Fanny Hill

Perhaps the most entertaining part of this movie is the appearance of veteran Wilfred Hyde-White, one of those individualistic character actors who,like his friend Robert Morley, never fail to entertain even in the most pedestrian film. Fanny Hill isn't great cinema, but it is great fun, and Hyde-White is hugely enjoyable to watch. Shelley Winters is clearly relishing her role, and between them these two reliable veterans prove that a film that might easily become reliant on nudity to make an impact has chosen, like so many British sex comedies, to use actors of experience and talent to make more of a movie than its sexual content can provide. An enjoyable romp.

This is the kind of movie that if you compare it to your average non-sex film is not too good perhaps, but for a sex film?--trust me, this is a frickin' cinematic masterpiece. This is yet another adaptation of John Cleland's scandalous 18th century novel about a penniless young virgin who comes to London and becomes a prostitute, but eventually uses her body to ascend into wealth and nobility.

There's a moderate amount of sex here (I guess there was quite a bit more in the original British version) and the girls are all attractive, especially Lisa Raines who plays the lead (she looks kind of like a young Dana Plato or Michelle "Blame It On Rio" Johnson, but is a far better actress than either). What's impressive about this though is the production values--NOBODY spends this kind of money on a film like this these days. The actors are all fairly believable in their roles (or they just don't talk). The costumes and sets are all appropriate for the time period, as is the music. There's also a smattering of real actors here who don't (totally) embarrass themselves, like Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters, and Wilfed Hyde-White (I was afraid for the moment the latter was going to have a sex scene with Raines, but the movie fortunately steps back from that particular brink).

This doesn't really compare to the original novel, of course, or (I would suspect) to the more prestigious cable TV adaptations of the same story. But it's better than the more exploitative versions of the story that I've seen like Joe Sarno's "The Young Erotic Fanny Hill", the horribly dubbed Italian rip-off "The Seduction of Angela", and the bizarre "modern-day" Swedish adaptation "Around the World with Fanny Hill". It's actually pretty good for a sex flick.

Fanny Hill is by no means a badly made film, but it was a disappointing failure even though it is closely based on a historically important book, John Cleland's "Fanny Hill - Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", with which most of us born in the U.K. became familiar through Eng. Lit. classes. As I remember these classes, they started with Shakespeare, continued with Shakespeare again, made reference to Christopher Marlowe, recognised the importance of Samuel Pepys both as diarist and historian, and of Boswell as the father of biography, discussed the role of both Daniel Defoe (Moll Flanders) and John Cleland (Fanny Hill) as early writers of novels, and then rapidly progressed into the riches of nineteenth century English prose. Both Moll Flanders and Fanny Hill are erotic novels that have earned a major reputation far beyond the British Isles. The dust cover of my copy of "Fanny

Hill" carried the comment that 'this is one of the most celebrated fictional works of all time', adding that 'it is many years since Fanny Hill was published even clandestinely' and 'open publication is a novelty made possible only by the more sensible standards of our age, and by a deft editorial touch'. This may be an exaggeration - a New York court in 1963 dismissed an application to ban Fanny Hill as obscene with the comment that it does not contain one obscene word. But there is no question that it is an erotic novel.

When any company films such a novel we should surely expect its pedigree to be recognised - the attempt should be made to create an erotic film from any book internationally regarded as a significant piece of erotic literature. Unfortunately this film was created in Britain at the end of the 1970's, a decade when British sex comedies were ten a penny. French directors of this period frequently produced films such as Emmanuelle with genuine claims to be erotic. But contemporary English directors, who could film a romance with sympathy and appreciation, seemed incapable of filming its culmination except as a ludicrous or hilarious performance by the couple concerned. During the decade prior to Fanny Hill, most British sex comedies treated the sex act as intrinsically humorous - we need only remember films such as "Can you keep it up for a week?" or "Confessions of a Handyman". Some were quite well made and remain fun to watch - this is why they constantly reappear on late night television programs - but they are not erotic. However they were the style of film that British directors of the period felt constrained to produce if ever the words "sex comedy" were uttered,. and this style could hardly be less appropriate for a meaningful movie presentation of the classic novel Fanny Hill.

Fanny Hill should have been an important erotic film comparable to Emmanuelle and, like Emmanuelle, it should have remained a film that cinema buffs still periodically search out to view again. Instead it is virtually forgotten - I do not believe that it has ever been released as a DVD, and it would probably not even be easy to buy a tape copy in North America today. The IMDb database currently lists two viewer comments on the film (this should be the third!). Other films with far less potential, but which provide what their viewers expect, continue to generate fresh comments even 20 years later . What went wrong? Fanny Hill is quite well filmed and is a period piece with all the trimmings -stagecoaches on narrow dusty roads, period costumes, delightful old houses etc. This alone usually guarantees success. The acting is probably at least of average quality.

I believe this film failed because the story is treated as a romp which under a different title might have still been watched. Some of the sequences with Mrs Brown's girls viewing what goes on in the various bedrooms through concealed peepholes, as well as the scene featuring a totally uninhibited eighteenth century party, remain quite enjoyable. In a film with lesser pretensions this would have been enough to ensure its ongoing success as a comedy. But here something more was needed. Lisa Foster (Lisa Raines) portrayed an attractive and playful Fanny who, except perhaps at the end when she rushes downstairs to open the door to Charles and is carried upstairs in his arms, seldom appears very involved. Collectively most of Mrs Brown's girls behaved more like seniors in a finishing school than young women forced by economic necessity to market their charms. Eliminating eroticism in favour of humour may be legitimate if no erotic expectations exist; but it is the knell of death for a film based on a classic erotic novel. Some recent British Directors are capable of creating erotic films, and had Fanny Hill been directed by, for example, Ken Russell it might have been much more successful.

One last point - John Cleland's book is written largely in autobiographical form, with Fanny herself relating her experiences as well as explaining how she viewed them. It has been suggested that the book contains nothing but a woman's experiences, and that Cleland must have served simply as a cover for a possibly partly autobiographical book written by one of his female friends. A more recent Brazilian film production under the same name (Fanny Hill 1995 - written and directed by Valentine Palmer) attempts to recreate the story with Fanny's voice alone explaining what is going on during each scene. This sounds an extremely interesting way in which to interpret the novel on the screen, and I would very much like to have the opportunity to see this film. However it is not listed by Amazon, and so far the chance to do so has not come my way.

I have to admit that I was one of those people who, let's say, were not very best pleased when Fanny Hill was first released. Some of the thoughts that came to mind, I am afraid, I cannot repeat. So what's changed? A few weeks ago, I heard that a extremely talented screenwriter is adapting Fanny Hill for one of the main TV channels here in the UK, I decided to do some researched. I got myself the John Cleland book, and the DVD with Lisa Foster, expecting the worse. The book is very good, go read it. The DVD was fantastic, go watch it! The storyline is good, it was very well filmed with lots of good period pieces, quite authentic as well, and follows quite well the book. Having read the book first and then watch the DVD, I was not disappointed. I thought the erotic aspects, of which there were lots, with lots of nudity, were tastefully presented.

The acting? Surprisingly good. Let's put aside the over acting by big names like Oliver Reed and Shelley Winters, they were good and amusing, but at best were the support act. The star's Lisa Foster, or Lisa Raines. I thought she was very beautiful, with an excellent body, and you can see a lot of her. The movie, the story, called for lots of nudity, and I did not feel that any nude scenes were unnecessary, or out of context. She showed what a good actress she is. Nudity aside, she could act, the story line required the show of innocence, a sense of naughtiness, excitement, adventure, sadness, elation, Lisa Foster showed all of these. I am very surprised by her entry in this database that this was probably her most major piece of work. What a shame. I am sure that when the movie was first released, Lisa was probably put into some sort of category like 'actress who likes taking clothes of', and may have accounted for the lack of good roles after that. Shame that she made the movie 20 years too early.

As a woman, and a married woman with kids, I am not afraid to say that Fanny Hill is a very good movie, and Lisa Foster is a very good actress. I have since seen the movie again, with a bunch of friends who had the same thought as me when it was first released, and they loved it too.

If you have not seen the movie, go watch it.

This version, or at least, my copy, has been censored, I am sure about it. Despite this, it contains so much nudity, especially from the very sexy Lisa Foster, that it should have come with a health warning, in a positive manner, mind you. My heart rate increased every time Lisa undresses, or suggest that she would undress.

I read the book some months back in my book club, probably because of its notorious reputation, but mainly because we needed controversial material for discussion. I enjoyed it immensely, both from the literature perspective and an erotic perspective. And then I watched the movie, again with my book club. My apprehension that movies generally don't live up to books (apart from Lord of the Rings), especially an adaptation of an erotic novel, soon evaporated. OK, much 'entertainement license' was taken when making the movie. OK, some of the acting, especially from the established stars were much exaggerated for their characters. See beyond these, and you will see a rather good movie, with a nice story line, sets, scenery, plots and some excellent acting from Lisa Foster, the lead and real star.

There are a few things that needs to be said about Lisa Forster, and this are not what I feel, but what my club member also thought and agreed. First, she is a very good actress. She is not just about taking her clothes off, which she does very often. This girl can act, emotion, laughter, naughtiness, deviousness. I think those of her fans are surprised that she did not go on to do more, a little stereotyping going on perhaps? Second, she is extremely beautiful, very pretty face, very sexy body that has nothing out of place, and everything in great proportion. She does does show off her body, completely nude or just topless, a lot in the movie, but never out of context. The nudity, and not just from Lisa, are all necessary and tasteful, nothing pornographic, and the amount is not overwhelming.

For all of my fellow members, the movie made the book so much more interesting and, put things into perspective, or bring a book to life. Wonderful stuff!