IMDb user comments for
The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

42 comments in total

---

39 out of 46 people found the following comment useful :-
Complex yet Stunning, 24 January 2002

Author: Jen_UK from England

I 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.

---

29 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
A multi-chambered Nautilus shell fossilized in stone., 24 January 2003

Author: budmassey (cyberbarrister@gmail.com) from Indianapolis, IN

This 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 moving, 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 movies 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.

---

22 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Narrative Folding, 18 August 2000
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

Haunting 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.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
A classic film about sexual repression past and present, 24 October 2005

Author: from Philadelphia, USA

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.

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
A wonderful movie, 31 July 1999

Author: stills-6 from california

This film is visually fascinating as well as dramatically satisfying. Every camera shot is breathtaking - this includes both stories.

The script is brilliant. I thoroughly enjoyed the post-modernist self-awareness - the blurred line between one reality and the other calls the entire experience into question. But I knew I was watching modern actors playing in a period piece and I was still caught up in the story, both stories - which mirror each other and make you wonder which character is influencing which performance. Irons gets to play two obsessive roles, something he seems to be really good at. Streep is enthralling and brings a third dimension to two enigmatic roles perfectly suited for her.

---

15 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
An inspiration to Goths everywhere, 19 August 2000

Author: kzoofilm from Portage, MI

If 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.

---

18 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Romanticism without the "base" alloy of actual feeling, 11 February 2005

Author: Thomas W. Muther, Jr. (twm-2) from Topeka, KS

This 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.

---

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Top quality performances, 31 October 2004

Author: Alaia from NC

Fantastic performance from Jeremy Irons, and of course Meryl Streep is flawless. 1981's interpretation of a period piece, contrasted with '81 present day. I am a huge fan of late 70s and early 80s movie conventions for quality movies - slower pace, more left to the viewer to discern. Brilliant. If you like period pieces and amazing acting, you will like this.

If you like Meryl Streep I also recommend Sophie's Choice and Silkwood. Jeremy Irons' debut was in Brideshead Revisited (avail on Netflix), an early 80s miniseries -- worth checking out, he's great in it. Another good specimen of his acting is in Reversal of Fortune. But there are lots more.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Possibly The best Meryl Streep film..., 30 August 2003
Author: (merylstreep69@sbcglobal.net) from Illinois

Short and sweetly, The movie holds up surprisingly well for an early 80's film and the DVD is a must for those who haven't seen it since..

Meryl Streep plays two roles as Sarah, The French Lieutenant's Woman of the title and Anna, the actress playing Sarah. I recommend trying to find the novel written back in 1970, as it fills in alot of gaps in the character of Susan. Relatively quick paced, the story within a story(kind of like Adaptation)method is used well here and I highly suggest viewing this film for all "Streepies" out there( you know who you are).

---

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Dramatic tale of dual affairs failed to engage me, 26 March 2006

Author: roghache from Canada

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history