that film the rounds.
universal acclaim ticipation justice to its subject. book tongh iee do the experience vision of its author telling a sluly SCL 1867, but continually interrupting it a century on, only to finish vl bne alolguous mllale vl its double endings.
Ihe storv Concciusd chance meeting between Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons) and Sarah Woodruff (Meryl Streep) at the end of the Cobb at Lyme Regis «og CW of old grey wall that flexes and its aftermath.
Tror caares samuasor.
gentleman of considerable means, discovers that it is easier to follow his amateur passion for the study of fossils than it is to pursue his even greater DassiUll 101 lic wollall al the end of the Cobb. Sarah Woodruff, it should be made clear, the Victorian English equivalent of an Untouchable.
Status She has lost whatever status she began with, as a governess, tnrough public knowledge of her dalliance with an officer on a French mem stands the rigidsoceal merchant Between convention of the newlyemerging industrial ruling class - whose taste for the Vicious exploitation of workers was matched only by the continual stream of moralising they offer, uncharacteristically, so freely.
Reviews have embasiser ertner the idiosyncratic casting of the American Meryl Streep, or the film's efforts to the dualities of the novel onto celluloid. The film adopts a device whereby the tors playing Charles and Sarah are seen to be pursuing a romance parallel to original cast contemporary clothing and without the savagery the Victorian moral code.
In the novel there may be two endings but there is ottv one lae. un une mimo there are not only two eneve though some care has been taken consciously 1I1 -terlace them.
Fowles used to receive readers demanding to know the 'real' ending. ending the reader wanted contirmed, rowies nilgnl gently point out to them THERE can be few people left in the Western hemisphere who are unaware called The French Lieutenant's Woman is currently going Great expectations exist almost critics and reviewers alike have branded the film a that a film would ever do that the other conclusion was more likely.
Part of the book's attraction is that it illustrates ulal ll willl: as ui ical conscious choices are the lifeblood of human acnvily. HOW cetny does this emerge in the film?
Fowles prefaces his novel quotation trom Marx: 'Everv emancipation is a restoration of tlic uliall world and of human relationships to man himself.' Throughout the book, the quest for liberation is strongiv telt. Sarah weeDs silent tears while midVictorian capitalism does rs nest to desrov une eforts of a single woman to SCCK an independent path Charles, who is beginning to see the world more clearly through the spectacles oi Charles Darwin wants to liberate himself trom the entanging welter of ignorance and religious prejudice through electing to follow Sarah.
The rolling thunder of old chains breaking (evolutionary theory) while new ones form (the rise of LUlll® merce) can be heard distinctly the background.
Yet, this is a world in we right toe which dCCuC to choose and, then, make their destiny. Where women are denied their freedom, men can never realise their own humanity: So as Sarah is shut out from her society, Charles will be cut off fror his, too. Modern The French Lietenant's Woman then, foundly modern tale.
rests less WUWC riddles than its relevance to us today. Whatever the ending, it is a positive affirmation of human potentiality.
The author has acknowledged that the fiim is anothei wav of atstory. nn the modern ee the modern SUl Y sion, unares Sarah are played by actors Mike True to C VLi writer Harold Pinter's hallmark, little said, a noles we ooserve lucu engaging in an affat • betweet takes seclic Commol Sarah slips and falls into Charles' arms. Immediately, WC are transported back to Ware where the image is realised in its proper • setting, hus to-ing and fro-ing is also reflected in the fact that of the original ilally characters are OCCI fleetingly in their modern guise.
Sarah's mistress, Mrs. Poulteney, (Patience Collier) is obsessed by a desire appear pious; her modern counterpart, who Dasse. judgement on the Mike/Anna affair, is no less COLICCUICU appearance rather than realiIn one sense, the film is about the same story as the OOUK. HOe & dole out the narrative (as Tess) say. allu way identifying the storytellers intervening WULU the story in this case, the film-makers.
This does some credit to Karel Reisz, the directogether came up with thịs and Pinter w.nu individual solution. little more annoying to have Anna and Mike pop up at odd times than it is to have the author ingeniouswrite himself into the story in various guises.
What is disappointing however, is to find so little ot that : challenging spirit that haunts each page ,of the book - the spirit that theire pe Disto congen own history though own metaphor reproduce original dilemma, it remains literal in its explanation, oflers no explanauon al all Neither the force with which Charles and Sarah interrupt each other's lives, nor the light which the writer sheds on this interruption tury's distance are successfully carried over into une film. Ultimately; the film resembles a Pyrrhic victory - Il wins tne Iorm but loses the content.
Despite this, it is worth seeing for other reasons. It for other Icasol should be seen for Meryl Streep's convincing trav! of saran Woodruff - one of the most imporWl ane oct lonrec 1 contemporary literature At times, the tim cat. ches the flavour of the original, such as the initial scene on the Cobb, or the in Exetel Charles and Sarah finally make love nsena hints. Fowles himself in his OICWOT Harold Pinter's screenplay should be seen if only to prevent the book becoming sacrosanct possessing no more than you might find in a fossil.
Socianst Chaflénge 5 Nóvember 1981 Page 11
gle and 25 per cent of the
----- pull-quotes -----
for two reasons. publicity campaign
First, the massive
success. Second, those who have read and enjoyed John Fowles' book have waited a long time, in doubtful an-
At one point, they are practising