Fanny Hill (1983)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Waste of time

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Poor Lisa Foster (Raines)who is now a 48 year old highly regarded and successful movie writer, technician and producer. She was barely (excuse the pun) 18 when she made this sex romp. She has changed her name and is variously reported as hailing from England or Canada, depending on which source is consulted. No doubt all of this ambiguity is designed to hide the fact that this beautiful, elegant and successful movie producer (see her bio here on IMDb) made this porn film back in 1982 when she was a teenager. And what a gorgeous display, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, it is! I agree with all of the reviewers who have said what a beautiful form she casts. Cleland's novel calls for a virginal 15 year old girl of nubile proportions and Lisa fits the description perfectly.Where I part company, however, with other reviewers, is the somewhat guilt-ridden insistence of some that this movie is "not pornography", since it is true to the 1790's novel. Hogwash. Cleland's novel is pure pornography, designed solely to titillate the reader. This movie also more than fulfils that singular purpose. She is naked for significant periods of time in the movie precisely because of the erotic purpose. It fulfils no different purpose than a skin magazine. The only difference, of course, is that the viewer is blessed with seeing a beautiful 18 year old woman in her natural glory without any plastic adornments or alterations. Lisa Foster(Raines) regrets this totally. The rest of us do not.

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.

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.

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 "FannyHill" 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.