Moll Flanders

99% of the time I'm a staunch purist. A classic book should be portrayed on film as close to the original as possible, leaving room for the necessary conversions of text to screen. That being said, there are exceptions to every rule, and this movie is one of them.

I had not read the book prior to watching this movie, but had read IMDb reviews that it was far from accurate, so I was skeptical going into it. The movie, in fact, was outstanding! I was riveted, drawn into the story, and anxious to find out what happened next. It was fascinating and intriguing. I think the best comparison I can make with it is a Dickens story set about 150 years earlier than his books. It's dark and gritty, highlighting the lowlifes of society and the shortcomings of the society that contributes to make these lowlifes. Yet there is considerable irony and a bit of humor to counteract the darkness. Love, life, death, joy, grief, sickness, deprivation, aspiration.... It is in short a microcosm of life as it is today, but through the window of days past. One feels the emotions that the characters are experiencing, because they are feelings we've already experienced ourselves. However, although this movie is frequently tragic, it is not a tragedy. I could not recommend it so highly if it was, because I don't like to walk away from a movie feeling depressed.

I liked the movie so much that I began reading the book that very night, and I finished it 8 days later. Where did the book differ from the movie? It would be easier to state where they resembled each other! I would have been hard-pressed to see any similarity between the two had they been published under different titles. For one thing, the book covers the title character's entire life up past the age of 60, whereas the movie only takes her up to maybe 30, and what goes on in that time frame is widely different from what goes on in the book.

In the movie makers' defense, they do have in the opening credits the following caveat: "Based on a character in a novel by Daniel Defoe". Okay, so it's based on the CHARACTER of Moll Flanders, not on the story itself. That's a legitimate, though tiny-print, concept. However, even the CHARACTER of Moll Flanders in the movie is quite different from the book. One big digression (out of many) is that movie-Moll has strong paternal, motherly characteristics, whereas book-Moll has essentially none. Secondly, Moll's name isn't even really Moll in the book; it never tells us her real name, and "Moll Flanders" is merely one of her many aliases, and one that she doesn't pick up until her 50s.

I can't possibly go into all the digressions. It would be boring and overextend the 1000 words limit. Suffice it to say, there is scarcely a shadow of similarity between the one and the other. If you have read the book, disregard the title and watch this as its own entity. If you haven't read the book, no need to worry about seeing any spoilers that might ruin a future reading. There is almost no overlap.

However, in spite of this "sin" of gross inaccuracy, I LOVED the movie, and I thought the book was only mediocre. The movie had a great plot development; the book has almost no plot. It was first published in 1722 and, like much early fiction, is mostly just a chain of events. We are told the many escapades of Moll Flanders, but there is no real story arc. (I'm not saying don't read it, just know what you're getting into; it's interesting, but not terribly fulfilling as a novel, in the modern sense of the genre.)

I was impressed with Robin Wright's performance (as Moll). I had thought little of her acting in "Princess Bride", and almost didn't watch the film because she had the title role; but she did a much better job in this film, and showed a much fuller range of acting ability and emotion. The other actors also filled their roles superbly. And the settings and costumes were magnificently done.

One thing that may affect your opinion of this movie is the content. By all standards I've ever watched, this ought to be R-rated. It's not extremely explicit (hence it is not in fact R), but it is considerably so for a PG-13, and I would be cautious showing this to young viewers. Not just for sexuality, but also for some rather graphic scenes (including blood) and overall mature themes.

However, for a mature viewer I think this was a fantastic movie with a great storyline. It's very thought-provoking, and the impression of it still lingers with me a couple weeks later. The writers used Defoe's book as a springboard to better ideas and a more cohesive and rewarding story. It would have been more accurate to have said that it was "inspired by" Defoe's book, rather than "based on", but it is one of those rare cases where the movie is in fact better than the book.

¨Moll Flanders¨ (1996) by Pen Densham boasts a very good cast as Robin Wright Penn , Stockard Channing , Brenda Fricker , John Lynch and special mention for Morgan Freeman playing a dignified servant . Colorful retelling based upon a famous and popular novel , setting in the 18th century , London town . A fun romp set from Daniel Defoe's 1722 book focusing a poor orphan girl who seeks wealthy life in England . Born in London's Newgate prison , at the beginning she becomes a house servant at a bourgeois home run by a decent mother (Brenda Fricker) with two daughters but she escapes , and after that , one time grown-up , Moll (Robin Wright Penn) embarks on a risked and unfortunate life , as she eventually finds herself working at the brothel of Mrs Allworthy (Stockard Channning) , there she loses her virginity . As Moll is a beautiful female chased around every bedchamber in a bustling brothel at London town . Soon after , she decides to make her own way and fortune as well as misfortunes ; being always supported by the unwavering friendship of Hibble (Morgan Freeman) . Moll Flanders (female derivative of Tom Jones) plots to get ahead through an advantageous series of romances . But her existence as a whore leads her to drink and near suicide , and things get dreary until she falls for an allegedly impoverished painter (John Lynch) and briefly finds illusion .

Pretty good film , well played , compellingly made and adequately setting . A picture much after the style of ¨Tom Jones¨ and ¨Fanny Hill¨ with bag of incident and color . This period piece turns out to be the 5th on-screen adaptation of Daniel Defoe's 1722 novel , though it misses of the lip-smacking period relish spoiled with a slow and overlong narrative . Being slightly faith to Defoe novel in telling the fortunes and misfortunes of this lively hustler who eventually finds herself working at the brothel of greed and with a scheming landlady . Gorgeous costumes are appropriate to this 18th period . Nice acting from Robin Wright Penn as the wickedly seductive Moll , a spirited heroine who becomes a sensitive prostitute and who briefly finds happiness . Robin Wright holds everything together with help a talented supporting casting . Jon Lynch also gives a heartfelt acting as a crippled as well as enamored artist who finds inspiration on Moll' beauty . The secondary cast is frankly good , such as : Stockard Channing , Jim Sheridan , Maria Doyle Kennedy , Brenda Fricker , Geraldine James and Jeremy Brett's last film . It packs a colorful and glimmer cinematography by David Tattersall . Evocative and stirring soundtrack by Mark Mancina , adding classic music . The motion picture was professionally written and directed by Pen Densham .

Other films based on the bawdy , rousing retelling from Daniel Defoe's novel are the followings : ¨ The amorous adventures of Moll Flanders¨ (1965) by Terence Young with Kim Novak , Richard Johnson , Lilli Palmer , Vittorio De Sica , George Sanders , Leo McKern . Furthermore , TV rendition (1976) ¨Moll Flanders¨ with Julia Foster , Kenneth Haigh , Barry Jackson and Ian Ogilvy . And TV Mini-series in four episodes ¨Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders" by David Attwood with Alex Kingstone , Daniel Craig , James Fleet , Diana Rigg , Tom Ward , Roger Ashton-Griffiths , Ronald Frazer , James Larkin and Christopher Fulford

Over all, I thought that "Moll Flanders" was a good movie. It is a little slow moving. That's the only complaint though. The story revolves around Moll Flanders. She's a slave whom goes into prostitution. And one of her customers happens to fall in love with her. They also have a child together. The movie is just about her life. But it's very heart warming, and I think any woman would enjoy it. If you enjoy Morgan Freeman or Robin Write, this is one of their best performances. I'm a little surprised with the rating. But, I guess you can't win them all. I would recommend "Moll Flanders".

7/10

Morgan Freeman uses his immense talent to give varied facets to Mr. Hibble, Stockard Channing is deliciously evil as Mrs. Allworthy, and Robin Wright Penn shines like a diamond in the role of Moll Flanders. Even the child playing Flora does a charming job with her limited part. Some viewers complained that the film was slow moving, but i felt the transitions from "modern day" to "flashbacks" from the memoir written by the title character kept things moving along quite nicely. Having not read Defoe's book, I cannot compare it to this version, but members here seem about equally divided between hating the movie for not being true to the book, and feeling that the changes made are an improvement on the original. Personally, I'd recommend this movie highly to anyone who has time to watch it.

Dafoe's 1722 book, from which this movie is supposedly based, is one of the most important works of the 18th century. It explores the then-new possibility of reinventing oneself in the city. By contrast, people in pre-urban times were constrained by circumstance and family -- everyone in your village knew you so you couldn't make up a new persona.

In the movie, a sentimental Moll wades through a heap of anachronisms. She remains more or less a prisoner of her past and conventional morality at all times. The movie claims that only the character and not the plot is based on Dafoe's book but it is tough to recognize any aspect of Dafoe's Moll here. Which I guess brings us back to considering the movie on its own terms. Imagine Titanic without the special effects (i.e., maybe a good movie for a 14-year-old girl).