‘Woman’ does justice to novel

Press, 15 March 1982, Page 5

‘Woman’ does justice to novel

at time cinema

hans petrovic

THE FRENCH - LIEUTANANT’S WOMAN Directed by Karel Reisz Screenplay by Harold Pinter The makers of the movie, “The Fr’ehch Lieutenant's Woman” (Regent), have succeeded in doing the virtually impossible — turning John Fowles’s book by the same name into a film which does the novef justice. The plot of the book was simple enough: While wooing his fiancee in a Dorest seaside town, a young, Victorian gentleman of leisure (Charles Smithson) becomes fascinated, and then infatuated by a mysterious, young woman (Sarah Woodruff) who makes a habit of spending her free time at the end of the breakwater at Lymes Regis staring wistfully out to sea, no matter what the weather. Our hero soon discovers that poor “Tragedy” is in her melancholy state as a result of a love affair with a French lieutenant cast on the shore after a shipwreck, and whom she nursed back to health. Finally, the Frenchman left her in the lurch and her present state of mind. , Unwittingly, or perhaps by design, Charles and Sarah come to see more of each other; resulting in him breaking off his other engagement, and Sarah eventually leaving him high and dry. An innocent enough affair, you may say by modern-day standards, but not so under the repressive mores and morals of the Victorian period, which the author exploits fully to present a thoroughly entertaining novel. What is more, this is not a romance by Jane Austen but the work of a Twentieth Century writer who, with the advantage of hindsight, can step above the tale and point out to us the follies and foibles of another era. Fowles also had the licence to play with his characters as he saw fit and even present us with three alternatives endings at the end of the book under the casual warning: “The author and publisher assure the reader that there are no

pagination errors in the final chapter of this story." The difficulty of turning this into a film which still retains:' both -the Victorian atmosphere and the transcendental ability of seeing the affair from our point of view is evident. - And the film-makers’ main challenge was to present this in a form of lateral thinking, capable of overcoming the dimension of time without' confusing the audience too much. After many tries. Fowles, the director (Karel Reisz) and playwright (Harold Pinter) hit on the idea of making it into a film within a film — one set last century, the other today. When we see the film’s clapper board at the start of Sarah’s first walk down the breakwater, little notice is taken by the audience. But matters become more confusing when, after Charles proposes marriage, we hear a telephone ring, and his modern-day persona (without the sideburns) turns over in bed to answer it. What is going on? The explanation is that we see two actors, Mike (Jeremy Irons) and Anna. (Meryl Streep), who are down at Lyme Regis to play Charles

and Sarah in a movie about the plot we have already discussed. It is fitting also that we see these two characters of the 1980 s already in bed together, from where they can develop their love affair without any of the restrictions of an earlier England. Most of the film still fo-, cuses on the Victorian romance. But, as we go along, the switches to the present day become more frequent and longer — until we realise that these two, intertwining stories have a curious parallel. (This use of time-warp is not new to Pinter, who had used a similar device in the screenplay for “The GoBetween”.) When Mike and Anna rehearse a scene in which she slips and falls into his arms, we suddenly go back to see Charles and Sarah dramatically enact the incident./■ Later, in the Victorian story, Charles and Sarah have a clandestine meeting at Exeter, while Mike and Anna just happen to be there to film that scene, and also say poignant farewells at the railway station. Our modern Mike is certainly falling in love with Anna, but one also can not help but suspect that she is . becoming a vicarious model of the much more elusive Sarah. If, by the end of the film, you can differentiate between what is happening to Mike (or is it Charles) and Anna (Sarah), you are doing much better than Mike — who can’t. The dilemma of presenting alternative endings also is overcome by the neat trick of providing both a happy and an unhappy solution — one for the Victorian lovers, the other for their contemporary counterparts. However, if you think that this is all there is to “The French Lieutenant’s Woman,” you are sadly missing out. For instance, when Sarah Woodruff finally reappears, why has she changed her name to Mrs Roughwood? >

Does this indicate that she had a child as a result of their meeting in Exeter? There definitely is a mention of a child in one of the endings of the book, but it is not mentioned in the film. One wonders ... Also, Charles’s and Sarah’s final meeting is z presented in such a peculiar light and almost surrealist setting that one wonders whether this is an imagined film in a film in a film, in which Mike indulges in a bit of his own wishful thinking. This must be so, because as Anna finally walks out on him at a wind-up, after filming party, he calls to “Sarah” to return. Confusing? It is not if you approach these mirrors within mirrors in “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with an open mind and let it

f become an enjoyable evenJ ing’s entertainment. I believe this film also will , become. memorable for sevi eral other reasons, particuI larly Meryl Streep’s brilliant, , chamelepn-like performance, and such scenes as her standing at the end of the breakwater, dressed in black cloak and hood, turning to gaze at ' Jeremy Irons. i This scene will become a .classic film image, just like King Kong battling bi-planes on the Empire State Building, Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr on the beach in “From Here to Eternity," Liza Minelli with black bowler hat, stockings and chair in “Cabaret,” or even Elvis Preseley dancing “Jailhouse Rock.” In his first leading role in a feature, film, Irons manages to hold the story together with seemingly easy authority in the role of the young, shallow suitor. However; this is definitely Miss Streep’s film with her strong portrayal of the comlek, unfathomable Sarah . Woodruff. One gets the feeling that, somehow," she is concealing just as many emotions as she is revealing. In the novel; Fowles describes Sarah as having “an , unforgettable face, and a tragic face... There was no artifice there, no hypocrisy.

no hysteria, no mask." And this sums up Miss Streep perfectly in- this role. She already has received good notices for-her performances in films like “The Deerhunter.” “Kramer vs Kramer” and “The Seduction of Joe Tynan." I prefer not to show too much enthusiasm for any actor’s performance for fear of over-praising them. However, Miss Streep deserves all the praise" she has been getting for this film. Early on, we see her sketching a mad woman reminiscent of a rough woodcut by Goya; and as we see her throughout the film, she comes across in images that could have been the work of half a dozen different artists. Her movements and voice can be either delicate or strident, but always precise and in full control. She is also the only American actress I can think of who has managed to completely lose her native accent,, and pick up the distinctly different manner of speech of southern England.

It would be difficult to better her performance in “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” but I feel Meryl Streep will prove capable of doing it.