The French Lieutenant's Woman
Tags: tragedy, romantic

Plot synopsis:
Set in the mid-nineteenth century, the narrator identifies the novel's protagonist as Sarah Woodruff, the Woman of the title, also known as "Tragedy" and as "The French Lieutenant's Whore". She lives in the coastal town of Lyme Regis as a disgraced woman, supposedly abandoned by a French ship's officer named Varguennes who had returned to France and married. She spends some of her limited free time on The Cobb, a stone jetty where she stares out the sea.
One day, Charles Smithson, an orphaned gentleman, and Ernestina Freeman, his fiancée and a daughter of a wealthy tradesman, see Sarah walking along the cliffside. Ernestina tells Charles something of Sarah's story, and he becomes curious about her. Though continuing to court Ernestina, Charles has several more encounters with Sarah, meeting her clandestinely three times. During these meetings, Sarah tells Charles of her history, and asks for his emotional and social support. During the same period, he learns of the possible loss of place as heir to his elderly uncle, who has become engaged to a woman young enough to bear a child. Meanwhile, Charles's servant Sam falls in love with Mary, the maid of Ernestina's aunt.
In fact, Charles has fallen in love with Sarah and advises her to leave Lyme for Exeter. Returning from a journey to warn Ernestina's father about his uncertain inheritance, Charles stops in Exeter as if to visit Sarah. From there, the narrator, who intervenes throughout the novel and later becomes a character in it, offers three different ways in which the novel could end:
First ending: Charles does not visit Sarah, but immediately returns to Lyme to reaffirm his love for Ernestina. They marry, though the marriage never becomes particularly happy, and Charles enters trade under Ernestina's father, Mr. Freeman. The narrator pointedly notes the lack of knowledge about Sarah's fate. Charles tells Ernestina about an encounter which he implies is with the "French Lieutenant's Whore", but elides the sordid details, and the matter is ended. The narrator dismisses this ending as a daydream by Charles, before the alternative events of the subsequent meeting with Ernestina are described. Critic Michelle Phillips Buchberger describes this first ending as "a semblance of verisimilitude in the traditional 'happy ending'" found in actual Victorian novels.
Before the second and third endings, the narrator appears as a character sharing a railway compartment with Charles. He tosses a coin to determine the order in which he will portray the other two possible endings, emphasising their equal plausibility. They are as follows:
Second ending: Charles and Sarah have a rash sexual encounter in which Charles realises that Sarah was a virgin. Reflecting on his emotions during this, Charles ends his engagement to Ernestina, and proposes to Sarah through a letter. Charles's servant Sam fails to deliver the letter and, after Charles breaks his engagement, Ernestina's father disgraces him. His uncle marries and his wife bears an heir, ensuring the loss of the expected inheritance. To escape the social suicide and depression caused by his broken engagement, Charles goes abroad to Europe and America. Ignorant of Charles' proposal, Sarah flees to London without telling her lover. During Charles' trips abroad, his lawyer searches for Sarah, finding her two years later living in the Chelsea house of the painter and poet Dante Gabriel Rossetti, where she enjoys an artistic, creative life. Sarah shows Charles the child of their affair, leaving him in hope that the three may be reunited.
Third ending: The narrator re-appears outside the house at 16 Cheyne Walk and turns back his pocket watch by fifteen minutes. Events are the same as in the second-ending version until Charles meets Sarah, when their reunion is sour. The new ending does not make clear the parentage of the child and Sarah expresses no interest in reviving the relationship. Charles leaves the house, intending to return to the United States, wondering whether Sarah is a manipulative, lying woman who exploited him.

Review: 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.
The settings are superbly created -- the green, grotto-like woodland where Irons and Streep meet in the Victorian world of the film, the murky streets of Lyme, Exeter, and London, and the interior of the lawyer's office, for example.
At first, I found myself thinking that the point was to show how much easier and more uncomplicated sexual relationships are in the twentieth century, but as the story develops, and as more entanglements obstructing their happiness are revealed, I began to realize that the film may really be trying to show that we are not so different from the Victorians after all: we have our own obsessions, repressions and frustrations.
The inclusion of the contemporary story line actually helps us to distance ourselves from the Victorian plot rather than drawing us into it, and makes Jeremy Irons's proposal at the beginning, or the love scene in Exeter between him and Streep, more comic and ridiculous, than volcanic and romantic.
The image is apropos, as the story itself opens from chamber to ever larger chamber as it weaves two seemingly disparate stories with a clever ending.Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep are impressive as the leads in two different time lines.
And if that sounds a little too clever, it nonetheless has more creativity and insight than typical plot-twist movie, including the most contrived and overrated movie of all time, Memento (not good enough to be called bad).There is a scene, in which Streep and Irons are rehearsing a scene from the movie, and, according to the story, it just isn't working.
And speaking of legends, the screenplay was written by none other than Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, and it shows.It is a sublime movie experience to watch the delicately chambered story open up, and there are scenes that are so memorable, like Streep on the misty pier, that you would swear this movie comes from the Golden Age of cinema, not the go-go eighties.
Irons lacks something, but it's not clear what, but in the end it helps support the story by making him appear flawed enough to have been trapped in the intricate web of The French Lieutenant's Woman..
With a single, unforgettable look and such dialogue as "my only happiness is when I sleep; when I wake, the nightmare begins," Sarah bewitches visiting Londoner Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons, in what turned out to be his big break), a paleontologist and "gentleman of leisure." The tricky screenplay by Harold Pinter contrasts the story of Sarah and Charles with the lives of actors Mike and Anna, who are playing them in a film.
The contrasts between the two couples born 100 years apart make for one of the most intriguing films of the early 1980s, and the performances by Irons and Streep are predictably outstanding..
But I knew I was watching modern actors playing in a period piece and I was still caught up in the story, both stories - which mirror each other and make you wonder which character is influencing which performance.
Beautiful, original and intelligent of using a certain source (a book written by John Fowles), changing the perspective presented in it and turning it into a fresh cinematic experience that is as much satisfying than the original source, the film version of "The French Lieutenant's Woman" escapes the sometimes overused routine of following the literature step by step by creating a nice way to compare life with reality, mixing two stories into basically the same context.
Harold Pinter's screenplay takes the story from the book, told in the Victorian England, and adds the element of the movie within a movie, dividing it into two segments: the actors playing in a romantic film and the actors life in a current period.
Let me organize the situation: in the modern times, two actors (played by Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, are shooting a movie whose story takes place in 1800's, with Irons playing an respected biologist engaged to a rich woman who ends up falling in love by the mysterious French Liutenant's woman (Streep), who awaits for his lover to return.
Later, we'll notice the actors life following the same path as the characters they play except the times are other, things are a lot easier for them; they're in love with each other but they're married with other people.
The intersection of both stories serves to show us not only which couple (the real one or the fictional one) might last together but also the period contrasts (there's a scene in which the actors are reading a paper with informations of how things were during the Victorian Era and they are surprised by the facts they learn) The examination one must have of both stories is the relationship between the characters played by Streep and Irons, and the way both have similarities even one being a work of fiction and the other being the reality.
The only problem with the film directed by Karel Reisz is the fact we spend more time following the movie within the movie instead of following more of the actors life and their romance, which only had a notable importance when the other story was concluding as well.
"The French Lieutenant's Woman" has an fascinating and careful art direction and sceneries, beautifully made, recreating England of the 19th Century is great details; costumes and clothes are also great; the cinematography is impeccable and one of the most wonderful works I've ever seen.
At last, the most interesting aspect of the film is the acting delivered by Meryl Streep (Oscar nominated for this roles, after all she plays two roles) and Jeremy Irons (he deserved a nomination that year, playing one of his first leading roles showing a great talent in carrying the whole film).
This is the insurmountable problem of "The French Lieutenant's Woman." While the Victorian Era plot is luxuriantly mounted--while the characters are played by wonderful actors--the "heart" of this film is occupied by this film within a film device.
The 20th century story is about two bored actors who engage in their affair simply as a distraction from the tedium of making a movie.
The Victorian narrative at least provides a HINT of feeling, but always held at arms length--and further attenuated by the inevitable return to the modern story, reminding us that the "costumer" portion of the film is not only not real, but TWICE removed from reality.
However, though I realize I am in the minority and the movie's praises were universally sung, I personally did not care for it, finding it somewhat boring, occasionally confusing, and worst of all, NOT emotionally engaging.The film relates the story of two romances...the affair between two actors, Anna (Meryl Streep) and Mike (Jeremy Irons), who are playing the roles of lovers Sarah Woodruff and Charles Smithson, in a movie set back in 19th Century Britain.
The film does dramatically reveal the contrast between the outwardly respectable, genteel Charles (a proper Victorian gentleman), and his hitherto sexually repressed but actually passionate inner self, as revealed by this illicit love.
Apparently, the point of the movie (so I have read) seems to be not so much engaging the viewer emotionally as comparing love affairs from the two eras...the forbidden Victorian passions in sharp contrast to the not very passionate, sort of half bored, casual affair of the modern actors.
Charles Henry Smithson (Jeremy Irons) falls in love with outcast Sarah (Meryl Streep) in 1800s England.
In the present day Mike (Irons again) and Anna (Streep again) are doing a movie about their tragic love affair and the movie jumps back and forth between the stories.Incredibly dull movie.
Streep and Irons are fantastic in all their roles but the script is dull, the movie drags on forever and the parallels between the two stories are pointless and groaningly obvious.
Short and sweetly, The movie holds up surprisingly well for an early 80's film and the DVD is  a must for those who haven't seen it since..Meryl Streep plays two roles as Sarah, The French Lieutenant's Woman of the title and Anna, the actress playing Sarah.
It didn't do well at the box office, either.If you watch a lot of movies, you will see and hear things in TFLW that are familiar, such as Meryl Streep with another foreign accent, plugs for evolution and cheap shots against Christians, digs against the Victorian Era and huzzahs for anything "liberated," etc.
I have no problems with the acting, cinematography and the story - it's the other prejudices that I am tired of seeing on film that makes one viewing of this movie enough..
Two film actors named Anna and Mike (Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons) rehearse their roles for a Victorian period piece and have an affair with each other.
Interspersed with the present day scenes are extensive clips from the finished version of the film they're working on: the love story of a gentleman named Charles and a poor woman Sarah who has lost her reputation after having been romantically linked to a French officer.
Charles and Sarah, like Mike and Anna, are played by Irons and Streep.The movie-within-a-movie structure makes it possible to examine the expressions of romance in very different eras that still mirror each other in many ways.
While the Victorian society is suffocating in its prim and proper moralizing, relationships are not necessarily easier in the liberal modern era either, as it is always difficult to follow one's heart without hurting someone in the process.Technically the film is well made, the historic sets and costumes look good and Streep and Irons are convincing in their double roles.
In the end the Victorian story gets more attention and is probably what the film is best remembered for, but the present day romance is a tale worth telling too.
Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons play dual roles as Sarah, an outcast woman in 19th century England, and respected biologist Charles, already engaged to the daughter of a powerful man, who finds himself attracted to the melancholy, mysterious, and beautiful Sarah.This is contrasted with their "real life" counterparts Anna and Mike, who are actors portraying their romance in a film.
Irons and Streep are perfect for their dual roles as movie actors and the 18th century characters they are cast as...both anguished over love frowned upon by society..
The movie within the movie prevents the emphasize that we usually feel towards the dramatic characters, and never lets us forget that Anna and Mike (the actors) are actually Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons.
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 film crew on location in Dorset, England, is shooting a Victorian drama about a passionate affair between a gentleman (Charles) and an abandoned woman (Sarah);there is a parallel story about the love affair between Mike, the actor, and Anna, the actress, who are Charles and Sarah in the film within the film.
The modern love story is presented in brief episodes and so the Victorian drama appears to be the core of the film.
Fowles's novel,Pinter's screen adaptation and Reisz's direction seem to be the best combination for a great cinematic enjoyment: the photogenic landscape, even more dazzling than Kubrick's Barry Lyndon and Polanski's Tess, along with the high level acting by Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, create a unique filming atmosphere....
Like Ms. Streep, he plays two parts, one as her co-star in the film being made and the other as the lover ruined by his all-consuming love for her film character.
Beautiful, delicate and smart, adaptation and window, refined game and piece of autumn evening, castle of sand and nostalgic veil, play and song, exercise of beauty and honesty, challenge and proof of talent, a movie about love in a different alphabet, The French Lieutenant's Woman is collection of pages from Victorian books and shadows of present.
Sarah is an enigmatic and mysterious woman, but I think at heart she is an insightful woman with an independent spirit who cannot and will not be contained within the confining and stifling role that period has assigned her.The book and the movie are an interesting study in the contrasting morality between Victorian times and the 20th century (now the 21st century)...and the price it extracts.
So much for the romantic angle of this rather heavy plot concerning a woman-of-ill-repute having an affair with a French soldier in 1860's England; at a counterpoint is the contemporary actress and actor playing these roles in a movie--and sharing a similar relationship off-screen.
THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN ***Both Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep give really accomplished performances in this rather interesting and somewhat peculiar movie.
Meryl Streep is "oh so lovely and forlorn" in her roll as Sarah and just plain good looking in her roll as Ann the 20th century movie star.
However, in this film, the outer story is quite limited (and Jeremy Irons appears to be playing the same role in both tales), while the inner film is a straight costume drama as they were made twenty years ago, stodgy and unsubtle in both direction and plot.
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.
John Fowles' pastiche of Victorian novels is a smashing read, but Karel Reisz's film, while not exactly ruining it, sure does suck a lot of the life out of it.Instead of presenting the story in an over-heated, slightly exaggerated manner, which is probably the right way to adapt Fowles' novel, Reisz and screenwriter Harold Pinter decide to address the meta element of the book by breaking the film into two intercut segments: one is the story that actually makes up the narrative of the novel while the other is a contemporary one about the making of the movie, with Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep playing actors playing Fowles' characters.
One who had never read Fowles' novel would come nowhere near having a sense of how great it is based on this adaptation alone.It's a handsome looking film, I'll give it that, and I'm not the only one who thinks so, as it garnered Academy Award nominations for Art Direction and Costume Design back in 1981.
I dont know why people used to think Meryl Streep was a good actress, every film shes been in, except for "Silkwood", shes used that same annoying accent.
Grogan has diagnosed Sarah as suffering from what he calls "obscure melancholy", a condition which manifests itself in intense guilt feelings and in the masochistic tendency to inflict emotional pain on herself.The modern-day part of the film concerns the attempt to make a film about the story of Charles and Sarah, and the affair between Mike and Anna, the actors cast in the two leading roles.
Jeremy Irons plays both Charles and Mike, and Meryl Streep both Sarah and Anna.The Victorian part of the film works very well as a powerful and potentially tragic love-story, conjuring up the sexual repression and double standards which dominated that period.
In the book Ernestina comes across as rather insipid, but here Lynsey Baxter, only sixteen at the time and appearing in her first film, makes her a delightful young lady.Irons and Streep are excellent as Charles and Sarah.
When I found out there were two stories set in different eras going on simultaneously, I was eager to find out more and whether this device would work.I thought the use of the two stories, one the plot between Sarah and Charles set in the 19th century and the other, the actors playing them, Anna and Mike was an interesting and original idea although one which I am not sure was entirely necessary.
These are the "film" story with biologist and engaged Charles Henry Smithson (BAFTA nominated Jeremy Irons) falling/having an affair in love with gloomy (in mind) outcast Sarah Woodruff (BAFTA and Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Meryl Streep), and the present day couple that are acting out this couple in shooting of the film with almost the same type of love situation, Anna (still Streep) and Mike (stil Irons).
Meryl Streep was number 58 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, and she was number 26 on The World's Greatest Actors, and Jeremy Irons was number 30 on The 50 Greatest British Actors.
The Films Of Meryl Streep: French Lieutenant's Woman.
She portrays two roles- Anna and Sarah, one an actress of the modern period of 1981 and the other a "fallen" woman of Victorian England.
Jeremy Irons portrays Mike, an actor who is Anna's co-star in a costume drama about a forbidden romance between two married people.
The "modern times" relationship between Anna and Mike ends unhappily but the Victorian Era romance between Sarah and Charles ends happily, as if to say only in film or fantasy romances of the past do we find true happiness but reality is far more complex and tragic.
If you've seen her in later character roles like "The Iron Lady", you may not remember how lovely, pale, and fragile she could be in her earlier films.
As Mike and Anna, two film actors involved in a tumultuous affair, and Charles and Sarah the star crossed Victorian couple whom the actors portray.
The weaving of these two love stories---One Victorian and one contemporary give an insight into human passion and emotion.*Special Stars- Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, David Warner, Leo McKern.*Theme- Love is fickle.*Trivia/location/goofs- Filmed entirely in England.