Love on the Cobb

THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN (1981)

LOVE ON THE COBB

In order to more completely discuss this film, one must start with author John Fowles, who wrote the very successful but controversial novel the movie was based on. He was born in 1926 in England . He grew up in a rather “conformist” environment in the Britain of the 1930’s. He once said,” My family life was intensively conventional.” Of his childhood, he said,” I’ve tried to escape ever since.”

He was in the Army during WWII, the latter part, and he stayed in the service until 1947. Then he attended Oxford . While there he was introduced to French Existentialism --through reading Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. The philosophy seemed to fall in line with his personal ideas of conformity and the will of the individual. Sartre is considered “the father of existentialism”. As I understand it, it is a philosophy in which we are held entirely responsible for our own actions and our own lives –and we are never free from the necessity of making choices –of which we are not able to predict the outcome of.

In 1950 Fowles received a degree in French, and he began his career as a teacher. He remained a teacher for more than a decade, and like a lot of professors, he began to envision himself as a “writer”. He completed the first draft of THE COLLECTOR in 1960. It was published in 1962. By early 1963, it became an immediate best seller, and he quit his day job. THE MAGUS was published in 1965, after he had been rewriting and blue-penciling it for ten years.

He moved to Lyme Regis in Dorset , England in 1968. He fell in love with the city, its bay, its Cobb, and its history. At one point he became curator of the city’s historical museum. He wrote the narrative for the photographic book, LYME REGIS CAMERA. He resided there until his death, at age 75, in 2002.

His novel, THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN appeared in 1969. It, too, became a best seller, and the winner of several book awards. Probably it is the one book that Fowles is most identified with. It is a very audacious book for several reasons. It picked up a reputation for being “unfilmable”. Fowles claimed that he enjoyed “teasing” the reader. He said,” You intentionally mislead them –ideally to lead them into a greater truth. It’s a trap which I hope will hook the reader.”

He opened his first chapter with the first of his many epigraphs.

Stretching eyes west
Over the sea,
Wind foul or fair,
Always stood she
Prospect-impressed;
Solely out there
Did her gaze rest,
Never elsewhere
Seemed charmed to be.

Hardy,”THE RIDDLE”.

I think he began writing the novel in 1967, and he liked the idea of having a full century to toy with –to bend the timelines and intersperse his modern notions and insights. I loved his prose style. Immediately he placed us in Lyme Regis in March 1867.

“It was a long claw of old gray wall that flexes itself against the sea. It is quite simply the most beautiful sea rampart on the South Coast of England. It is redolent of seven hundred years of English history, because ships sailed to meet the Armada from it, because Monmouth landed beside it –but finally because it is a superb fragment of folk art. Primitive yet complex, elephantine but delicate; as full of subtle curves and volumes as a Henry Moore or a Michelangelo, and pure clean salt, a paragon of mass.

There was a figure on that somber curving mole. It stood right at the seawardmost end, and apparently leaning against an old cannon barrel upended as a bollard. Its clothes were black. The wind moved them, but the figure stood motionless staring, staring out to sea, more like a living memorial to the drowned, a figure from myth, than any proper fragment of the petty provincial day.”

The novel reputes to be controversial because of the manner in which Fowles wrote it. He seemed to insert himself, or at least the narrator, into the narrative —making two self-referential intrusions into the story. Some strongly felt that this literary device simply violated the sacred author/reader contract. At one point, for instance, the narrator entered the train compartment, and sat across from character, Charles Smithson –and proceeded to discuss his future.

John Fowles reportedly even wrote a farcical chapter in the style of ALICE IN WONDERLAND –in which the narrator chased after the hero with an axe –but his wife and other advisors made him leave it out. I wish he had included it, and perhaps added to it a science fiction chapter, or a detective fiction chapter –shuffling genres and the curtain of time like a dark deck of cards –like Kurt Vonnegut did with his novel, SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE.

Some felt Fowles was too precious with his philosophizing, and too pedantic in his explications of intent or historical documentation. But the real stir was created by the novel’s “secret”. Fowles gave it two endings –one of them was positive, proper, and quite Victorian, and the other was pessimistic, existential, and dark –quite “modern”. One critic wrote,” What to make of a Victorian novel by a contemporary existentialist who steps into the book twice –and can’t decide how to end it? Although inconclusive, I cannot imagine a more satisfying book.”

Studying the novel one realizes that it is more complex than that. Fowles presented the reader with three probable endings –not just two. In chapters 43-44, we find the first “fake” ending. Charles had been spending some time in America , and he returned to Lyme Regis where he confessed his transgressions to Ernestina. She was livid, but forgave him. Virtue triumphed and we are challenged with one Victorian perspective as a probable ending. But then the novel continues.

In chapter 60, Charles finally found Sarah Woodruff, now calling herself Mrs. Roughwood, in the palatial home of the painter Rosetti. She is Governess to his children, and has had time to improve her own sketching and painting. It was revealed that Sam, manservant to Charles, never did deliver the “letter of intent” to her at the hotel in Exeter . Charles had realized that Sarah was a virgin, and had discovered the truth about the French lieutenant. What he did not know was that in that brief tryst, Sarah had become pregnant, and she had borne him a son. The child became the healer of the breach. Actually, I think that would have been a nice touch for the Pinter script and the resulting film.

In Chapter 61, we are presented with the “other” ending. Charles and Sarah meet and there is no understanding between them, and no love left –resulting in no reconciliation. Perhaps Dr. Grogan had been correct, and Sarah was nothing more than an emotionally unstable borderline mentally disturbed manipulative gold-digger. She seemed to harbor no remorse for her actions, and the results of those actions. They parted, and Charles returned to America for his chance at a better life.

John Fowles as a best-selling author was always more celebrated and more successful in the United States than in England . Perhaps this helps to explain why he often referred to himself as living in exile in his own country.

Stephen Cox of the EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY FILM SOCIETY wrote,” Based on John Fowles’ unfilmable book, director Karel Reisz doesn’t remain faithful to the text, and the changes he has made are all unfortunately detrimental to the whole; but actually the film is not the travesty some have made of it. Many directors expressed an interest in making the movie [Sydney Pollack, Fred Zinneman, and Lindsay Anderson] –but they would not have been working from a Harold Pinter script.”

Roger Ebert of the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES wrote,” Fowles’ complex structure was long thought to make the book unfilmable. How could his fictional surprises, depending on the relationship between the omniscient narrator and the reader be translated into the more literal nature of film? One of the directors who tried to lick the novel was John Frankenheimer, who complained,” There is no way to film this book. Yes, you can tell the same story in a movie, of course, but not in the same way. And how Fowles tells his story is what makes the book so good.” That seemed to be the final verdict until Harold Pinter tackled the project. What he, and director Karel Reisz have done with their film is both simplistic and brilliant. They have frankly discarded the multi-layered fictional devices of John Fowles, and tried to create a new cinematic approach that would achieve the same ambiguity. Fowles made us stand at a distance from his two doomed lovers. Pinter and Reisz create a similar distance in their movie by telling two parallel stories.

This is a device that works, I think. The modern framing story places the Victorian lovers in ironic relief. Everything they say and do has another level of meaning, because we know the “real” relationship between the actors themselves. This confusion of fact and fiction interlocks perfectly with the psychological games played in the Victorian story, and played by Sarah Woodruff herself.”

The movie was shot on location in Lyme Regis, and the Cobb is real, and still extant. On the IMDb, on the message board for the movie, several people reported visiting the town recently. I posed the question,” Was the Cobb still there today?” One reader responded with,” The Cobb is still there to this day. I myself stood on it only last summer. I don’t know how long it’s been there –but I do know that the one in the film is the real thing. I thought the town was brilliant. It was so sunny and green, and all those little houses straddling the landscape of the Jurassic coast were like nothing I’ve ever seen elsewhere in England .”

Looking at the production staff for the movie, I realized that most of the key participants were contemporaries and all were mavericks. Somehow, as rarely happens in show business, this ragged gang of rugged iconoclasts came together and their unique energy and visions meshed into a cohesive work of artsy filmmaking. We must not forget that movies are a “business”. The fact that occasionally one is released, and is successful, as well as being exceptional artistically –is merely Kismet and blissful synchronicity; as in CASABLANCA . The author, the screenwriter, the director, and the cinematographer for THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN were all brilliant, eccentric, outspoken, and audacious. Author John Fowles was born in 1926, and he served in the military during WWII. He never saw action, but the times influenced him. He died in 2002 while living in Lyme Regis. Director Karel Reisz was also born in 1926, and escaping the Holocaust in Europe, he lived in England during WWII. He died in 2005. Harold Pinter, playwright and political activist, was born in 1930. He too lived through the Blitz and railed against the sheer horror of the times. Today, at 76 years old, he still raises his fist and his voice in protest of the perceived fascism that he witnesses in this world. Cinematographer Freddie Francis was born in England in 1917, and during WWII he made military films. Today, at 89 years old, he looks back over a checkered and interesting career.

Director Karel Reisz was a Czech-born filmmaker, who lived in England from age 12 –narrowly missing the Final Solution in Europe ; but the jack boots and the screaming still rang in his head. He developed an interest in film in the early 1950’s. He wrote several technical essays on film, and a book on film ethics; THE TECHNIQUE OF FILM EDITING. He was pals with directors Lindsay Anderson and Tony Richardson. They helped to create the British Free Cinema. He and Tony Richardson co-directed a short film in 1955, MOMMA DON’T ALLOW. His first solo effort was a well-received documentary, WE ARE THE LAMBETH BOYS (1959). His feature directing debut was the powerful and impressive SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING (1960), with the young Albert Finney playing a brawling factory worker.

In terms of feature films, Reisz has had a bit of a spotty career. He kept the rent paid by directing a ton of British television shows and commercials. He only directed 11 films since 1960. He did the remake of NIGHT MUST FALL (1964), again with Albert Finney. The original film from the 30’s starred Robert Montgomery and Rosalind Russell. Reisz directed MORGAN (1966), with the young David Warner and Vanessa Redgrave. He worked with Redgrave again in 1968 in ISADORA. He did direct some films in America as well, like THE GAMBLER (1974), with James Caan. I enjoyed his hard-edged crime thriller, WHO’LL STOP THE RAIN (1978), with the laconic young Nick Nolte. A real change of pace was SWEET DREAMS (1985), the Patsy Cline bio-pic with Jessica Lange and Ed Harris. His last feature film was the minor league EVERYBODY WINS (1990), with Nick Nolte and Debra Winger –from an Arthur Miller play and screenplay.

The most colorful maverick in this motley crew was Harold Pinter. While in his early 20’s, he studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts (RADA) in London . In the early 1950’s he worked as an actor in repertory –under the name of David Baron. His first professional job as an actor was appearing in Samuel Beckett’s WAITING FOR GODOT. In 1956 he became very interested, and was influenced by the John Osborne play, LOOK BACK IN ANGER. In 1958 it was made into a powerful film, directed by Tony Richardson and starring a young Richard Burton. It was remade in 1980 by director Lindsey Anderson, and it starred Malcolm McDowell. On television, in 1989, director Judi Dench did another version, and it starred Kenneth Branagh. This kind of drama dealt with the common man, leagues away from the Noel Coward upper crust plays also popular at the time. This working class focus was dubbed the “kitchen-sink” school of drama. Pinter did not actually join the movement, but it certainly influenced him. Many of Pinter’s generation were disillusioned with the Cold War, the hypocrisy of politics, and the shadow of Hitler’s Holocaust. It was said that these artists,” drifted towards Labor and the Left.”

Pinter wrote his first one-act play, THE ROOM, on a dare from a friend at college. It had to be written in one week. Then he wrote THE DUMB WAITER in 1957, THE BIRTHDAY PARTY in 1958, and THE CARETAKER in 1960. His plays were called, “Comedies of Menace.” Pinter felt strongly that a logical reaction to the horrors surrounding him was to find the dark humor, the absurdity of it all –that a normal reaction to such absurdity was absurdity itself. When life stops making sense –all we have left is the human condition.

He quickly began to develop his “Pinteresque” style, where upon mundane action would gradually become menacing and mysterious because Pinter would deliberately omit an explanation, or any motivation for the action on stage. One character could violently beat another without a shred of reason. In contrast, at that time in American Theatre, many playwrights and performers were obsessed with “The Method”, Lee Strasberg’s brain child in which one’s “motivation” was essential to the action. Pinter set up his dramas and comedies as antithesis.

Pinter has been a prodigious writer, actor, producer, and director. He wrote 29 plays, 36 teleplays, and 18 screenplays. Besides writing the screen adaptations for his own plays, like THE CARETAKER (1963), THE BIRTHDAY PARTY (1968), and THE HOMECOMING (1973), he also wrote scripts for films like THE PUMPKIN EATER (1964), THE QUILLER MEMORANDUM (1966), ACCIDENT (1967), THE GO-BETWEEN (1970), THE LAST TYCOON (1976), THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN (1981), BETRAYED (1983), THE TURTLE DIARY (1985), and THE HANDMAID’S TALE in 1990. In addition he has directed 27 plays for the London stage. He has been nominated for 4 Tony Awards, and has won one for THE HOMECOMING in 1967.

In was printed in the New York Times,” Pinter’s little mysteries tease us into comprehension. They made us uncertain –and yet uncertainty is precisely what they are vaguely about. He is nothing more than honest magic; a come-as-you-are party of the heart.”

After the 1970’s Pinter became very outspoken on political issues. In 2002 he had to battle cancer of the esophagus. In 2005, two important things happened to him. He decided, at 75 years old, he was officially retired from writing plays. He would concentrate on his poetry. He had always been a poet, but poetry had taken a back seat to his other endeavors. Interspersed between his plays, screenplays and such, he published poetry, short stories, and novels. When he was 20, in 1950, he wrote a Yuletide poem. CHRISTMAS

Choose the baby’s cocktail,
To drink in an eartrumpet.
Deprivation angers. At least
Rejoice in his captivity.

Give Maurice lemons.
He’s broken the pottery,
Arses round the attic,
Gorging biscuits and olives.

This is a happy family.
Come sing of the harbour,
Nights guzzling bouillabaisse.
We’ll syringe to the next flat,
Make another party

Over the decades he has published several volumes of poetry, but when one begins to search for those pale thin books –they are mostly not available. Was he that radical of a poet? Are his volumes of poems so revered, loved, and hoarded –or were there just no second printings? Pinter’s latest book of poetry, WAR (2003), denounced the Iraq War in vulgar, raw, and unrythmic lines. He did win the Wilfred Owen Award for poetry with it though in 2005. Searching for the volume of WAR, one discovers that not only is it controversial, but it is already out of print –with limited availability.

WAR

Harold Pinter (2003)

DEMOCRACY

There’s no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They’ll fuck everything in sight,
Watch your back.

2003

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Here we go again,
The Yanks in their armored parade
Chanting their ballads of joy
As they gallop across the big world
Praising America ’s God.

The gutters are clogged with the dead
The ones who can’t join in
The others refusing to sing
The ones who are losing their voice
The ones who forgotten the tune.

The riders have whips which cut
Your head rolls into the sand
Your head is a pool in the dirt
Your head is a stain in the dust.
Your eyes have gone out and your nose
Sniffs only the pong of the dead
And all the dead air is alive
With the smell of America ’s God.

2003

THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

The bombs go off
The legs go off
The heads go off.

The arms go off
The feet go off
The light goes out.

The heads go off
The legs go off
The lust is up.

The dead are dirt
The lights go out
The dead are dust.

A man bows down before another man
And sucks his lust.

August 2004

For several years he has been ferociously Anti-American. He has called President George W. Bush a “mass murderer”. He called Prime Minister Tony Blair,” a deluded idiot” for supporting Bush. In 2005, he was given the Nobel Laureate for Literature. He is now considered to be,” the greatest English dramatist of the post WWII era.” Some feel that by presenting Pinter with the Nobel Prize, this action was a not-so-veiled criticism of America in general, and President Bush in particular, by the Swedish Academy .

While giving his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize Pinter stated,” I have been taken to task recently by the American Ambassador to Britain for calling the United States Administration “a blood-thirsty animal.” All I can say is just take a look at Donald Rumsfeld’s face –and the case is made. Americans seem to have a palpable joy in destruction. For them, not only is power the great aphrodisiac—so, it would seem, is the death of others.”

When I was in the Navy in 1968, I ended up spending a couple of months in the largest military hospital on the West Coast – Balboa Naval Hospital . While there, when I was well enough to limp around and then take up some light duties –I couldn’t help but notice the blue buses that rolled up to Admissions in convoys. They carried precious cargo –the war wounded marines and sailors from our conflict in Viet Nam . I recorded some of my feelings about that time.

HEROES HAVEN

By the busload
They rolled into Balboa;
Wounded,
Disemboweled,
Their asses shot off;
Carried roughly on taunt khaki stretchers.

Weary eyes
That wore a planet’s pain;
Their heads shaved,
Their underwear stenciled,
Their blood spilling in little puddles
In quiet green hallways.

Cripples all,
They limped and wheeled,
Hobbled and crept
Through all of the limbs
Of that gray octopus military hospital;
Within wire fences,
Beneath post card palms;
Gathering up gobs
Of their old selves.

Metal and plastic and airplane glue
Became tendons.
Canes and crutches
Became new legs.
Empty pinned shirt sleeves
Caught the ocean breeze
Like sad May pole streamers,
Flapping
A melancholy tune.

There were vivid white jagged scars
Running over the bodies of men,
Like angry dead veins;
Hard to hide,
Especially
Those inside.

The doctors, nurses, and corpsmen
Raged through the sterile wards,
And their insane anger
Was leveled like a loaded rifle
At the patients.
The patients,
That dull thick red river of broken men;
Damned goldbrick sonofabitches.

Make sure those butt lazy bastards
Shine their shoes,
And cut all their hair,
Filthy germ-ridden locks;
Just scrape their heads bald.
Geld them,
Stab them,
Break and slice them,
And then
Deny them comfort.
Harass them,
Give them pain,
And then give them aspirin,
Only aspirin.

They must get their minds right.
Shake them from their fitful slumber,
And stand them at attention.
They are just meat, just
Infinitesimal maimed expendable insignificant
Protoplasmic service numbers,
And they are not useful
When bedridden.
Those slackers must not stay.
They must go back,
Back to the front;
They must.

And
The men and boys of pain
Absorbed the anger,
Heard the words,
Suffered the scalpel,
Took the aspirin,
Shined their boots,
Cut and re-cut their hair,
Stood at rigid attention,
And they did not
Forget.

Glenn Buttkus 1968

THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN was nominated for 5 Oscars. Harold Pinter and Meryl Streep did not win one –only Tom Rand won for “Best Costume Design”. It was nominated for 11 BAFTA Awards. Meryl Streep won on for “Best Actress”, and Carl Davis won for “Best Musical Score”. Though nominated Jeremy Irons, Karel Reisz, Freddie Francis, and Carl Davis did not win one. Freddie Francis did win an award from the British Society of Cinematographers. Meryl Streep went on to win a Golden Globe as “Best Actress”. Pinter had been nominated, but lost his bid. Meryl Streep also won the LA Film Critics Association Award as “Best Actress”.

Not everyone applauded Pinter’s solution for the two parallel story tracks. Mark Zimmer of DOC.SEARCH wrote,” The modern dress part gets short shrift here, since so much running time must necessarily be devoted to the mystery of Sarah and the fall of Charles. The modern story thus can be little less than linear and on track, without any real narrative fat or character development to be allowed.”

I appreciated Pinter’s choices. For me it was the perfect solution. As with all screenplays that adapt novels, some of the book’s plot is left out. In the movie we did not get introduced to Charles’ uncle, nor did we learn that Charles was discredited so completely after his break up with, and legal action by, Ernestina –and he would no longer inherit his uncle’s vast estate. Nor did we see Charles travel to America , or did we meet the love-child, the son that perhaps Sarah bore him in one of the (3) possible endings. Nor did we get more of the particulars of Sam’s deceit, manipulations, and dirty deeds. They were hinted at in the film, but not fleshed out.

By choosing to frame the Victorian part of the story as a film within a film, by assigning both characters twin identities –Pinter created a win/win situation. He had the opportunity to utilize both of the primary endings –the happy Victorian ending for the screen lovers, and the more pessimistic existential realistic ending for the on-the-set lovers. There was no use of the dry literary device of printing epigraphs, case reports, and documents. By juxtaposing the historical core love story with the modern one –the character’s emotions could cross over the threshold between them, and so could the viewers.

There have been a lot of films that used the concept of making movies as their motif, but the fictional movie being made is kept in the peripherary, and we only get a glimpse of it –as the modern story unfolds. By choosing the antithesis for this movie, Pinter kept us mostly immersed in the Victorian tale, while only getting brief glimpses of the modern tale that framed it. I think that he served both masters admirably, turning the technique on its ear, and creating something fresh and new.

The cinematography was done by Freddie Francis. He started out in the British Film Industry as a dapper-loader in 1936. While in the Army, during WWII, he put together a film company and trained them, producing many excellent instructional films. By 1946, again a civilian, he became a co-camera operator, working for Zoltan Korda on THE MACOMBER AFFAIR, with Gregory Peck. He worked with John Huston on MOULIN ROUGE (1952), BEAT THE DEVIL (1953), and MOBY DICK (1955). He has been a head lenser on 35 films since 1956, starting with A HILL IN KOREA (1956). He filmed ROOM AT THE TOP (1959), SONS AND LOVERS (1960) [winning an Oscar], THE INNOCENTS (1961), THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980) for David Lynch, THE EXECUTIONER’S SONG (1982) with Tommy Lee Jones, DUNE (1984) in Mexico for David Lynch, GLORY (1989) for Edward Zwick [winning another Oscar], CAPE FEAR (1991) for Martin Scorsese, and his last film was THE STRAIGHT STORY (1999), again for David Lynch.

In the 1960’s-1970’s, he directed films for Hammer studios and others. A lot of them were in the horror genre, filmed on slim budgets –but they came out looking lush and grand with his deft touch. Films like DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS (1962), THE SKULL (1965), and TORTURE GARDEN (1967). When he was in his 70’s, he directed THE DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS (1985). He worked for Karel Reisz previously, in 1960, on SATURDAY NIGHT, AND SUNDAY MORNING.

Freddie Francis said,” I view life through a viewfinder anyway. You just have to change the dimensions. I got a lot of fun out of being a cameraman, but obviously directing is more interesting. One thing wrong with being a cameraman in Britain is that from a financial point of view you have to keep working all the time, and you often have to work with people whose work, frankly, doesn’t excite you. Yes, I love making films. If someone asked me to photograph a film, I still would.” This statement was recorded in 1976. Several directors did ask him to go back to work, and he responded. David Lynch had him shoot three films. Edward Zwick helped him win an Academy Award. Martin Scorsese convinced him to remake the classic CAPE FEAR .

Francis also stated,” I won’t work for a director, unless I feel that I am on his wave length. The three to four weeks I need in preparation for a picture mainly consists of just talking to the director, so that I can understand what he wants. Sometimes a director needs help. I’ve made wonderful films with directors who have never been in a film studio in their lives. The cinematographer is an executive of the production, and has to run things for the director. You also have to read his mind and get that vision up on the screen. Although any good director has already shot the picture in his head and can see those images. They can be improved, but they are already there.”

A young Meryl [Mary Louise] Streep played Sarah/Anna. This was her first major lead in a motion picture, and she made the most of it. She was just coming off her elation for winning a “Best Supporting Actress” Oscar for KRAMER VS. KRAMER, in 1979. She, in her inimitable way, has become America ’s “Grand Dame of the Cinema”. She has been nominated for an Academy Award 13 times –more than any other actor. She has won twice, sandwiched on both sides of THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN. In 1982, she won the “Best Actress” Oscar for SOPHIE’S CHOICE. Britain has a plethora of grand dames, like Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Helen Mirren. We have Meryl Streep. Other fine American actresses rise up, but none seem to hover very long in that rarified air of excellence as Streep does.

On top of all her vocational accolades, she has a “life”. She had been married to the same man since 1978. They have four children –3 daughters and a son. While at Yale, studying Drama, she worked in a theatrical production with Sigourney Weaver. Streep did not receive her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame until 1998; which seems odd. She has always been a hard worker and over-achiever. Even in high school she was a cheerleader and homecoming queen. She has taken serious training for voice, and had extensive singing lessons. She did her own vocals, albeit Country/Western, for POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE (1990). In 1985, she had auditioned for her friend, Karel Reisz, to play Patsy Kline in SWEET DREAMS. She lost the part to Jessica Lange. In 1996 she auditioned for director Alan Parker for the lead role in EVITA. She lost the part to Madonna. Streep was somewhat bitter about that one. “Hell, I can sing better than she can,” she said. She learned to play the violin, practicing 6 hours a day for eight weeks, to play her part in MUSIC OF THE HEART (1999).

I have always found it odd that some people are put off by Meryl Streep. She is always the “Actress”, and never plays at being the “Star”, but this means that people are not allowed to worship her, to emulate her, to follow her exploits in the tabloids –as they can with say an Angelina Jolie, who is kind of a modern day Ava Gardner. Streep keeps her personal life very private, below the radar. I read that Katherine Hepburn considered Streep,” her least favorite modern actress on the screen. When I watch her perform, all I can hear is click, click, click (referring to the wheels turning in Streep’s head, I suppose).” Perhaps people sometimes prefer a film actress that consistently delivers a fairly predictable performance; a Star persona. Meryl Streep fully inhabits her roles, and is often unrecognizable from role to role.

Meryl Streep has had 56 film appearances since 1977. She played Inga Weiss in HOLOCAUST (1978), the TV mini-series; Linda in THE DEERHUNTER (1978), with Robert De Niro; Karen in the rarely-seen THE SEDUCTION OF JOE TYNAN (1979), with Alan Alda; Joanna in KRAMER VS. KRAMER (1979), with Dustin Hoffman; in SOPHIE’S CHOICE (1982), with Kevin Kline; Karen in SILKWOOD (1983), with Kurt Russell and Cher; Karen, yet again, in OUT OF AFRICA (1985), with Robert Redford; Helen in IRONWEED (1987), with Jack Nicholson; Lindy in A CRY IN THE DARK (1988), with Sam Neill; Julia in the charming DEFENDING YOUR LIFE (1991), with Albert Brooks; the buff Gail in THE RIVER WILD (1994), with David Strathairn; the incredible Francesca in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY (1995), with Clint Eastwood; the devious Susan in ADAPTATION (2002), with Chris Cooper; the stalwart Clarissa in THE HOURS (2002), with Ed Harris; the Rabbi, an Angel, Ethel Rosenberg, and Hannah in Mike Nichols’ stunning ANGELS IN AMERICA (2003); and the vicious Eleanor (playing the Angela Lansbury part) in the remake of THE MANCURIAN CANDIDATE (2004), with Denzel Washington.

When accepting the Emmy for ANGELS IN AMERICA, she said,
“Let’s face it, there are some days when even I think I’m overrated –but not today.”

Roger Ebert wrote,” THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN is a beautiful film to look at, and remarkably well-acted. Meryl Streep was showered with praise for her remarkable double performance, and she deserved it. She is off-handedly contemporary one moment, and then gloriously theatrically Victorian the next.”

Sarah Woodruff (from the film),” You cannot understand because you are not a woman. You are not a woman born to be a farmer’s wife –but educated to be something better. You were not born a woman with a love of beauty, intelligence, learning –but whose position in the world forbids her to share that love with another. You are not the daughter of a bankrupt. You have not spent your life in penury. You are not condemned. You are not an outcast. I gave myself to the French lieutenant so that I should never be the same again. So that I should be seen for the outcast I am. I know it was ordained that I could never marry an equal. So I married shame. It is my shame that has kept me alive, my knowing that I am truly not like other women. I shall never, like them, have children, a husband, and the pleasures of a home. Sometimes I pity them. I have a freedom they cannot know. No insult, no blame can touch me. I have gone beyond the pale. I am nothing. I am hardly human anymore. (Pause) I am the French lieutenant’s –whore.”

Sarah is called “Poor Tragedy”. This is shared with Charles by his fiancé, Tina, while they strolled the waterfront of Lyme Regis and Charles noticed the lone figure standing on the end of the Cobb. My feeling about the Sarah character borders on ambivalence. She was a fascinating woman –but perhaps too much so. She seemed a woman out-of-time, plunked down in the Victorian era by a 20th century author –rife with “modern” sentiments. Portrayed by Meryl Streep as we witnessed her there clinging to that cannon bollard at the tip of the sea wall –turning to look at the approaching Charles –with the wind and waves thrashing her hood and cape –her hair red as evening fire –her eyes piercing and proud –her skin pale as alabaster, we knew that Sarah had sunk her feminine hooks in him. Nearly each time she would appear socially, or strolling along the under cliffs, it seemed no accident that she sauntered past the sad-eyed Charles. She seduced him with her tragic state, her red hair, her slim waist, her beauty, her sinful image, her intellect, and most importantly her carefully calculated initial disinterest. Charles Smithson never had a chance.

Sarah was always stronger than those around her, even the priggish prude Mrs. Poulteney. In the film, she suffered the woman’s ignorant rude opinionated tirades –mostly in silence. In the novel, Sarah found ways to checkmate her vitriolic manner. Sarah was the master manipulatress. In her first scene, as she sat on the stairs, as her dead patron or employer was carted off, just working on drawing her dark portraits –she sat patiently, silently, hardly looking up; knowing that the kind Doctor would not leave her there to end up homeless in the streets.

It is said that the character of Sarah was the matriarchal inspiration for the modern Goth movement; the concept of a pale beautiful woman, with deep secrets, who always wore black, with questionable morals, drawing dark self portraits, yet holding her head high and accepting Society’s label of outcast.

Streep helped me to feel the real tragedy of a superior intellect cut adrift by convention, ignorance, and societal judgment. Trained as a Governess, she nevertheless was not to aspire beyond her station. There was a very real and deep sadness about Streep’s Sarah –but what showed through as well was the cleverness of the woman (Sarah). She used that sadness to snare attention. She wore her “shame” without hesitation, brazenly, Hester Prynne-like, and yet it was a sham, not real shame. Sarah used it to manipulate her environment. Yes, she had emotionally been attracted to the French lieutenant, and had followed him; but as we all discovered, she certainly was not deflowered by him. Sarah somehow found power in adopting her role as sinful pariah, in place of her original persona. For me this hinted at emotional instability, even the fringes of a kind of madness.

Later in the film, when Charles finally tracked her down after years of searching, when she personally answered his inquiry ads –she had been transformed. She was then ready to face him and the consequences of her actions. She had become Governess for the painter’s family. She had been transformed, changed to a “new” woman. The edge came off of her pensive and calculated looks, replaced by a genuine softness and attractive femininity. She no longer felt obligated to wear only black garb. Her starched white blouse seemed very cheery, bright, and balanced. Her new calmness and candor were testament to her rite of passage; the madness seemed behind her.

When Charles forgave her, and they reunited, it seemed very bittersweet—but consistent with a Victorian “happy” ending. I still think it might have been interesting if Pinter had included the possibility that Sarah had borne him a son, that one of those apple-cheeked urchins rushing about the home was his prodigy. It would have made her years of silence, and her sacrifices more poignant, and the reunion more meaningful —at least for me.

Streep as Anna, the actress, in those brief scenes that we see her in, was equally beautiful, intense, beguiling, sexy, intelligent, and progressive. She, as in the literary section, was the strongest of the pair. Her on-the-set tryst with Mike, the actor playing Charles, was played very matter of factly and realistically. I assure you that most on-the-set and backstage romances run white hot with passion, and are emotionally intense –while they are happening. But the relationship is mired in pretense and spontaneity, and as soon as one finishes the shoot, or the run of the play, and returns home, it cools quickly like a bowl of soup left by an open window. Within a few weeks, or months, depending on how successful one’s career might be—they are off to a new project, film, play, or experience; peopled with new faces, new bodies, new vibrations, sensations, philosophies, and sexual fantasies. It inhabits the realm of adult infatuation, the by-product of centuries-old vagabond libertine sexuality. For most of history, actors have been outcasts, and traveling players –and the group that one travels with and works with becomes a small insulated and loving family; until it isn’t.

Especially on a film set, actors have entirely too much time to waste. The technicians might spend two hours setting up a shot that the actor will work only 20 minutes on; and then it is back to the canvas chairs or the air-conditioned trailers and RV’s. It was difficult for me to get the objectivity in order to understand that agents, producers, and directors treat actors as children, heaping rewards on them, and permitting them to selfishly pursue whatever they want. This allows the management to control and manipulate the actors; and the egocentric actors often haven’t got a clue.

I think that Anna was less emotionally involved in the backstage romance than Mike was. She understood that by bedding Mike, she could capture nuances and bring them intact to the on-screen coupling of Sarah and Charles. Mike as a man, and married, was seduced by the sex and blind to her ambition. Their tentative love affair somehow became too important to him. He even endangered his marriage by letting his wife see and understand too much. Mike seemed confused, lost in the shuffle between artistic pretense and the reality of his life. He seemed needier, and so became more emotionally engaged. The French would have laughed at his naiveté, at how easily he was hooked by the liaison.

Perhaps both Anna and Mike were a little lost in the duplicity of the events. This became evident several times in the film. Once, subtly, when Anna was boarding the train for London , and Mike had accompanied her to the station. He hung on her, clinging to his fantasies. “I must have you,” he whispered hotly in her ear. “But you already have, at the hotel in Exeter,” she replied coyly –referring to the scene they had completed that day that dealt with the deflowering of Sarah by a clumsy and hurried Charles. The two parallel stories meshed for that moment.

More pointedly, at the end of the film, when Anna left the cast party with her boyfriend, Mike was agitated and depressed. He did not want to let her go, did not want to settle back into his actual life. She already had achieved this, quickly and efficiently, showing her strength and control –paralleling both relationships. Mike opened a window and watched Anna drive off with her French boyfriend [another symbol there], and he blurted out,” Sarah!” to the empty air within the vortex left behind.

Jeremy Irons played Charles/Mike. He is well known for an aggressive and industrious work ethic. He trained at the British Old Vic, and he returns to the stage whenever he can. He appeared in three lead roles for the Royal Shakespeare Company during the 1980’s. His first big break was in the musical production of GODSPELL. He played John the Baptist to David Essex’s Jesus. He has been married to Sinead Cusack since 1978, and they have two children. His first marriage to a Julie Hallum in 1969 was annulled –no doubt there is a tale to tell there. Cyril Cusack is his father-in-law. Irons is the owner of Kilcoe Castle in County Cork , Ireland , and he painted it a rusty pink.

He has had 52 film appearances since 1974. The first seven of them were all on BBC/Thames historical epics. THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN (1981) was his first major film lead. He followed it with the interesting MOONLIGHTING (1982), Harold Pinter’s BETRAYAL (1983), THE MISSION (1986), playing bizarre twin gynecologists in David Cronenberg’s DEAD RINGERS (1988), Claus Von Bulow in REVERSAL OF FORTUNE (1990), with Glenn Close. Irons won both the Oscar and a Golden Globe for that role. Then he did KAFKA (1991), WATERLAND (1992), M.BUTTERFLY (1993), with John Lone, going on to play an excellent villain in DIE HARD 3 (1995), Bertolucci’s STEALING BEAUTY (1996), nearly stealing the film from the young Liv Tyler, Humbert Humbert in the remake of LOLITA (1997), Aramis in the fine remake of THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK (1998), with an interesting turn as the Uber-Morlock in the remake of THE TIME MACHINE (2002), THE MERCHANT OF VENICE (2004), with Al Pacino, BEING JULIA (2004), with Annette Bening, and he was very effective as Tiberias in Ridley Scott’s KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005). He has signed to do the remake of THE NIGHT OF THE IGUANA. In 1996, he became the 14th performer to win the Triple Crown of Acting –The Oscar, the Emmy, and the Tony.

Jeremy Irons said,” I have never been that passionate about acting, and I find more and more that I work to live the life I want to live. [This is reminiscent of the work ethic of Michael Caine.] An actor like Al Pacino lives to act. I’m not sure though –there’s something about the detachment I have, a feeling of the lack of importance about what I do, that is very healthy. What a camera likes are eyes, which have life and tell a story.”

Critic Leonard Maltin wrote,” The public is starting to catch up with what film buffs and critics have known for years –Irons is one of the best actors alive.”

Irons as Charles Smithson had that British boorishness, detachment, and wooden bearing about him. He seemed impetuous and naïve; easily misled and manipulated. He effectively portrayed the weakness of the man, weak-willed and other-directed. Logically, he might have considered keeping Sarah as a mistress, and still married Ernestina. This kind of situation was not unheard of in Victorian England. But, of course, it deepened the tragedy that he felt compelled to confess his true feelings to Tina (although he did lie to her, saying that the other woman was a former acquaintance), regardless of the outcome. His loss of dignity, being stripped of the trappings of a gentleman, and having his fortune withheld, illustrated his compulsive and ignorant emotional state.

Lynsey Baxter played Ernestina. She managed to make the character appealing, so that we really felt something for her loss and betrayal at the hands of the confused Charles. When she talked to him about how spoiled she was, it didn’t seem entirely true. In the novel it is more obvious that Ernestina is a selfish, spoiled wealthy heiress. Baxter was 26 when she played the part in 1980. She has appeared in 37 films since 1976. Ernestina was her first major film role as well (mirroring the careers of Streep and Irons). But for the majority of her long career, she has been a regular on several BBC/Thames series on British television.

Three fine character actors graced the cast of THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN. Leo Mckern played Dr. Grogan. He always infuses every part with his unique energy and cadence –reminding me somewhat of the great Hugh Griffith. McKern had 66 film appearances since 1952. He was the third knight in MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL –a role I played in college in 1965. Oh how I loved putting Thomas Becket to the sword. Becket was played by my homosexual English professor. McKern was in A TALE OF TWO CITIES (1958), with Dirk Bogarde, THE MOUSE THAT ROARED (1959), KING AND COUNTRY (1964), and then romping from THE AMOROUS ADVENTURES OF MOLL FLANDERS (1965), with the insecure Kim Novak, to chasing the Beatles about in HELP! (1965), played a credible Cromwell in the excellent A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966), with Paul Scofield, RYAN’S DAUGHTER (1970), with John Mills, to RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY (1975), the TV series, with sequels in 1978-80, THE BLUE LAGOON (1980), with the young nude Brooke Shields, LADYHAWKE (1985), with Rutger Hauer, and as the hapless Frank in the Australian film, TRAVELLING NORTH (1987). He died in 2002. He had something in common with Peter Falk, and Sammy Davis Jr. –a glass eye. He used to play “glass- eye jokes” on the set of RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY.

David Warner had the smallish role of Murphy, the barrister, just appearing in one pivotal scene, where Charles was forced to sign a document giving up all claims to being a gentleman. Warner has been very active as an actor. He has had 153 film appearances since 1962. He was in TOM JONES (1963), with Albert Finney, THE BOFORS GUN (1968), with Nicol Williamson, THE FIXER (1968), with Alan Bates; three films for director Sam Peckinpah, THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE (1970), with Jason Robards, STRAW DOGS (1971), with Dustin Hoffman, and CROSS OF IRON (1976), with James Coburn; and he was in the excellent but seldom seen PROVIDENCE (1977), with Dirk Bogarde and John Gielgud, the interesting horror film, NIGHTWING (1979), playing Jack the Ripper in TIME AFTER TIME (1979), with Malcolm McDowell, MASADA (1981), with Peter O’Toole, the fetching Terry Gilliam opus, TIME BANDITS (1981), TRON (1982), with Jeff Bridges; playing Bob Cratchit in the terrific remake of A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1984), with George C. Scott, STAR TREK V & VI, then James Cameron’s TITANIC (1997), WING COMMANDER (1999), Tim Burton’s remake of PLANET OF THE APES (2001), with a brilliant Tim Roth, and the Doctor in LADIES IN LAVENDER (2004).

Peter Vaughn played Mr. Freeman, Tina’s industrialist father. He, too, has been a very busy working actor. He has had 127 film appearances since 1959. He also was in THE BOFORS GUN (1968), with David Warner, and STRAW DOGS in 1971. He was in 11 HARROW HOUSE (1974), with James Mason, the hard to find ZULU DAWN (1979), with Burt Lancaster and Peter O’Toole, Terry Gilliam’s BRAZIL (1985), and THE CRUCIBLE (1996), with Daniel Day Lewis and Joan Allen. [This was his third version of that play; the first two were TV productions, one in 1959, and one in 1980. He played different parts in all three versions.] Recently he played the father in THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS (2004), with Geoffrey Rush.

Christopher Null of CONTACTMUSIC.COM wrote,” Overblown and totally full of itself, it is really hard to like this film. Every character has a passionate soliloquy in every scene, to the point where characters don’t talk to each other –they talk to the camera instead. Charles’ infatuation with Sarah doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and the modern day actors seem to be bed-hopping just for the hell of it. It is lushly photographed, and filled with a dripping score of string duets –all of which fits the bill nicely, but doesn’t really offer anything new.”

Mr. Null, gosh, where does one start in response to that? It is as if we have watched two separate movies. There were a couple of long speeches given by characters, but they never lost contact with the other character while delivering it. There was never a sense of a character talking directly into the camera, using a theatrical aside, like Albert Finney did in TOM JONES (1963). The infatuation that Charles suffers for Sarah cannot make “sense”. It is the stuff of Victorian melodrama and tragedy. The backstage romance between Anna and Mike was frivolous, as most affairs are –but it did not occur “just for the hell of it”. One strolls out into a downpour without a raincoat just for the hell of it, but one has an affair for a myriad of other reasons. The cinematography was lush, and gave us great eye-candy vistas of the Cobb, the under cliffs, and the village. But it was not hackneyed or trite, because it presented us with Lyme Regis as the world of the film. No other film had ever presented that town as its vertex, and that Cobb as its appendage.

Roger Ebert wrote further,” This movie is a challenge to our intelligence, takes delight in playing with our expectations, and has one other considerable achievement as well. It entertains admirers of Fowles’ novel, but does not reveal the book’s secrets. If you see the movie, the book will still surprise you –and that’s as it should be.”

This film gets better with repeat viewings. It was innovative and stimulating. It made me hunger to review Victorian fiction, and read Fowles’ novel. It reminded me just how brilliant Meryl Streep was, and continues to be. I would rate this film at 4 stars.

Glenn Buttkus 2006