Fanny Hill

When I chanced upon FANNY HILL at the local DVD rental shop, I only had a vague notion of either this version existing or of what the "classic" novel was about – but since American sexploitation maverick Russ Meyer had made it into an intriguing movie himself back in 1964, I figured it was a bawdy period romp and, since I had been in a costume picture state-of-mind for a while now, I decided to give it a spin.

The presence of three veteran film stars (Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters and Wilfrid Hyde-White) was also enticing but, unsurprisingly, they are only there for marquee value: Reed's almost incoherent Popeye-ish accent is simply embarrassing, likewise watching flabby madam Winters being surrounded by all that petite naked flesh (not hers, of course, but that of her charges and their consorts) flailing about, but it's octagenarian Hyde-White (in his last film, no less) who tops both of them by snuggling in bed with the title character…who is all of 19 years of age; I've seen Hyde-White in several of his earlier films and I'm positive he never performed a love scene in any of them!

Indeed, it's gorgeous leading lady Lisa Foster – who, thankfully, indulges in much full-frontal nudity by shedding her clothing completely at every possible opportunity – which, even in the heavily-censored variant I've watched, makes this consistently raunchy period piece tolerable; it's a pity that she didn't get much ahead in her acting career as one would certainly have liked to see even more of her. Interestingly enough, she later switched to doing animation work and was also involved in the digital restoration of Walt Disney's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)!

The orphaned innocent Fanny Hill soon falls in with some ladies of ill-repute as she reaches London to better her prospects, and is immediately instructed in what is expected of her by a more experienced companion Phoebe (Maria Harper) by jumping into bed with her, and later spying on their fellow co-workers in action through hidden holes in the wall BELLE DE JOUR (1967)-style! In fact, the film's plot line is very similar to that of Jess Franco's MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE (1968) and it's small wonder that the producer of that one, Harry Alan Towers, is also behind this production but, while I'd say FANNY HILL is a more agreeable picture, ultimately it's just too blandly made to stick in one's mind for much longer after it's finished.

Wow, what a good and entertaining movie! A great movie. The first thing that comes to most people's mind is the erotic nature of the movie, with lots of sex and nudity. They would not be wrong, with lots of sexual implications, male and female nudity, and sometimes quite explicit, but this is not a hardcore movie. And in Lisa (Raines) Foster, an extremely beautiful actress. But let's look at the whole movie.

First, the story, from John Cleland's once banned (and still is in some countries) book has a good story, and probably had some truth in his days. A young girl coming to misfortune after the death of her parents, eventually finding happiness.

Second, the film itself was well shot, well lit, good scenery, with a good accuracy of the period, follows quite well the spirit of the novel. Well done.

Third, actors and actresses. Well known stars such as Oliver Reed, Shelley Winter, Wilfred Hyde-White) contributed interesting characters, I guess to give gravitas to the movie to the relative unknown star, Lisa (Raines) Foster and to encourage cinema goers. I have not seen anything she has done apart from this role, and I thought she was excellent, and I am not referring to the nudity, which is not shocking, although she is extremely beautiful with a very pretty and well defined face, great eyes. It seems to me that she could act, she was serious, she was funny, involved, emotional. She clearly carried the movie, and did not need the stars (although they were amusing) It is a pity that she has not acted in more roles after this. I see in her IMDb entry that she has left acting and now into directing, well done. Does anyone know her email? I would certainly like to wish her luck.

I believe that this movie has been a good contribution to the erotic genre. Over twenty years old and it still captures my imagination and attention. I have bought the DVD and so should you.

This version of the once banned Fanny Hill story clearly had a budget to burn: we have various familiar faces in the supporting roles. Most of them just show up to pay the rent, but Shelley Winters' portrayal of a madam is convincing. Also, a lot of money has been spent on sets and costumes. This alone makes it a lot more watchable than the average erotic B-movie, not to mention that the general light-heartedness in which the film approaches its subject is much more suitable for creating eroticism than the Erotic Thriller US style which so often combines sex with violence and death.

Still, this film has not managed to become a genre classic and it is not hard to see why. Most importantly, there is the actress playing the title heroine, Lisa Raines. While she's undeniably pretty (with or without clothes), her acting range is rather limited; it was probably impossible to get an established actress play such an exposed role. The 'innocent young girl' Lisa has to play at the beginning of the film is not completely believable, but much worse she completely fails to exude any sensuality in the later stages. This becomes especially obvious when we compare her to Maria Harper, the vampish actress playing the whore Phoebe. One gets the impression that Lisa/Fanny loves sex as a nice physical exercise in nice company. A similar criticism applies to her love interest: no charisma, no depth, and an instantly forgettable face.

This being a British film it doesn't come as a surprise that the sex scenes do not come across as very erotic, and that seems more of a cultural problem than a problem with censorship. The notable exception are the scenes involving the already mentioned Maria Harper. I suppose, there must be some Italians in her recent ancestry.

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!

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.