Fanny Hill

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 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.

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.

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.