There are wide extremes of opinion expressed on this board about this film. The film certainly has defects, but they pale when compared to its achievements. It is a tour de force of the cinematic art. The switching between Victorian and Modern eras is seamlessly announced by tone, costume and manerism of character. Meryl Streep's depiction of two women, in differing circumstances and, more importantly, different times is intellectually challenging. But if you do not connect with her fragile appeal or Jeremy Irons soulful searching for fulfillment, as two very different characters, then this will be lost on you. While technically this is film making at its finest, ultimately it is a love story. You either feel for the characters or you don't.
Add a Review
-
alrodbel21 November 1999
-
JamesHitchcock18 July 2007Although John Fowles's novel is set in the Victorian period and deals with a love affair, it is more than just a period romance. Throughout the book there is a strong authorial voice, which Fowles uses to comment on Victorian social and sexual mores, and the way in which they contrast with those of Fowles's own day. The book famously has two alternative endings, one happy and the other tragic; this device is perhaps Fowles's ironic comment on literary conventions and on the "omniscient narrator" persona which he adopts elsewhere in the work.
These stylistic devices therefore mean that this is not the easiest of novels to transfer to the screen. The solution that Harold Pinter came up with was to combine Fowles's Victorian story with another story, set in the present day. The film moves back and forth between the two periods. A similar device was used in another British film of this period, "Heat and Dust", although in that case both stories were present in the film's literary source.
The Victorian part of the film tells the story of Charles Smithson, a wealthy gentleman and amateur scientist, who visits Lyme Regis in Dorset in order to search for fossils. (The area around Lyme has become known as "The Jurassic Coast" because of the rich fossil beds in the area). While there he meets and falls in love with a young woman named Sarah Woodruffe, even though he is already engaged to Ernestina, the pretty daughter of a wealthy businessman.
Some years ago, Sarah was jilted by her sweetheart, a French lieutenant, and has been named by the locals "Poor Tragedy" from her habit of walking along the seashore, dressed in black, looking out to sea as though waiting for his return. The belief that she was the man's mistress has gained her the more contemptuous title of "The French Lieutenant's Whore"; the film's title derives from the reluctance of the genteel Ernestina to use the word "whore". Charles's initial feeling is simply one of concern for the young woman's welfare, but he soon feels a powerful attraction for her and decides that he must leave Ernestina for her, despite being warned by his friend Dr Grogan not to do so. Grogan has diagnosed Sarah as suffering from what he calls "obscure melancholy", a condition which manifests itself in intense guilt feelings and in the masochistic tendency to inflict emotional pain on herself.
The modern-day part of the film concerns the attempt to make a film about the story of Charles and Sarah, and the affair between Mike and Anna, the actors cast in the two leading roles. Jeremy Irons plays both Charles and Mike, and Meryl Streep both Sarah and Anna.
The Victorian part of the film works very well as a powerful and potentially tragic love-story, conjuring up the sexual repression and double standards which dominated that period. Sarah and her French sweetheart were not, in fact, lovers in the physical sense, but many local people believed they were, and this suspicion has been enough to blight her life. It is unlikely that a man's reputation would have been destroyed by a casual encounter in this way. On the other hand, double standards could also sometimes work against the male sex as well. A woman, for example, who decided she had made a mistake by getting engaged would have found it much easier to break her engagement. Charles only avoids being sued for breach of promise by signing a humiliating confession, in which he acknowledges that he has forfeited the right to be considered a gentleman, and is haunted by guilt over broken engagement, especially as Ernestina has done nothing to deserve such treatment. In the book Ernestina comes across as rather insipid, but here Lynsey Baxter, only sixteen at the time and appearing in her first film, makes her a delightful young lady.
Irons and Streep are excellent as Charles and Sarah. (This was also Irons's first leading film role, and the one which made him a major star). Streep copes perfectly with the British accent, although she did perhaps sound a bit too upper-class for Sarah, who comes from a lower-middle-class background. She also looks particularly striking in this film, with her red hair and pale alabaster complexion contrasting with her black clothing. The scene where Charles first meets her, on the storm-swept Cobb in Lyme, has become one of the most iconic scenes in the cinema of the eighties. There are also excellent performances from Leo McKern as the perceptive and kindly Grogan, from Peter Vaughan as Ernestina's doting father and from Patience Collier as Sarah's obnoxious employer Mrs Poulteney.
I am a great admirer of the original novel, but what works on the printed page cannot always be transferred to the screen, and Pinter's attempt to find a cinematic equivalent to Fowles's literary devices struck me as a vain one. The modern-day love story always seemed weak and trivial by comparison with the much more serious Victorian one. Neither Mike nor Anna was a sympathetic character, especially as both were married and cheating on their spouses. When Anna decides not to leave her husband for Mike we do not feel pity for him in the way that we pity Charles when he is abandoned by Sarah. I felt that the film-makers would have done better to omit the modern scenes and to concentrate exclusively on the Victorian story. The result would have been a different film, but in my view probably a better one. Nevertheless, the film we have is a fine one. 8/10 -
gbill-7487712 April 2021It's a quality production and Streep and Irons bring impeccable acting to the table, but this stretched out to an overlong melodrama (times two), and I just didn't feel connected to the characters. At its strongest, the film shows the suffocating world of a woman in the Victorian age, with judgmental old prudes keeping a close eye on sinful walks in the woods (gasp!), and women at risk of being committed to an institution for simply not following a conventional prim and proper path. I'm not sure I felt the passion however, and the film seemed a little detached and manipulative, say what you will about the power of Victorian repression. I got even less out of the modern story and the 'film within a film' aspect, though it was interesting to see the power shift in the woman's favor in the following century. All in all, it's a decent enough film, but it's one I wouldn't want to revisit.
-
tedg18 August 2000Haunting environments, two of the century's greatest film actors, one of the half-dozen or so best modern playwrights and Fowles' experiment in parallel narratives. Fowles' work was pale compared to Nabokov's "Pale Fire," for instance in building a convoluted, layered narrative, but is comparable in extent. Here, Pinter's obsession with time refines the vision -- his "Proust Screenplay," also centered on layered time, is much studied and admired.
Everything clicks here. Gorton's designs are detailed and hypnotizing, especially the use of the Lyme groin and related tunnel-like streets. Francis' camera (after "Elephant Man") captures a dim grey sky, made sharp in modern sequences. With the director, they have contrived to quote great paintings. In particular, the first shot after the three year search when Irons gets the telegram directly and obviously references a famous Monet painting -- in fact the first impressionistic painting, a turning point in the artist's perspective. Davis' music -- the only thing that spans time -- supports.
And Meryl is lovely, but so different in each role. We really wonder if her modern madness created the modern affair in quest of the perfect chemistry for the Sarah role It makes Sarah's imagination deeper and more self-referential than in the book. One scene is uniquely masterful: the modern actors "walk" through a scene, then they do it again. Streep turns on, "steps into" the role and becomes Sarah, and a moment later, she pulls the whole scene into the past. This will stick with you, I promise.
The director, Reisz, is supposed to have suggested the concept to Pinter, and then attracted the very best. His tightness of vision is apparent. I wish he were still making films. In a sense he is: he literally "wrote the book" on modern film editing. -
daoldiges5 May 2019Despite solid performances from both Streep and Irons, I was unable to really emotionally engage with the film, in particular the dual love stories presented. Not sure exactly what was holding things back for me, perhaps it the back and forth in time perspective, not sure exactly but I am not feeling very enthusiastic about the French Lieutenant's Woman.
-
Howlin Wolf30 June 2005... Anyone who's read my earlier review of "Damage", and disagrees with the feelings I expressed there; THIS is how Jeremy Irons should be utilized to portray destructive longing! It's a bodice-ripper without the ripping going on - all internalised, *raw* emotion. It's gorgeously shot, too; and Streep makes good on her reputation in a poignant showing. I've never read "Wuthering Heights", but I couldn't help thinking of Heathcliff and the moors, nevertheless...
It reminded me of 'The Hours', only it has a less 'studied' feel to it. The realities of 'social exclusion' really hit home, but thanks to the great performances, we don't doubt the extremes shown. Love renders all other concerns as 'insignificant', when you're in its grip.
This isn't the kind of film I would normally like; but in my quest to sample as much that is acclaimed as possible, I ended up here. I'm glad I did. If you have romance in your soul, this is apt to get you, inside. I only left this out of my 250 list because due to being something of a 'grinch', I tend to side with LIFE'S version of how things end, rather than literatures; but oh well... ! -
Billiam-46 April 2022Beautifully photographed and staged and well cast romance drama has a complex narrative structure set in two time periods that seemingly interact with each other and seems to try to say something deep, but in the end it's mainly just an upscale tearjerker.
-
Jen_UK24 January 2002I came to the film adaptation of 'The French Lieutnant's Woman' with initial trepidation. As anyone who has read the John Fowles novel will appreciate, this is one text for which adaptation would not be a walk in the park.
How unfounded my uncertainty was! The director, writer and actors did a fantastic job in adapting a complex novel to the screen. The film works impeccably as a metaphor for what the novel was trying to achieve, which is all we should expect from film adaptations.
Stand out features include:
The actors are perfect. I can't say anything new about Meryl Streep, who I believe to be the finest actress ever to have graced the cinema screen. Here (as ever) she is perfect - if you didn't know she was American you would believe she is English, the accent is so accurate. She embodies the character of Sarah perfectly with a multi layered performance, managing to convey Sarah's dignity, her independence and her complex mystery. My only criticism (if you can call it that) is that she is too beautiful! According to the novel, Sarah is "not beautiful by any period's standards", but with her porcelain complexion and delicate features, Meryl Streep is stunning. As Charles, Jeremy Irons gives a commanding performance, managing to convey the character's genteel veneer and the inner passion that lurks beneath. Both actors are excellent, and the chemistry between the leads is tangible.
A "Story within a story". The way in which Harold Pinter weaves the Fowles tale with the lives of Anna and Mike - the actresses who are playing the Victorian lovers, is inspired. The manner in which the film flits from Victorian age to modern day, is the filmic way of conveying Fowles's tendency in the novel to judge his Victorian characters and their era by Twentieth Century standards. Some critics have found this device jarring - I find it clever and affecting.
Overall, 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' is a beautiful, haunting tale of repressed love and social hypocrisy. Right from the opening shot, where we see the image of Sarah on the Cobb looking out to sea, the viewer is grabbed and drawn into this complex world. The actors are faultless, the screenplay ingenious and the cinematography and score, haunting. If you normally find yourself disappointed by novel adaptations, look no further than 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' to show you that when a work is adapted properly, the results can be stunning. -
The film is set in Victorian England in about the 1860s, with a parallel storyline in contemporary times based on the actors making the film ca. 1980. The novel, which I read long ago, has three endings and no contemporary storyline. The film has one Victorian-era ending and a modern ending that emulates one of the Fowles' Victorian storylines.
Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons) is a paleontologist looking for fossils along the shore in Lyme Regis. He is a follower of Charles Darwin and is descended from wealth. He becomes engaged to the daughter, Ernestina Freeman (Lynsey Baxter), of a wealthy businessman, Ernest Freeman (Peter Vaughan). He becomes aware of an enigmatic local woman, Sarah Woodruff (Meryl Streep), who is said to have had a brief affair with a French Lieutenant who deserted her and returned to France. Thus she has a bad local reputation. She works as a companion to a local widow, Mrs. Poulteney (Patience Collier), a rigid Victorian who dismisses Sarah for walking alone beneath the cliffs. Charles becomes very enamored with Sarah and gradually falls in love with her. Much of the film follows this emerging relationship.
After Charles spends a night with Sarah in Exeter, he returns to Lyme, breaks his engagement to Ernestina, and returns to Exeter to get Sarah and marry her. However, Sarah has disappeared into London. He spends three years looking for her until, ultimately, she reveals her location to him; she has been living as a widowed governess.
The parallel story is the affair that the actors, Anna (Meryl Streep) and Mike (Jeremy Irons), have while making the film. As the filming is ending, Mike wants to continue the relationship, but Anna pulls further and further away.
This was a much-anticipated movie when it came out, partly because people wondered how such a complex novel could be made into a movie. The result was very unlike the novel in having a quite straightforward storyline while adding some complexity with the modern storyline.
This is still fairly early Meryl Streep--she is only 32 when the film was released. However, she had already received an Academy Award nomination for "The Deer Hunter" and won an Academy Award for "Kramer vs. Kramer." She was nominated for an Academy Award for "The French Lieutenant's Woman." This film was Jeremy Iron's first major movie.
The film was well-received when it came out but has lost some of its glitter over the years. -
hcoursen15 February 2010This film is a joy to watch -- as not many films these days are. The settings are superbly created -- the green, grotto-like woodland where Irons and Streep meet in the Victorian world of the film, the murky streets of Lyme, Exeter, and London, and the interior of the lawyer's office, for example. The Victorian part of the film emerges from the dawning of the concept of abnormal psychology (just before Freud) and is really convincing. Streep shows us that her character cannot move on emotionally until she has worked out her own madness. That constitutes a remarkable and complex performance of insanity and self-awareness inhabiting a single psyche. She earns the gentle movement out of the tunnel and onto the calm lake. The turbulence of the unconscious -- that threatening sea of which Irons has warned her -- has been subdued. Seems to me the flaw lies in the 'modern story' (as some here have pointed out). It may be that the Streep character is trying to find a subtext for her fictional heroine, but it looks like the old ennui, so that, while her lack of concern for the relationship is understandable, his obsession with it is not. Though the garden party at the end almost gets it there. Were we shown her decision there? If so, I missed it. I like the concept of the 'two endings' and their contrast, but the ending in the 20th century was a so what? The one in the 19th century was complex and included much of the pain that the relationship had caused both characters. A little more attention to the contemporary love affair -- to suggest that it was more than just a romp on location -- would have helped that dimension of the film per se and also suggested what the Victorian lovers had earned within their Hardyesque world.
-
random_avenger2 August 2010Two film actors named Anna and Mike (Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons) rehearse their roles for a Victorian period piece and have an affair with each other. Interspersed with the present day scenes are extensive clips from the finished version of the film they're working on: the love story of a gentleman named Charles and a poor woman Sarah who has lost her reputation after having been romantically linked to a French officer. Charles and Sarah, like Mike and Anna, are played by Irons and Streep.
The movie-within-a-movie structure makes it possible to examine the expressions of romance in very different eras that still mirror each other in many ways. While the Victorian society is suffocating in its prim and proper moralizing, relationships are not necessarily easier in the liberal modern era either, as it is always difficult to follow one's heart without hurting someone in the process.
Technically the film is well made, the historic sets and costumes look good and Streep and Irons are convincing in their double roles. Especially the eponymous Sarah character is full of tragic mystery and understandably carries the film whenever she is on. The pace is slow and peaceful, allowing the romances to develop without haste. In the end the Victorian story gets more attention and is probably what the film is best remembered for, but the present day romance is a tale worth telling too. In any case, I recommend the film for any fan of romantic cinema – it's essentially two romances in one. -
I loved The French Lieutenant's Woman. The film-within-the-film is more than just an experimental device - it is actually a key feature of how the film works and part of what makes it so fascinating and enjoyable. Harold Pinter, who wrote the screenplay and has a Nobel Prize for Literature, should be given some credit for knowing what he is doing. The two stories in the film are juxtaposed to provide intriguing contrasts and comparisons. At first, I found myself thinking that the point was to show how much easier and more uncomplicated sexual relationships are in the twentieth century, but as the story develops, and as more entanglements obstructing their happiness are revealed, I began to realize that the film may really be trying to show that we are not so different from the Victorians after all: we have our own obsessions, repressions and frustrations. A happy middle-class family proves to be as much of an obstacle to sexual gratification and fulfilment as hypocritical Victorian morality. A warning: there is no point watching this film for visible and clearly expressed emotion and a satisfyingly romantic representation of love in this film, since it makes a point of resisting that by focusing on the characters' awkward and embarrassing fumblings, and by deliberately avoiding all the clichés of period drama. The inclusion of the contemporary story line actually helps us to distance ourselves from the Victorian plot rather than drawing us into it, and makes Jeremy Irons's proposal at the beginning, or the love scene in Exeter between him and Streep, more comic and ridiculous, than volcanic and romantic. But that is the point, isn't it? Period films have a tendency to ignore how bizarre sexuality was in the past, and by romanticizing and familiarizing it, make it more easy for us to consume now. But there was no such thing as "normal" sexuality in Victorian Britain, because, as the statistic about London prostitutes in the film shows, they were all far too screwed up. And maybe we are not so different these days. It's not as if the sex industry has got any smaller since then. It's not a conventional period romance, but if you want something a little more thoughtful and interesting than that, then you will hugely enjoy this film. Apart from anything else, it has two great performances from Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep. Streep in particular is spectacularly mysterious and alluring as the object of Irons's sexual obsession. Great film.
-
MissSimonetta4 November 2022I wish I liked this movie more. I admire what it's trying to do in the contrast between the movie within the movie and the "real world," creating contrasts between both the Victorian era and the late 20th century, and fiction versus reality. Unfortunately, the meta element is so underdeveloped that it feels trivial, and the period story suffers from dwindling intrigue. By the last 30 minutes, I was ready for the whole thing to end. It only avoids being a bore because of the strong acting and gorgeous visuals. Otherwise, it's interesting largely by virtue of its inspired premise-- in my estimation, it's largely a failure, though at the very least it's an ambitious one.
-
twm-211 February 2005This is a real curio of a movie, more a dry experiment with form than a story concerning fleshed-out characters. The primary focus is on the plot developments of a film within the film--a story of two illicit lovers in 19th century England--while a secondary narrative follows the two leads in that film who pursue a similar relationship to the one they portray. The way these two stories intercut back and forth is, unfortunately, one of the few interesting things in the movie. Unique to this presentation is the way the Victorian Era scenes are shown only (with the opening scene being a lone exception) as a finished product, that is, we see that part of the film as its theoretical audience would. There are no shots of cameras in the foreground, no scenes of director and crew watching rushes in a darkened theater. This device might have allowed the viewer to become more involved in the "old-time" goings on--if only we had been given something, anything onto which we could have hung our emotional hats. This is the insurmountable problem of "The French Lieutenant's Woman." While the Victorian Era plot is luxuriantly mounted--while the characters are played by wonderful actors--the "heart" of this film is occupied by this film within a film device. While interesting, it's not enough to keep our interest from flagging. In both story lines, emotions are uniformly muted, or absent altogether. The 20th century story is about two bored actors who engage in their affair simply as a distraction from the tedium of making a movie. No hint of passion here. The Victorian narrative at least provides a HINT of feeling, but always held at arms length--and further attenuated by the inevitable return to the modern story, reminding us that the "costumer" portion of the film is not only not real, but TWICE removed from reality. There is a scene at the end of the movie where all signs point to some grand cathartic denouement--a scene where, finally, we will be swept up into the currents of these players' lives, the promise of romance finally realized. Instead we are given an awkward, bumbled scene without so much as a kiss or an eloquent avowal of love. We are left with a muted, distant view of the two purported lovers on a lake--its surface as calm and unmoved as the film's audience. A disappointing end to a disappointing film.
-
octomancer20 May 2004I have only seen this film once, about 20 years ago, when I was in my mid teens. It intrigued me then, but went completely over my head. I could dimly perceive grand themes in it, but couldn't bring them into focus. A few years ago a friend gave me a John Fowles book to read, "The Magus" and this caused me to re-evaluate this film entirely. For me, the story's strength does not lie in anything definite. It's main themes are suggestion and allegory. The creative role of the mind in human perception is very clearly depicted in "The Magus" and this is central to TFLW too. The 2 central characters, in their modern guises are caught up in this, as the audience is expected to be. Perhaps there is no central message to be understood ... maybe a viewer should just be delighted by the parallels which are revealed by telling these 2 stories in this way ...
-
suegrayson10 November 2005I had purchased this film from a charity shop a number of weeks ago. With the recent death of the author of the book this film was based on (John Fowles) I was inspired to watch his most famous work. I put it off for a few days fearing the film would be boring and unengaging but I was pleasantly surprised! I was in a state of confusion for the first few minutes of the movie, what on earth was going on?! Had they put the trailer at the start of the video, had I bought a behind the scenes tape by mistake? I was so shocked I had to stop the film and read some comments on here to clarify what was going on! When I found out there were two stories set in different eras going on simultaneously, I was eager to find out more and whether this device would work.
I thought the use of the two stories, one the plot between Sarah and Charles set in the 19th century and the other, the actors playing them, Anna and Mike was an interesting and original idea although one which I am not sure was entirely necessary. The use of modern appliances to emphasize when the film was in the 1980s also seemed a little brash.
However, the film really made me care for the characters and I was caught up in the emotion of it all. This was my first Meryl Streep film, and from her convincing performance in this, will certainly not be my last! Beautiful cinematography from Freddie Francis too. Although not an outstanding film, it is still one worth watching and one which deserved the praise and accolades it received. -
mossgrymk11 October 2020Far be it from me, a septuagenerian Dodger fan, to criticize a Nobel Prize winner but it occurs to moi (pardon the Gallicism but the movie IS called "The FRENCH leftenant's woman) that if scenarist Harold Pinter had done half the job novelist John Fowles did in making his Victorian lovers come alive then he wouldn't have had to resort to gimmicks like a movie within a movie, set in different centuries, in a desperate try to infuse some interest in the Smithson/Woodruff relationship. Bottom line: Beautifully mounted and shot but empty at its core. Shoulda given the job to Ivory/Jhabvala instead. B minus.
-
westpenn492 January 2002My God, I had forgotten how gorgeous Jeremy Irons was as a young man. Of course now that I think about it, I knew several long haired, earnest, moustachioed young men back then, Jeremy reminded me of all of them throughout the movie, making it hard to pay attention to the film. Not that the film was all that interesting. Meryl Streep is "oh so lovely and forlorn" in her roll as Sarah and just plain good looking in her roll as Ann the 20th century movie star. Streep and Irons did well with the material, but there wasn't much given them really and Irons does look a bit silly plodding around the countryside in his fashionable Victorian suits. Still the possibilities of their love kept me hoping.
The single most annoying factor was Lynsey Baxter as Ernestina, the fiancee of Jeremy Irons' Charles Smithson. She looked and acted like she had just walked over from the filming of a Jane Austen novel, totally out of place, in this dark piece. That said most of the other characters seemed disjointed or knew more of what was going on than we are shown. The doctor, for instance, seems to know more of the depth of Smithson's feelings than even Smithson. That would be OK if we were given some clues as well, but we are not.
In the end I just kept watching for the nostalgia of the look the Jeremy Irons wears so well and that isn't such a bad thing, is it? -
kneiss115 September 2010When I got this movie, and read the title, I wasn't expecting anything that would suit my taste. I have been expecting a cheesy, unrealistic and boring women's movie. - I have been wrong.
Of course it was a bit cheesy, but less cheesy than most Hollywood movies. Actually, the whole movie was quite realistic. Of course this movie is mainly for women. - It's a love story! Yet, I find it has more to offer to male viewers than other love stories. The main actor is male. An absolutely interesting character. A character that is trying hard to be good, but isn't perfect at all. A character you can actually identify with. And my god, Jeremy Irons played that character so well.
This movie has a calm and melancholic atmosphere. I am sure many people will mistake it for "boredom". - Not me; the story is so interesting, that it kept me curious throughout the whole movie. I really didn't know how this story was ending. And yet, the ending satisfied me totally. An extremely unusual case for me.
My pretty much only gripe about the movie is, that the story in the 20th century is suffering in length. While characters and storyline are in perfect shape when it comes to 19th century, the story and characters lack depth, when it comes to the 20th century. -
AaronCapenBanner22 September 2013Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons play dual roles as Sarah, an outcast woman in 19th century England, and respected biologist Charles, already engaged to the daughter of a powerful man, who finds himself attracted to the melancholy, mysterious, and beautiful Sarah.
This is contrasted with their "real life" counterparts Anna and Mike, who are actors portraying their romance in a film. Their lives mirror the fictional ones closely, as their affair has similar consequences to that of Sarah and Charles, only with a different outcome...
Though the juxtaposition between the 19th and 20th centuries is at first jarring, it does eventually work, since the performances and direction are so good. A compelling romantic drama that does effectively illustrate the difference between Hollywood and Reality, and how the viewer will inevitably prefer one over the other... -
kzoofilm19 August 2000If you're researching the beginnings of today's Goth movement, be sure to look at this complex tale of Sarah Woodruff (Meryl Streep), a secretive, pale-skinned outcast in a 19th century English coastal town. Known to the locals as "poor tragedy," she sketches spooky self-portraits, always dresses in black and haunts the sea wall waiting for the return of a Frenchman who seduced and abandoned her. With a single, unforgettable look and such dialogue as "my only happiness is when I sleep; when I wake, the nightmare begins," Sarah bewitches visiting Londoner Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons, in what turned out to be his big break), a paleontologist and "gentleman of leisure." The tricky screenplay by Harold Pinter contrasts the story of Sarah and Charles with the lives of actors Mike and Anna, who are playing them in a film. Offscreen, Anna is anything but Victorian, indulging in an on-location affair with Mike while her husband is away. The contrasts between the two couples born 100 years apart make for one of the most intriguing films of the early 1980s, and the performances by Irons and Streep are predictably outstanding.
-
vicki-christidou18 April 2014So... I finally read the book and -at last- I saw the movie!! Well,even though, as usual I preferred the book, I did like the film as well. Very much. Meryl Streep was unbelievable, I just loved every quote that she said. She managed to show the peculiar Sarah's character and to create a very interesting character for Anna, as well. Jeremy Irons was great also. Generally, all the cast played good. However, I didn't like Lynsey Baxter as Ernestina. I think she didn't appear as young as it was supposed too, and that she was saying the lines sooo slowly that it get annoyed after some time. I also didn't like the idea of adding Anna's and Mike's world in the story. I'd rather prefer just to be in Sarah's and Charles' reality. It's true that John Fowles often interrupt the narration to comment something or to compare the two centuries. However, Anna's and Mike's existence didn't touch his comments at all. In the first half of the film their scenes last too little so they are not useful. In the second half their story becomes more interesting but at the end it seemed to me that it was a small and fast-made movie, violently put into J.F's story. In other words, I'd like to see Anna's and Mike's story in a different movie! Additionally, It wasn't justified -to my opinion- Anna's behavior at the end that reminds us Sarah! Yet, I have to admit that I was impressed because Meryl and Jeremy could easily "play themselves" as Anna and Mike. But, I was not seeing Meryl and Iron on the screen, even they were playing two characters so common to their reality, they find their own character's personality -a personality different than theirs. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. In conclusion, I believe that if I hadn't read the book and haven't seen the movie on the laptop (I couldn't find it in a DVD) I'd like it much more! It is a story that you have to learn either from the film, either from the book, they both have their own magic!
-
budmassey24 January 2003This movie opens with a scene of an archaeologist chipping at a multi-chambered Nautilus shell fossilized in stone. The image is apropos, as the story itself opens from chamber to ever larger chamber as it weaves two seemingly disparate stories with a clever ending.
Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep are impressive as the leads in two different time lines. In one, Streep is a woman of poor reputation who ensnares a gentleman (Irons) in the black hole of her own guilt and loss. In the other, they are the romantically involved actors making a movie about a woman of poor reputation who ensnares a gentleman. And if that sounds a little too clever, it nonetheless has more creativity and insight than typical plot-twist movie, including the most contrived and overrated movie of all time, Memento (not good enough to be called bad).
There is a scene, in which Streep and Irons are rehearsing a scene from the movie, and, according to the story, it just isn't working. Then, all at once, Streep gets a look on her face, and we are transported into the past time line with a single glance from the greatest working actress and second only to Katherine Hepburn as the greatest actress of all time.
The cinematography, costumes and set designs are legendary, and come from the same team that gave us The Count of Monte Christo, which featured Guy Pearce, who was in the above-mentioned Memento (it still stinks, but how's that for six degrees?). And speaking of legends, the screenplay was written by none other than Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, and it shows.
It is a sublime movie experience to watch the delicately chambered story open up, and there are scenes that are so memorable, like Streep on the misty pier, that you would swear this movie comes from the Golden Age of cinema, not the go-go eighties. The movie is emotionally draining, and Streep gives a typically high concept performance. Irons lacks something, but it's not clear what, but in the end it helps support the story by making him appear flawed enough to have been trapped in the intricate web of The French Lieutenant's Woman. -
gridoon202415 March 2018Personally I don't much care for the term "chick flick", but "The French Lieutenant's Woman" probably falls under that category - albeit a chick flick of the highest order. Handsomely staged, impeccably crafted, well acted, ingeniously structured....but not as dramatically involving as it should have been, until the bittersweet ending(s). *** out of 4.
-
This appears to be a well crafted film, an artistically done 'story within a story'. However, though I realize I am in the minority and the movie's praises were universally sung, I personally did not care for it, finding it somewhat boring, occasionally confusing, and worst of all, NOT emotionally engaging.
The film relates the story of two romances...the affair between two actors, Anna (Meryl Streep) and Mike (Jeremy Irons), who are playing the roles of lovers Sarah Woodruff and Charles Smithson, in a movie set back in 19th Century Britain. Frankly, the darting back and forth between the two affairs, creative though it may have been, was for me simply distracting. I found that I couldn't really become emotionally involved with either couple, and was sometimes even confused as to the point being made.
The stars are accomplished actors and their performances were lauded at the time. Personally, Meryl Streep is normally not my favorite actress as I feel she tends to overact, though I really liked her in Music of the Heart. Jeremy Irons is certainly competent and was quite brilliant in The Mission.
The modern relationship between Anna and Mike simply bored me. During her husband's absence, Anna is indulging in an affair while on location with her co-star. I found this pair unsympathetic and their affair uninteresting. Even THEY did not seem that interested in it! I would have preferred NO story within a story, but simply ONE romance, the Victorian couple, Sarah and Charles. In that case, I might have found their tale more compelling.
As to the Victorian Era affair...Charles is a paleontologist, engaged to be married to a proper young lady, Ernestine, of good family and dowry, when he is bewitched by the fascinating, outcast Sarah and begins a passionate affair. The film does dramatically reveal the contrast between the outwardly respectable, genteel Charles (a proper Victorian gentleman), and his hitherto sexually repressed but actually passionate inner self, as revealed by this illicit love. Sarah, a wronged and tainted woman of ill repute, dubbed by some as 'the French lieutenant's whore', is mysterious and melancholy. My enduring mental picture from this film is of Sarah looking forlornly out to sea, waiting for the return of the French soldier who seduced and abandoned her.
The film has beautiful cinematography, especially the 19th Century scenery. I generally love romances from this period, and I note that another reviewer compared the dramatic seascapes here to the moor landscapes of Wuthering Heights. Yes, sort of a similar mood with the enigmatic, outcast Sarah even shades of the brooding Heathcliff. However, while Wuthering Heights is a film of haunting emotions, this liaison between the respectable Charles and the outcast Sarah had little impact on me.
Apparently, the point of the movie (so I have read) seems to be not so much engaging the viewer emotionally as comparing love affairs from the two eras...the forbidden Victorian passions in sharp contrast to the not very passionate, sort of half bored, casual affair of the modern actors. Yes, the contrast is apparent here, so in this goal, it succeeded. Nevertheless, I would have greatly preferred emotional engagement. I didn't read the novel of the same name, but understand the film within a film approach was meant to replace the narrator's role in the book. If so, this technique may have been clever and artistic, but left me personally cold and simply detached from it all.