.

When I see that the screenplay is by Harold Pinter I approach with care as I simply cannot take to his work.Here he makes a perfect dogs dinner by constantly switching between the Victorian and contemporary story.Why he felt it necessary to do both is difficult to understand.It is a bore.

There are wide extremes of opinion expressed on this board about this film. The film certainly has defects, but they pale when compared to its achievements. It is a tour de force of the cinematic art. The switching between Victorian and Modern eras is seamlessly announced by tone, costume and manerism of character. Meryl Streep's depiction of two women, in differing circumstances and, more importantly, different times is intellectually challenging. But if you do not connect with her fragile appeal or Jeremy Irons soulful searching for fulfillment, as two very different characters, then this will be lost on you. While technically this is film making at its finest, ultimately it is a love story. You either feel for the characters or you don't.

If you are a die hard Meryl Streep fan, you might want to take a look at it. Other wise you better avoid it. It is the worst performance by Irons as a leading actor, totally lack of inspiration that he usually had to flame up the screen. And the film itself is also banal. The director is like a careful student that follows text books. As the result, the film is more like a craft than a piece of art. I'd recommend you spend the two hours on other films--life is short. 3/10

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.

source: The French Lieutenant's Woman

Trailer—The French Lieutenant's Woman

The French Lieutenant's Woman

Anna (Meryl Streep) and Mike (Jeremy Irons) are modern actors filming the movie "The French Lieutenant's Woman" and having a short romantic affair despite being married to others. In the Victorian movie, he plays Charles Henry Smithson engaged to Ernestina (Lynsey Baxter) in Lyme Regis. He breaks up with her after having an affair with Sarah Woodruff played by Anna. Sarah had been abandoned by a French Lieutenant. The ensuing scandal forces her to flee to London. Screenwriter Harold Pinter adapts the unfilmable novel by John Fowles. The solution is interesting but it leaves me with one big problem. The modern world becomes the real story while the film within the film becomes something fake that I don't care about. Whenever Charles and Sarah are on the screen, I can't wait for them to go away. It's an intriguing idea but it doesn't engage me.

A film is being made of a story, set in 19th century England, about Charles (Jeremy Irons), a biologist who is engaged to be married, but who falls in love with outcast Sarah (Meryl Streep), whose melancholy makes her leave him after a short, but passionate affair. I did not think this would be my kind of movie. A period piece romance with Meryl Streep? Sounds pretty boring. But instead, we get this really interesting movie-in-movie, where the action we see as real can be cut away from at any time. And then this also allows us two stories in one, which have more than a few parallels. Streep is obviously a gifted actress and the best of her generation. Irons is great, as well, though not nearly as recognized. He makes all that he touches turn to gold.