The French Lieutenant's Woman [VHS]
![The French Lieutenant's Woman [VHS]](/images/The-French-Lieutenant-Woman-VHS-6301969626-L.jpg)
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.99 You Save: $4.95 (50%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.96 (click here) Category: VHS Video See more movie releases |
|---|
Buy this VHS video movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
VHS Movie Reviews of The French Lieutenant's Woman [VHS]
Movie Review: Terrific drama
Summary: 5 Stars
A daunting and potentially confusing movie based on John Fowles's novel, that unfolds beautifully and with no confusion at all. In Victorian England a man (Jeremy Irons), about to be married to a plain Jane, meets and falls hopelessly in love with a fallen woman (Meryl Streep); he breaks his engagement and spends 3 desperate years chasing after her until he finds her. Juxtoposed with this is a modern story with both Irons and Streep in the process of making a movie of the same story, only now they are married to others. As history seems to be repeating itself, they fall in love and almost get away together as in the Victorian story, only Streep backs out at the last minute. The screenplay, by Harold Pinter, is a real winner, and the juxtoposition, though it sounds confusing, really isn't. Everything works marvelously. The acting is superb, and the attention to detail in the Victorian sections is meticulous. Definitely worth a watch.Movie Review: Blending two stories with pleasant results
Summary: 5 Stars
The Past and Present play together in the story and they intertwine in a strong theme that is captivating.Movie Review: "It was as if her torture had become her delight."
Summary: 5 Stars
Harold Pinter's screenplay of John Fowles's novel, combined with Karel Reisz's direction, creates a stunning vehicle for Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons as they bring an enigmatic 19th century love story to life. But this film is actually two love stories. Streep and Irons also play contemporary actors making a film of the 19th century love story, and their relationship clearly parallels the story they are filming. Sarah Woodruff (Streep), known as "the French Lieutenant's woman," is an outcast in mid-19th century Lyme Regis, where she lives, because she has broken the taboos of society. Needing work to stay alive, she must accept the stultifying strictures of Victorian society and work as a governess or lady's companion, or become a prostitute, the only other option open for a woman without an inheritance or family.
Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons), an amateur geologist and Darwinian in the early story, is the rather stuffy fiancé of Ernestina Freeman (Lynsey Baxter). Smithson becomes the only person offering to help Sarah when, concerned for her safety, he follows her out onto a slippery quay during a storm. Despite his engagement and the fact that Sarah keeps herself a mystery, he is increasingly drawn to her and wants to know her story. Meanwhile, Mike the actor (Irons) and Anna the actress (Streep) playing these parts in the film, are having an affair, each ignoring their marital obligations in their attempt to find excitement.
The cinematography (Freddie Francis) emphasizes the lush countryside, the untamed sea, and the seaside community, with its ancient buildings. Several dark interior scenes of second-rate hotels add emphasis to the precarious position of someone like Sarah who has loved too well and lost. Music (Carl Davis) sets the scene throughout the film--mournful music as Sarah walks the storm-washed quay followed by cheerful music as Irons goes in a carriage to visit his fiancée, mysterious music when Sarah and Charles are dealing with the mystery of the past, and sentimental violin music at the conclusion.
Streep (nominated for the Academy Award for her role) is stunning, portraying Sarah Woodruff as mysterious but emotionally vulnerable as she tries to control her own life. As the contemporary character, Streep is beautiful, sexy, and vulnerable. Irons is less effective, appearing distant and repressed in both roles, and the depth of his attraction for both Sarah and Anna does not seem very credible. Nevertheless, this is an fascinating film in the grand tradition, a beautifully filmed study of the interrelationship of love and freedom-two love stories with two appropriate endings. Mary Whipple
Movie Review: Omigod what an awful movie......
Summary: 1 Stars
When I was in college, I LOVED the book, French Lieutenant's Woman! It was one of my favorite books of all time. Sarah, the symbol of all that was feminine, mysterious, alluring, and perhaps dangerous - was she really a whore, a goddess, or just a simple woman caught in a struggle for survival in the harsh Victorian age?I could just go on and on about how fabulous the book was. But this isn't a review for the book.
When the movie came out, I rushed out to see it in the first weekend. Oh, geez, to say that I was let down, just doesn't quite get it right.
The two big downers were
1. Meryl Streep
2. The changed plot device of a play within a play of modern actors acting out the movie.
Meryl Streep was just horribly miscast in the role of Sarah Woodruff. She had absolutely no qualities of mystery, danger, or sex appeal to take on this role. At the time, Charlotte Rampling had been rumored to have been one of the potential actresses considered to play the role of Sarah, and she would have been great in this role. A decade or so later, and Michelle Pfeiffer would have been perfect for the role. But Meryl Streep? Oh my.... groan.....
And the play within a play plot device, what an idiotic thing to do to completely change a masterwork like John Fowles's novel. How completely artificial and unnecessary.
After this movie came out, I absolutely couldn't stand to watch Meryl Streep in any other movies. One of my favorite books, in its one shot at being made into a movie, ruined.
When I think of movies like The Stepford Wives or La Femme Nikita or King Kong getting re-made, I think, wow, wake up Hollywood, it's TIME FOR A REMAKE of this classic novel! And next time, please get it right.....
Movie Review: Book vs. Movie
Summary: 3 Stars
Alternate endings, authorial interjections, primary source documents, epigraphs; just a few techniques John Fowles uses to turn his Darwinian novel, The French Lieutenant's Woman, into a unique resurrection of classic Victorian literature. With all of the literary devices that Fowles employs in his novel to make it-according to one reviewer-"so utterly compelling," it comes as no surprise that this novel does not adapt easily to the screen. In fact, the screenwriter, Harold Pinter, completely disregards the true intended nature of the aforementioned rhetorical strategies in his adaptation of the novel. Instead of portraying these essential elements as Fowles wrote them, Pinter creates a "movie within a movie" by constructing a passionate affair that the actors portraying Sarah and Charles involve themselves in while filming the screen version of Fowles' novel. He then cleverly weaves the two stories-one taking place in the 1860s and '70s, the other in the late-1970s/early-1980s-in and out of each other. He does so in order to give the audience a sense of the comparing of times that Fowles produces by interjecting 1960s views-on subjects including politics, religion, and social customs-in the classic style of the Victorian novel. Pinter sees this as an opportunity to use both of the novels endings, as well-the "happy" ending for the screen lovers, and the more realistic for the "real" lovers. Despite the deliberate effort to make the endings seem as genuine as possible, the do not invoke in the audience the "Mystery of the True Ending" that the novel does. And by utilizing the double-romance technique, Pinter falls prey to time constraints.
Pinter realizes that he must sacrifice plot developments and some of the other devices that make this Fowles novel unique. For example, Pinter discards of Fowles' use of the epigraphs and primary documents (including case reports) that give The French Lieutenant's Woman its Darwinian flair. Again, Pinter hopes to achieve this sense of evolution and historicism by comparing the Victorian love story with the modern one, but for anyone that has read the novel, the film just seems to lack that "something." Pinter also cuts what many readers consider key plot points from the story. This makes grasping character motivations very difficult, despite the obvious attention to detail given to keeping the dialogue consistent with that in the novel. For example, not a single frame of the film mentions Charles' uncle and the fact that Charles will no longer inherit his uncle's estate. Nor does the film address the lengths to which Sam goes to try to ensure his and his soon-to-be-bride's financial security. Without Fowles' rhetorical ingenuity and sub-plots that reveal characters' drive, the film slips further into the pattern of slaughtering the makeup of the author's creative skill.
Surely anyone who's read the book will most likely concede that they would rather adapt virtually any other book for the silver screen than The French Lieutenant's Woman. John Fowles' narration technique, designed to involve the audience in the story by speaking directly to them, and the infamous alternate endings present the most difficult aspects of the novel to overcome in the rewriting process. Surely there must exist a better way to show these aspects of the novel than the way that Pinter ultimately released it. Perhaps a narrator or even Shakespearian-inspired, one-man chorus could narrate the film in a truly Darwinian fashion, making it almost seem like a romantic documentary. Therefore, it would not seem absurd to include some of Fowles' side comments, and the narrator could then even plug in a few epigraphs or primary document excerpts. The problem of the alternate endings would then also be solved: the narrator would present them as John Fowles does in the novel. Obviously this version of the film would last longer than the two hours that Pinter's version fills, but without the second, parallel love story, the new version would occupy less time than one might think. Even so, this new longer, documentary-like version would probably not reap the same fiscal benefits that the 1981 blockbuster did, but at least the film would uphold the integrity of Fowles' novel.
Despite paltry attempts to portray Fowles' literary flair on screen, the film version of The French Lieutenant's Woman comes off as nothing more than a summary of the dominant plotline with a few glimpses into the lives of people that readers of the book have no acquaintance with. Do not misconceive this, however, as a complete bashing of the film. In deed, the film portrays Lyme Regis in an extremely visually stimulating manner, having been shot on location. And the cast, including Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, did an outstanding job playing the well-dialogued characters that, due to unfortunate adaptation circumstances, had very little motivation to guide them. But what does exemplary acting and an aesthetically pleasing setting matter if no one makes an effort to uphold the artistic integrity of the piece that inspired the film? The novel's authorial interjections, alternate ending, epigraphs and primary source documents give the novel its reverence in the literary world. Without them, the film completely fails to capture the essence of the novel, no matter how well it portrays the dialogue and visual aesthetics of the book