1993 or 2006 Version - Wide Sargasso Sea (1993) Discussion

[–] Eclipse61985 17 years ago

Anyone?

reply

I didn't know there was a 2006 version! Hmmmm! I recently saw the 1993 version because I just discovered Karina Lombard and have been renting and buying anything with her I can find. Is the 2006 version with her as well, or is it just the original version with extra scenes and stuff?

reply

[–] hbubenikova 17 years ago

I couldn't find this movie neither in any shop nor in any rental shop :( Is here anybody who could help me to get this film, please?

reply

[–] Eclipse61985 17 years ago

Amazon should have it

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theredcomet 13 years ago

Netflix has it with both versions (R/NC-17).

reply

[–] qed77 10 years ago

Hi hbubenikova

I found it on eBay. I had to order the DVD from Australia. Fortunately, I have a DVD player that can handle DVD's from all regions. If you don't, there are ways of getting around that problem.

Find it on eBay. It will be worth it.

R = f(B), where:
R = Reality, B = Belief

reply

[–] TheSqueee 16 years ago

I didn't know there was a 1993 version!

The 2006 version I saw when it was shown on BBC last year, in conjunction with the latest version of "Jane Eyre".

---
[DON'T PANIC]

reply

[–] SassMcG 16 years ago

I didn't know there was a 2006 version either. I wonder why they remade it? I think the actors from the 1993 version were more attractive, personally.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] livserge331-770-10929 13 years ago

I totally agree! Nathaniel Parker appears completely nude in this, which in my opinion makes it the best movie ever made. :D

reply

[–] the lioness 11 years ago

I prefer the 1993 version. The main reason is after seeing the 2006 version, I don't like any of the actors that appear in it. For example, the two leads that portray Antoinette and Rochester seem uncomfortable in their roles. Its as if they think they're in a bad movie and figure, oh what the hell, let's just go with the flow kind of attitude. The woman that portrays Antoinette's nanny is not as menacing as the actress who appeared in the first version is neither is the actor that plays Daniel for that matter.

Another reason I don't like the 2006 version is the actress that portrays Antoinette appears as if she's playing a British woman. Is it just me or did the filmmakers decide to make her British as opposed to having a French background. She's too stuffy. Due to this, I had a problem with the dialog in the scene when she accuses Rochester of being too British.

Lastly, the location of the 2006 version was all wrong for my taste. It seemed to me as if it was shot on a studio back lot with lots of plants in or something. There's something that's pleasing to the eye of the rich lushness of the land where this story occurs in the 1993 version. I like how the director turned the location into a character in the story. This is not accomplished in the 2006 version.

reply

[–] ClassicMovieholic 10 years ago

I also prefer the 1993 version, but disagree somewhat about the locations. You're right that the 1993 version captures the sensuality and atmosphere of the landscape better. However, the location used for the house of Granbois in the 2006 version is much closer to how it was described in the book. Granbois in the 1993 version was a beautiful, graceful, lavishly furnished house, standing imposingly with its double-story verandas, and made quaintly charming by a fanciful paint job. The house in the book was a clumsy, awkward building that seemed to have been claimed by the mountain and overgrown vegetation around it, fallen into disrepair, sparsely furnished, its finery having been plundered by emancipated slaves. The picturesque but somewhat lumbering and neglected old house used in the newer film came closer to how I pictured it.

reply

[–] qed77 10 years ago

Hi Eclipse:

1993 version by far. It's one of my favourite films even though it is relatively unknown.

Thank you, Jean Rhys, for the book. Unfortunately, people who have never lived in the West Indies may miss part of its message.

R = f(B), where:
R = Reality, B = Belief

reply

[–] ClassicMovieholic 10 years ago

Unfortunately, people who have never lived in the West Indies may miss part of its message.

Which part of its message might we miss? I've read the book, so no need to worry about spoilers with me. I'm curious to here if I got the same things from it, though I have never lived in the West Indies?

reply

[–] DonaldBruceTelfer 7 years ago

There is apparently now a 2011 version as well, but I have not seen it. There is ready access to the 1993 and 2006 versions on DVD and the book.
The missing part of the message is something Europeans from Rhodesia/Zimbabwe might empathise with, despite not having lived in the West Indies.
By analogy, much as to fully appreciate the acoustics at the Greek amphitheatre at Epidauros you need to sit in the audience and listen to the actors.

Donald Telfer

reply