But, first, let me digress. Why did Zelenskyy wear green pants and a green sweat shirt when he met with President Biden and spoke before Congress? Second, why did the “Jewish” president of Ukraine wish everyone Merry Christmas, but not Happy Hanukkah?

Now, to the main subject. “Lady Chatterly’s Lover”.

A lot of people are watching it on Netflix, I assume. I say that because the last three people I have mentioned it to have all watched it. We watched it last night.

As a film, it is worth watch. The acting is good. The story line is a good one. The nudity fits in with the story – does not seem gratuitous and is tasteful.

But there are a few things in the film that I noticed were different from the book. They were changed in a way that neither added to nor detracted from the D.H. Lawrence novel. So why were they changed?

I should say: SPOILER!!! and let you know that I read the book within the past month or so and this is based on my recollections of the book (again and as usual, I strive for 80% accuracy).

1. In the book, when Clifford first suggested that Connie have an affair to produce the heir that he could not produce after his war injury, she tried with one of Clifford’s friends who attended a party at their home. The party was in the film, as was the character, but there was nothing about their liaison. Why the change?
2. When Connie first met Oliver in the book, I remember it was at the pheasant hut, not at Oliver’s house. They met at the hut a few times before Connie went to his house. Why the change?
3. In the film, Connie was on her way to Venice, but still in London with her father and sister, when she heard that Oliver had been dismissed by Clifford and she rushed back. In the book, Oliver’s dismissal happened when Connie was already in Venice and she learned about it on her return. Why the change?
4. Finally, in the book, Connie receives the letter from Oliver when she is with her sister, telling her that he is somewhere living on a farm, and the book ends. In the film, Oliver tells her he is on a farm in Scotland, and she finds her way there and they reconnect. This is the only change of any real substance – but does it add something, or does it subtract something from the story?

At any rate – it seemed to me that it was change for the sake of change. That may be OK if you are suffering from boredom, but why in this film version of a classic book?

By the way, I read two other D.H. Lawrence books this year, and have a number that I want to read next year. The two others I read this year are little known – “Kangaroo”, set in Australia, and a Penguin book of “Selected Letters”, which were more interesting than I thought they would be. There is a film version of “Kangaroo”, I am told – that’s on the list, as well. There are also at least two older film versions of Lady Chatterly – I probably will not look at these.

By the way – for those very few who may somewhat slightly care – although the new furnace is good, the dishwasher is still not working.