Maurice

I ran into this movie a long, long time ago, watching the TV news one evening back in 1987. I felt as I couldn't miss it as soon as I realized it had been shot in Cambridge, my favorite place in the world, but all my feelings went much beyond that when I saw it. I didn't feel uneasy about homosexuality at all but it was with that movie that I finally realized it was only love, no matter whether it involved a man and a woman, or two men, or two women.... The set is magnificent, the actors at their best (a great Hugh Grant who was so great as to show how Mr E.M.Forster had become tired with Clive...), and I must say that Mr Ivory did a pretty good job with his version of the story, very well adapted. In fact I do believe the book is superior in many moments but, on the other hand, the film is far far superior in many other moments, and you can't really say this all the times. I suggest everybody should watch it and enjoy it, no matter what your sexual preferences are. A masterpiece, indeed!

When E M Forster wrote "Maurice" homosexuality was considered a mental illness, a criminal offence, an aberration, a sin against God, (it still is in some quarters). It wasn't so long since Oscar Wilde was jailed for sodomy and Forster, had his own homosexuality become public knowledge, would certainly have found himself in a similar predicament and would never have enjoyed the literary eminence that he did. So consequently, moved though he was to write the book, gave instructions that it should not be published until after his death, and Forster lived for a very long time. When "Maurice" eventually did see the light of day, it seemed terribly dated. 'I'm an unspeakable of the Oscar Wilde sort', Maurice tells his doctor in a feeble attempt to be 'cured' of his 'affliction', and a line which the movie retains. Gay literature had come a long way in the interim and homosexuality was no longer seen as an illness nor a crime.

But Forster's view of homosexuality was, surprisingly, not a tortured, shame-filled one but touchingly, if ridiculously, romantic. When Maurice finally does find true love, it cuts across all barriers including class and has the lovers retreating, like some gay Adam and Eve, to 'the greenwood'. It seems unrealistic but at the same time liberating long before the term 'gay liberation' was ever coined.

James Ivory's screen version is remarkably faithful to the original and consequently risks ridicule in this so-called more enlightened age. But Ivory's intelligence as a film-maker has long been over-looked in favour of an emphasis on his prettified recreations of the past. Yet he remains the pre-eminent chronicler in British cinema, (though American and consistently working with an Indian producer, Ismail Merchant), of a particular period in British history mostly through adaptations of novels by writers of the period or by contemporary authors writing about the period. But when Ivory did adapt 'classic' literature, he concentrated on the best and working mostly with the great writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, brought to bear on these adaptations a deeply felt and genuine appreciation of their worth.

Hence "Maurice" is as fastidiously good as we have come to expect, the difference being that this time the script is not by Jhabvala but by Ivory himself and Kit Hesketh-Harvey. In every other respect it looks and feels typically 'Merchant-Ivory', a term some people believe stultified British cinema at a time when other directors were making edgy, contemporary 'new-wave' films. But that is like condemning well-acted, well-crafted Shakespeare just because it's old.

"Maurice" is a superbly acted, visually gorgeous film, though at times its fidelity to its source means that sometimes certain scenes feel stilted, (you make want to give these people a good shaking). And did they need to cast actors as beautiful as James Wilby (Maurice), Hugh Grant, (his first great love, Clive Durham), and Rupert Graves, (the game-keeper Scudder, shades of a gay Lady Chatterly, the boy he finally falls for)? All three play wonderfully well and Ivory populates his film with a cast of wonderful character actors, (Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot, Billie Whitelaw, Judy Parfitt), all playing at the top of their form.

Of course, both book and film have now largely been set aside as dated and irrelevant in the annals of gay literature and cinema. Surely not. The film remains as much an integral part of the history and consequential progress of main-stream gay movie-making as "Brokeback Mountain", (though by no means as commercially successful), as it is an integral part of the Merchant-Ivory stable. Anyone remotely interested in either should seek it out.

This is the most emotional love story I have ever viewed. I first saw the film when I was about 14, and I had no problem sitting through the entire two and a half hours of rich period drama. Merchant and Ivory are two of the best filmmakers ever, and they treat this delicate subject with grace and tact. It makes being a gay teenager a little more bearable, because it is one of the few movies in which the gay lead finds love, and survives. An altogether edifying experience.

Similar to goldilocks-78, I watched Maurice again - I saw it when I was in my 20s, when it was first released. There is some very good acting, and a very good sociological recreation of the Edwardian period. Maurice, the novel, might well not be considered as EM Forster's finest work. But similar to Lady Chatterley's Lover (not considered among Lawrence's best), the work raises issues of class, gender, and sexuality. The three leads are good - Hugh Grant gives a plausible portrayal of a more refined, upper-class man, who denies his homosexual urgings and marries. He clearly shows (after this conversion of sorts) his ambivalence and almost forced denial. Hugh Grant, almost effortlessly, shows the two sides to this character. James Wilby,as Maurice, moves from self-disgust, despair and guilt, to self-acceptance. Rupert Graves as Scudder (similar to Mellors) is really good. The scenes he shares with James Wilby are not forced. The supporting cast are good - the women, Simon Callow (who introduces us to the Edwardian conformist ideology) are equally good. And Ben Kingsley, as the hypnotherapist nicely shows the push-pull in the then-British psyche. My favourite Merchant-Ivory film is Room with a view. Maurice is darker, but just as well filmed, with enough humour to balance the seriousness of the film. The naive, happily-ever-after ending (EM Forster's) doesn't quite work, but leads to good discussion. Of all the DVD-shown deleted scenes, the final 'confrontation' between Maurice and Durham should be, in my opinion, restored. It's a fine film, both engaging and unsettling. Sensitively adapted, directed, acted and shot. Kudos

Many viewers and critics have criticised the happy ending of this film as being 'unrealistic' or even 'impossible'. After all an upper class and working class man could never live as a couple in Edwardian England? In fact E.M. Forster's inspiration for writing the book Maurice was a real gay couple, one upper class and the other working class, who lived together openly in England for about 35 years until 1928. They are buried in the same grave.

Edward Carpenter was a close friend of E.M.Forster, who named Carpenter's working class gay partner, George Merrill, as the inspiration for his novel Maurice. He had visited Carpenter and Merrill at Millthorpe in Derbyshire on several occasions: once, in 1913, Merrill "touched my backside - gently and just above the buttocks. I believe he touched most people's. The sensation was unusual and I still remember it, as I remember the position of a long vanished tooth. He made a profound impression on me and touched a creative spring" That was the origin for the writing of Maurice.