Thanks for the memories!

Excellent but underrated film

Best movie ever!

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Toby Jones is wonderful as Hogarth. This is a tightly focused and well-made movie. Jones portrays a stubborn and intensely idealistic Hogarth, without giving too much away of the man's psyche. His internal struggles and observations of the human condition are conveyed expressively, not with any overburdened dialogue or exposition. While we may never know the truth behind his involvement with the Harlot--was it simply a keen eye and vivid imagination, or was it something deeply personal on his part--this historical drama is emotionally entangling and one leaves it feeling vindication for Hogarth's artistic triumph. The subtle director's touch of adding the odd siren and audio of a current news report at the beginning of each segment that deals with precisely the same issues in this period drama is most effective, without being too clumsy or heavy-handed. Hogarth is such an awesome and modern man, in the subject matter of his artwork and sensibility, as well as the way he chose to disseminate it to a wide popular audience. This film also places him firmly in his historical context, one of great importance in the chronicle of lives chewed up and spat out in the modern city. We are still faced with rakes and harlots in our time--nothing has changed. The cautionary tale of avoiding a life of depravity is just as relevant as it was in 1730. Toby Jones really got me though, and I will be on the lookout for his work. He seems to be born to play period characters, and there should be no limit to the number of figures he can bring to life for us to learn from and enjoy.

I appreciated the previous reviews since I learned, by reading them, some facts I didn't catch when watching this movie, as some of the other viewers experienced too, and that being said by native speakers was a consolation for my feeble knowledge of the English language.Several times during the viewing I was tempted to look for subtitles, since the background noise was at times quite loud, interfering with the dialogues but I noticed that by doing so my listening becomes lazy and I rely more and more on the written word.About the movie: I was mesmerized and repelled by the early 1700s London low life, because at least in this film we don't get the slightest relief showing here and there some better society places and better attired people. Of course we are witnessing the rise of a very young and poor prostitute at the time, and the atmosphere couldn't be more depressing.From beginning to end this movie is REALLY depressing..., I'm tempted to say that if Dorothy Parker were alive today, she could have been the writer of the script. But such masterfully produced work gets my admiration as the only reaction to the enormous effort they all must have endured to produce this jewel. The top drawer talent displayed on all categories, from set and costume design to flawless acting and hyper realistic period make up goes beyond any expectation. It's fortunate that nobody has, so far, developed smells as a possibility for the spectator to enter even further in that period, because if they did, watching this movie could have been practically impossible.It became appalling seeing the living conditions poor women had to suffer during those times and most of all, the prostituted ones (although nowadays, 300 years later, many of them go through similar experiences), but one must admit that society has come a long way since those times.Excellent movie, but you must really take a deep breath and set your mind accepting the low light for almost all the scenes, the slow pacing, the murmurs that were many of the dialogues and the desperate conditions of those poor people, all of them, women, children and men.William Hogarth, the guiding figure on this movie, was a superb painter that left us a fantastic legacy with his depiction of his London, fortunately so changed (for the better) nowadays.

As a hearing impaired person I was unable to follow the film due to the lack of close captioning or subtitles. Otherwise, the film was visually interesting and very similar to a recent film about Henry Fielding and his brother. The overall picture of early 18th century London was quite frightening - dog eat dog, with no consideration for the poor and starving, and yet there were some altruistic people around judging by such institutions as the foundling home. Toby ones was wonderful as always, but I do wish I could have known what he was saying. It was also good to enjoy a rare glimpse of Geraldine James and John Castle.

"A Harlot's Progress" uses fine acting, excellent costumes, interesting set design, hyper camera-work, and an inventive sound landscape to re-create a turbulent London of the 18th century. Unfortunately, the film is less novel in its approach to telling the story of an artwork. Hogarth's cycle of prints, from which the film takes its title, was most likely based on his general observations of a type of figure--the country girl who becomes a city prostitute--rather than a real person's life. Nothing in the series clearly individualizes the woman. But the movie, like many films before it, insists upon the idea that an artist can only paint scenes that he has personally witnessed. In the film, a friendship develops between Hogarth and a young, beautiful prostitute, and moments depicted in the print series are acted out, as the main characters' relationship quickly spirals toward predictability. The movie attempts to cast Hogarth as a 19th-century-style art rebel, while at the same time reducing him to "a good man" crusading for social reform. In actuality, Hogarth's prints are much more satirical and complicated than the movie portrays.Despite the fact that the plot is fictional, and in some ways disappointing, the film did sustain this viewer's interest. Several of the performances, such as Sophie Thompson's touching portrayal of Jane Hogarth, are quite compelling. Occasional subtitles give interesting--in most cases horrifying--facts of the time period, and the film makes good use of their shock value. (Though an "X-Files"-style typewriter font was probably not the best choice for these.) I would recommend this movie to those interested in 18th-century London, and in Hogarth's work--but take the story with a big grain of salt. Also note that many details of the artist's tools and methods are inaccurate--I was especially annoyed by his stub of a red chalk; artists of the time used sharpened chalks in holders. But the overall sense of place and time does convince.