Sarah + the french lieutenant
I'm still wondering why Sarah told Charles she slept with the French lieutenant (while she didn't). It's obvious she's a very complex and mysterious person, but why??
Any suggestions?
Dr Grogan explains to Charles Smithson the prevailing Victorian theories of madness and psychosis, The last explanation as I remember, is that if the sufferer can be brought to realise that what she imagined happened to her was an illusion, she would be cured. (I've re-read your query. How she came to be in this condition is not explained in the movie and I don't think it is mentioned in the book).
This takes time. In the story Charles breaks off his engagement and waits for three unhappy years. In the meantime Sarah must have come to the realisation that she had been virgin all the time until her encounter with Charles in the Commercial Hotel bedroom.
However, in the nature of things these psychotic illusions take a long time to disperse. Without help from outside she has to work out the situation for herself. This is why she only responds to Charles's newspaper advertisements after three years when she is living at Windermere.
In one of the final scenes Charles harangues her for not making contact earlier, to which she replies that it took this long for her to find herself, or words to this effect. At this point Charles realises that he must forgive her in the circumstances.
It's some time since I saw the movie, but this is the way that I remember it. Perhaps others can put me right if I have erred.
Nooooo, you're totally wrong! I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know what Pinter made out of the novel, but I've just finished reading it.
Sara is not psychotic - that's Dr Grogan's explanation because it's the only way he knows how to explain Sara's actions. Sure enough, the novel toys with that notion a lot, of Sara being mad, because that's the époque’s only explanation for a woman’s quest for independence. Why wouldn't she want to marry Charles, after all, if she weren't mad, right?
But Sara is a much more complex character and I think much more true to life in that way. She says in the novel that she "is not to be understood“ and she does remain a mystery to Charles, but maybe not so much for the modern reader.
Why does she lie?
She wants to lure Charles into bed, that's for sure; she wants to make him fall in love with her, for two main reasons:
- because she too falls in love with him &
- because she sees him as a means to an end: to get out of her predicament.
So to make him fall in love with her she makes up stories she feels will attract him to her. A woman so daring that she should willingly sleep with a man she knows a crook, is much more attractive and mysterious, than a woman simply made a fool of by that same crook.
Also, when Charles comes to her hotel room in Exeter, she pretends she has a twisted ankle. Why? First, that's one way of luring him into her room (otherwise they'd meet in the lobby, in a public place), but also, because she plays the victim, a Victorian "damsel in distress", a woman to be rescued by the romantic hero Charles wants to be. She makes a projection of herself she thinks he will find most appealing.
There's no doubt in my mind that Sara did fall for Charles, but part of the appeal was that he were engaged, unattainable... an impossible match... a challenge. But she longed for freedom and independence and choice, not marriage.
There's also little doubt that she was tormented by loneliness and sexual longing, but not so much to be driven mad by it.
And why didn't she contact Charles once she learned of his divorce? Because she honestly didn't want to be with him. She found her tribe, her place in the sun, she belonged for once. Also, there is a hint in the novel that she had his child, but wanted to hide this from him - again so that she wouldn't have to tie herself to him.
In the beginning of the novel, we are made to believe that Sara is the one who needs to be rescued by Charles, but in fact it was the opposite: he longed to be saved by her. But, and that's the genius of this novel: there's no romantic ending there, Charles was not to be saved. Or at least not by Sara's love.
However, you can argue that her rejection sends him on the path of salvation, because he finally becomes a true and complete outcast and can start from scratch, unbound by convention and expectation.
@Passta,
awesome!
i agree that Sarah is more true to her life &
she has an independent soul.
he is saved & freed @ the end,
regards,
Yes!! I know it's a little late to be replying to this, but you nailed it. In addition to what you said, she admitted that she was envious of others and bitter about her station in life. Earlier in the movie she said something to Charles like, "Why couldn't I be Ernestina and not the other way around?" And then she pursued a man who had ties to someone she envied. She even could have seen them together and set her sights on him before he first noticed her on the jetty.
I find it kind of amazing that we're analyzing these characters as though they're real people. That's the power of the movie and the book.
That is a great break-down, thanks.
I did wonder about the authenticity of her actually twisting her ankle on the stairs. Prior to Charle's arrival it seemed she was expecting him. She arranged her clothes on the chair and admired them before gazing out of the window and smiling. As if they were props to make her look appealing and perhaps vulnerable. She used her hair to advantage also - in the hotel and also in the woods when she was telling Charles her story.
She had not seen a doctor about her ankle either - telling Charles "He would only tell me to do what I am already doing" meaning resting it. It does all seem staged and once he is sat down she turns on the tears saying "I thought I would never see you again".
I guess she feigned her turning her ankle in view of the hostess so that the hostess was able to impart that information to Charles should he turn up to ensure he went into her room.
"Has anyone seen my wife?" - Columbo