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.

badajoz-1 This was supposed to be the satire on the movers and shakers of the sixties. Sorry I thought it was rubbish when it was released, and in 2010 it still is terrible. An ambitious model in the swinging sixties sleeps her way to the top - yes, it's Evita in the UK! It too self consciously tries to be a Britflick aping of Antonioni (La Notte and Blow UP) and Fellini (La Dolce Vita and 8 and a half) and it does not work - witness the dreadfully arch 'cinema verite' sequence and the partner-swapping orgy scenes. Really the continentals do that sort of thing much much better - even the actors look embarrassed!Satire? Um the best scenes are actually a satire on British society in the fifties, eg the scene in the casino is actually the writer having a go at the Princess Margaret/Billy Wallace Soho set showing old decrepit aristos clinging to privilege after the War. But nowhere does the movie really have a go at the hypocrisy surrounding the MacMillan/Wilson years - it merely portrays a few louche unbelievable characters indulging in sexual freedom away from the gaze of society as a whole. Let's face it Julie Christie's character is really an upper middle class aspirant trying to get ahead to join the beastly aristos. The direction and writing is plodding - Raphael was much better in 'Nothing But The Best.' The acting is fine apart from Julie Christie (who wears a lot of nice clothes) who just pouts a lot and keeps telling us she is bored in a very actressy sort of way. I thought then she was not much of an actress, and 'Doctor Zhivago' confirmed it. Her looks got the critics, who of course inhabited the world portrayed on screen so though it was a marvellous expose, dahling! When in fact the film is a bore with nothing really to claim your attention either from an historical point of view or interest in the characters (we got very early on the Laurence Harvey was Mephostophiles so why keep it going for so long?) Of course, you may ask, why do we not see 'Darling' on our TV screens? Well, it is a story about a vacuous, scheming, bed hopping, blonde clothes horse, who ends up trapped in a loveless marriage where her husband has other women, and is called Princess Diana! Um, perhaps, the film was a prescient look into the future of the celebrity culture!

MarieGabrielle I viewed this for the first time on TCM and that being said it deserves a few viewings, there are a few segue ways and tangents here, commentaries on the vacuity and corruption, success can be good bad or utterly destructive.Dirk Bogarde has a dark and attractive presence here, as we start out with Diana Scott (Christie) working her way up the ladder as a London model. Bogarde, intellectual and effete, is her married man lover, soon to become her live-in lover (he leaves his wife and child for Diana Scott).The prevailing theme has been done before, she meets Laurence Harvey, slick and cynical, he engineers her career, she becomes more sought after as a model, as a companion and as a swinging single icon of the times. Sounds trite but Christie delivers a believable performance. There are some very good visuals and original angles, we see her living in a "rat-trap" apartment with Bogarde (his heart is concerned with real things, people authors and culture) He is not superficial and shallow. She however, as we see her become the "Honey Glow" girl attracts all the detritus that success brings with it, money, yes, but users, hangers-on,exploiters and there are some demoralizing party scenes which one may want to watch closely, to catch the full meaning.Ultimately I will not divulge the ending as this film is interesting to watch in its entirety, give it a chance as it first unravels slowly, then fast-forwards as her life spins out. Highly recommended. 9/10.

wes-connors 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