Fanny Hill

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.

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.

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.

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.