Skip over navigation

Sofa Cinema

Gifts - NEW  |   Help   |   Sign in

The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) Certificate 12

The French Lieutenant's Woman

Sign up

Rated 3.0 stars
Average rating
(61%)
 
Starring: Meryl Streep | Jeremy Irons | Leo McKern | Hilton McRae
Director: Karel Reisz
Studio: MGM ENTERTAINMENT
Run time: 119 mins
Genres: Drama | Romance
Languages: English
Dubbed: French, German, Italian, Spanish
Hearing-impaired: English, German
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish
Released: February 04, 2002

In this dramatic film, director Karel Reisz and screenwriter Harold Pinter adapt the complex romantic novel by John Fowles, THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN. Set in 1867, Sarah Woodrough (Meryl Streep), a beautiful young woman, is condemned by society and driven into a deep melancholy because of her tragic affair with a French lieutenant. Fowles adds depth and texture to the story by including direct historical asides and scientific lessons by Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons), a wealthy amateur paleontologist and follower of Charles Darwin. In addition, there is a film within the film in which modern-day (1981) characters Anna (Streep) and Mike (Irons) provide comments on the characters they're portraying, and a little history, but primarily provide a parallel story as they enter an adulterous affair of their own. The contrast between the Victorian and the contemporary affairs, at first jarring, is beautifully staged and photographed. Streep's two performances, as the passionate Sarah, with her beautiful head of pre-Raphaelite hair and as the cool, modern Anna, never converge; the distinctness of the division between the two characters symbolises the almost unconscious perception that however distant a person feels from their repressed Victorian sexuality, it's still connected to them, as Darwin would say.

Rating of 4 stars out of 5
Radio Times

Director Karel Reisz and screenwriter Harold Pinter here take on the near-impossible filming of John Fowles's complex novel. Two stories are told in parallel, one about an affair between a disgraced Victorian governess and an English gentleman, and the other about the relationship between the two film actors portraying the Victorian couple. Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep feature in the dual roles. The historic tale is often interrupted by the antics of the modern duo, which seem prosaic by comparison. However, Victorian morality seeps hauntingly into every frame of the main story, which is decked out in convincing period detail and hangs on two scorching performances from Irons and Streep. Reisz, meanwhile, focuses on the nature of passion by using a powerfully claustrophobic atmosphere.

Rating of 1 stars out of 5
Halliwell's Film Guide

Vaguely unsatisfactory and muddily coloured adaptation of a novel which set its thin story against the entire social background of the Victorian age as related to our own. The attempt to replace this by an equally thin modern story about actors playing th

Highest rated reviews

7 out of 7 people found the following review helpful:

Rated 4.0 stars
Rich and intelligent romantic drama

McClennan from , 7th May, 2005

Two love stories, 100 hundred years apart, occurring simultaneously onscreen, from completely different social and ethical angles. The book is supposed to very complex and I understand that this is a very good adaptation. Whilst both leads were nominated for various awards it is Streep who is the stronger (I found Jeremy Irons to be a division or two below her) despite playing a very similar character to others that she's won awards with. It wasn't easy to fall into the story with the there being grey areas surrounding the two main characters but as them, their lives and respective dilemmas are explored I found myself drawn in to a perceptive story that makes good observations about the two societies in which the stories take place. Although not as emotionally draining as some love stories it was more intelligent and less predictable than most and whilst I probably wouldn't watch this again, it was very good nevertheless.

Read all highest rated reviews

3 out of 4 people found the following review helpful:

Rated 3.0 stars
Interesting, but not that entertaining.

A Customer from Coventry, England., 8th July, 2004

This is very much a 'highbrow' film. The way in which it changes between the two time periods is interesting and the script allows for some good acting.

The problem is that it feels very much like the sort of film that is made to win Oscars. For all its intelligence the characters are not people that I found myself engaging with, giving the film quite a cold quality. I think it depends on how warmly you react to these characters that determines how much enjoyment you'll get out of this film. The actual story is very slow. Where it does have turns in the plot, they're not exactly twists that will take your breath away! Worth a try, but don't count on being moved by this film.

Read all highest rated reviews

2 out of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Rated 2.0 stars
This is not true love

Zamy from , 29th March, 2006

I first saw this film on its release. I can remember queuing at the Cameo cinema in Edinburgh. At the time I thought it was on the better side of average, the main problem being the mix of the victorian and modern stories, with the latter particularly under-developed with no background to the adulterous relationship. Looking at it again it seems to be on the worse side of average. The Harold Pinter screenplay does not dazzle it merely plods along with creaky writer's dialogue. Steep is extremely mannered and studied so that every posed gesture and nuance of speech made me cringe. Irons is a bit better but as a passionate lover I have never found him believable. Much better as a cold fish like Sebastian Flyte, surely still his best performance and that was for TV. For what it is worth the best performances for me were Lynsey Baxter as the gilted betrothed and Penelope Wilton as Iron's wife in the modern story. They had all my sympathy and Iron's had none. I am sure John Fowles was making points about the hypocricy of lovers and victorian values. Of course, finding true love is not easy and you won't find it in this film.

Read all highest rated reviews

2 out of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Rated 1.0 stars
Yuck

A Customer from Surrey, England, 26th January, 2006

The period drama was ruined by the insertion of the 'filming scenes'. Where effort could've been made on character developer, it was lost on the 'clever' use of two-stories-in one. This technique failed. It took away from the mainline story and was wholly distracting.

Read all highest rated reviews

Most recent reviews

Rated 5.0 stars
must watch

muski from , 26th February, 2010

this film is one of the best I have ever watched . Scenery is stunning and the era film is set in is wonderful. Only Meryl Street could play the lead part with the usual perfection that we have come to expect from this so talented actress. A must watch film

Read all recent reviews

Rated 4.0 stars
Nice

SMiK from , 12th August, 2009

Good acting and an interesting concept where the past and present overlaps. Interesting for a Meryl Streep fan.

Read all recent reviews

Rated 3.0 stars
A period drama with an edge

A Customer from Bromley, 7th July, 2009

I watched this film having no idea there was a 'story within a story' and it took me a while to get into it. At first I couldn't quite decide whether it was going to spoil the movie or not. In the end I thought it added an edge to the film and made it original viewing. Great acting.

Read all recent reviews

Rated 0.0 stars
the french lieutenant's woman

Gil from , 9th May, 2009

not so much an interpretation as a response to a beloved novel, this film has stood the test of time very well. excellent performances, first class production and lovely to look at, it's worth two hours of any film lover's time.

Read all recent reviews