The French Lieutenant's Woman [Blu-ray]

When John Fowles' epic romantic novel, "The French Lieutenant's Woman" was first published many of Hollywood's leading directors at the time(Fred Zinnemann, Richard Lester and Mike Nichols) all tried and failed to adapt it's complicated narrative to the big screen. It took the combined talents of director Karel Reisz and screenwriter Harold Pinter to finally figure out the film's structure and the results have certainly stood the test of time in the nearly thirty-five years since the film's release in 1981. Criterion has now brought "The French Lieutenant's Woman" to Blu-ray and the results are simply stunning. According to the liner notes from the enclosed booklet: "This new digital transfer was created in 2K resolution from the original camera negative. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, scratches, and splices were manually removed" and anyone viewing the film now will be impressed(bitrate: 27.50). The story is complicated and involves parallel narratives, both a modern contemporary(25%) and Victorian(75%) stories but due to the expert direction of Karel Reisz and superb editing from John Bloom never gets tiring and holds the viewers attention throughout. As photographed by the great cinematographer Freddie Francis, this is where this new Blu-ray really impresses with bright and rich colors that are a marvel to behold. Both interiors and exteriors have a richness and depth that dazzles the eye. Costumes(both period and modern), set designs, and the overall art direction is very vivid and will not disappoint. 19th Century Dorset has never looked more impressive under the lens of Freddie Francis. The famous shot of Meryl Streep looking back at Jeremy Irons for the first time at the end of a jetty is still one of the greatest images ever put on film and is still powerful now as it was in theaters in 1981. The Audio(LPCM 1.1 English) has been improved also. Again from the liner notes: "The original monaural soundtrack was remastered at 24-bit from the 35 mm magnetic tracks. Clicks, thumps, hiss, hum and crackle were manually removed." Director Reisz gets sterling performances out of his cast with acting honors going to the two leads, Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons who play their dual roles quite effectively. Streep, who was only 31, has never looked more beautiful and richly deserved her Oscar nomination(one of 19!) for her stunning performance. She is especially effective in the Victorian story(as Sarah) with a performance that is in stark contrast to her one(as Anna) in the modern story. Although having two parallel stories in a film might be unconventional and even confusing to some viewers, overall the film succeeds on all levels and is a triumph for all concerned. "The French Lieutenant's Woman" is 123 minutes(Aspect Ratio: 1.85.1) and only contains the following subtitle: English SDH. Special features included new 2015 interviews with Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, editor John Bloom and film composer Carl Davis. There is also an interview with film scholar Ian Christie and a 1981 TV interview with director Karel Reisz, novelist John Fowles and screenwriter Harold Pinter. The Blu-ray disc itself is housed in Criterion's standard transparent case. "The French Lieutenant's Woman" is an outstanding film and Criterion's new Blu-ray presentation should please a whole new generation of film scholars and viewers alike. It comes very highly recommended.

I saw this again recently for probably the 8th time in 35 years. When it was first released in 1981, I was enthralled with it, not too strong a word. Perhaps I over-identified with the Victorian Sarah, the poor outcast, the scorned and hopeless woman. One's perspective certainly can change over the years. I have now realized that the key to understanding this movie is in the hairstyles.The cinematography here is amazing as others have mentioned, a feast for the eyes if you don't try too hard to figure out the characters. In essence, the Victorian Charles is a typical man of his age, rather repressed, and he has always followed social conventions. And so he arrives at an age where he realizes it is time to marry, and casting about for the nearest suitable female, he finds Ernestina.Charles has apparently had little or no experience with the bottom 90% of the social pyramid and not much experience with emotional intensity or passion. When he meets Sarah, something in her sparks the flame, symbolized by her masses of unruly, sexy red hair (a wig) tumbling about her shoulders, just inviting a roll in the hay. In contrast, we see Ernestina with an almost ridiculous looking and contrived hairstyle, so elaborate and difficult to maintain as to preclude any possibility of sex.The modern day story of Mike and Anna offers an unusual parallel. Although Anna has quite a lot in common psychologically with her Victorian counterpart, she wears a very businesslike, no-nonsense hairstyle that lets us know she is all about the convenience of the moment. She enjoys Mike superficially, but isn't interested in taking the relationship any further. That is obvious from her facial expressions and body language. She uses Mike for sex with no emotional investment whatsoever, just like Victorian men of their day used prostitutes. Her husband, David, who just happens to be French, apparently does not want to know what she is doing. He is a very peripheral character with a tiny role. We learn nothing of their relationship, it's left a mystery for a reason. Mike doesn't seem to pick up on her lack of investment. Is he as clueless about relationships as Charles? Anna succeeds in avoiding ever discussing their future, and in the final scene, we see Mike alone on the set, the red wig left behind on a stand. He calls out despairingly to "Sarah", as Anna drives away.Interesting film, a chick flick, of course. The depiction of Victorian mores is quite good. Thirty five years later, the relationships and characters don't seem quite as believable or compelling, but it holds up fairly well. Just don't ask "why". Love means never having to explain yourself, or your hair.

This is one of my all-time go-to tear jerkers. There's so much intensity, pathos, wild and barely in-control emotion in these performances by Streep and Irons. The parallel stories are just so skillfully interwoven you can smell, hear, feel the atmosphere of both stories. I first saw this many years ago, and the powerful fierceness of feelings surging through these performances still shines through. The soft expressiveness of Streep's gaze when she meets Irons for the first time on the jetty sets the scene and stamps the movie with an unmistakable sense of longing, loss, and of being misunderstood. The cinematography is rich and evocative, and every scene reads like a painting. Take time to follow each story and compare both carefully. This is an unforgettable story that I plan to revisit again and again. I can't recommend this highly enough! A personal favorite.

The film is beautifully shot and on the whole quite faithful to the book. In consists of a Victorian element and also a modern version, in which the lead actors are also having a love affair in the 1980s while shooting it.The cinematography and Merl Streep’s performances are probably the strongest aspects of it. She has this haunted look and feel, very chilly, yet also inspiring pity and sorrow too.Charles is another interesting character, he’s hard to love, he’s driven by forces clearly driving him mad, and he hurts many people while pursuing his mad love affair. Both characters outrage Victorian society with their behaviour and actions. Charles is also privileged and fancies himself as a bit of a gentleman scientist. He’s offered the chance to take over his father in laws business but seems uninterested.While in London near the end we do get to see a little bit of the poverty and prostitution but on the whole much of the story takes place in costal Dorset in a close knight town.The strengths of the film are probably in it’s acting and the costumes art and production design. It does feel like it’s dragging on at the end and some people will not like the modern element either but the film does succeed in capturing some of the strangeness of the book.

Karel Reisz’s film of John Fowles’ popular novel The French Lieutenant’s Woman employs the two best actor’s of their day, Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, to play the fated lovers, Charles and Sarah. Pinter’s screenplay tidies up or removes a few sub-plots, and compares the fates of the couple in Victorian times, with the actors (Mike and Anna) playing them in the modern day, and having an affair, though both are married. Pinter offered a solution to the novel’s unfilmable narrative structure, and presented the tale of obsession, infidelity, and shame as two parallel stories—one in the Victorian past, as in the book, and one in the present, dealing with the actors making the film we’re watching.The rich inter-layering of science and historical fact as devices of the post-modern novelist, are sacrificed, as well as Charles’s relationships with his uncle and with his servant, Sam. The film is concentrated on the story of the two lovers from their 1st meeting on the Cobb, their several meetings at Underhill, or at Mrs. Tranter’s house. Charles is shown rescuing Sarah from her plight of the fallen woman, she of saving him from a bad future marriage. Charles’ reputation is ruined by the enigmatic Sarah, the mystery outcast. Also Mike finds he cannot accept the affections of the wily Anna.Scenically the film’s atmosphere recreates the Victorian age of Lyme Regis, Exeter and London. The woodland scenes are beautifully done (Underhill), and those by the windy sea and the Cobb. The modern real couple have a casual sexual relationship, in contrast to the intensity of the restrained Victorian moments of the build up to consummation. I liked the film, acting and direction, but felt it omitted too much to be as full hearted as the novel. Pinter is more interested in the couple’s central dilemma; the narration is as effective as you could make it. Reisz’s direction is detailed and smooth. Carl Davis soundtrack is moving.The film succeeds as an art-house delight and earns 5 Oscar nominations. Irons plays the protagonist by restraining his stage acting skills, but Streep leaves an indelible mark, with her hauntingly quiet portrayal of Sarah, the fallen woman. In Fowles’ novel, the consequences of Charles’ and Sarah’s affair is played out in three different endings. It is up to the reader to decide which is the most plausible—or morally acceptable. For the film, Pinter has twisted this conceit into the two analogous storylines with dissimilar outcomes. Very clever indeed. Perhaps Pinter’s script—which was nominated for an Adapted Screenplay Oscar—is the real star of the picture

I found this a most intriguing film and has long been one of my favourites. Its clear Meryll Streep based her character's portrayal on Lady Di, but it doesn't detract, this is a story of subteranean lust in supposedly repressed Victorian Britain. Perhaps more about women's repression it's played through a film within a film format,quite revoloutionary for its 80's cinema release date. Jeremy Irons is sublime,lean and sexy while Meryl is cool reserved and smoulders especially when both characters appear together, but personally it is English actress Lynsey Baxter who steals the show. She looks beautiful, pale and piqued and shimmers amidst the green of a Victorian conservatory early in the piece. Her clipped rasping speech perfectly evokes the predominence of class then and now and maybe she's telling us that instead of getting rid of class distinction it's this we desire in her, not simply her looks. Anyway she reminds me of a woman who lives in the next street to me,a kind of timeless English country beauty and self posession. Its a role which has preoccupied me more and more as i've grown older,but don't forget it's a great film and well worth the money, new or old.

Mike and Anna are actors who are in a romantic relationship they're starring in a film set in Victorian England. It transpires that the film is the French Lieutenant's women, Sarah who walks to the same place everyday and looks out to sea hoping for her married lover to come back, she meets Charles who gradually gets her to open up about her relationship. Meryl Streep is fantastic playing both Sarah and Anna and Jeremy Irons is brilliant playing both Mike and Charles, you genuinely believe them to be lovers. The story flits from modern day to Victorian England and back again. Stunning love story that shows how lovers can be brought together and torn apart by passion.

A fine cinematic telling of John Fowles quality historic/hysteric novel with sterling performances by Streep and Irons who seem to have a peculiar chemistry on,and probably off, set. It's about a lovelorn historical female who waits endlessly for the return of her former French lover and who eventually falls in love with a middle class fossil hunter who then deserts his staid wife for what seems to be a scarlet woman. First time I've actually seen Irons explosively angry at anything (He was pretty anaemic e.g. in Brideshead, true to the character). Plotwise, the film actually plays in two parallel universes with the historical relationship and modern actors' relationships alternating throughout. You have to guess how each will turn out.