Shown on UK TV


With the new version out now - does anyone know if the 1989 TV version will get shown in UK at some point?

reply

We can but hope, but the book's author (Susan Hill) doesn't like the 1989 version due to some changes (which she disapproved of) made by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale. As a result of this, I fear that she and others will wish to keep the 1989 'buried'.

Personally speaking, I think that the TV version is even better than the book!

reply

Couldn't agree more. I'll cross my fingers.

reply

I'm sorry to hear that Susan Hill didn't like the 1989 version. I wonder what she thinks to this new version? I agree with you though, the TV version is better than the book. I just bought a copy on EBay and watched it last night - just as good as I remembered, a top notch ghost story.

I will always be on the side of those who have nothing - F G Lorca

reply

I was lucky enough to get hold of the DVD when it came out around 1999. The quality of the transfer is not great, but not bad either.

I suspect the 1989 version will be re-released on DVD soon enough after somebody smells a profit off the back of the marketing of the new version.

reply

You would think that anyone with any kind of marketing sense would release the 1989 TV movie on DVD at around the time of the DVD/Blu-ray release of this most recent version ........

reply

Susan Hill was (maybe still is) a pretty regular visitor to a book shop I used to work at years ago and I chatted with her on a number of occasions. To say she doesn't like the TV movie of Woman In Black is an understatement! She made it clear in no uncertain terms that she absolutely hates this adaptation and called it rubbish. I must admit I found her personality a little spikey and strident. Personally, I thought the TV movie was pretty good and remember it as being quite spooky although I haven't seen it since it was shown on British TV. Somehow I doubt she will like this new movie version (from what I have seen of preview clips).

...now I do it just to watch their f----n' expression change.

reply

Judging from a post on her web-site, it seems that she very much likes the new film:
http://www.susan-hill.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166:the-woman-in-black-featuring-daniel-radcliffe&catid=38:latest-news&Itemid=50.

reply

Clearly she's on drugs...

reply

[deleted]

Yeah; see, I'm loath to be too critical of the new film as I love the fact that a story of that kind can be successful, I want the Hammer brand to succeed, and I saw much that was good in it... but I wouldn't rate the new film above the old, by any stretch of the imagination.

I find Hill's judgement on this to be perverse, since the original film is certainly much closer to the book in many ways than the new one, and is subtle and restrained in a way appropriate to the material.

In the new film I didn't like the fact it suddenly turned into The Ring, I didn't like the attempt to lend more sympathy to the woman, and I didn't like the overdependence on special effects when she's depicted. I also didn't like the whole thing about children committing suicide under her influence, and the spiritualism bits - it's really quite out of keeping with the tone of the book to have things as blatant as spiritual possession. I always thought that what made the Woman in Black scary was it's very low-key nature, which helped lend a sense of reality to it. The new film is a fantasy movie, and I found it difficult to forget.

Not that there aren't many great things about the new one, and I loved a couple of the innovations - in particular the shot where the toys' eyes appear to move across the room, the moment where Kipps walks into a room and sees a flash of a hanging body... and the creepiest for me was the moment when Kipps hears a woman sobbing and then realises that it's actually a mynah bird, mimicking the sounds of a household tragedy. Oh, the first time a figure rises and slips out of the vile mud is very effective and Jamesian too.

I didn't prefer the depiction of Eel Marsh here, but it works well enough. I preferred the authentic sense of the desolated landscape from the original.

reply

[deleted]

the attempt to lend more sympathy to the woman, and I didn't like the overdependence on special effects when she's depicted. I also didn't like the whole thing about children committing suicide under her influence, and the spiritualism bits - it's really quite out of keeping with the tone of the book to have things as blatant as spiritual possession


I've been sceptical towards this film for a long time, but without any real reason other than that I thought the trailer was tacky. Now you just made up my mind that I WILL NOT see this film at all.

First of all, the minute they start relying on special effects rather than good makeup and good acting to create fear, I loose interest. Well-acted win over special effect any day.

Second of all, spiritual possesions? Where did that come from? To me, possessions aren't really frightening, and I prefer the children remaining innocent in all of this. And the accident with the poor travellergirl and the carriage from the '89-version is so effective, because the scene is shocking and the child is obviously in so much pain.

Thirdly, while what happened to the woman while she was alive was tragic, it doesn't excuse what she was doing in death. To me it's obvious both from the book and the '89 film that what she was and what she became was two different beings. Nothing human was left of her in death, she became just an evil force; so why should we have sympathy?

*******
They blew up Congress!

My blog(Norwegian):
http://jennukka.wordpress.com

reply

Saw the new WIB yesterday prepared to be disappointed because the 1989 version is one of my favourite films.

True, it was a good-looking film, but some of the most memorable bits were missing. Like the long shot of the WIB standing ON the water.
I don't know if that's in the book but it should be.

I felt that far too much time was spent on the long night in the house and not enough outside. Some of the best shots in the old film draw their dramatic eeriness from her unnatural appearance in the natural landscape. When you set most of it in the archetypal 'haunted house', that unpredictability is gone.

Well done to Daniel Radcliffe however for not being Harry Potter.

Don't believe everything you think.

reply

[deleted]

And this brings me to say what, in my opinion, was a failing in BOTH film versions: that Arthur dies.

Agreed, but the 2012 version failed even more by having what really amounts to a happy ending.

The book sounds good; dark an' 'orrible, just how it should be. :)

Don't believe everything you think.

reply

[deleted]


ITV used to repeat this regularly but has not been shown again for some time. It does not matter if the author of the book does not like the adaptation, she gave up those rights when she sold the tv rights.


Its that man again!!

reply

In the comments section of one of the uploads on Youtube, there is a commentor suggesting that she may own part of the rights alongside the company of the original. I am not sure how accurate this statement was though.


And just as I'm typing this, I venture over to the actual page where this was being discussed at to find that another person corrected the other one who made the comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eQ5sFNUg9M







I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

Yes, you are quite right. A few years ago when I was writing a book about M R James, Ms Hill wrote to me to confirm that she had acquired rights in the 1989 film which effectively prevent it from being re-issued in any format.

reply

Presumably, a much larger cheque for the rights to the story had positively influenced Ms Hill's opinion of the more recent movie. I thought the Hammer picture was okay, but the Channel 4 TV movie was much better.

reply

She likely had a better business relationship with the producers of the new version, which leads her to being less bitter about the adaptation. Like most novelists, she probably had to get over her initial disappointment with deviations from her work in a film adaptation back in 1989. So, with this new production, she already had it in mind to be prepared for disappointment. So her expectations were low going into this newer adaptation to begin with, which brightened her mood in the long-run.

Basically, what I'm saying is that, whatever the first adaptation of her work was, it was destined to be the one she hated, until she could get over her disappiontment in time for another adaptation of her work, despite whichever one is superior. It's a shame that this basically means the '89 version is the one that must suffer for this. There's no way she gripes over the original and not the newer version, which has the same "faults" she described of the former (and then some).


If the production company is smart, they'll work out a deal and give this (clearly great film) its fair shot at the light of day again. It clearly has its number of fans and it seems even that number is growing. Unless the execs are total retards, they can see that this version is clearly a great film. Why make money only on the newer version when they could just as readily make money on the both of them? If money is the issue (as it almost always is), then why not capitalize? Since when do companies turn down the chance at making more money just for the sake of the artist at hand's personal feelings? That would be a new one on me...






I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

The only reason I would watch this ever again would be for a charitable event, sponsored to do so in an old creepy house.., I have NEVER, forgotton that sudden grinning, banshee that comes from nohere, with those horrendous nashers that make Mrs Bates' fruit cellar dentures look like fairground chattering teeth!

reply