It's been a couple of years now since I've watched either version so I'm probably a bit rusty. The writer of the original story had the advantage of being able to interview Dr. Wilbur and obtain original information from her, as well as listen to actual session tapes. He basically fictionalized many of the events for dramatic purposes while retaining enough actual events to make it credible. In 1976 the story was new, Sybil/Shirley was alive and well and her identity hidden; the resulting controversy regarding MPI/DID had yet to occur.
The new Sybil writers had none of the advantages and the resulting disadvantages the original writer didn't have to deal with. I'm not sure what source material they had other than the book and information about Dr. Wilbur and Shirley's later lives. Even today not a lot is known about Shirley's life other than the public biographical facts of her being an artist/teacher/recluse.
Both stories suffered in certain ways. Most of Sybil's abuse was only inferred or hinted at in both stories. The original developed as a mystery story; the viewer (unless he had read the book) knew only that there was something seriously wrong with this young woman and in essence learned along with Dr. Wilbur what the problem was. Even at four hours it suffered too abrupt of an ending, IMO, but I suppose it would have been difficult to carry the story out any further. TV was a lot stricter in 1976 also.
Sybil '07 is one of those lost opportunities, IMO. Tammy was very good as Sybil and Lange made a quite adequate Dr. Wilbur, actually closer to the personality we know of Dr. W today than Joanne Woodard, who was beyond excellent in '76; one doesn't even have to say how incredibly superb Sally was.
Personally, I think a more biographical story should have been done. We're all familiar with the story of her mother, abuse, devastation, and therapy up to the point of recovery. I would have liked to have known more about her life post-recovery. Shirley is so much more than Sybil and personally I'd like to have been shown much more about her later life.
Finally, 2 hours is a joke. There was so much missing in the 4-hour version, how could CBS or the producers even begin to think they could present an adequate version in basically 100 minutes?
It wasn't a bad version; the acting was good enough and the story as told wasn't bad, but I emphasize "as told"; the biggest problem is that so much is lacking it does beg the question, what was the point of remaking it?
reply
share