Rating: 
Summary: Book vs. Movie
Review: Alternate endings, authorial interjections, primary source documents, epigraphs; just a few techniques John Fowles uses to turn his Darwinian novel, The French Lieutenant's Woman, into a unique resurrection of classic Victorian literature. With all of the literary devices that Fowles employs in his novel to make it-according to one reviewer-"so utterly compelling," it comes as no surprise that this novel does not adapt easily to the screen. In fact, the screenwriter, Harold Pinter, completely disregards the true intended nature of the aforementioned rhetorical strategies in his adaptation of the novel.
Instead of portraying these essential elements as Fowles wrote them, Pinter creates a "movie within a movie" by constructing a passionate affair that the actors portraying Sarah and Charles involve themselves in while filming the screen version of Fowles' novel. He then cleverly weaves the two stories-one taking place in the 1860s and `70s, the other in the late-1970s/early-1980s-in and out of each other. He does so in order to give the audience a sense of the comparing of times that Fowles produces by interjecting 1960s views-on subjects including politics, religion, and social customs-in the classic style of the Victorian novel. Pinter sees this as an opportunity to use both of the novels endings, as well-the "happy" ending for the screen lovers, and the more realistic for the "real" lovers. Despite the deliberate effort to make the endings seem as genuine as possible, the do not invoke in the audience the "Mystery of the True Ending" that the novel does. And by utilizing the double-romance technique, Pinter falls prey to time constraints.
Pinter realizes that he must sacrifice plot developments and some of the other devices that make this Fowles novel unique. For example, Pinter discards of Fowles' use of the epigraphs and primary documents (including case reports) that give The French Lieutenant's Woman its Darwinian flair. Again, Pinter hopes to achieve this sense of evolution and historicism by comparing the Victorian love story with the modern one, but for anyone that has read the novel, the film just seems to lack that "something." Pinter also cuts what many readers consider key plot points from the story. This makes grasping character motivations very difficult, despite the obvious attention to detail given to keeping the dialogue consistent with that in the novel. For example, not a single frame of the film mentions Charles' uncle and the fact that Charles will no longer inherit his uncle's estate. Nor does the film address the lengths to which Sam goes to try to ensure his and his soon-to-be-bride's financial security. Without Fowles' rhetorical ingenuity and sub-plots that reveal characters' drive, the film slips further into the pattern of slaughtering the makeup of the author's creative skill.
Surely anyone who's read the book will most likely concede that they would rather adapt virtually any other book for the silver screen than The French Lieutenant's Woman. John Fowles' narration technique, designed to involve the audience in the story by speaking directly to them, and the infamous alternate endings present the most difficult aspects of the novel to overcome in the rewriting process. Surely there must exist a better way to show these aspects of the novel than the way that Pinter ultimately released it. Perhaps a narrator or even Shakespearian-inspired, one-man chorus could narrate the film in a truly Darwinian fashion, making it almost seem like a romantic documentary. Therefore, it would not seem absurd to include some of Fowles' side comments, and the narrator could then even plug in a few epigraphs or primary document excerpts. The problem of the alternate endings would then also be solved: the narrator would present them as John Fowles does in the novel. Obviously this version of the film would last longer than the two hours that Pinter's version fills, but without the second, parallel love story, the new version would occupy less time than one might think. Even so, this new longer, documentary-like version would probably not reap the same fiscal benefits that the 1981 blockbuster did, but at least the film would uphold the integrity of Fowles' novel.
Despite paltry attempts to portray Fowles' literary flair on screen, the film version of The French Lieutenant's Woman comes off as nothing more than a summary of the dominant plotline with a few glimpses into the lives of people that readers of the book have no acquaintance with. Do not misconceive this, however, as a complete bashing of the film. In deed, the film portrays Lyme Regis in an extremely visually stimulating manner, having been shot on location. And the cast, including Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, did an outstanding job playing the well-dialogued characters that, due to unfortunate adaptation circumstances, had very little motivation to guide them. But what does exemplary acting and an aesthetically pleasing setting matter if no one makes an effort to uphold the artistic integrity of the piece that inspired the film? The novel's authorial interjections, alternate ending, epigraphs and primary source documents give the novel its reverence in the literary world. Without them, the film completely fails to capture the essence of the novel, no matter how well it portrays the dialogue and visual aesthetics of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: not worth my time
Review: Although some of the imagery and reminders of a bygone era were nice, I found this book rather annoying. This is partly because for one I think Victorian England is a very pathetic period of our existence (so why did I read a Victorian-esque novel? Hmm...), and two, I didn't like the author's style of interjecting himself into the story. Just as you start to get into the book (which took me 100 pages), he devotes an entire chapter to explaining how the story isn't real after all, how it's all made up, explaining the creative process, bla bla bla. For someone who doesn't much like fiction to begin with, this about ruined any further effort to continue reading.
I found Sarah Woodrough's character unconvincing, and the language excessively wordy (but again, that is a Victorian thing, back when writers were paid by the word for the works they produced). So I guess Fowles wrote a good book, if you enjoy spending hours reading about how a woman's reputation was ravaged because she dared show her ankles to a stranger (ok, a bit exaggerated, but not far from the truth). Overall, to paraphrase Shakespeare, an alternate title for the book should have been "The French Lieutenant's Woman, or, Much Ado About Nothing."
But hey, I think most fiction is a waste of time, so don't listen to me. Many readers here seem to think it warranted 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: My every five years novel.
Review: I first read this wonderful book in the late 60's, shortly after it published. As a high school student, I was simply blown away by the story, the virtuosity of the endings, by its ambiguity, but most of all by the richness of its language. The scene when Charles and Sarah confront each other in the shed in the undercliff has more tension and suspense than a thousand horror movies, because it was so real. In the intervening 30 years, I've re-read this novel every five years or so. Like other great works, each re-reading brings something new (because I continue to change). The great tragedy, at least in my view, is that what has followed from John Fowles has never risen to the heights of this novel. Daniel Martin was a huge disappointment to me (so self-indulgent and empty). The Maggot has some moments, but was ultimately disappointing. Only The Magus, and, to a lesser degree, The Collector, rival The French Lieutentant's Woman. That said, Fowles has always been his own man and has stuck to his view of the world. I've read some of his philosophy of life in the Aristos and found most of it to be inconsistent with my own world view. But in this great book, Fowles and I connected. I hope when I'm ninety, I can sit down and read it again (and find something fresh and new).
Rating:
Summary: Haunting story that is tragic and beautiful
Review: I have 4 different copies of this book. Fowles is really a literary giant when compared with many writers today. On par with the likes of AS Byatt, Charles Palliser, Iain Pears and Umberto Eco, Fowles (like these other authors) has an uncanny ability to write literate and thought-provoking stories while keeping the reader's interest. FLW is devastating and unsettling at some points, but the mounting tension and subsequent resolve are really wonderful. One of my favorites.
Rating:
Summary: A true masterpiece
Review: In the first hundred pages of this book I had already begun to realize that this was one of the best books I have ever read. That feeling never let up; indeed, it grew even stronger as I approached the end, when I began to feel a frantic eagerness to discover what would become of these characters that I had grown to care so much for. Sarah Woodruff (aka the French Lieutenant's Woman) is one of my favorite characters in literature. She is a complex, nuanced character, intriguingly covered by a delicate veil of mystery throughout the first half of the book. Her pain, her selfless sacrifice, and her courage are deeply and powerfully drawn. She is a true example of a woman ahead of her time, a woman who challenges the norms of her society by simply ignoring them. Her confidence and her quiet scorn for the Puritanism of the times in which she lives raise her to a level above the so-called moral leaders who condemn her. In a strange way, she is a true hero. This book, written in the late 1960s but set one hundred years earlier, is a beautiful example of period literature. Fowles, through his remarkably genuine narrative voice, recreates the world of Victorian England in such a way that if it weren't for the occasional references to modern life you might think the book was a century older than it is. It is filled with all the pomp and formality you would expect, but also with a wit, dry humor, and quiet mocking of the period that lend it an added flavor. But Fowles is not simply trying to create a period piece or social commentary. I believe that first and foremost he was creating a love story. I would put Charles and Sarah in the same category with Romeo and Juliet as far as love stories go. The relationship is developed slowly, so slow that it is exquisitely painful almost. And though the time they spend together is brief, it is filled with an unmistakable air of eventual tragedy. The only question left in my mind is whether to categorize this book as a classic of modern fiction or of 19th century fiction. It could easily stand in either section of my bookshelf.
Rating:
Summary: excellent piece of post modern literature
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles
On page 316 of the novel The French Lieutenant's Woman author John
Fowles briefly interrupts the fiction to discuss with the reader his role
as a novelist. He has come up with two very different endings to the novel
and wishes to share both with his readers. However, he cannot give two
storyline endings simultaneously, and if one comes before another, the
final chapter will seem more potent than the first. In trying not to side
with any particular characters he decides on a coin toss to decide which
conclusion to give last. At this point Charles is on a train, and Fowles
considers leaving him there to allow the reader the opportunity devise
their own conclusion for the novel. I can only assume that Fowles came up with both endings at roughly the
same time, and each of them seemed as valid an ending as the other to him.
Traditionally, it would have been up to him to chose one ending and make it
final. However it seems he was not able, or did not want to chose just one
of the endings to the novel. It would seem that Fowles is trying to be fair
to all of the characters by including the various endings which satisfy all
of them. Fowles comments that the job of a novelist is "to put two
conflicting wants in the ring and describe the fight", which is essentially
what he has done. However it is hard to decide for whom to fix the fight in
favor of when one owns both fighters. Fowles also briefly mentions allowing "freedom of characters" in his
writing. This concept is somewhat vague. To allow freedom of characters is
to essentially allow the characters to do anything that the author thinks
of. Why would a character ever not be able to do whatever the author thinks
of ? There are no written rules that authors must conform to while writing
a novel about how characters must behave, and that a character must stay in
character. The identity of the character is constantly changing as the
novel progresses, constantly being updated since the reader has only a
brief glimpse into the life of a character in the novel. I think it would
be quite rare for an author to not allow his characters freedom (unless of
course he is living in a country under dictatorship or communism, but that
doesn't count because the author doesn't have freedom either so why should
his characters). "The chief argument of fight fixing is to show one's readers what one
thinks of the world around one". The author must fix the fight in favor of
one side to make the writing a novel, to create the story with one's views
on the world implanted into it. Fowles however did not live in the world he
is fixing the fight in and can only know about it from other readings or
indirect information. Fowles describes a story that has supposedly taken
place over a century ago, and shows several views of another world by
giving the novel two separate endings. Through this Fowles shows two
separate views , by giving us two separate endings, which essentially
changes his entire outlook on the world from one ending to another. One is
more optimistic than the other, so he gives us an optimistic look at the
world as well as a pessimistic view of the world in which the novel
unfolds. The bulk of Fowles comments on what a novelist should be are somewhat
contradictory to what he has done with his novel. He has said that it is
the job of the author to describe the conflict after having chosen the
outcome. However, Fowles himself seems to play quite an active role in The
French Lieutenant's Woman , often jumping in to give modern day references
such as in the case of Mrs. Poultney and the Gestapo. I believe this kind
of writing is very beneficial for the reader. If the author has enough
information about an era to convincingly write about it, and make
references to modern times, it seems to give the reader a better
understanding of the novel and make them feel more involved. Although
Fowles has said that his job is simply to describe the fight it is somewhat
more interesting when he slips back into the 20th century. In the many places in the novel when Fowles jumps in to the novel to
explain or further describe something, he often gives away that even he
does not know what is going to happen next. It is asthough he is
discovering right along with the reader, as he imagines it the reader reads
it. I writing in this style may be beneficial to the novel. In this way the
other does sub-consciously bias the novel towards the protagonist or
antagonist, but makes the conflict seem realistic enough that it's not
beyond the realm of possibility for either of the sides to take control and
"win" the novel. Through this style of writing, the novel has a more
lifelike feel to it because people don't get inside tips from an other as
they live their real lives. Fowles seems to believe that the novelist should not be thinking or
intentionally creating a plot, but rather to let one unfold and simply
describe it. He makes it out to be as though authors have a peep-hole to
another dimension though which they watch and write down everything they
see. Their job is simply to fix and convincingly report on a fight without
showing too much bias for one side or the other as to not make it too
obvious for whom the fight has been fixed. His views of what a novelist
should be seem quite unique and somewhat idealistic.
Rating: 
Summary: The French Lieutenant's Woman
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman is a Victorian novel by a modern author - the revered John Fowles. The novel concerns a love triangle between a young man on an income, his fiancé, and the mysterious and independent Sarah. Throughout the novel, Fowles takes numerous opportunities to speak directly to the reader in asides that describe the process of writing fiction from an author's perspective. Fowles also speaks directly to the reader to provide some historical information about the Victorians and their age. These asides are enjoyable and make the characters seem less removed from our own time. One quibble: the final resolution of the plot was a bit stilted (the characters basically stand up and explain themselves) and not very satisfying. I'm still not sure I fully understand Sarah's motives. The rest of this novel is very well done, though.
Rating:
Summary: The French Lieutenant's Woman
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman is a Victorian novel by a modern author - the revered John Fowles. The novel concerns a love triangle between a young man on an income, his fiancé, and the mysterious and independent Sarah. Throughout the novel, Fowles takes numerous opportunities to speak directly to the reader in asides that describe the process of writing fiction from an author's perspective. Fowles also speaks directly to the reader to provide some historical information about the Victorians and their age. These asides are enjoyable and make the characters seem less removed from our own time. One quibble: the final resolution of the plot was a bit stilted (the characters basically stand up and explain themselves) and not very satisfying. I'm still not sure I fully understand Sarah's motives. The rest of this novel is very well done, though.
Rating:
Summary: Fowles' most artful, enigmatic tale
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman is a Victorian-style novel that deals with 20th Century issues. Charles Smithson falls in love with the mysterious Sarah Woodruff, a woman who has been cast aside by the French lieutenant of the book's title. The book shifts in time between past and present, between politics and social issues of today and the Victorian era, as it deals with love, lust, broken promises, and redemption.
Lovely, lyrical, and there's a twist to the surprise ending.
Rating:
Summary: Great novel- sorry, I may have some spoilers here.......
Review: This is a wonderfully complex, mysterious, stunningly wrought work. Fowles succeeds in injecting his postmodern, often comical viewpoints into this "Victorian" novel. Example: I love how the narrator steps into the train compartment and sits across from Charles, contemplating his future and what he has in store for him. That is damned neat! Even more fascinating is that this narrator, god, whatever you would prefer to call him, describes himself as having a huge beard, and Fowles (if you've seen any pictures of him) has a big white beard as well. I digress...The prose is excellent. The novel remains quite accessible and engrossing while still tackling complex ideas. I loved the exisentialism ideas swirling around the novel, and in Charles and Sarah, Fowles has created two unforgettable characters "seeking to escape the tryanny and cant of their age," as it is stated on the cover of my book. This novel captures the essence of the Victorian period as well as Dickens or Eliot would, but the difference is that Fowles skillfully penetrates through the hypocrisy and artificiality of the time with his sharp observations. Ever the postmodernist, Fowles provides us with both a Victorian ending (perhaps as Dickens would have liked it; it is practically overflowing with sentimentality) and a Modern ending. A must read!
|
