Firelight (1997) User Reviews

Indecent proposal

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 13 September 2006]

It's 1838 and Elisabeth Laurier, a Swiss young woman, must get money to pay for her father's debts. She agrees to enter into what might be viewed as an indecent proposal with Charles Godwin, a well to do English landowner, in having a sexual relation for the sole purpose of giving him a child his sick wife can't give him. Elisabeth must renounce to all claims of the baby. What starts as a pure sex, with Elisabeth suffering quietly while Charles has his way with her, suddenly turns into pleasure, seen on the young woman's face.

Imagine Charles' horror when he returns from a trip to find out his sister-in-law Constance, has engaged Elisabeth as his daughter's governess. Louisa, who has terrorized previous attempts at receiving an education, rebels against this new stranger. Since by this time Charles' wealth has suffered a reverse, and having assured a moth's wages to Elisabeth, he consents in her staying. Charles' wife who is sick, is dying a slow death. It's inevitable that Elisabeth will have an effect on Charles and that she will be able to tame the wild Louisa into accepting her.

William Nicholson, who wrote and directed "Firelight", created a film of great beauty. As it is, there are elements of other, better made movies, within the screen play, although it makes good entertainment. Nic Morris' cinematography gives the picture a glossy look that is appealing to the eye. Christopher Gunning's musical score serves the movie well.

Sophie Marceau, an actress of great beauty makes an impression as Elisabeth. Stephen Dillard's Charles is equally appealing as the man tormented between duty and new found passion. Dominique Belcourt is perfectly bratty as Louisa. Joss Ackland appears as Charles' father and Lia Williams is Constance.

As Gothic romance, "Firelight" will delight fans of the genre. William Nicholson directed his own story with great visual style.

A Wonderful story about the complications of life

[micsteph_ · 8/10 · 6 December 2005]

Even though some may find the storyline predictable, the actors and the performances they give are well worth seeing. This was only the second movie I ever saw Sophie in and I love her in it! I'd never seen Stephen Dillane before and this movie made me search more of his movies. The story is of a young woman who agrees to have a baby for a mystery man, only to find that she has to find him and the child she gave up, no matter the consequences. When she finds them she has to come to terms with the reasons and realities behind her actions and of the father. What follows is the choice that we all make. Find happiness, or live with what life has allotted us?

Pignant story making America

[ksundstrom · 8/10 · 12 June 2008]

England to-day is maybe a small influence in the thinking and emotion of America. This film merits great consideration. It reflects the English cultural way of life of the 1800's, a way of living, albeit in the upper middle classes and aristocracy that provided a fundament to the American society and that still survives in thin layers of Englnad. This English personality is united with a cool realistic and monetary Swiss attitude to life. An English heir (Stephen Dillane, played with great sensitivity) to a lord (Jon Ackland, epitomizing the spendthrift lords seeking only pleasure) resides in a lovely house and park with pond and bathing hut in glass. But he needs himself an heir. He pays the debt of a Swiss women owed for her father. She agrees as her part of the agreement to give birth to his child. The women is portrayed superbly by Sophie Marceau with the Swiss minimum of facial expression and restraint. A Swiss behaviour that is still noticed to-day. She arrives seven years after the birth of their child to reply to his need for a gouvernant for the child. Thus one learns a lot about some very impotent facets of the future make up of America: moral rectitude, the work ethic, how to bring up children, the appreciation of natural beauty, the restarting of ones life. Most important is the sensitivity to sensual forces repressed but released when needed: conception of a child despite being contracted for money, love eternal for a wife that is paralyzed, love of a mother for the best development of her child, the demand that love will be the force that unites the parents of the child and in the end the future for all three. Even euthanasia. Ironically, but so often the case, the heir has to sell his lovely house and grounds to pay off the debt of his father. Thus he and the mother of his child find themselves in the same quandary. The photography of the English countryside in autumn and winter is for dreams. A film to be seen and savoured several times.

19th century bodice-ripper

[Krispy-4 · 14 September 1998]

This is a wonderful movie about how a woman's love can overcome major obstacles. Sophie Marceau is a beautiful governess, who seven years prior was hired by a rich Englishman to conceive a baby because the man's own wife had been seriously injured but did not die after a riding accident. Marceau's motivation is to pay her father's debts and get him out of prison. Thus the two principal characters are having this weekend "affair" out of a sense of duty to others. Unlike many movies set in the mid-19th century, the rich people in this movie are not one dimensional and heartless, and the poor people are not powerless victims. Marceau manages to track down her child after 6 years and becomes her governess. The girl has become a spoiled brat, and Marceau is the first to teach the girl how to read, and much about life. There is not exactly a happy ending, in the Hollywood sense. In order to get something, one must take risks and be willing to give up other things.

Predictable Romance

[taproot · 6/10 · 27 March 1999]

Sure it was uplifting and even though the sensuous beauty of Sophie Marceau and the handsome Stephen Dillane were perfectly matched, this story was predicable almost from the opening line. There was little tension, but for a tense relationship between mother and daughter where the outcome was never in doubt. Worth seeing for the performances but don't expect too much, unless you find pleasure in uplifting, predictable endings.

The power of desire presented by oustanding acting

[rcimasi · 10/10 · 22 November 2000]

I have to admit that I watched this the first time because of my admiration for the performances of Sophie Marceau. I watched it several times more because of the interesting portrayal of the power of desire presented by oustanding acting and a rich "period piece" production. Should your friends belittle the story as formulaic and the ending as too easy, ignore them. They have missed the richness of the flow of events in this movie that portrays a more repressed world where women (and, to a lesser degree, men) had different and more limited options and necessarily pursued their opportunities differently. This movie was so well done, it leaves you wishing it were an hour longer.

Would never be published in the 19th century!

[iton-67578 · 6/10 · 28 July 2016]

Having read the other reviews here, I understand why many enjoyed the film -- it runs something like a potboiler romance story that one might read on a beach on a lazy afternoon. It is enjoyable for the look, Sophie (hard to dislike), and the strong female lead role (though the other women are typical 19th century figures). But this would never be published as a novel (Romantic or otherwise) in the early 19th century -- too many morally questionable doings here for that. More on this in a second -- but let me begin by saying that if you lay aside all ideas about the reality of this story, you can enjoy it. If you begin to wonder at the plausibility of the plot, it quickly becomes nonsensical. That does not mean you cannot like it - - most films are nonsensical in terms of plot, and they still bring in loads of viewers and big bucks. Certainly, the limited settings made it easy for the writer to ignore the real 19th century here, in the main (despite some suggestions that it was a hard time to live for many people).

Spoiler below:

The parts that struck me as modern and unacceptable to 19th century publishers are: surrogate motherhood, indomitable feminine will that conquers all obstacles, adultery (more than once -- and not excused by the alleged initial purpose), acceptance of the live for the moment in pleasure theme, euthanasia, and getting away with all of this with no deep fear of the retribution that was commonly thought to await all such disturbers of conventional morality. We might attempt to justify that all of these were certainly possible in the early 19th century -- no argument there (and the Romantic and early feminist movements did encourage fantasy for women readers); but much of the action here never would have been seen in a 19th century novel without the required, related punishments for their accepted standards of immorality that here are notably missing. I point this out only so that the uninformed will not mistake this story as something that is truly a product of early 19th century thinking -- no, I would say it is modern in its messages.

I will not speak about how this may have copied other stories, or further about how much of the real history of the 19th century is left out -- that does not really matter much. My main point here is that no one should believe this would have flown within its purported time period; the story, had it been written then, would likely have been burned. That said, it does speak to modern audiences (on several levels), does raise some interesting points for discussion (moral issues, feminism, the reality of the educational system featured, how all 19th century medical realities were ignored, and attending historical comparisons, and finally, whether upright and admirable behaviors can somehow excuse or make more forgivable several clearly morally unacceptable behaviors exhibited by the same characters), and the film is somewhat entertaining, or at least not too difficult to watch (I have watched it several times in fact, though always when someone else put our copy of it into the machine).

Modernized film versions of stories like "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" come to mind in terms of ignoring 19th century realities and acceptable behaviors, but still being very enjoyable for modern audiences. Maybe this helps truly interested people to study history more deeply, to see how we are so very different in many ways today (especially in England and the USA) than people who lived 200 years ago.

To finish, I do not dislike this film -- though I would say it is not really a period piece in its themes, and it does have several plot points which are ludicrous (those are discussed in other reviews here; one is even rather funny -- the sister's request that Sophie love the gentleman for both of them). As a simple entertainment that can please on a quiet evening like a Harlequin romance, it is fine. I do not think I would have enjoyed it without Sophie Marceau, however (she solely keeps the film alive with her presence -- it would be nothing without her).

A memorable masterpiece.

[bwilshire · 10/10 · 26 September 2006]

The title led me to expect "Firelight" would be a "chick flick", yet the inclusion of the beautiful Sophie Marceau made viewing imperative. The astonishing credibility of the actors' performances was aided by an impeccable script coupled with masterful direction. Add to that award-winning cinematography and achingly beautiful music reminiscent of gypsy violins and the result is an extremely moving love story. How this film came to be ignored by the US public is one of the great mysteries of our time.

Every word, every sigh, every gesture and every scene appears uncontrived yet at the same time is testament to breathtaking genius. If only director William Nicholson would bring his ensemble together again for more of the same! Just thinking about "Firelight" brings tears to my eyes. No other movie has had such an effect on me.

File this one under "U" for "Unforgettable" in the illustrated dictionary.

Romantic, sexy, a few gaping plot holes

[PeachesIR · 7/10 · 4 December 2019]

I saw "Firelight" years ago and just came across it again on my streaming service. If you enjoy Gothic romance, 19th century bodice-ripper sex scenes, and don't mind a few glaring plot holes, this movie is a winner. I certainly enjoyed it for the sexual passion and seemingly doomed romance between the two main characters: a brooding English gentleman trapped in a long, lonely marriage with a catatonic (??) wife and a gorgeous, impoverished Swiss woman who gave him a daughter seven years earlier in an arranged surrogacy-for-cash arrangement, and is now the child's governess (a racy take on Jane Eyre) at his beautiful country estate. The musical score whooshes like the wind as the two lovers grapple with their mutual desire and moral dilemmas. Enjoyable romance despite a shaky script, especially the very glamorous looking catatonic wife in an era when there was no intubation or respirators! Never seen anyone in a vegetative state look so good. The appealing actors and atmospheric setting help you overlook the flaws. Mild nudity is presented very tastefully.

A masterpiece.

[=G= · 9/10 · 13 December 2000]

No film can be all things to all people. However, "Firelight", a simple film which when taken in and of itself, is no less than a masterpiece. From a carefully crafted minimalistic script to superb acting by a few well cast and well directed principals to artful cinematography and lush scenic beauty, this little film is powerfully compelling. "Firelight" explores the depths of passion, desire, and love amidst the circumstance and social order of 19th century England using elegantly subtle brushstrokes. This film will be most appreciated by mature audiences.

Pretty, predictable (pretty predictable?)

[jimcheva · 7/10 · 8 February 2022]

Marceau is beautiful and poised and manages to make banked lust compelling. But really once you work out the set-up (it takes a little time) it becomes pretty predictable. There are some hints of a feminist message here, not least in a wonderfully cynical remark by the little girl, but really it's like light weight "Jane Eyre" with a touch of "Downton Abbey". And just a tad slow, to boot.

Seen it 5 times.

[Mag-13 · 10/10 · 27 December 2001]

The artistry of this movie is not evident the first time you watch it because you notice nothing but the actors' brown eyes and the blue cold rooms of the mansion.

But watch it a few more times and you realize how balanced the story is, how themes of birth and death parallel heat and cold, love and hate.

The script is simple because silence and secrecy drive the plot. Compared to Jane Eyre, it is rather sparse, but so what?

I gave it a 10.

Opinions polarized by a good movie

[jim-1225 · 5/10 · 26 June 2006]

I greatly enjoyed this movie, and quite understand why reviews range from the euphoric to the vitriolic. Some will love it, and some will hate it. I have given it five stars out of ten, just to place myself precisely in the middle. For quality it is worth more, and because it may be construed as condoning aspects of immoral behaviour, less. Whether it does actually condone that which is wrong is open to debate. So, too, is the matter of predictability. Are you expecting blissful lovers to disappear into a glorious sunset?

For this period drama, you do have to suspend reality and accept the parameters required for the film to work. We are asked to believe that, way back in the first half of the nineteenth century, a comatose woman, seemingly unable even to blink, would have survived for years, and still have significant life expectancy. Medical science makes such a thing possible in our time, but how would the patient have been fed in those days? Don't let such considerations put you off. For other titles, we accept time travel, real people living inside computer memory, oriental gentlemen waving scimitars who run up vertical walls and jump over tall buildings, and still enjoy the show.

Sophie Marceau's acting was outstanding. Who would have thought that Elisabeth Laurier in 'Firelight' and Lila Dubois in 'Lost & Found' were played by the same person? Stephen Dillane, playing Charles Godwin, was more than adequate as the other main lead. The rest of the characters were well cast, each contributing significantly to this very moving tale. 'Firelight' covers part of the lives of two essentially principled people trying to find a way through the distressing circumstances with which each was faced. If they took a wrong turn, which of us is going to throw the first stone? Judgment of every individual is God's prerogative. If this film does nothing else, it does show why there is a debate about euthanasia. I had two special adult friends outside our immediate family early in life, one as a child and one as a youth. Both had flaws in their characters, but were excellent mentors. I chose to adopt some of their traits, but not others. A couple of years past retirement age, I bought my first television, and have since discovered films. I find these very instructive, giving me insights into the human condition which I would not have otherwise. As with my mentors, I am using my discrimination when assessing any messages suggested by each movie. I found 'Firelight' emotionally stimulating, its characters eminently admirable in many respects, but used my beliefs and discretion in determining the validity of any moral that may be inferred from its plot. Isn't this what we all do?

Some review comments seem to be denigrating Charles Godwin unfairly. It was Lord Clare who ruined the estate by his profligacy. Charles, on the other hand, was trying to keep the boat afloat as a sheep farmer. To suggest that Charles viewed Elisabeth as little more than a chattel doesn't ring true with me. I gained the impression that he was considering her as well as himself right from the beginning. I also felt that their motives tended towards the welfare of others rather than their own selfish ends. The firelight allegory might also be less simplistic than is being suggested. If I am recalling events correctly, I thought the initial use was to introduce a plot continuity. This was progressed to a vehicle used by Elisabeth to allow her daughter the opportunity to break free of her antagonistic attitudes. At some point, the firelight rekindled a significant memory. Finally, for Amy, the firelight was conspicuous by its absence. Were the words, "May God have mercy on us", just a common expression, or were they spoken from the heart? Judge for yourself.

I looked for the DVD, hoping that it would have an audio commentary. Guess what? Buena Vista has allowed the title to become currently 'out of print', so I couldn't even buy the film itself (!) That surprised me, considering the number of reviewers and the high average rating. I'm looking forward to seeing this film again, but will have to wait for it to come around once more on TV. Do keep an eye open for it in your programme guides. If and when it appears, it's well worth watching.

Simply Wonderful!

[030-Kino.de-2 · 9/10 · 11 September 1998]

A wonderful photographed movie with a convincingly playing Sophie Marceau. Absolutely recommendable for fans of historical romances.

Amazingly Beautiful Story!!

[cellenb2 · 10/10 · 6 September 2006]

I originally watched this on Encore Indie and it touched me in a way only a few movies or stories ever do. The subject matter could have become tawdry if not handled well, which it was. All the characters had their place, even the American who offered Charles an option of a place to go, to be free of all the pretense and obligation of his life, being also a main theme of the story, obligation and responsibility, as well as the desire to break free of them. And watch it several times, the nuances that come out are amazing and also listen to the background talk, some interesting facts come out which help you understand the characters and stories even more. I actually watch it with headphones on to hear all the conversations going on. And Charles, watch his facial expressions, they are absolutely priceless and perfect. My father actually sat and watched it, and trust me he's a ESPN guy, not romance movies. Anyway, it was just amazingly beautiful and passionate.

Just Plain Masterful!

[mentoringme · 10/10 · 11 March 2007]

In 1838, Charles Godwin (Stephen Dillane) is an English gentleman sheep farmer with a comatose wife who hires a Swiss woman to have his baby. Godwin crosses the English Channel where Elisabeth Laurier (Sophie Maureau) responds to his ad for a surrogate mother. From the very beginning there's strong chemistry between them, which is partly why he hires her. She needs the money to help her father, who's in prison.

Godwin chooses three days to be with Elisabeth, presumably based on some sense of when she'll be fertile, and they meet at a resort hotel on the coast of England. The second night the chemistry between them ignites and -- by the third night -- they're madly in love. However, they dutifully repress their feelings and keep their business bargain. Godwin goes home and leaves her to have the baby.

Elisabeth gives birth to a baby girl who's taken from her before she even sees it. Since she's in love with the absent father, it's not hard to imagine what her pregnancy was like, nor the intense deprivation she experiences when both father and baby are lost to her. The scene fades from the image of the ivy growing outside the room where she gave birth to a watercolor painting of ivy, and then uses imagery from Elisabeth's painting/diary to keep track of her growing attachment for her daughter.

When the story switches back to Godwin, we're introduced to his father and also to an American sheep farmer who eventually proposes to Elisabeth. Godwin's father is a member of the aristocracy, and a profligate rake and spendthrift who has serial very-public love affairs. We learn that Godwin's wife is comatose after a riding accident that took place shortly after their marriage.

Godwin is a complex and intriguing character, and Stephen Dillane plays him to perfection. Dillane is so charismatic in this film that it makes me want to jump through the screen screaming! To my mind, the only performance that rivals Dillane's repressed but smoldering 19th century British-ness is Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy.

For Dillane's outstanding performance -- and all of the film's outstanding performances -- we have to thank William Nicholson's excellent writing and direction, along with the almost mystical cinematography of Nic Morris. As writer/director, Nicholson exploits the medium of film to do what only film can do, and that's weave a narrative subtext that propels the story through inter-dimensional dreamlike symbolism.

The accessible and yet subtle over-riding metaphor of firelight is carried throughout the film starting from the first moment when Godwin and Elisabeth are alone together. Godwin says something like, "I didn't realize that fire cast so much light. Do you mind?" This consideration for Elisabeth's modesty in such an awkward situation sparks the first sympathy between them. From that moment, it gets more and more difficult for them to pretend that they're just there for "business." Unwittingly, Godwin repeats the same sentence when they're alone together seven years later. Firelight and love are synonymous.

The subtext about human relationships -- especially relationships between husband and wife, children and parents-- is also explored through the imagery of Elisabeth's desire to "shout," the boathouse in the lake, breeding sheep, the estate, the sister-in-law (another exquisitely convincing performance by Lia Williams), Godwin's father, Elisabeth's family history, etc. Everything in this film is essential to a fully realized three-dimensional portrait of human relationships, and there's nothing extra. The film-making is just plain masterful.

And did I mention the costumes?

The best films go beyond the capacity of words to convey meaning. Sometimes half- remembered dreams leave us with a wordless understanding that evaporates like steam if we try too hard to explain it. For me, this film goes beyond words to convey meaning in the same way that dreams do.

Elisabeth shows up at Godwin's estate seven years after she gives birth to accept a position as governess to their daughter. Her interactions as incognito mother:teacher with beloved spoiled-child Luisa (another fine performance by Dominique Belcourt) are nothing short of poignant. There's a mini-Miracle Worker going on here. The scene were Godwin fights Elisabeth for the key to the schoolroom is incredible.

The other aspect that resonates with me personally is what this film says about the plight of women in 19th century Europe and how the exceptional courage and intelligence of one woman who believes in herself can overcome the hardship of circumstances. Women are only fifty percent of the human race but our issues as a "subgroup" of mankind have to take a back seat to all of the other subgroups where males are fighting other males for dominance with the common denominator that they all subjugate women.

I love the scene where Elisabeth convinces her daughter that education is the only way out of spiritual prison for a woman. I have always admired Sophie Marceau but she really goes beyond herself in this film, thanks to the exceptional script, direction, cinematography, costumes, and performances of her fellow actors. A beautiful and accomplished actress rises to the occasion of portraying a beautiful and accomplished woman struggling to survive in exceptional circumstances.

At first, we're confused about Elisabeth's appearance at Godwin's estate to become governess to his "adopted" daughter. When they met seven years before he had to hide his identity, so we never know if or how she finds out his name. However, Elisabeth eventually confesses that it took her seven years to find him, so we know that the narrative is driven by her desire and intentions. The moment when Godwin asks her if she regrets this is among the best in screen history, in my opinion. Since increasingly films live beyond their time, I have no doubt that someday this masterpiece will be viewed as a major film classic.

Exquisite

[nov201913 · 10/10 · 16 August 2006]

Just by chance, I selected this film at a time of night when I'm ready for sleep. I watched it once.... then, again but fell asleep thru part of it. Two days later, I watched it again (wide awake this time) and that's when I fell in love with it. The first time.... I admit, it was the titillating story... the child was secondary. The second time.... I wanted to watch Sophie Marceau's delivery of her character. The third time.... I realized that Stephen Dillane's delivery of his character was so nuanced, I missed it the first 2 times. He is what makes this story so wonderful.

Because I am a big fan of British film, I wondered why I was not familiar with Stephen Dillane's name. After some research, I found that I have seen him in some character roles, but nowhere is he as handsome as in this film. Sophie Marceau is so accomplished that together, some of their scenes unfold as a dance.

This film is so delicate, with exquisite timing and phrases, that I can truly say it is as well-done as Campion's The Piano. Elisabeth's shout when she opens the doors to the lake. Godwin's face from recognition to omigod to sweet smile when he sees Elisabeth again. Godwin's explanation that a month with Elisabeth in the house would be an eternity. Their dance at the door when Louisa is screaming to be let out. And many more.

If you love stories of heart-felt deep love, this is it. Just be sure to watch it closely and more than once.

Truly exceptional movie

[branar · 7 January 2001]

This film really made me search the net high and low to read more about it, and to see whether other people think the same. Here, I found out that many people think the same.

Searching the web, as I said, I also ran across the director's statement that I cite here:

Inspired by Nicholson's fascination with 1940s movie love stories, Firelight is a film that awakens the romantic spirit in each of us. For his film directorial debut, Nicholson wanted to create a boundless romantic story about lovers forced apart by outside forces. To do so, he had to set his story in another place and time. "To achieve that old-fashioned level of romance," the writer/director asserts, "I had to go back to a place and time when there were forces stronger than individual desires. Contemporary love stories are relationship stories because the obstacles that prevent people from loving each other are essentially self-induced. These kind of stories can be charming, but you can't build up an enormous head of steam with them. I wanted to create a story about how love can redeem people, about how it can totally change their lives. I wanted to create that tragic feeling you have when two people are perfect for each other, love each other, but yet cannot have one another." Nicholson set out to write a film in which the focus was on people and their emotions. As he worked on the screenplay, Nicholson developed a very clear and simple visual style for the film. "I wanted people's feelings to be the central issue of the film and I wanted nothing to distract from that. The idea of firelight became central to what the film is about. The story is about light, about winter, about coldness and empty rooms where the eye goes toward the one source of heat, the fire.

To conceive a good film is one thing, but to make it, is altogether different, sometimes very hard. Nicholson succeeded fantastically but praises must be given to all the cast as well, Sophie first.

Major Plot Hole

[leagal99 · 4/10 · 13 August 2006]

Can someone explain to me how the comatose wife lived for more than 10 years without eating!? Did I miss something somewhere? Another plot hole -- the main character manages to get pregnant after 3 nights together, but once they start having an affair 7 years later, she miraculously doesn't get pregnant. It was okay as romances went, but I really want movies to be logical in some way and this plot hole really unnerved me while watching the film. This could have been a really good period piece but it seemed to get schmaltzier the closer it got to the end. Other people said it was predictable -- which it was. And boy was that daughter pretty wise for a 7 year old, especially one isolated in a manor house her entire life. It ended up looking like a made for TV movie by the end.

A truly underrated gem, consider yourself lucky to find it

[skinnyjoeymerlino · 9/10 · 11 February 2007]

Fantasy book author William Nicholson made his first and so far only effort at movie-direction with this 1997 English Gothic romance based on his own screenplay. Sophie Marceau (the French princess in Braveheart) plays a Swiss governess named Elizabeth in late 1830s England. Desperate to pay a family debt, she sells herself to an anonymous English gentlemen for three days in his efforts to produce an heir for his family. Harsh and uncaring at first, they fall in love, but both have agreed never to see or speak to each other again for the sake of keeping up appearances. Elizabeth conceives a baby girl who is wisked away seconds after birth. Heartbroken, Elizabeth writes letters to "My English Daughter" until she can no longer keep her promise. Seven years after the baby's birth she tracks the child down; now a spoiled brat living on a remote Sussex estate. The daughter acts up as she pines for her usually absent father. Her father's wife has been in a vegetative state for a decade after a riding accident, and even the the daughter knows she is not the real mother. Elizabeth takes a job as the girl's governess to be close to her, unbeknownst to the girl's father. When the father, Charles Godwin, returns from London he is appalled at the mother of his child showing up again in his life as well as the rekindling of a romantic fire he has desperately tried to convince himself is long burnt out. Themes of duty to family, maternal love, and desperate attempts to hold back passion are played out in perpetually foggy and snowswept landscapes and around fireplaces in the Godwin Victorian mansion.

Performances by the actors are uniformly excellent. Marceau and Stephen Dillane as Charles Godwin share a chemistry rarely captured on film; but also look for Dominique Belcourt as the daughter; Lia Williams as Godwin's long-suffering sister-in-law; Kevin Anderson as the visiting American who falls for Elizabeth; and veteran British actor Joss Ackland as Godwin's father whose self-indulgent hedonism dooms the family to ruin. It's never apparent that this is Nicholson's first time out as a director. Nic Morris's cinematography of the English countryside and Marceu's exquisitely beautiful face lit by firelight is something to see, and Christopher Gunning's string-laden score is dramatic and over-the-top which it really should be.

Although rife with gray and icy colors, painful family obligation, stark settings, heartbreak, euthanasia, held back emotions, and rigid social mores; the underlying theme of the Firelight is that true love conquers all. It's never really gotten the attention it deserves.

Released by Disney's Hollywood pictures, the movie played briefly in American arthouses back in 1998 and was released on VHS the next year to very little fanfare. Disillusioned, Nicholson never directed a picture again, although he hit paydirt when he co-wrote the script to Ridley Scott's Gladiator in 2000. Firelight has been sporadically available since then on demand on the Encore movie cable channel. A Region 0 bare-bones DVD was released in Hong Kong of all places; it's available on Amazon.com and ebay. If you find a copy, it's definitely worth purchasing.

Victorian era Romance That Will Rip Your Heart Out

[ottawa-2 · 10/10 · 27 July 2004]

Richly detailed Victorian era Romance. I was utterly entranced. Sophie Marceau and Stephen Dillane are superb. Their chemistry is intoxicating and their performances mesmerizing.

The longing Elisabeth and Charles feel for one another will make your heart ache. The strict, unforgiving moral code of the time is a recurring theme and well executed. The musical score blends beautifully with the story. The love story draws you in and won't let go. The ending is satisfying and believable. English manor life in 1838 is exquisitely portrayed. For fans of Period Romance films, this is first rate. William Nicholson (Gladiator) wrote and directed.

Wrenchingly Beautiful

[angel-131 · 16 June 2000]

When I first saw a preview of this film, I imagined "oh, just another remake of Jane Eyre". But, because of my liking for Sophie Marceau and my love of "Jane Eyre", I rented it...and I loved it.

This film takes a unique perspective, concentrating more upon the relationship between mother and daughter, rather than the romance between mother and father. Though the story is an oft-told one, this is a film whose magic will grasp you, just as the mentioned firelight within.

Sophie Marceau gives a wonderful performance as Elisabeth, combining her lovely face with the warmth of any mother towards her child. Stephen Dillane is also very good, but I was entirely *riveted* by Dominique Belcourt as little Louisa. Her performance had no artifice---she had no problem acting like the little brat, then slowly beginning to soften as she discovered what a life could be without hating everyone other than her father.

The costumes were as good as any other recent period film and the sets were *gorgeous*, especially the famous "lake house".

Therefore, despite a plot everyone knows, "Firelight" utterly charmed me and held me spellbound even after its conclusion.

Still As Good As I Remember

[lia00027 · 9/10 · 10 September 2009]

It's been such a long time since the last time I saw this movie 12 years ago to be exact, but the power of this movie is still strong and indeed unforgettable.

Sophie Marceau is one of the good actress that can portrayed emotion into the character really well, especially for her English is not her 1st language but yet her character here as Ms. Laurrier a governess with a politeness and strong character really had shown well. Her determination to be with her spoiled and lonely daughter is really enjoyable to watch, her passion to be with the a man that she loved all of time is really memorable, her strong character really helped a lot here. The whole setting which was located in England was perfect to show the intimidation of society, however even the rules of society and time cannot forbid their love to be rekindled again. Yes it is a happy ending movie that I like.

I remember, the first time I watched this movie when I was in my junior high and I didn't really get the idea about love really well but when I watched this movie I could understand the feeling of each characters especially for their desires to be loved each other. The director deserves thumb up for bringing the emotions of the actors out of beneath.

Very romantic, beautiful, haunting tale!

[dapplegrey13 · 9/10 · 4 September 2010]

I have seen this haunting, romantic film many times. It's simply beautiful. Sophie Marceau and Stephen Dillane are a magnificent couple. Character development here is so profound that I have a hard time seeing either of them as anyone else other than their unforgettable characters from this romantic, bittersweet love story.

It's especially candlelit, filled with firelight, foggy, and dim... old castle walls... beautiful costumes, bustiers, and the whole nine yards. The storyline is completely believable, sad, and still hopeful.

It's JUST the kind of movie to watch on a rainy afternoon. I simply love it. Strong supporting cast and an all-but-perfect screenplay.

It starts in 1836 England when a beautiful young unmarried woman from Switzerland arrives. In Switzerland, her father has been imprisoned and her family is destitute. She is answering an ad about a wealthy English landowner who needs an heir, but whose wife is in a vegetative state (and she has been for many years.) The young woman agrees to sleep with the gentleman for several nights in order to get pregnant, stay in England thru her pregnancy, and then give him the baby when it is born. In return, she will receive from him a great sum of money -- a small fortune -- the money she needs to get her father out of prison and get her family back on its feet again. All of this will be done in absolute secrecy and anonymity... they agree not to even learn each others' names, for the sake of his reputation.

Doesn't this sound intriguing? It IS! It just gets better and better, too. I LOVE IT! So, rent it or buy it. Unplug the phone and darken the shades. Don't let anyone interrupt you during this unforgettable romance. ENJOY!

Actors good, script baaaaaaaaaaad

[Steve C · 4/10 · 25 October 1998]

I am always willing to live with a little bit of cheese in a romance flick, but this movie was over the top. Sophie Marceau was great considering what she had to work with, other actors were decent to good.

One reason people go to the theater to see movies is the "shared experience" -- today was a great example. The laughter kept building as the end neared, climaxing with the sister's line to S. Marceau at the funeral "love him for both of us" (as an aside, this after the writers expect us to believe that the sister suspected nothing after months and months of sex between the 2 main characters. They must have built the walls thick back then!).

Hey I didn't mind seeing a little T&A from S. Marceau though: those looks coupled with great acting skill make for a great movie...usually. Well maybe next time.