MovieChat Forums > Sybil (2008) Discussion > Finally! My review of Sybil 2007

Finally! My review of Sybil 2007


(This review is from a long-time Sybil'76 fan and active board member)

FINALLY! After waiting two years, I saw Sybil (2007) this afternoon, and I have to honestly say I was much more pleased with it than I thought I’d be. It’s hard not to draw parallels between the original movie and this one, but I’ll try to save that for the end of this review.

Sybil of course is the story of Shirley Ardell Mason (1923-1998), known as Sybil Dorsett, a woman who developed 16 different personalities, two of them male, because of child abuse at the hands of her mother. Her story and the story of her treatment by Dr Cornelia (Connie) Wilbur (1908-1992) was told in a book published in 1973 by Flora Rheta Schreiber. It was made into a made for TV movie starring Sallie Field and JoAnn Woodward in 1976.

Sybil (2007) (hereafter S’7) follows the book more closely than the original movie. As the readers know, the story starts out with Sybil lost in a snowstorm in Philadelphia; during early treatment Dr Wilbur begins to notice something strange after Sybil’s fiancee Stan dumps her; the problem with breaking glass begins when Sybil breaks a bottle of patent medicine in a Willows Corner drugstore and when her cousin breaks a pickle dish and blames it on her... these are all parts of the book that never figured in the Sybil (1976) (hereafter S’76). At times the artistic license taken by screenwriter John Pielmeier doesn’t jive with what’s in the book, but most of it can be overlooked. I had a bit of a problem with Sybil being recommended to Dr Wilbur by a male psychiatrist. It’s probably better than the liberties taken by Stewart Stern, the original screenwriter, who basically rewrote the story, and it did allow the writer to introduce the controversies that have arisen over the past 30 years.

Tammi Blanchard does an admirable job as Sybil Dorsett, the woman of 16 personalities. She was a little stiff when she first appeared in Dr Wilbur’s office, and some of her early “changes” were in voice rather than in facial expressions. It was kind of hard to tell who she was, but that was the same confusion faced by the real doctor at this stage. Later her facial expressions better matched the personality, and her rapid changes from one character to another were quite believable. She was more emotional and less standoffish than the Sybil of the book, but she was a very sympathetic character and when she was showing the pain of Sybil’s abuse through one of the others, and Sybil’s own shame, confusion and pain, she brought tears to my eyes.

Jessica Lange also did a good job as Dr Wilbur. While many of her scenes focused on her conflict with colleagues, one in particular being the psychiatrist who recommended Sybil to her, her scenes with Sybil were played well. She showed the good doctor to be a maverick who not only fought for her patients’ mental health and healing, but also fought a battle against the male establishment, which is an unfortunate truth faced by women professionals in the 1950s (and still to some degree.)

Jo Beth Williams portrayed Hattie Dorsett, the schizoid woman who was responsible for Sybil’s problems. I must mention S’76 here: Jo Beth is no Martine Bartlett. On the other hand most of her scenes were short and viewed as flashbacks. There’s no long Christmas scene in the kitchen and no piano scene; other than Sybil’s father talking about her catatonic episode and subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia, we don’t get to learn much about her and why she did the horrible things she did to her daughter.

There were several more secondary characters from the book, but none of them had very big roles. Sybil’s father, Ramone (her last boyfriend), Grandma’s lap, a cousin... all very short and mostly forgettable.

I’m not qualified to go into production values. I thought most of the scenes were shot pretty dark and kind of hard to see. Other than Willard, I didn’t have any trouble understand the dialogue. The period shots and costumes seemed pretty authentic. (The original movies' unlived in house was a lot spookier, especially that green kitchen!!)

Inevitably this film is going to be compared with S’76, which in my opinion is one of the best medical dramas ever made. Sally Field was Sybil and Jo Ann Woodward was Dr Wilbur. But I honestly think that if I had seen S’7 before S’76, I’d be making comparisons between Tammy’s character and Sally’s. I rarely saw acting from Tammy; I felt that she was deeply into the part and I was quickly drawn into the story. I can’t say quite as much for Jessica, but I also won’t say she didn’t do a good job and from what I’ve learned about Dr Wilbur, she may have even been closer to the original person. S’76 was also pioneering and didn’t have to present the controversies that have arisen since 1976, which, in the movie, were distracting at times but at least the producers dealt with it honestly. On first viewing, I didn’t notice any really strong and unforgettable scenes like the two “piano” or "big chair" scenes of the original, but the last scene of Sybil and Dr Wilbur together is quite powerful.

Ultimately whether or not Sybil was a) a woman possessing 16 different personalities, or b) a brilliant hysteric who was able to role play various personalities at will and well enough to convince Dr Wilbur she was a multiple personality is left up to the viewer. The show begins and ends with (I assume) the executor of Shirley Mason’s estate and his agents going through her personal belonging and finding a portfolio of hidden canvases identified as “the work of several different artists using the same hand.” (Some of these can be viewed on various websites and on the S'76 extras disk.) (I have since learned that Shirley's estate was sold at auction.)

I give this show an 8 and highly recommend Sybil ‘76 fans to watch it. You may not like Tammy or Jessica as well; you will find flaws in the story, but it was a good watch and other than it being too short (85 minutes) I think they did a very good job.

Parental warning: It’s much like S’76, in that most of the actual abuse is inferred, but there’s still some scenes that would be very disturbing for pre-teens.

You can download the entire video at Mininova for free:
http://www.mininova.org/

Register, download the torrent downloader, then search: Sybil 2007.

It’s also (finally) scheduled for broadcast on CBS June 7 (probably 9pm EDT but I’m not sure.)


reply

Well said Indy Go Blue. I watched this last night, and while it's not as good as the original, it is worth watching. It could have been a lot better had it been a four hour movie, there's only so much they could cram into 85 minutes. The biggest problem I had with it was Hattie Dorsett, I found she was a bit too, well, loony. I do realize that the real Hattie was schizophrenic, but I think her character was overacted in this one. You were right, Jo Beth Williams is no Martine Bartlett. Other than that I did like it, I'm pretty much in the same boat you are when it comes to reviews on this.

reply

billie, have you read the book? The things Sybil talked about were right from the book. I'm not going to say too much until after this airs 6/7; I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, but I've got quite a few thoughts on her.

Agree wholeheartedly, it does feel crammed. It could have quite easily been 4 hours with room to spare.

**********
Is that a rumor or did you just make that up? -Mom

reply

Yeah, I've read it a few times actually. I'm guessing that if you've read it then you're thoughts are most likely the same as mine.

reply

[deleted]

Will do... feel free to do the same.

reply

"Agree wholeheartedly, it does feel crammed. It could have quite easily been 4 hours with room to spare." More likely words to spare, Indy, as "SYBIL" is such a complicated story for a TV movie to tell, even in 4 hours, much less 2... Maybe a miniseries? The acting was excellent at first viewing - despite my bias - but the "Through-the-Looking-Glass" effects irritated me, while the recording equipment was much better suited to the time and purpose.
I saw - and recorded it - last night off-air to VHS from CBS. Gonna have to watch it a "few"(?) more times, but it is definitely time for those not familiar with the story to read the book "SYBIL".

"Vademecum..."

reply

I agree about the looking glass thing. There were a few effects that gave one that feeling that Sybil was psychotic and hallucinating, which never was the case. The scene with the doctor started out well, but he should have just walked away like the young doctor in the original. Sybil was never psychotic; she was severely neurotic.

Agree wholeheartedly, it does feel crammed. It could have quite easily been 4 hours with room to spare."


You're right, bad clique.. it could easily be a 4 hour movie and still have leftovers for another 2 hours, but other than some of us Sybilmaniacs, I doubt there'd be that many interested. Back in the 80s or 90s, maybe right after Shirley's death, a biography series would have been interesting, but her right to privacy even after death is much greater than our right to know more personal things about her.

I watched it 3 or 4 times before I began to understand and catch some of the smaller nuances, but I still can't get past the cramped feeling it leaves.


**********
Is that a rumor or did you just make that up? -Mom

reply

G'day, Indy! "...but I still can't get past the cramped feeling it leaves." Like getting the age progressions, the final merging and Sybil's "breakrhrough" into the last, roughly quarter hour of the show? And we thought the final merging and breakthrough was pushed a bit in Sybil '76... This entire movie left that feeling.
Actually, "Well said, Indy!" was my first thought after reading your review. After reading it again, the detail about "room to spare" caught me. In telling SYBIL's story, there are figuratively "volumes to spare" to work with from Flora's book that have never been explored adequarely.
But again, "Well said, Indy!"

"Vademecum..."


reply

[deleted]

"The user 'indy_go_blue44' just replied to your post..." You were thinking?

"Vademecum..."

reply

Redundant post, Jet. I was saying the same thing about using the wrong simile, then noticed it in the post above so I deleted it.



**********
Is that a rumor or did you just make that up? -Mom

reply

[deleted]