MovieChat Forums > The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) Discussion > Not that Good

Not that Good

posted 19 years ago by naladog77
30 replies | jump to latest

I understand that this is considered a modern classic and that my opinion will not be a popular one to fans of the film.

I am a huge fan of British movies, especially those based upon British literature. I did not see this movie until yesterday. I had known that it was nominated for several Academy Awards, but I had also known that Katharine Hepburn had been an outspoken critic of Meryl Streep's performance, and I have to say that after seeing it I agree with Miss Hepburn.

Meryl's performance was too overacted and without enough substance in the scenes where she is in Victorian times. It was by far one of Meryl's worst work- it was as if she was trying too hard. (IMO- I know that others may disagree. There are a lot of Streep's performances that I greatly admire but this seemed amateurish to me) Jeremy Irons was great, pulling a strong understated performance.

I did not read the book, so it is hard for me to understand some things. For one, in the book does it actually intermingle the modern actress's life with the Victorian part which she is playing? For as far as the film is concerned, it seemed to me that the "modern" scenes were pointless and did not add anything at all to the plot. It seemed to distract from the real love story. The half an hour or so of scenes from the modern actors' times could have instead been used to add more depth to the Victorian romance.

The film did not seem to demonstrate why the Victorian characters fell in love. (perhaps some of it was cut to make more room for the modern day actors' affair? If so, too bad.) It seemed that we are just meant to accept that point, but the love story itself, and their budding relationship was very flimsy and such a small portion of the story that I could not feel it. And the chemistry between Irons and Streep seemed almost nil. As a viewer I did not buy that they were in love or that Irons would have been severely depressed for three years to find his "love."

I know that many will disagree with me but am curious if anyone else out there shares my opinion. There are some great performances by Irons and Streep out there, but in my opinion, this is not the movie to watch to find them.
Amanda

"She was drunk or he was crazy."

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bostonfilmfan 18 years ago

I agree, the film is enormously overrated, probably due to the fact that it was released at the peak of Maryl Streep's carrier, and she was basically untouchable. I respect her, but I am not a fan, since most of her performances are calculated and lack genuine passion and I dare to say, feminine magic.

As far as the film is concerned it is only mediocre. I agree that the modern sequesnces were not necessary at all. As far as the ending of the victorian story is concerned, I was hoping for the second version to be shown as well (since the modern characters mention the dual ending in the script), but instead we get only one, sugar coated, Hollywood-style ending. I was ready for main character to find the name of his love on some dead prostitutes lists, or something like that. That would be a natural development of the story. Sorry, it didn't happen.

[–] Pedro_H 18 years ago

Streep can be brilliant in a way very few American actresses can be.

This piece of work is totally dispensable. Good actors mouthing mediocore words and the central love story I don't really buy.

[–] Tmyakal 18 years ago

I wasn't too keen on the movie, either. It was alright, but was something of a disservice to the book.

The reason that the modern-day stuff was interspersed with the Victorian love story was that there weren't too many ways to convey the narrator of the story. It was a 3rd person omniscient figure that was very biased and very critical of the story that he was telling. He also spent a lot of time inserting statistical facts as footnotes on pages. At one point in the novel, he explains that after so many chapters, he began to lose control of the characters and they began doing as they pleased, bringing him along for the ride. The modern-day bits in the movie were meant to reflect this. The "off-screen" romance between Irons and Streep was to show the narrator's having to follow the story he was telling: They didn't love each other, they were a product of the love they portrayed.

[–] saxonman63 18 years ago

Who cares what Katherine Hepburn thought of the great Streep? All that Hepburn ever did was play the same character in every film she appeared in. Gos knows why she won 4 Oscars. If you want to see an unconvincing performance then watch Hepburn in Sylvia Scarlet. Bloody useless! Meryl wipes the floor with her as far as acting is concerned.

[–] mittenkg 18 years ago

hear, hear! Hepburn is way overrated and a boring actress (with a few performances being exceptions). Streep, while I agree this isn't her greatest film, generally rules.

[–] liscarkat (16592) 9 months ago

Both Hepburn (K, not A) and Streep are overrated. Any movie either one of them ever made would have been better with some other actress instead.

[–] roghache 18 years ago

You are not alone. I disliked this movie intensely, was constantly confused, felt little emotional involvement, and only actually realized the point of it all when I started reading the comments here. I never read the novel, so didn't realize that the 'film within a film' concept was meant to replace the third person narrator of the book.

I would have prefered that the entire movie portray just the Victorian lovers, and found the modern affair between the actors boring. Even THEY didn't seem that interested in it! I'd just start to get a bit interested in the Victorian story when the scene would switch to the modern pair. Then I would be distracted, so basically had no emotional involvement with EITHER couple. However, I now read that the whole point of this movie wasn't so much to emotionally involve the viewer as to contrast the casual but disinterested modern affair with the forbidden but passionate Victorian one.

It all did nothing for me, and I never figured any of that out on my own! For two hours I just felt dumb and wondered...what on earth is going on? what are they attempting to show here? what am I missing? Alas, it was all far too artistic for me.

I'm not much of a fan of Meryl Streep, though I did enjoy Music of the Heart. I think as a rule she tends to overact, overdo it. I loved the film The Mission, which stars Jeremy Irons.

[–] gandzetina 18 years ago

well, first thing I sad to my girlfriend, watching this movie is that I cant see the point of modern story, but probably everything will be "connected" at the end.It didn't.Modern story seems ridiculous and unnecessary and I totally agree that it is a lost time in the movie which should be used better in developing victorian story.On the other side I liked performance of m. streep even I m not a big fun of her.Still, saying that kathryn hepburn sucks is also childish nad ridiculous.

[–] katylkh 18 years ago

I agree. It was also horrendously long. Why so long? We all knew what was going to happen as soon as Streep's character was introduced. It was unbalanced and silly and very un-emotive. I just didn't care. And it was SO LONG!!!

[–] slywy 18 years ago

The movie misfires on many character nuances, both in the script and the performance. Streep's Sarah is much more conniving (watch her mug for the camera with her back to Charles) than the novel's Sarah. If the "enigmatic woman" is a different character altogether from that in the book, it becomes a moot exercise.

--
http://www.slywy.com/

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lisam73 15 years ago

I thought the purpose of the two stories (modern/Victorian) was to handle the two Victorian endings in Fowles Book. One ending where the relationship continues - the "Happy Ending", ond one where the relationship ends.

The View from the Slums of Norristown, PA

[–] lasker_98 17 years ago

The reason that there was the contrast of the lovers in modern times and in the Victorian Era was completely necessary in order to establish the layers that were in the original book. The French Lieutenant's Woman is mysterious, and the book makes it unclear whether she was immoral or tragic.

The modern day lovers represent the modern attitude of sex without restrictions or value, and the tendency of such mores to compromise love and familial obligation. It is the shallowness of Meryl Streep that invents a woman as in the Victorian version which beguiles a married/engaged man to stray and to become sexually obsessed with her.

The Victorian version focuses on the tragedy of Sarah Woodruff as her reason for her pernicious act. And while clearly the superior part of the film, the other story only adds to the haunting quality of the movie.

My two cents. It's not meant just to be entertaining, but to be a sort of puzzle.