Amazon.com

The hugely ambitious Beckett on Film project gathered together 19different directors to turn the 19 stage works written by Samuel Beckettinto films. The range is vast--from the 45-second Breath to the twohours of his most famous play, Waiting for Godot--but all the worksreflect Beckett's penetrating obsessions with memory, regret, and thesimple, excruciating experience of being. Not every film succeeds--likeall great theater, Beckett's plays demand interaction with a live audienceto express their full intent--and though scholars tout Beckett's everyword as genius, several works are slight (Catastrophe, OhioImpromptu, or What Where will leave many viewers unimpressed).But all the plays feature Beckett's uniquely distilled language; thegreatest of them--including Waiting for Godot (in which two trampspass the time while they wait for someone who may never come),Endgame (in which a blind man and his lame servant bicker and jokeas the world declines), and Play (in which a love triangle isbitterly recalled by two women and a man in urns)--are astonishing in boththeir potent humor and piercing grief.

Though Beckett's stature drew in animpressive array of directors (including Anthony Minghella, PatriciaRozema, and Neil Jordan) and actors (including Jeremy Irons, JulianneMoore, Alan Rickman, Kristin Scott-Thomas, Michael Gambon, and JohnGielgud), some of the finest work comes from relative unknowns. But thegem of the collection is Krapp's Last Tape, about an old manrevisiting his life through recordings he has made throughout his years.It's the perfect marriage of text, actor (the incomparable John Hurt), anddirector (Atom Egoyan, The Sweet Hereafter); in their hands, theplay spins from deeply funny to deeply sad, all with only the slightestdim of the light in Hurt's eyes. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Worth a look.
2 stars is misleading. I would recommend this to anyone interested in Becket. To see a directors interpretation of his work provided invaluable insights into both the works themselves, and the process of directing film.
That being said, I was not amazed. The potential of a four disk DVD and large booklet, exclusively Becket, was unlimited. The product was a half-dozen enjoyable plays, and not even a documentary on Becket. In their great humility, they made a documentary, about themselves, making the DVD you are about to purchase. Great.

Who Put the Film in the Beckett on Film Project?
Directors working on stage-to-screen adaptations find themselves torn between dual obligations to both the original work and the new medium. In the case of creating a collection of films meant to highlight the playwright's vision, questions raised by these obligations become even more controversial: should they remain true to the text, even if elements of the play don't work well on film? Dare they change those elements to better fit their new mode of expression? And in the case of Beckett, what percentage of the collections' earnings should go towards manic-depressive treatment centers? Of course, total objectivity in stage-to-screen adaptation remains a pipe dream. But we have to remember that even a theatric production has a director, who-while possibly faced with less decisions than a film director-invariably must makes choices leading to his own personal interpretation of the play. Ultimately, every production of a play, be it for DVD or Broadway, interprets rather than mirrors the original work. Therefore, the Beckett on Film Project should not be regarded as an unbiased representation, but rather an ambitious interpretation of one of the greatest playwrights of the twentieth century. And in this regard, with few exceptions, the Beckett on Film Project shines with commendable effectiveness.

I wish to illustrate a few interpretive anomalies in the collection, to give you an idea of both the kinds of adaptive problems these directors had to face and some of their solutions. Consider "Act Without Words II," a short and dialogue-free play in which two characters mime their different daily routines against a narrow backdrop "violently lit in its entire length, [with] the rest of the stage in darkness." Director Edna Hughes chose to divide this backdrop into three film frames and to add a movie reel-like quality to the video. This constant reminder that we are watching a film is the same sort of self-referential metatextuality we find in many of Beckett's plays. Hughes' interpretive decision regarding the background also reinforces the repetitive theme of the play. That is to say, these characters' routines will go on and on, day after day, just as this very movie is being filmed-one frame after another. Hughes' use of a freeze-frame effect also highlights the technological superiority that film holds over its older cousin, theatre. The play calls for a "Frieze effect," but only on film can this be accomplished literally; in theatre it must be acted out. These changes by Hughes show intelligence in both his reading and adapting of the play to screen. Now, for something of a contrary example, consider one of Beckett's most famous short plays, "Play," in which three characters, trapped in urns, are forced to perpetually retell the story of the love triangle between them. The inquisitor: a lone spotlight that dictates which one of the three urns speaks, when, and for how long. But director Anthony Minghella's version gets rid of the light altogether, in favor of a loud and sometimes shaky camera, whose stronger presence is meant to take the light's place as these characters' inquisitor. Minghella's technique here ultimately falls somewhere between failure and success. The audible clicks and zooms of the camera do, for a time, give the viewer a feeling of submersion within the scene; since the camera now questions these characters, and we as viewers share the camera's gaze, the film achieves an interesting effect that draws us into the world of the story. But the camera cuts between the three urns so many times that the sense of a "unique inquisitor," as Beckett requests, soon dissipates. Not that the adaptation adds nothing to the play; once or twice, the camera pans around to give a broad scene of the background, a dark, foggy, and graveyard-like field littered with many more people in urns. While this background reduces the ambiguity of setting present in the original play, it does so perhaps necessarily, and in addition, clearly suggests that these characters' situations are in fact meant to be symbolic of some greater human condition. Ultimately, we recognize a tradeoff for every one of these questions of adaptation, but by and large, as these two examples illustrate, the gain outweighs the loss in the Beckett on Film Project. Or, put simply: the directors and actors earn their paychecks.

Now keep in mind that despite the interpretive decisions I just described, the main thrust of this collection remains Beckett's. What does that mean? It means that these plays glimmer and shine with a bleak despair. The most dramatic moments are often the most comedic, and the only happy characters-well, forget about happy characters (after all, "Nothing is funnier than unhappiness," as Nell from Endgame tells us). But, dismal as they can be, Beckett's plays always manage to match their gloom in originality, creativity, and importance. They pose critical questions about what it means to exist as a human being. Do we simply spend our days idly, waiting-for Godot or anything else? Do we bury ourselves in the desert when we say "I do"? Can our condition be reduced to the emblem of a solitary finch, living in a draped cage with a dead mate and only a cuttle-bone to eat, in a darkened room stalked by a black cat whose own life depends on a suicidal man standing at a window? Whether or not you agree, you cannot help but ask, once Beckett has shown you the shadowy corners of his imagination. And keep in mind his influence on theatre and even art in general. Often touted as odd and sometimes inaccessible, but always brilliant, Beckett's plays deserve our attention, whether or not we choose to buy the Beckett on Film collection. What these productions add to Beckett's vision is an important sense of a modern moment. How have the technological advances made since Beckett's death affected what it means to be Beckettian? And how do the questions his work poses affect you? It's worth your time to find out.

Mixed bag
Those who are familiar with the original productions will find this collection both exhilarating and frustrating. The more faithful the directors are to Beckett's vision, the more successful the adaptation to film. Come and Go is perhaps the purest of them, and also the most chilling. Other effective adaptations include Krapp's Last Tape, Rough for Theatre II, Act Without Words II, A Piece of Monologue, and Play (Minghella's truly -cinematic- adaptation probably deserves the highest marks). I'm ambivalent about many others, not least Ohio Impromptu and Catastrophe.

Unfortunately the longer plays (Godot, Happy Days, and Endgame) suffer from the directors' mistaken impression that Beckett's characters must be decrepit, disgusting, and/or humorless. Quite the contrary, there is levity and compassion to be found in Beckett's work, and without it his meditations become intolerable rather than incisive. Godot has its moments, but it's not nearly as effective (or funny) as any number of previous productions.

Pacing is also a significant issue here. Beckett's plays (excepting Not I and Play) demand a very slow reading, with an abundance of silence. Many of these adaptations simply plow through the texts with no apparent consideration of heft or nuance; Rockaby is probably the most egregious example. Other directorial liberties make Not I and What Where wholly unacceptable; these simply cannot be considered Beckett's work.

Happily, more Beckett productions are becoming available on DVD. You can purchase Happy Days with Irene Worth's excellent performance on this very site, three plays (Eh Joe, Footfalls, Rockaby) starring Beckett's favorite actress Billie Whitelaw, and a DVD of Beckett Directs Beckett (the three long plays) hopefully in the near future.

Excellent, with one exception.
First let me say I've been waiting my whole adult life for this collection. I've spent 30 years trying to collect audio and video recordings of Beckett's work, and suddenly here are all the theatre peices in one beautiful package. The chance that you will ever find another film version of most of these works, or ever have a chance to see them on stage, is almost nil. If you love Waiting for Godot and Endgame, you will not regret the money spent on this. Unlike most plays and almost all movies, these are peices to be seen again and again, over a lifetime, letting the beauty and subtlety of Beckett's language slowly soak into your being.

That being said, I was disappointed with only one peice: Endgame. With Michael Gambon as one of the leads, I expected the most from this play. But I'm afraid he was badly misdirected in this. He simply enjoys his dispair too much. He enjoys being a selfish, cruel master and his "Perhaps I could go on..." speech (one of Beckett's greatest)loses all its power. Gambon delivers this with hardly a pause, rambling on with the same puckish tone as the rest of his performance. (I thought maybe I was just too used to an earlier film version directed by Beckett, so I went back to the script to check this. After almost every phrase in the speech, Beckett has written (Pause). Without these pauses to let the anguish of the words sink into our minds, the speech carries no more weight than the rest of the text. Well, probably much more than you wanted to know.)

Short Review: BUY THIS NOW! You'll be watching these films again and again as long as you own a DVD player.

The Artist of the Century
Curious that DVD Basen, the wonderful Danish web-compendium of dvd reviews from all over the world, has yet to register a word on BECKETT ON FILM, by any measure the dvd release of the year. These film renditions of Samuel Beckett's nineteen works for the stage (which is not the same as his "complete dramatic works," which would include radio plays and scripts for television), are, for the most part, thrillingly successful. The plays fall into two types. WAITING FOR GODOT, ENDGAME, KRAPP'S LAST TAPE, and HAPPY DAYS, however revolutionary in their time, still more or less conform to the conventional understanding of what a play is, ie: they contain recognizable characters and the shortest is an hour long. Despite the filmmakers' protests to make true movies of these plays, as opposed to "filmed plays," each of their single-locale settings make the theatrical origins of each work inescapable. Having said that, they are the best "filmed plays" this viewer has ever seen. Most of the remaining plays, particularly the late plays, are very short (under 15 minutes), and as Alan Rickman remarks, seem more like installations or "performance art," then full-fledged plays. What makes these works among the greatest plays ever written is precisely their inability to be transfered to another medium. With one exception, each of these little films, even the most brilliant of them (I'm thinking of the mind-blowing PLAY), must somehow compromise itself as a play in order to make the transition to film. The exception is OHIO IMPROMPTU. The intensity of this two character, ten minute piece perhaps reaches the full measure of its power as a film. Beckett's stage directions specify that its two actors be as alike as possible. On film, they can be exactly alike, by virtue of being played by the same actor, namely Jeremy Irons, who has famously played twins before. Despite the actor's disavowal, the characters of Reader and Listener can't help but conjure the image of DEAD RINGERS' Elliot commiserating with his twin brother Beverly aeons from hence in their own personal purgatory. Irons' performance is impeccable and affecting, although the Beckett purist might wish there were a little less of it. The performances throughout the plays are deliriously good, with the sad exception of the beautiful FOOTFALLS, which suffers from an overly mannered delivery on the part of its two actresess. One can only feel sorry for the director saddled with the relentlessly uncinematic THAT TIME. But BECKETT ON FILM is mostly a box of treasure, and a gift to the world. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

INTRIGUING CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE...
Having read John Fowles' book upon which the film is based, I have to say that I enjoyed the book more. Still, I must give plaudits to the screenplay by Harold Pinter, as the book with its alternative endings is a little difficult to capture on film. Still, that is just what Pinter did here in a symbolic and ingenious sort of way, with two parallel stories, one contemporary, one victorian. Coupled with deft direction by Karel Reisz and stunning cinematography, the film fully engages the viewer.

The film is beautifully acted by Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons. Steep is possitively luminous in the role of the enigmatic Sarah Woodruff, a Victorian woman who is wrongfully castigated by her neighbors for being a scarlet woman. Jeremy Edwards is excellent as Charles, the gentleman who becomes obsessed with her and loses his reputation in order to remain free to pursue her.

Streep is also excellent in the role of the married Anne, the contemporary actress with whom Mike (Jeremy Irons), her costar in a film, is having an affair. He is, however, disatisfied with Anne's casual attentions and wants more. Anne and Mike became lovers while filming "The French Lieutenant's Woman" with Anne playing the role of Sarah Woodruff and Mike in the role of Charles.

Pinter skilfully weaves these two stories together, making for an unusual cinematic experience, which, while not faithful to the book, is compelling, nonetheless. This is an audaciously imaginative and visually lush film, a story within a story that, while thought provoking, is just a tad off the mark.

Victorian Love Story by the Sea
"You cannot imagine my suffering. My only happiness is when I sleep. When I awake, the nightmare begins." ~Sarah Woodruff

The first few scenes in this movie are so terribly sad if you have seen the movie at least once before. In the first few scenes all you see is a lone figure walking along the projecting sea wall (Cobb). Sarah Woodruff is looking out to sea for her lover's return. It is all so tragic. This story is set in the coastal town of Lyme Regis, famous for its fossils and now also famous for this movie.

For some reason, the first scenes are so symbolic of the entire loneliness both the fictional and real character play in the movie. This is a film-within-the-film and the stories follow similar themes. You could almost compare the style of this movie to the more recent "Possession 2002."

The French Lieutenant's Woman was adapted from John Fowles' novel and is a parallel love story. One between forbidden lovers Sarah Woodruff (Meryl Streep) and Charles (Jeremy Irons) in the 19th century, and then a romance between Anna and Mike who play Sarah and Charles when the Victorian romance is not being filmed. It is confusing at first, but soon you are watching this movie five times and have no idea why. It is rather romantic!

There are of course two endings, one for each story. I can't decide which I loved best. They are just both so overwhelming.

If you watch closely, you will see a scene where Sarah shows Charles a bit of her slip as she walks away. I always heard that meant a woman was looking for a husband. I didn?t notice it until the fourth time I was watching the movie. Sarah is technically an unfulfilled romantic. She is quite dramatic and very amusing at times. When she is going into a very serious speech, it can at times become dramatic to the point of hilarity. You know she is completely in love with being a victim of fate. She also knows how to attract romance into her life with her various schemes. One is rather dangerous when she slips a note to Charles during tea.

Charles is a curious soul. He finds Sarah to be a bit of a mystery and unlike other women he has met and courted. He literally hunts her down and watches this mystery as she glides through the misty forest by the sea. All Sarah wants to do is look out to sea and dream of a man saving her from her fantasy life as a scarlet woman. Charles loses all interest in his ammonite research and is also lost from the moment he sees Sarah. We feel mildly sorry for Ernestina Freeman (Lynsey Baxter) as she is so sweet and innocent and so deserving of love. Still, the girl can throw a pretty good tantrum! She is of course engaged to Charles.

The French Lieutenant's Woman will haunt you long after you have watched it at least five times in two days. ;) I loved this movie so much more than Sophie's Choice. It has to be the violin music slowly drifting through the misty forests. It is all so mysterious. Meryl Streep also has such a fresh radiance in this movie. Her acting is simply fascinating in so many scenes.

Dreamy Victorian Romance.

~The Rebecca Review.com

Omigod what an awful movie......
When I was in college, I LOVED the book, French Lieutenant's Woman! It was one of my favorite books of all time. Sarah, the symbol of all that was feminine, mysterious, alluring, and perhaps dangerous - was she really a whore, a goddess, or just a simple woman caught in a struggle for survival in the harsh Victorian age?

I could just go on and on about how fabulous the book was. But this isn't a review for the book.

When the movie came out, I rushed out to see it in the first weekend. Oh, geez, to say that I was let down, just doesn't quite get it right.

The two big downers were
1. Meryl Streep
2. The changed plot device of a play within a play of modern actors acting out the movie.

Meryl Streep was just horribly miscast in the role of Sarah Woodruff. She had absolutely no qualities of mystery, danger, or sex appeal to take on this role. At the time, Charlotte Rampling had been rumored to have been one of the potential actresses considered to play the role of Sarah, and she would have been great in this role. A decade or so later, and Michelle Pfeiffer would have been perfect for the role. But Meryl Streep? Oh my.... groan.....

And the play within a play plot device, what an idiotic thing to do to completely change a masterwork like John Fowles's novel. How completely artificial and unnecessary.

After this movie came out, I absolutely couldn't stand to watch Meryl Streep in any other movies. One of my favorite books, in its one shot at being made into a movie, ruined.

When I think of movies like The Stepford Wives or La Femme Nikita or King Kong getting re-made, I think, wow, wake up Hollywood, it's TIME FOR A REMAKE of this classic novel! And next time, please get it right.....

Book vs. Movie
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

"I have a freedom they cannot understand."
"Outside of marriage, your Victorian gentleman could look forward to 2.4 f*cks a week," Mike (Jeremy Irons) coolly calculates after Anna (Meryl Streep) has read to him the statistics according to which, while London's male population in 1857 was 1 1/4 million, the city's estimated 80,000 prostitutes were receiving a total of 2 million clients per week. And frequently, Anna adds, the women thus forced to earn their living came from respectable positions like that of a governess, simply having fallen into bad luck, e.g. by being discharged after a dispute with their employer and their resulting inability to find another position.

This brief dialogue towards the beginning of this movie based on John Fowles's 1969 novel succinctly illustrates both the fate that would most likely have been in store for title character Sarah (Meryl Streep in her "movie within the movie" role), had she left provincial Lyme Regis on Dorset's Channel coast and gone to London, and the Victorian society's moral duplicity: For while no virtues were regarded as highly as honor, chastity and integrity; while no woman intent on keeping her good name could even be seen talking to a man alone (let alone go beyond that); and while marriage - like any contract - was considered sacrosanct, rendering the partner who deigned to breach it an immediate social outcast, all these rules were suspended with regard to prostitutes; women who, for whatever reasons, had sunk so low they were regarded as nonpersons and thus, inherently unable to stain anybody's reputation but their own.

Appearances would have it that Sarah, too, is just such a woman - however, appearances can be deceptive; and herein lies the starting point of the story's social criticism: Realizing that once society has unjustifiedly placed her in that position, nothing she does will ever wipe away the mark of disgrace she wears as "the scarlet woman of Lyme," Sarah seeks strength in her very role as a pariah; trying to find a liberty not allowed to women of "good" society who are bound by the era's moral prerogatives; and to create a space for herself where she is untouchable because it is too far beyond the accepted social boundaries. In this, she resembles Nathaniel Hawthorne's Hester Prynne (who however, unlike Sarah, actually had committed the adultery she was accused of). But Sarah's attempt to salvage at least a fraction of her sense of self dramatically fails when she is discharged by conservative old Mrs. Poulteney (Patience Collier) for "exhibiting her shame" by having been seen - against her employer's express prohibition - on an undercliff overlooking the sea across which her supposed suitor, the French lieutenant to whom she owes her less-than-charitable epithet and reputation, disappeared, never to return. Desperate, she literally throws herself at the feet of Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons), who although recently engaged to local merchant Freeman's daughter Ernestina (Lynsey Baxter) has taken more than just a slight interest in her, and who to her has thus become the proverbial white knight in shining armor. Charles in turn, unable to contain his infatuation with Sarah, casts aside the well-meaning counsel of physician Dr. Grogan (Leo McKern) (who considers Sarah's condition a classic case of "obscure melancholia" and would like to see her committed to an asylum) and breaks his engagement with Ernestina, thus incurring social shame himself, to be free for Sarah ... only to find her gone when he returns to take her home.

Faced with the impossibility of creating a screenplay from a novel set in the Victorian Age but told from a 20th century perspective, interspersed with the author's frequent modern-day commentary, in order to maintain that duality, acclaimed playwright Harold Pinter opted for a "movie within a movie" scenario, allowing modern-day actors Mike and Anna to give the commentary provided by Fowles himself in the book. But more than that, Anna and Mike are also a foil for Sarah and Charles in that they are engaged in an extramarital affair; and while late 20th century morality is obviously different from that of the Victorian Age, they, too, must decide what is to become of their romance. And in both cases, it is Sarah/Anna who ultimately makes the decision: In Fowles's novel, one that invites Charles to respond and whose outcome will lastly depend on his response (the author provides two different conclusions, leaving it up to his readers to determine the one most convincing to them); but in the the two actors's case, Anna presents Mike with a fait-accompli, contrasting with the end of Sarah's and Charles's story in the movie.

Sublimely capturing the story's gothic atmosphere with its candlelit rooms, stormy nights and a haunted woman who - particularly when first seen standing at the edge of a quay, oblivious to the winds and raging waves around her - appears more like a ghost than a human being, "The French Lieutenant's Woman" is perfectly cast with Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons in the dual roles of Sarah/Anna and Charles/Mike: While outwardly quite different (Anna is upbeat but rational, Sarah passionate and vulnerable), both women ultimately find strength within themselves, whereas both men are sensitive and generally quieter, although Charles especially is Sarah's passionate equal once his feelings are stirred. Scored by Carl Davis and also boasting a strong supporting cast - including appearances by Hilton McRae (Charles's manservant Sam), Emily Morgan (Ernestina's maid Mary), Colin Jeavons (the vicar who, attempting to help Sarah, introduces her to Mrs. Poulteney), Gerard Falconetti (Anna's husband Davide) and Penelope Wilton (Mike's wife Sonia) - "The French Lieutenant's Woman" won a Golden Globe for Meryl Streep (Best Actress) and several British awards, but none of its five Oscar nominations (Best Actress, Screenplay, Art Direction, Costume Design and Editing - Jeremy Irons unfairly didn't even earn a "Best Actor" nomination). Yet, this is a compelling production, bringing to life Fowles's complex characters in a thoroughly convincing, poignant fashion; and sure to leave a lasting impression. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Who could?
Flawed? Definitely. No movie that attempts so much could be anything else.But in the midst of chaos and carnage are some gentle moments,which are even more startling because these carachters are,with the exception of Nick Nolte,not self-aware. He is a good guy who does a favor for a buddy and lives to regret it. Tuesday Weld ,at first glance, is fragile to the point of annoying, but there is more to her than we immediately see. The only weakness in the film is during the climax, which seems like a coked-up producers idea of a great finale-in any other movie it would be great, but these people deserve more than a POW finish, and happily,they are allowed one after all the fireworks. That the lead actors are all so messed up is the greatness of this film,because all are capable of being so much more, and , when pushed, become so much more than we, the audience, thought they could be. Searing. More pain than should be experienced. No really-watch the movie.

A different "Vietnam" film
I saw this movie in Tokyo, Japan and it was rightly titled "Dog Soldiers" obviously because for Japanese moviegoers the title "Who'll stop..." didn't make much sense. I was so excited after seeing this movie I took another friend to see it the following weekend. I don't know why people pan it, it's one of Nolte's best films. The film really captures the era; 60's, Vietnam, drugs, music, etc. I've been waiting for it to come out on DVD...finally!

Ray Hicks Lives!
Converse: "They say this place is where you find out who you really are."
Hicks: "What a bummer for the gooks."

"Who'll Stop the Rain" is a great movie, but I don't see why the book's title "The Dog Soldiers" wasn't used.
The book, of course is a classic, one that I truly enjoyed.

The movie moves faster, cuts to the chase, and is very lean storytelling. There's not a lot of superfluous stuff, just a sequence of events that brings each of the characters into a quagmire of his or her own making.

I recommend this film to anyone who might be interested in some of the spinoff effects the Vietnam war brought to America.

The only problem I have with the movie is the use of Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Hey Tonight" during the firefight towards the movie's end. Not only does the music not fit the scene, it was not recorded or distributed until 1971 or 1972, a year or two after the story's real time frame.

In that context, some music by Moby Grape, Grateful Dead, or Jefferson Airplane would have been more appropriate.

Not a great film. But I loved it anyway.
This 1978 film is a fast paced action-packed adventure story. It's not real and not supposed to be. But it kept me intrigued for more than two hours. And that's saying a lot.

The film starts in Vietnam, where Nick Nolte is a merchant marine. When his good buddy, Michael Moriarity, a disillusioned journalist, asks him to smuggle two kilos of heroin to California, Nolte reluctantly agrees. Tuesday Weld is the journalist's wife and she's the one who's supposed to get the package. But things go wrong and Nolte and Weld start playing a cat and mouse game with some bad guys who are supposed to be rogue cops. Moriarity has his share of troubles too; he's abducted and painfully mistreated by the bad guys. From there on the story is simple, but the action kept me so busy watching that it didn't really have to make sense.

Nolte is cast as the lead, but it didn't challenge his acting abilities very much. He's the righteous tough guy who's had a bad life and refuses to be stepped on. There's a lot of scenes of him with his shirt off. He looks good, but I couldn't help thinking that if this were filmed today, he'd have a lot more definition to his muscles. Tuesday Weld is a druggie housewife and most of the time she's awfully sleepy. Michael Moriarity, however, is supposed to be weak. That's a harder role to play. And he does it well. There's a great soundtrack of seventies music which moves the action along, and some original special effects. There's a lot of violence and hard drugs. Also, as it was filmed in the 70s, the atmosphere of that time is captured perfectly.

This is not a great film. It's implausible, the story is weak, and the acting not exceptional. And yet, I loved it. And I can't quite understand why. It's not for everyone of course. But I do recommend it.

Good book, terrible movie
I had recently read Robert Stone's book "Dog Soldiers" and thought it was very good. I had heard that this movie was a forgotten minor classic and since I like both the book and Nick Nolte, I thought, "How bad can it be." Well, I hated it! Key events from the book were cast in a different light that completely changed the whole point of the story. The acting was for the most part weak, though Nick Nolte did wring as much as he possible could from the script. Michael Moriarty's character was weakly portrayed, and, again, in the book he is a much weaker and less sympathetic person, though his character is much more fleshed out. All the strengths of the book (strong characterization, flashes of humour among other things) are missing. Skip this and read the book instead ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Ultimate example of British Free Cinema
Karel Reisz and Tony Richardson joined forces and created the most representative film about life in England’s industrial north of the 60’s. Albert Finney will always be remembered for his powerful performance as a young factory worker who rebels against his humdrum life and the social establishments.
This characteristic British Free Cinema film is a must for any serious film collection.
Poor DVD packaging though. Noextras whatsoever, unfortunately.

An unexamined, somewhat empty life
Throughout the 1950s, a group of young British writers were referred to as "angry young men" because, in their novels and plays, they excoriated what they perceived to be the dominant materialistic values of their society following World War Two. They included playwrights John Osborne and Kingsley Amis and novelists John Braine, John Wain, and Alan Silitoe. This film is based on Silitoe's novel (same title) in which he focuses on Arthur Seaton (brilliantly portrayed by Albert Finney) who endures working in a factory all week so that he can afford to drink and chase women on Saturday evening. He lives (if that's the word) day-to-day, insisting "All I want is a good time. The rest is propaganda." Arthur is intelligent enough to know how to indulge his vices but lacks the wisdom to understand that he is drinking and wenching away what few prospects he has to improve his situation. It is unclear (at least to me) whether or not Arthur really wishes to do so. While continuing an affair with Brenda (Rachel Roberts), the bored and restless wife of his friend Bert (Norman Rossington), Albert also becomes involved with Doreen Gretton (Shirley Ann Field) whose own ambitions seem limited to getting married and starting a family. Revealing to me is the fact that neither Arthur nor Brenda seems especially concerned about, much less rebellious against the limits imposed on them within their class-based industrial society.

Suffocation is one of the recurring themes in James Joyce's novels and short stories. I was reminded of that recently as I again observed Arthur's self-indulgent hedonism, indifference to the feelings of others, and callous betrayal of what little he has going for him. Sooner than he realizes, there will be only quiet evenings at home on Saturday. As for his Sundays, perhaps (just perhaps) they will include a moment when he wonders where his youth went as he wearily looks ahead to another dreary week in the local factory. Yes, "the sun also rises...." And then, what will its harsh light reveal?

yeah it's quite good
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning is very good social realist film. Finney is fantastic as rebellious youth Arthur Seaton. Having a sexual relationship with a married woman while also having a girlfriend portrays the sexual liberation of that time. Sex before marriage was becoming more and more common, and this film represents this change in British society. It was a well made film for the time and even today has an appealing quality.

"All I'm out for is a good time-Anything else is propaganda"
One of the best "kitchen sink" realism dramas which emerged from the "Angry Young Man" movement in Britain during the 60's. Albert Finney--who coulda won "The Hair Grease of the Year Award" with what looks like an entire bottle of brilliante in his hair--is superb as Arthur Seaton, a handsome but contentious factory worker with a huge chip on his shoulder due to his great disdain for the old guard and their old ways. An only child but alienated from his parents (who don't take much of an interest in him and let him go his own way) and stuck in a dead end job, it seems Arthur's anger arises from fear of knowing deep down he will end up like his parents and the old guard he rails so virulently against but is powerless because of economics and circumstance to do anything about it. As a result he develops an intensely anti-establishment, "don't mess with me" renegade attitude and leads a totally rebellious and irresponsible, devil-may-care life which includes increasing bad blood with an old lady neighbor, egging window-breakers on, incessant lying and a reckless affair with an older woman who's also his co-worker/friend's wife (wonderfully played by Rachel Roberts as Brenda) which results in her pregnancy as well as Arthur receiving a good bashing at the hands of the hapless hubby's brother and his pal. If not for the somewhat sobering effect of this beating as well as the greater and grounding influence of a beautiful young girl named Doreen (Shirley Ann Field) who's entered his life, Arthur could perhaps have become somebody like Robert de Niro's Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver." The movie ends memorably with Arthur and fiancee Doreen sitting on a field contemplating the houses around them, one of which he throws a rock at--one last defiant action before he presumably is forced to settle into domesticity and the status quo after they are married. Great and at times hilarious film which also gives an unflinching look at the world of the working, blue-collar class with its attention to their daily activities, relations, circumstances, frustrations, mode of dress, and particularly the vernacular--which can be hard to decipher at times but doesn't take anything away from the film's intensity. If you're an Albert Finney fan or of his style of acting during this period, check out the similarly roguishly handsome Ewan McGregor as his acting is reminiscent of Finney's early work. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

A sad love story
The beauty of this film, accurate or not, lies in the love story at its core and Jessica Lange's unforgettable portrayal of Patsy Cline as an ideal character. Lange's Patsy Cline is a human being who loves so much that she is willing to stay with an abusive husband. Her heart was so big and yet in her lifetime she was hurt so much. The heart of this movie lies in its belief in the ideal, and there are people out there who love much more than others, unconditionally, and sadly many times they pay in heartache for the flaws in those they love.

Whether the character in the film is the real Patsy Cline or not, it is a sincere and unforgettable portrayal by Jessica Lange, and that Patsy was a romantic is something that most of her fans want to believe. Sweet Dreams is a glorious film that will have you thinking back to it and contrasting the themes to those in your life long after it is finished, much like Jessica Lange's Frances. Somehow, Lange always manages to convey true inner beauty, which is what you will find in this film. What we can learn from this film is that if we are ever lucky enough to find someone in our life who can love so fully and unconditionally, we must never take them for granted.

Jessica Lange as Patsy Cline = Disappointment!
I've owned a VHS copy of "Sweet Dreams" for about fifteen years. As a Patsy Cline fan since 1956, I was disappointed with the movie overall. Although I enjoyed Jessica Lange's performances in movies such as "Tootsie" and "How To Beat The High Cost Of Living", she just wasn't Patsy. Beverly D'Angelo played a much more convincing Patsy in "Coal Miner's Daughter". She even did her own singing. I think Beverly should have been Patsy.

Singer George Hamilton IV once toured with Patsy. He tells me that Patsy was more likely to start a fight with Charlie than vice versa. Ed Harris didn't impress me much as Charlie. Ann Wedgeworth gave the best performance in the movie as Patsy's mother.

Despite it's shortcomings, "Sweet Dreams" is a movie all Patsy Cline fans should own. I intend to purchase the DVD in the near future. It's a shame that most Country stations have turned their backs on Patsy. Without Patsy we wouldn't be hearing Faith Hill, Shania Twain or the other Country divas of today. Thankfully, I work for a radio station that hasn't forgotten Patsy. We play her hits as well as her recordings of standards like "True Love","Always" and "Someday You'll Want Me To Want You". Even the posthumous duet with Jim Reeves: "Have You Ever Been Lonely" is on our playlist. Maybe Country music has forgotten her, but not all of us have.

Wonderful Patsy Cline/Jessica Lange!
To my mind, this is one of the better biographical movies I have ever seen. Jessica Lange portrays Patsy Cline very well, with her lip-synching to Patsy's wonderful songs. Even the costumes Jessica wears resemble those on Patsy's LPs and still photos. I am totally impressed with this film. I saw it in a theater in its initial release, and a friend copied it off TV - my first movie. I enjoyed it then, and now, with this DVD copy, I can enjoy it even more.

Sweet? No, but Interesting to watch
I never knew much about Patsy Cline before i saw this. It happened to be on HBO one rainy afternooon and I was passing through the room. A couple hours later, I am still sitting there watching. She was a pistol, that's for sure. She had issues that I'm not sure anyone fully understands even to this day. It was curious to me that her friendship with Loretta Lynn was conspicously absent from this film--esp considering it was a big part of Loretta's life story.

This is not a sweet story, but it's a compelling look at a woman with an amazing voice, ambition, drive, and a hole in her that nothing could fill.

Sweet Dreams/The movie
Very good source of Patsy's music, great acting by all actors,
even if this movie is not accurate, it tells a very good story,
besides, you have to love that beautiful voice! Wish you were still with us Patsy.............For a very good source of Patsy Cline material go to Ellis Nassour's..............PatsyClineHTA.com ... Read more

Reviews (13)

"FOR $10000.00 THEY BREAK YOUR ARMS...
For $20,000.00 they break your legs. Axel Freed owes $44,000." I was captivated by the tag line of this lost jewell of the '70's, which stands alongside Karl Reisz' other forgotten masterwork of the decade (WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN?). James Caan radiates a brilliant character study of a degenerate gambler hellbent on self destruction, not only at the tables and back rooms, but in life. He throws away his birth rite to riches, his family, a beauty (Lauren Hutton in her first significant screen role). It's a road well traveled by the lost and Caan has it mastered. Great screenplay by James Toback, written immediately prior to his own lost marvel of the 1970's, FINGERS (1979).

Why not quit while you¿re ahead?
I grew up amongst gamblers, spending much of my time hustling bowling and gin rummy throughout the Midwest, until, at 17, I shuffled off to the Ivy-covered walls of a prestigious Eastern College.

This gives me much simpatico with Axel Freed, the central character and portrait of self-destruction, the gambler, and James Toback, the film's author. Toback's own reflections suggest that Axel is in many ways auto-biographical.

As a film, The Gambler is shortsighted, an ambitious but nonetheless failed attempt by a first-time screenwriter in difficult waters. It is not without its brilliance-its relentless dedication toward conveying that any gambler's true goal is not success, but utter humiliation-destruction of one's self, and anything and anyone around him. It can be no other way.

In the 1990's where independent film has achieved an emergence and respect in its own, a film like this might have found the strength among the very talented people involved, (Toback, James Caan, Karel Reisz) to emerge into a true gem. Alas this 70's neglected studio cast-off didn't have that opportunity.

London Lee is great in support, Paul Sorvino and Burt Young are well cast as Freed's mob-ties. Young's performance as a mob leg-breaker includes quite a raw, and shocking collection scene.

Probably a pass for any but the gambling addict, for them, a head (as in tape-head) burner. For those who are intrigued by Toback's intelligent approach to the seedier side, try his next effort, Fingers (1978), a diamond in the rough.

A sure thing
A neglected and underrated masterpiece, presenting one of the most convincing and thorough psychological studies in all cinema. James Caan, in what may well be his best-ever performance, portrays a compulsive gambler with an unusually acute awareness of his own motivations. The 'back story', from which we learn how his family background helps feed his obsession, is subtly and convincingly portrayed. The whole is a tragedy, laced with grim humor.

The score uses Mahler's music to great effect, the direction is tight and closely focused throughout and the final scene can only be described as perfection.

the downward slide
An excellent look at the effects of serious gambling addiction. Good plot- How a man with every reason in the world to not be involved in the shady world of gambling (fulfilling profession, good family, the intelligence and clarity to know exactly what's happening to him) lets it dominate him. Makes you wonder how many people across from you at the table in Vegas or the Indian reservation are also on the slippery slope. One complaint: Nobody doubles down with 18, expecting to get a 3 to beat the dealer's supposed 20, not even a reckless maniac. Observation: Basketball talent has improved considerably since the 70s! However the Manhattan court scenes with afros were great!

This should cure you of that gambling problem
An excellent, well-acted, harrowing film that closely reflects the stark reality of a problem gambler. Most gambling films make allusions to the dark side, but this film is explicit: you hear the wheels in his mind click, watch questionable calls unfold, followed by the crushing debt and threats of torture and mayhem that accompany it. You'll see and hear some of that violence too. This is much closer to how it is, which makes it a hard film to truly enjoy, but after it's over, you'll be impressed by how bold these filmmakers were. ... Read more