An Interesting Failure - The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] twm-2 18 years ago

As you say, people all have their unique perspectives. I agree with much of what you write, but with one MAJOR disagreement:

You can feel it all boiling up nicely and about to explode with these two characters...

I personally didn't feel very much "boiling" or even simmering between them. It was not only that THEY often kept passion at arms length, but the direction and script kept US at arms length, keeping us, or at least ME, from being able to become embroiled in their feelings. I've gotten more excited watching protozoa through a microscope. Everything was shot in such a restrained way, and then there was that return to the modern story to remind us that the Victorian era story wasn't real. And THEN, the cardinal sin, we do get a little build up of tension as he searches for her, and when he finally finds her, we expect a grandly cathartic denouement--a passionate embrace, a gloriously intense kiss . . . but all we get is them bumping heads, a nervous giggle, and then a long shot of them on a lake. WHAT a mistake THAT was, imho. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but for me, the prospect of drinking a glass of Dr. Pepper left out overnight holds more excitement then seeing this film again.

Cheerio!

"Nothing in this world is more surprising than the attack without mercy!"--Little Big Man

reply

[–] Skullen 18 years ago

Yeah, a bit flat really. If you find two stories about two couples having affairs romantic then a) you'll like this. b) you're a bit twisted really. Their love wasn't based on anything to justify the deceit involved, they were just selfish and egotistical. And some of the film was sloppily made too. Pinter's script was occasionally very good though.

reply

[–] twm-2 18 years ago

I don't consider myself to be parTICUlary twisted, but I certainly would have no trouble warming to a film about two couples having romantic involvement, but not if the depiction is utterly devoid of warmth. Pinter's script was interesting, and a different approach might have turned this into a great film--an approach that might have included a hint that the director gave a hoot about these characters. I felt like I was watching these scenes play out as if looking through the director's microscope. Perhaps Joe Wright, the director of Pride and Prejudice could do a remake?

"Nothing in this world is more surprising than the attack without mercy!"--Little Big Man

reply

[–] littlesphinx 17 years ago

Just saw this movie and I agree with you all. It had so much potential and despite a truly passionate performance by an often shirtless Irons, it was simply boring. Twm-2 hits the nail on the head with the comment about warmth. I have noted this feature of Pinter's work before. He is interested in people and their sex drives, but is completely detached.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16522) 8 months ago

Irons shirtless? Maybe once. Even in the sex scene with Sarah he had his shirt on.

reply

[–] highpriestess32 17 years ago

Hiya,

I think that Irons and Streep as the modern actors engaged in an affair was totally unengaging but them playing the Victorian characters was quite the opposite. There was a certain intensity that was lacking in their sleazy affair off-camera.

I think that it was the script and the way the film was developing that forced Anna into realising that what she was doing was wrong and this was further compounded when she meets with the domesticity of Mike's wife and child at the luncheon gathering. You can see she is avoiding him and being aloof and then there was that look exchanged between her and the wife, a sort of telling glance. I think Anna knew that the wife knew something and that said wife also suspected that Anna had guessed that she suspected an affair.

I suspect that Anna had no intention of continuing the affair anyway, once the film was wrapped. It seemed to me that Mike was doing much of the chasing, he was definitely the more needy of the two. She was clearly in a hurry to drive off...slipping away quietly during the wrap party. A clear sign that it was over because thereafter she returns to the States and foolish Mike hopefully plucked his head out of the clouds and concentrated on his loyal family who deserved better than his selfish behaviour.

There's 3 ways a man can wear his hair; front-parted, side-parted or departed

reply

[–] twm-2 17 years ago

I agree with all that you write, and certainly agree that the Victorian romance was ever so much more engaging than the modern affair which seems to have come about as a result of boredom as much as anything. Unfortunately, the film keeps reminding us that the more interesting portion of the film wasn't "real" with its inevitable switch back to the modern protagonists. For me, than, the film never presents an opportunity for me to get emotionally involved with any of the characters. The final insult occurs at the end of the film within the film, when Iron's character finds Streep's, and we are expecting a cathartic reunion, a grand sweep of passion to carry us to film's end, but instead, they bump heads and laugh nervously. No kiss. No embrace. No words of passion. And then we see them in the distance out rowing on a lake--the water calm, unstirred--just like my emotions.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] highpriestess32 17 years ago

Hi twm-2,

Yes I agree with you also in that the ending was an anti-climax for sure. We are never really enlightened as to 'the madness' that was within the character of Miss Woodrough, or as she is now known, Roughwood.

She seemed to wallow in her sorrows and yet she was not the scarlet woman that she claimed to be and we know this because when they [her and Charles] meet in the hotel/inn, we discover that she is 'untouched'.

We are never given and real and satisfactory explanation as to what that madness she spoke of was all about and are left assuming somewhat. 'You loved me once and if you still love me you can forgive me'. He agrees and as you say, they emerge on a lake - indicative of a happy life together I am sure but it wasn't a satisfactory conclusion. It was as though they had run out of time, money and/or ideas. Why invest so much into this secondary love story only to end it in such a lame manner?

Regards,

Lo

There's 3 ways a man can wear his hair; front-parted, side-parted or departed

reply

[–] twm-2 17 years ago

Am in complete agreement.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] highpriestess32 17 years ago

Strange really as another poster just asked about Sarah's madness and the book ending.

I really take objection to being guided through what was potentially a film with a good ending only to be palmed off with such lameness!!

I imagine the book is equally lacking. It was such a novel idea to have a film about the making of a film I thought but it could have done so much better. All we are left with is unanswered questions and not a single hint of anything that would enable us to make up our own minds.

We are left clutching at straws somewhat and we are left wandering what on earth Sarah's madness was about and why she chose not to wait for his return only to then make her whereabouts known to his solicitor 3 years later.

She even changes her name. I think she is just a very mad person, not so much an enigma but potentially a crazy lady who could quite possibly become Charles' worst nightmare lol

There's 3 ways a man can wear his hair; front-parted, side-parted or departed

reply

[–] ChoirBoyOC 17 years ago

I disagree with much of the assessment on this board. I will say that when I first viewed the film somewhere around 10 years ago, I was pretty unengaged, but upon recent re-viewing, I found it not only more interesting, but also ferociously passionate.

I think the single most interesting aspect of the film is that the frame story (of the actors making the adaptation) allows them to comment on the book. To interpret, yes, but also to summarize, and to explore the meanings outside the book. It's what allows them to tell the book's story in so little time, and in the end, the film becomes more about the art of storytelling than about the stories told. There's a subtle genius to this, and a dazzling virtuosity in the writing. Moreover, the book apparently had two different endings (I've not read it, but the dialogue in the film reveals this - another great touch), and the film manages to do the same with its two different stories.

Curiously, the film Adaptation tackles the same theme, albeit very differently. It's surely not a coincidence that Streep turns in two of her finest performances in them both. She's essentially a profound advocate of what actors call "process" and the two films are both about the characters, to a degree, but more about the process of creating them on screen. Watching her blossom in a scene from rehearsal to performance has got to be one of the most vivid depictions ever filmed of what it means to act.

reply

[–] phirdilse 16 years ago

Failure or not, its an interesting make indeed!

reply

[–] brunodutch 16 years ago

You're crazy. The film is a magnificent version of the novel boasting one of the finest screenplays ever written. I just saw it again on DVD and it is as ravishing as ever.

reply

[–] twm-2 16 years ago

You could be right. Perhaps I AM crazy. However, I'm not sure that being unable to fully appreciate a film that had its heart excised is an indicator of psychosis, especially when every scene in the Victorian Era part of the film seems to point to an emotional climax, a climax the filmmakers decided to withhold. It was if they were so engrossed by the films cleverness (the idea of the parallel stories) that it never occurred to them to make the characters into something more than plot devices--to make them into passionate, living, breathing human beings (at least for the Victorian Era characters--who would then have served to make an even better contrast to the shallow, self-absorbed 20th century characters). I agree that the film is pretty enough, but it takes more than pretty pictures, more than a clever idea to make a great movie.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] twm-2 16 years ago

Hear, hear!

But I must say that in all truth, your risk of appearing like Colonel Blimp was very slight indeed, though apparently, by not embracing the film you put yourself at risk of seeming "crazy."

But fear not, some of my favorite people were literally certifiable.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] twm-2 16 years ago

Ouch! In that case, I'm certain they're grateful that you hadn't taken on (slightly or not) the aspect of Major Dirigible. All of that steel framework might be their undoing!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brunodutch 16 years ago

I suspect you haven't read the novel and so don't understand its structure or the bold and imaginative change made for the film. The two stories (in the film) have nothing to do with cleverness - Pinter is a great artist and he brings his artistry to bear on the novel's formidably intractable structure (in terms of making it a drama) and succeeds triumphantly. Not wishing to be rude but I have no idea what 'psychosis' is supposed to mean. Do you mean psychological? As Mike becomes more obsessed by Anna he becomes more the man of the past, the man from a Hardy novel, until, in the film's beautiful final moment, he calls the actress 'Sarah'. The two stories are not intended to contrast with each other, what they do is draw inexorably together until they meet, sexual obsession playing the part of fate both in the past and the present. In the past, however, the lovers are allowed to escape into the eternal summer of literature. The lovers in the present can only go on coping with their lives and the inevitable disappointment of romance. A very superior entertainment, literate, passionate and infinitely touching.

reply

[–] twm-2 16 years ago

My comment about "psychosis" was in reply to your remark that I was "crazy," and was not about the film. As far as not being familiar with the book, that is true, but if a film must depend on familiarity with its source, than the film must be counted a failure. I judged it only on its own merits, just as I judged the films East of Eden, and For Whom the Bell Tolls--films whose source material I had read and enjoyed--on their own merits, completely independent of the novels from which they originated.

I understand what you're saying about TFLW, I just don't happen to agree that the result is "superior entertainment, literate, passionate and infinitely touching." My disagreement is especially impassioned as regards the puroported "passionate" nature of the film. It fell flat for me. But I have no problem with your liking the film--can even understand why you DID appreciate it. It just didn't work for me, for the reasons already stated above.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] In-a-Haze 16 years ago

I fully agree with the OP on everything said. The movie was a great dissapointment to me, and I put the majority of the failure of this movie upon the director's shoulders.

reply

[–] mlumiere 15 years ago

An interesting success. Having just reviewed the film on TCM, after having remembed some disappointment in 1981, after having adored the book, I now give it a 9/10, seen with refreshed eyes. It is so far superior to 99% of films made today, most of which are adolescent comic book and superhero yarns, it's made me move it from 7 to 9 out of 10!

reply

[–] twm-2 15 years ago

Of course! Not everyone is going to see the film the same way I did, and that's fine, otherwise everything written about a film would express the views of everyone else--so what would be the point of reading such stuff?--much less writing it. My profound disappointment came form being able to appreciate the dazzling competence of the filmmakers, but believing, in spite of all that talent and promise, that they missed their mark by a fair margin. It remains for me today what it was then, a dry experiment in film technique, with nearly all the emotion wrung from its celluloid. Alas.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] Ruby_Bale_Desplat 14 years ago

I think the problem was the modern story, it wasn't developed enough and so it felt a bit flat and pointless. But I liked the rest! And the "un-climatic", un-melodramatic ending was not a problem for me, quite the contrary.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAj7SvktAEQ

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (930) a year ago

I really wish more depth had been put into the modern characters-- it would have made the dual ending more powerful. As it is, the modern couple are so shallow, seeming to engage in an affair from boredom more than anything. Yes, there is the implication that Mike is more in love with "Sarah" than Anna... but the film barely explores this. I wish the meta element was a bit more blatant... as it is, it feels more like an afterthought.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16522) 8 months ago

Definitely interesting. Definitely not a failure.

reply