role, just watch her Oscar-winning clip and you'll be glad she's at least more a darling that the character she plays. There's a spontaneity in Christie/Diana that can melt the iciest heart, a sort of superficial innocence that awakens the inner father in each man and forgive even the act of cheating. That she lacks direction in her life is no problem at all, it's up to the director to give her life a meaning. And "Darling" is not much a character study but an exploration of a certain evolution of society that allowed such figures to bloom... and proliferate.

Yes, Dianas existed because the sixties permitted it. Her first husband bores her, so much for marital commitment. Robert, played by Dirk Bogarde, is a well-spoken, educate and literate journalist who wins her heart through his intellect. That such a man could fall for her and jeopardizes his family life for her speaks volumes about the power of that not-so-bright pint-sized beauty. And so they live together, settle down, have parties and she discovers the downside of intellectuals, the sound of typewriters and the lifelessness of books: she's bored, she hates books, she needs more... and then she wanders in her life from a casting couch that gives her a debut in a cheap horror flick to the kind of charity jobs where you're required to announce the winning numbers with your best smile. This is where she meets a sleazy playboy named Miles, and played by Lawrence Harvey.

At that point, it gets obvious that the life of Diana is a torchlight to explore the evolution of Britain in the 'swinging sixties' (I borrowed that from the synopsis), it was the time of the mini-skirt and the sexual revolution and Diana was a living incarnation of all the side-effects of women's liberation. She divorces, gets an abortion, gets in parties where games of dubious morality are played and enjoys the idleness of the dolce vita with her friend, he likes men but he's a photographer so he can't depart from the rule that every man has eyes for Diana. Her world overshadows the essential, as suggested by the opening credits sequence where a giant poster of her face replaces one about featuring starving African children. A similar echo is made in a sequence that hasn't dated well where uptight British bourgeois are served petits-fours by Black servants.

The future director of "Midnight Cowboy" has a rather inquisitive eye on British mores and shows that freedom is a smokescreen hiding a social farce. And being a constant man's pinball, Diana ends up losing the grip on her own life and can only seek unhappiness through wealth by accepting to marry a rich Italian widower... and subscribe to the same emptiness that governed her life. At the end, we don't think much of Diana Scott and we're not surprised by the demise she tries to attenuate in her voice-over narration, for there is a price to pay for having a beauty that makes them so accessible to fame or success, becoming inaccessible to decent human beings who can keep them grounded into reality.

"Darling" is an unexpectedly dark portrayal of such a life, it gets a tad long and repetitive at times, I doubt such a character deserved that long a time span but what remains is the time-capsule, and the prototype of Diana Scott, an adorable girl that turns out to be not so likable but by the standards of our ego-driven social-network and Kardashians-adoring era, she's definitely a darling with a major D.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
London in the '60s in all its glory
blanche-216 February 2009
Julie Christie is "Darling" in this 1965 film directed by John Schlesinger, and also starring Dirk Bogarde and Laurence Harvey. Schlesinger does a beautiful job of showing us '60s London as it was, and yet he managed to make a film that is just as timely now.

Julie Christie is model Diana Scott, a gorgeous, ambitious young woman who moves from man to man without attachment and with the intention of helping her career. She dumps her first husband and breaks up the marriage of a British journalist (Bogarde) and then moves on to a pleasure-seeking advertising executive (Harvey), and finally, marries an Italian prince. It's one of those lives that sounds great - she has beauty, money, men, glamour, travels in the circles of the beautiful people. But she has no emotional attachments, no love, and nothing that she has feels right or is anything she wants. All the external trappings of celebrity, but it's a shell.

A really terrific movie, and I have to agree with the posters whose comments I read that Julie Christie is perfection in every way. Bogarde and Harvey give her excellent support. As an aside, Christie's wardrobe is stunning.

None of the characters are very likable, except perhaps Bogarde, who in spite of leaving his wife and family does truly love Diana.

Despite the cold realities of Darling, we're even more obsessed with celebrity today, which makes the film even more interesting. But when you look at a photo, see someone in a magazine or on the screen, you're only dealing with a persona, not the flesh and blood individual. It's a fantasy. Darling shows the audience what's behind the fantasy - and it's not very pretty.
52 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
in times like those
lee_eisenberg6 August 2005
The opening scene in "Darling" was an all too accurate prediction of how society would become. Then, there's Julie Christie as Diana Scott, a ravishing but ruthless model who quite literally will stop at nothing to make it to the top. Unfortunately for her (and everyone else), the world of Swinging London proves to be not quite what she expected.

"Darling" hit two birds with one stone, launching the careers of both John Schlesinger and Julie Christie (although he had previously cast her in a supporting role in "Billy Liar"). Maybe it wasn't the greatest movie ever, but it did offer a different view of fame from what everyone expects going into the famous world. I guess that life is like that sometimes!
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A real masterwork that lets Christie shine and peels mid-60s b&w London
secondtake29 May 2011
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.
30 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Wish it had a stronger lead character
gbill-7487731 October 2022
I liked this film most when it slipped in a few points about the entitled little bubble these people live in compared to people of color, e.g. When the model's face (Julie Christie) is put up on a billboard over an image seeking charity for starving children in Africa while the opening credits are rolled. I also liked its acknowledgement of gay and trans people, beautiful cinematography in places like Capri, and the idea of a woman fully empowered with her sexuality, including having an abortion. The film is pretty strong in its first half because we're immersed into London in the 60's, and director John Schlesinger moves things along. It doesn't do enough with the potential of the story, however, and got much less interesting to me in its second half.

I have to say, I didn't care for the main character much at all, who was unlikeable while going from one man to the next, cheating as she went. She climbs a ladder of sorts, making connections through men to appear in B films and print ads before getting married to an older Italian prince. She gets bored quickly when the man in her life isn't paying attention to her, not having much by way of her own interests. She makes decisions that she's then unhappy over in a bit of a loop, which gets tedious for a film of this length, and it's hard to sympathize as she sits distraught in a castle while the servants feed her.

The ultimate fate of the character was undoubtedly the point, but the film would have resonated with me far more had she been a stronger person, one who was sexually free, made some mistakes, but eventually found happiness one way or another. She seems at peace most when she's with a gay friend, and mentions that she doesn't even like sex that much - how incredible would it have been had she ended up in a platonic relationship, or realizing she didn't need a partner. As it is, despite the shock of the nudity and the swinging Parisian club scene, it kind of plays like a morality tale. In any event, it just left me cold, because I didn't care what happened to her.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Christie, Schlesinger and a milestone.
littlemartinarocena6 July 2007
"Darling", as it happens with most genuine works of art, it grows, it develops over the years and acquires a sort of clarity that, with the benefit of hindsight I will dare to call it, prophetic, as a social observation of its time. But what matters most is the film as a film. Brilliantly thought, written, directed, photographed and, of course, acted. Julie Christie became a symbol. She, clearly a very intelligent woman, surfed the waves of fame with an apparent detachment that I'm sure it's a sure sign of maturity and of a great respect for her profession and herself. If you think I love Julie Christie, you're right. But my love for her has to do with "Darling" and the age I was when I first saw it. The 60's were already in the past then but I saw them in the future, an immediate future.I can't imagine anyone, from any age, who loves film could be indifferent to this tale of isolation in a world moving fast towards an acceptable cult for celebrity. Not to be missed.
106 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great performances in a solid character film.
Rockwell_Cronenberg9 March 2012
Julie Christie won her only Oscar for her performance in John Schlesinger's Darling, and it's easy to see why. Her Diana Scott commands the screen, with Christie's iconic beauty becoming a fixation for men and women alike as she sleeps her way around the London scene. She goes through many different affairs, from the mature and emotional journalist played by Dirk Bogarde to the cynical ad executive played by Laurence Harvey and several others, none of them being enough to keep her grounded in one place.

It's a tale of a woman sleeping her way to the top, moving from circle to circle and losing herself along the way. Diana Scott is a deplorable character, moving around from man to man with no regard for the consequences of her actions, constantly bored and doing whatever she wants just to keep company around her, but Christie manages to make her compelling rather than grating. She has a transfixing presence that keeps your eyes glued to her even when you want to reach in there and slap her across the face.

Schlesinger's style is a clever mix of dark drama with the swinging style of London the '60s, effectively combining several genre elements into a well-paced product. The dynamics in the film seem commonplace now, but I was impressed by how innovative some of the approach was for this kind of understated drama. Like he did a few years later in his films Midnight Cowboy and Sunday Bloody Sunday, Schlesinger paved the way for homosexuality in mainstream cinema here, presenting characters of all sexual orientations (straight, gay and some seemingly in the middle) as bluntly as any other. One wouldn't take notice of it now but for it's time period and it's prominence, Schlesinger made some bold moves here.

The film is Christie's show, but the supporting cast does strong work as well. Bogarde commands the screen whenever he's on it and steals the most dramatic scene in the film from Christie, a smoldering display of rage and passion. Harvey's character is cold and detached, but he plays it with a smug coolness that is endlessly watchable. There's nothing about the film that resonates too strongly, but it's an impressive work all around, building around a shallow and amoral character to a film that is anything but.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Facile and lightweight (Time has not been kind. Not even a bit)
pfgpowell-130 October 2009
It is not original to observe that nothing dates faster than last year's fashion, but in the case of John Schlesinger's Darling that observation is very apt. Time has not been kind to this three-Oscars winner, and as the years roll by, time gets ever more cruel. There are some films from 40/50/60 years ago which still stand up, for many reasons, each time you see them, but Darling is left far behind. Made in 1965, I suspect it was seen as 'daring' and 'modern' with its, for the time, open attitude to sex and its less than discreet treatment of homosexuality. The film was released two years before gay sex was decriminalised in Britain, but gayness permeates the whole enterprise. Schlesinger, Dirk Bogarde and Roland Curram were all gay, and even Laurence Harvey, who in his private life was also something of a heterosexual wolf and married three times, also batted for both sides and all too often comes over as camp a row of tents. The film is credited as being the brainchild of Schlesinger, Joseph Janni, the producer and Frederic Raphael, who also wrote the screenplay, and one feels that they were rather taken with the idea of being 'shocking'. Elsewhere this has been described as a 'satire' on swinging London, but if that is the case, whatever satire was intended pretty much passed me by. The trouble is that despite its three Oscars - for Julie Christie, for Raphael's script and for the costumes - it just isn't very good. The whole enterprise is two dimensional and there is no character development at all. We care not a jot for the characters (except, in my case, the Italian prince. There might be hints that he, too, is a bit of a cad and no one in his right mind would buy his explanation that when he is in Rome, he will be sharing a mug of Horlicks with his mum and watching the ten o'clock news. Nevertheless, I did feel sorry for him that he had landed himself with such a high-maintenance new bride.) Darling herself - Diana Scott - comes over as rather too nice to be the amoral model sleeping her way to the top, or if not 'nice' then 'well brought up'. You get the feeling that her idea of doing something really bad would be to forget to write a thank-you note. She also seems rather too dim to be a scheming hussy, and I don't for a second buy the idea that she was merely interested in her modelling career. She had wannabe shires housewife written all over her. As for Dirk Bogarde, am I really the only guy to think that he is all too often very wooden, that when he acts, he is all to obviously 'acting'? He was perfect for all those lightweight Doctor comedies which kept the British nation quiet in the Fifties, but when he branched out into 'serious' roles, he couldn't quite seem to cut it. It will not have been public knowledge at the time that Bogarde, too, was gay - as a former matinée idol, he had a formidable female following - but he remains wholly unconvincing as a 'wronged man'. And furthermore as a cad arts journalist who selfishly jettisoned his wife and three children to shack up with a spoilt model, he does not deserve too much of our sympathy. Every time he got upset or angry with Julie Christie, he just seemed like a middle-aged queen in a spat with his lover. Laurence Harvey, comes over rather better as the cynical and amoral seducer, but he, too, has too many quotable lines to make the part feel normal. (Incidentally, Janni was Italian and his background was much in the realistic school of film-making, so it is ironic that, despite its would-be trendy facade, Darling's heritage all to often comes over as the brittle, old-fashioned middle class stage drama the kitchen sink school was intended to usurp.) Raphael's script is far too full of attempted epigrams and quotable quotes. It is far, far too self-conscious and clever-clever for its own good. I only watched this film because I got hold of a free DVD of it at the office, and I don't feel my life would have been any the poorer had I not seen it. It simply isn't half as good in retrospect as it was thought to be at the time. These things happen. Sad, but true. If this comes your way, either on TV or stuck inside your daily newspaper, first of all see whether you might not have something better to do. Don't be fooled by the Oscars. Oh, and why is sodomy and odd sexual practice always associated with 'being sophisticated'. Does that mean the rest of us are plain old unsophisticated hicks?
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
More than just a wonderful time capsule
Zen Bones29 November 2000
This is a breakthrough film depicting what a female with a fairy tale-like upbringing experiences when she gets into the real world. Julie Christie is magnificent as the free-spirited, swinging role model for women everywhere. She has men falling right and left for her and even promises of wealth beyond imagination. But her unfulfilment is perfectly depicted in this daring and innovative film. She falls for a famous dashing tele-journalist, but realises soon enough that she is no match for his brain. She falls for a slick and smarmy executive, hoping to find her place with the jet set. She sees the shallowness of that existence soon enough! She does eventually find some taste of fame and is swept away to Capri, one of the most romantic and beautiful spots in the world. But there she sees only the shallow reflection of her outer beauty when confronted with the deeper beauty of elderly women praying with grace and humility at a local church. She does also manage to meet a prince who wants to marry her. He gives her wealth, a title, an enormous glamourous estate, a tailor-made family (from a previous marriage) and his deepest admiration. Unfortunately, his admiration is no more deep for her than it might be for his prize horse or Rolls Royce. She has everything but love.

The film has much to say about the illusions of glamour that women are compelled to fulfil. They are compelled to fulfil those illusions because they never had an inkling that there could be anything else. Women could rub shoulders (and other body parts) with men of brilliance, of power, and of wealth, but their own surface existence could never be a match. The film is essentially a tragi-comedy, for beneath the delightful exterior of the film is the harsh reality that a surface life is no match for a life with purpose.

This film is also amazing because it is one of the few films that actually shows characters living in a real world, not just a world that revolves around the characters. Schlesinger fills the screen with a myriad of realities. The man on the street pontificating his views on city life, a famous author, celebrities, bohemians, a gay photographer who is not traumatised about what he is, and even that great symbol of solid innocence - the elderly woman feeding the pigeons at Picadilly Circus, they are all essentially equal in importance. We in fact are mainly introduced to Christie's character as she is plucked out of the street in an indiscriminate interview. She is much a product of the world as anyone else.

The film is still timely today, since there are still so many women who cling to the images and myths of ideal womanhood (ie: an illusion without soul or intelligence). All the performances are smashing. And yes, it is true, that swinging sixties feel is irresistible!
75 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dirty Diana
wes-connors5 August 2010
Beautiful British model Julie Christie (as Diana Scott) reflects upon her vacuous life as a swinging sixties jet setter... "Darling" is a time capsule. It's best-remembered for providing Ms. Christie with her "Best Actress" Oscar. Christie, if less her character, epitomized "Mod" in 1965. More extraordinary, in hindsight, is the work of director John Schlesinger - his ability to telegraph observations with a sharp bite, and to elicit fine performances, is on display throughout, and would reach fruition in a few years.

Christie's "Diana" is not very engaging in either a positive or negative way. You really don't like her much... You really don't dislike her much... She simply portrays empty sexual urgency. The film's narrative would have been improved by having the film's most likable character, Dirk Bogarde's "Robert Gold", as the moderator - yearning to understand Christie's mysterious and impossible to satisfy urges. Her pointless narration could be replaced by her male companions, beginning and ending with Mr. Bogarde.

****** Darling (8/3/65) John Schlesinger ~ Julie Christie, Dirk Bogarde, Laurence Harvey, Roland Curram
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
ldeangelis-7570820 February 2022
I may see this film differently than others, because I don't really see Diana as amoral. In fact, I see her as someone who does have a moral compass, one she chooses to ignore too often, as she's shed too many tears for one without scruples. She's symbolic of the hedonistic freedom of the youthful sixties still having ties to the values and standards of the fifties. Hence, she got married (50's), then cheated on her husband (60's), but loved the man she cheated with and left him for (50's), didn't concern herself with him being a husband and father (60's), wanted domesticity with him (50's), then aborted their baby (60's), needed the love and security he offered (50's), then rejected his offer to legally end their marriages and then legalize their relationship (60's). Most significant, she declares her love for Robert (50's), right before she has no strings sex with Miles (60's).

Diana wants to be free, to be a success at her modeling career, to socialize with important, trendy people, to partake of the freedom 60's London has to offer. Yet, at the same time, she has a need to be loved and cared for, she wants stability, devotion, loyalty, fidelity, all the things she's unable to fully give. She has a conscience, and can't escape it, which is why she threw a fit of anger when Robert confronted her about her infidelity. Her guilt made her turn her anger at herself toward him, because she knew everything that he said was true.

Her attempt to get on with her life becomes a disaster, as she cries during a photo shoot (thinking of Robert), gets drunk and silly and kills her pet fish (as an animal lover, I can't forgive that), then misses a chance to reconnect with Robert, which leads to her agreeing to marry an older monarch, who she doesn't care for, but can give her security, stability, as well as money and social status (50's again), yet she risks it by having a one night stand with a guy she just met (60's again).

It's the battle of the decades, in a war she can't win.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Cynically amusing fluff dressed up with pseudo-pungent observations
moonspinner553 June 2003
Director John Schlesinger is so anxious to score points against the British that he almost forgets to make the leading character's childish angst worth watching. Julie Christie is lovely if one-note (perhaps intentionally) as a working-class girl who rises above the muck to become a princess...but life for her is still unsatisfying behind castle walls. Trenchant look at the classes: the bourgeoisie, the beatniks, the flashy homosexuals, the Royals. Schlesinger's visual commentary (particularly at the auction, when the speaker is talking about starving countries while an overweight woman is scarfing down her food) seems awfully obvious now, but was it ever funny? Christie won a curious Best Actress Oscar, though another performance she gave in 1965--as Lara in "Doctor Zhivago"--was perhaps stronger. **1/2 from ****
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Darling Julie
jery-tillotson-114 June 2017
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.
25 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very dated and overlong, but nonetheless, fascinating
preppy-330 January 2001
Basically a character study of a beautiful model Diana Scott (Julie Christie) and her search for true love and happiness. The movie is SO 60s and goes on much too long (a half-hour could have been lost) and Dirk Bogarde gives a horrible performance. But I was never bored. The story is interesting, the settings fabulous and Julie Christie is stunningly beautiful and one hell of an actress (it's easy to see why she won an Academy Award for this). Also the film tackles taboo subjects like abortion, adultrey, homosexuality (dealt with VERY explicitly) and orgies. However, it is depressing. Still, well worth seeing.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Darling revisited
axlgarland8 July 2007
To see this 60's landmark film is quite something. In many ways could be considered a period piece and at the same time it could have been conceived yesterday. Julie Christie's performance is the insurance "Darling" has to ensure its powerful sailing through the years into the forever ever. She is extraordinary! Schlesinger lets himself be guided by something other than his British restrain and fear of sentimentality here. He is tough and poetic telling us the story of Diana Scott (could had been Lady Diana Spencer to a T) with understanding and compassion but without trying to make her a sympathetic character. Julie Christie takes care of that in what, time will tell, in fact is already telling us, one of the best performances on film, ever.
101 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Rather hard-faced and Sour Satire....
tim-764-2918568 July 2012
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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Existentialist froth but compelling none the less!
barbarella7012 January 2003
Julie Christie gives a raw, jagged performance as Diana Scott, a free-wheeling model/actress/whatever whose bedhopping exploits among the upper British classes cause her own self-destruction.

Quick zooms, freeze frames, and stop-motion effects aside, Darling holds up just as well as the other international hit about immoral behavior among the rich and semi-famous (La Dolce Vita) and makes a nice beginning for director John Schlesinger's adult trilogy. (Midnight Cowboy and Sunday Bloody Sunday followed.)

The film is a fascinating time capsule and Christie's wonderfully expressive eyes, the handsome Dirk Bogarde's masterful underplaying, and Laurence Harvey's cold sexuality make Darling a swinging '60's classic that still packs a cynical punch and is yet another example of a fine lost film that's almost unavailable in any format. DVD please?
21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Often described as a film of the swinging sixties
Often described as a film of the swinging sixties, it of course is nothing of the sort but an important precursor. Even allowing for the lapse between the making and releasing of a film this is vitally, just before. For me the period is 1967 to 1972 and this film released in 1965 has none of the colourful craziness and there really still are youngsters walking about as if it is still the 50s. But never mind this definitely covers the concerns and changing attitudes to personal relationships. It is unfortunate in my view (though perhaps inevitable) that Schlesinger is more interested here in the male characters. Bogarde is absolutely brilliant here and Laurence Harvey who I don't usually like because he seems to stiff is fantastic here in what must be his best role. Julie Christie is fine and looking lovely throughout whilst having to go through far more emotional changes than the guys and there is a orgy in Paris without any flesh visible but where it is the guys taking off clothes faster than any of the girls. There are some marvellous street scenes, London more than Paris and some good ones down by the river near Kew Bridge and Strand on the Green where Christie begins her first affair with Bogarde throwing pebbles into the river. Lots of good stuff but a little overlong because it doesn't quite all hang together as we are asked to agonise of this and that when the issues no longer seem as relevant, never mind that homosexuality would be legalised in a couple of years.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I Hated Darling
evanston_dad20 September 2018
I hated Darling. Not the movie, mind you, the character. Though since the entire movie is about nothing but her, I guess I'm splitting hairs.

I admired John Schlesinger's attempts at shaking mainstream film up a bit in 1965 with his distinct, druggy style, one that he would explore even more fully a few years later with "Midnight Cowboy." After all, this was the year that "The Sound of Music" won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. But unfortunately, he's got a dud of a script to work with. It's a one-note film through and through, one of those where its point is made in practically the first shot and the remainder of the movie has nowhere to go. I wasn't alive in 1965, so I have to take people's word for it that Julie Christie was electrifying and brought a jolt of modernity to otherwise stodgy cinema that year. And I can see that. But time has not been kind to this movie, and I absolutely hated spending time with her petulant, vapid, bored, and boring character. I don't have to like protagonists in order to enjoy their stories, but you have to give me a good reason for spending time with people I dislike as much as I disliked the main character in this film. Christie is an interesting actress, which maybe is what audiences responded to at the time, but she doesn't succeed in creating an interesting character.

However, I'm sure she will be able to get on with her life despite my negative critique. Let the Best Actress Oscar she won for this film be her consolation. Frederic Raphael won an Oscar for Best Original Story and Screenplay, surely one of the film's weakest links, and Julie Harris (not the actress) won for her black and white costume design, which brought miniskirts and go-go boots to the mainstream.

Grade: D
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed