Fanny Hill

Prompted by a possible adaptation of Fanny Hill for British television, I watched, with intrigued, two film productions of Fanny Hill. Which is better? Both were well made, and different, and individually, each has good points. This production stars Lisa Foster, or is it Lisa Raines, as Fanny Hill. I note some interest in this film recently, perhaps all prompted by this adaptation for television.

What's the fuss all about? A once banned novel by John Cleland, about a girl who lost her fortune, went into the servitude of the modern day escort service, found love, lost love, find fortune, finds love. This, of course, is not the fuss. The fuss is the copious about of nudity and sex in the film, often quite explicit, as required by the book. It is, fortunately, not a pornographic movie. The nudity is necessary, and tastefully done, the explicit scenes not shocking. The most amount of nudity is provided by the incredibly beautiful and sexy Lisa Foster. She has a most fantastic, and sensual body, quite innocent, which by account of her date of birth and date of making the movie, quite right too.

What's good? The movie is beautifully filmed with what I would say authentic period pieces, and good scenery. The lighting is good too. The story is good, I read John Cleland's novel some time ago, but retains much in memory, and I was pleasantly surprised how closely the movie as a whole adhered to the novel. The stars are good. First, the big names, in Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters and Wilfred Hyde-White were amusing, and interesting. I particularly liked Oliver Reed's character, and all three over played their parts. Now, for the unknown actresses in Lisa Foster and Maria Harper, the latter did not have much to do, but was very good and very naked in one lesbian scene with Lisa Foster. Lisa Foster is the real star. I have already mentioned the amount of nudity she displayed, and with a body like hers, so she should. What I liked about Lisa is that she could act. When she smiled, I felt her joy, when she cried, I felt her sadness, when she was pleasured, I felt her pleasure, especially the lesbian scene. She acted the role with smiles, joyfulness, emotion, fun, naughtiness. It is sad that she did not find more roles after Fanny Hill, but I guess, the stigma attached to an actress 20 odd years ago who spent a large part (not that large actually, no more than 10 minutes) of the movie naked could not have helped, unlike today. A great shame, but if this database is accurate, she is now a successful technical director.

What's bad? A little too short, more of a dialogue could have been given to Fanny Hill. Shelley Winters, though amusing, can be irritating at times (the other Madamme that Fanny worked for was better).

Overall? This is a very very good movie. It has laughs, it has sex, and it has an incredibly beautiful and sexy actress (Lisa Foster is not in the Penthouse / porno category, with large breasts, she is very pretty, with a fantastic body, all well proportioned, Monica Belluci offers a different kind of beautiful and sexiness). I thoroughly enjoyed it, watch it at your earliest opportunity.

What of the other, later, production of Fanny Hill? You will have to read that review, but I preferred this, I gave both a big 10, but Lisa Foster as Fanny Hill makes the difference.

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.

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.

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.

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!