Customer Reviews

The Woman in White

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

I find it unusual that the reviews of this movie are so skewed at the very ends of the continuum of great to horrible. Whenever this happens, I am tempted to see the movie and judge for myself. That is what I suggest to viewers here. I have both read the book and seen the movie, and I, unusually it seems, like both. I obviously do not require pedantic faithfulness to the book in order to have a resulting good story.

It would take a lengthy mini-series to present this story as Wilkie Collins wrote it, and it is a magnificent book, in conception as well as in execution. It is written from the perspective of several characters in the book, and the differing viewpoints and their presentations are remarkably well done by Collins. The Moonstone may be the more popular of the two books, but Collins himself recognized the literary grandeur of The Woman in White, noting his authorship of it, not of The Moonstone, on his tombstone.

It would be immensely difficult, in my opinion, and probably would cost too much, to bring the book faithfully to the movie or television screen. This version is as good as we are likely to see, and, again in my opinion, this is a good version. If one has not read the book, and, as a practical matter, I think most viewers will not have, one will find this a compelling story, well told and uniformly well acted. Why should not those who have not read the book become familiar with Collins and this story and be entertained by it -- even if it is not entirely, or even largely, faith to the book? After all, there are many books that are not faithfully brought to production, but that does not necessarily mean that the story, as revised to fit time and pecuniary restraints of production, will not be entertaining. This story is.

So try it for yourself, even if you have read the book, and judge for yourself. Whenever I see such emotionally negative reviews, and when they are so intensely stated, resulting in so obviously distorted a view of the subject movie, I wonder if there is a reason, such as a somewhat narrow and tiresome attempt at display of learning (e.g., the reviewer, among few others sufficiently erudite, knows that this movie is quite different from the book), that accounts for the negativism, with no thought being given to the entertainment value of the movie, which should be the primary criterion of review.

After watching the superb adaptation of "Moonstone," another entry in Mobil Masterpiece Theatre, it is a disappointment to find that this version of "The Woman in White" could not do the same job. From the first, there was two difficulties to be overcome. One is the casting of the two leading ladies, Marian and Laura, and as far as this point is concerned, this film is successful. Tara Fitzgerald is ideal for the strong-willed Marian, and Jusine Waddell fits in fairy-like personality of Laura though Simon Callow's Count Fosco is sorely miscast (and his speech sounds too British to me) Now the second problem comes next: how can you visualize the complex plot of the original book, which has more than five major narrators? The filmmaker tried to solve the problem by making the whole story as Marian's, and Marian's relationship with her half- sister Laura is stressed. The decision is not a bad one, considering the considerable Tara Fitzgerald's presence and her reliable acting.

However, in order to emphasize this point of view, the film introduces too many unnecessary changes that only distract the viewers (especially, those who had read the book). For instance, the hero Walter is "dismissed" from the country house being disgraced by a scandal instead of willingly leaving there as he does in the book. And Walter, unwillingly leaving her house, warns Laura, his love, against the danger that he believes is coming, but as no clue as to the nature of this danger is revealed, we are only left unconvinced about it. As if to justfy his words, this danger soon comes in the shape of Sir Percival and Count Fasco, and hurriedly their secret mission is implied and detected by the sisters, but as the film desperately attempts to stress this danger and the psychological warfare between Marian & Laura vs Percival & Fosco, the second half of the second film has totally transformed itself into different work, which is filled with gunshot, poison, a fall from a tower, and so on. Consequently, though many memorable moments of Collins' original book survive on the screen (such as an encounter with "the Woman in White," a meeting at boathouse, Marian's overhearing secrets in the rain, and burning of a local chapel), they had become only a disjointed series of set-pieces. And it is very strange that the famous scene in Paris is deleted from the ending!

To be fair, the suspence and revenge drama is performed pretty well, so if you don't know the original story, you will be drawn into it. But if you remember the thrilling development of the Wilkie Collins classic, you might feel different way.

If you are a purist or someone who cannot bear to see a favorite book chopped up when translated onto the big screen, then this movie will offend your sensibilities. However, if it is taken as a movie inspired by Wilkie Collins' The Woman In White, or as a very loose adaptation, then one might perhaps enjoy it, as I certainly did.

The story here [I am not going to compare it to the novel for there are many liberties taken with it in this movie version] centers around a pair of half-sisters who share a very close bond with each other - Marian [Tara Fitzgerald] is poor, and her sister Laura [Justine Waddell] is rich due to an inheritance from her mother. They both live with their decrepit eccentric uncle, Mr Fairlie [Ian Richardson] who has engaged a tutor for the girls, a Mr Walter Hartright [Andrew Lincoln] who immediately forms a close attachment to Laura. However, this attachment doesn't go very far for Laura is engaged to Sir Percival Glyde [James Wilby] who simpers and appears eager to please.

Amidst this setting, enters a mysterious character, a woman in white who appears at first to Mr Hartwright as he is walking to Mr Fairlie's estate at night, and then to the sisters. She turns out to be Anne Catherick [Susan Vilder] an escapee from an insane asylum who seems mentally unstable but passes cryptic comments that pique the interest of the sisters and Mr Hartwright. She alludes to a secret about Sir Glyde, but when confronted, he offers up convincing excuses.

The plot gets more complicated and events turn more sinister when Mr Hartwright is sent off packing by a scandal involving a servant, protesting his innocence all the way. Laura marries Sir Percival, and when Marian goes to the Glyde estate to await them after their honeymoon, she is greeted by a wan and taciturn Laura, who seems fearful of her new husband. Matters get worse when a sinister figure called Count Fosco [Simon Callow] arrives as Sir Percival's guest and after that events take one malignant turn after another. It is left to Marian to put the pieces of the puzzle together and get to the bottom of things, all centred around the woman in white, Anne Catherick and her cryptic remarks.

The story as it unfolds here is riveting - the plot is well-written [if you stop comparing it to the novel, and provide for the time constraint, where the 500+ book is squeezed into a 2 hr movie] and the acting is above average. Though Tara Fitzgerald is a bit too pretty to play the role of Marian, she is very convincing in her role as the determined, and bold sister who attempts to solve the mystery despite all odds. Justine Waddell who has made a career of playing period roles, from the tragic Tess in Tess of the D'urbervilles and also in Wives and Daughters, is also convincing as the naive and trusting Laura. I also thought Susan Vidler's Anne Catherick to be intriguing and well-portrayed, conveying a truly tragic and sad character. Adie Allen's servant turned housekeeper turned mistress of her own home, Margaret Porcher was well-done indeed, convincingly portraying the transformation of her character from servile to malignant.

The men are not altogether memorable, and I feel that here it was a bit of a letdown for the character of the Count especially. He was a truly malignant character in the book, yet here we don't really see that development all that clearly, and Simon Callow seems to be a bit insipid in his portrayal of the ruthless Count. James Wilby is oily enough as Sir Percival Glyde and Ian Richardson is actually quite a scene stealer in his portrayal of the decrepit, fussy uncle. But on the whole, it is the female actors who bring depth to the story.

The sets are wonderful, and the cinematography is well-done. The lighting and other technical elements serve to heighten the atmosphere, providing a lush and suitably sinister backdrop to a gothic story of suspense and evil.

I liked this retelling of the classic and though it does not do justice to Wilkie Collin's masterpiece, this is definitely a movie that can be enjoyed on its own merits and taken as an inspired take on the classic tale.

If you know absolutely nothing about Wilkie Collins's novel, you might like this movie--although even so, you would likely be irritated by the late 20th-century suspense movies cliches forced back on this tale of the 19th century. (...)

If you do know Collins's great, complex novel, this movie will break your heart, because the plot is so reduced and simplified and altered that you get only the barest glimmer of it.

I wish the 1970s BBC miniseries, which aired on Masterpiece Theatre in 1982, would be released on video or DVD. That miniseries had 5 hour-long episodes and was really excellent.

The 1998 version pales in comparison with the unavailable 1978/1982 BBC version with the exceptional Alan Badel as the evil Count Fosco. Beware purchasing this as the Ian Richardson version, because Ian Richardson was in both versions. If you must get a copy of "The Woman in White" right now, then order the 1998 version. Otherwise, write, e-mail, call, march and picket WGBH, BBC America and BBC England and lobby them to make the 1982 version available. The earlier version was produced in five 55 minute segments and was an oustanding piece of work.

For those of you who love period movies...you'll love this movie of intrigue and romance. The actors do a superb job, especially Justine Waddell. If you liked this movie, I'd reccommend "Great Epectations".

I adore Wilke Collins' book. The BBC is known for doing in depth productions spanning 4&5 hours of books, and THE WOMAN IN WHITE certainly could have benefitted by that type of production. Instead, they did what Hollywood frequently does, and take one major story thread of a book and turn that into a 2 hour movie, greatly discarding and cutting elements. In other words, they take the idea and make all elelments work for that idea. It DOES work. This adaptation is beautiful to look at, frame after frame looking like Marie Cassat paintings, and the drawn out, near-torturous suspense of the book is captured, even in this short version. It is true to the book in feeling, not details.
Unlike other viewers, I was aghast and really disgusted by the casting of the remarkably delicate and beautiful Tara Fitzgerald in this film. That alone is what makes this a 4 star film for me, and not 5. While she does have the brains and fire for Marian, the character is supposed to be almost hideous to look at, disturbingly masculine in form and manner, as ugly outside as she is heroic and beautiful inside. There was not even an attempt made in that direction for Ms. Fitzgerald. Horrible, unforgivable miscasting which colors every single element of the story. So forget the book.
This film is the story of two pretty sisters who read and live a gothic novel existence. Justine Waddel is in so many films I love - what a charmed career she leads. She is always fine, always a bit dazed and limp, rather bland, but she has such a slack-jawed cherubic face and reed thin coltish frame, we feel for her, and hate to see her tortured, as she invariably is. She is perfectly cast in the role of Laura, and the sister/family resemblance casting throughout is really wonderful.
Susan Vidler's Anne Catheric is wrenching, and the writing of her lines is a dead-on disturbing combination of deadpan innapropriate sexuality ("Do you want some?") and mental instability. Kika Martin's Madame Fosco is breathtakingly harrowing. She brings the complex character of the book into her few scenes intact by the frozen look of searching pain on her face. The stand out performance is Adie Allen as Margaret Porcher. Her presence grows from utilitarian to sultry to malignant, and she is just magnificent. In a role significantly cut down in importance from the book to this screen adaptation, she retains her presence. Margaret is to this story what Mrs. Danvers is to Rebecca, and it is so refeshing to see her cast as voluptous and earthy.
I don't say much about the men because this version uses them only as devices to advance the women's story. Mr. Hartwritght is handsome ... although his facial hair is at times anacronistic. (Why the "soul patch" under his lip in the last scenes? was he allready in production of another movie that required it?) James Wilby, perhaps best known from HOWARD'S END, plays a similarly unromantic and downright nasty role here as Sir Percival Glyde. Unlike other reviewers, I found Simon Callow wonderful... who else has that combination of attractiveness and revulsion. His Fosco is supposed to be the match and uber-mate-nemesis for Marian, had she been cast similarly this would have been explosive.
If you insist on expecting the book, you won't like this. Film is a different animal, and this does work completely in it's own right, even the change in Marian. The art direction, cinematography, costumes, and acting are all typical BBC top notch. Great gothic romance, heavy on the suspense, beautifully done.

The film adaption of William Wilkie Collins' THE WOMAN IN WHITE was horrible only in the sense that it failed to adequately portray the written word visibly.

On the hand, the film version of the story was an entertaining piece of work. It was well-acted, especially by Tara Fitzgerald (The Tenant of Wildfell Hall), though there seems to be a lack of explanation ofr character's interest in the story, such as Count Fosco. It is a whirlwind sort of a film, not quite romance, nor adventure.

The story follows two sisters and their artist tutor through the wiles provided by a duplicious baronet from the south country of England who seeks to woo the younger sister to take her money. Faked death, burning alive, and triumphant love bring the characters to a more mature view of the world and closer together. Despite literary accuracy, it was a fine motion picture.

I recently watched this movie after reading the exceptional novel by Wilkie Collins. I am not a purist. I realize that liberties must be taken when a book is converted to movie format. But this was downright ridiculous. When one must change the NAME of a main character just to fit in with their flawed storyline, that goes too far. Her name is Marian Halcombe, not Marian Fairlie. The brilliantly villainous Count Fosco is relegated to a simpering, unimaginative role. As for the plot, it is so far off from the actual story that they should have re-titled the movie. They have Hartwright involved in a scandal, they make Glyde into a sexual predator, and that's just the beginning of their perverse changes. If they had kept to the REAL plot, I think they could have pulled it off much better. Instead, they wasted time making characters who are nonexistent in the book into significant ones, and putting in scenes that changed the most fundamental parts of the story. There was absolutely no reason for any of the asinine changes they made. If I had watched this first, I would never have read the book, and I would have missed out on what is now one of my favorite novels. The book is a million times better. Don't bother with this movie--wait until there is a more faithful adaptation made (or the BBC gets smart and releases theirs on DVD.)

"The bad dreams always come back again like unwanted friends," says Marion Fairlie, who with her half-sister, Laura, lives in a vast mid-Victorian country estate. "And last night I found myself in Limmeridge churchyard. Normally, people who are dead stay dead, just as normally it is the criminals who are locked up rather than the victims. But then, there was nothing normal about what happened to us..." And we're off on a first-class gothic story of madness, deception and villainy, based on Wilkie Collins' great novel of Victorian mystery. It's a good idea to pay close attention, because there are plots within plots, yet they all center on a cunning and ruthless scheme which involves, what else, money, lots of money.

Marion Fairlie (Tara Fitzgerald) and her sister, Laura Fairlie (Justine Wadell) are devoted to each other. Marion is fierce and protective; Laura is softer and much more romantic. Marion has no money of her own; Laura will inherit riches when she comes of age. Marion has no marriage prospects that we know of; Laura has been pledged sometime ago to Sir Percival Glyde (James Wilby), an altogether too charming aristocrat. They are the wards of their uncle, a fussy, condescending, immensely self-centered hypochondriac (Ian Richardson). All seems to be quite routine, but then a young artist, Walter Hartright (Andrew Lincoln), is engaged to teach them drawing and artistic appreciation. And when he arrives at night to the local train station, there is no carriage, so off he sets out on foot to the estate. In the dark woods he encounters a strange woman, dressed all in white, wandering about and speaking of things he does not understand, who then disappears. Are we uneasy? Yes, and so is he and the sisters when they come to realize the strange woman looks much like Laura. Later, does love emerge between Walter and Laura? Does a bud bloom? Is there a misunderstanding that sends Walter away and results in Laura marrying Sir Percival? Does a canker gnaw? And do secrets slowly come to light about the relationships among Laura, Marian and the woman in white...do we learn to be deeply suspicious of Sir Percival's intentions...do we come to enjoy the style and manners of Sir Percival's close friend, Count Fosco (Simon Callow)...and do we eventually realize the foul depths of depravity, as well as the power of honor and true love, that humanity is capable of? Do we visit Victorian insane asylums, see falls from high towers, dig open graves in the middle of the night and watch retribution arrive amidst the roaring flames of a locked church?

Well, of course, and it's a grand journey for us.

This BBC/Masterpiece Theater program features fine acting and outstanding production values. To fit Collins' 500-plus-page novel into a television show of less than 120 minutes means a good deal had to be cut or abridged, and some changes were made most likely to achieve greater impact in the little time available. Still, taken on its own terms, the production of The Woman in White in my opinion works very well as a moody, romantic, dark television tale. Tara Fitzgerald as Marion gives a commanding performance as a woman determined to protect and then save her sister. James Wilby as Sir Percival manages the clever feat of slowly letting us see the depraved slime beneath the skin, who still has charm amidst the villainy. Ian Richardson as the young women's uncle almost steals the show. He gives such a bossy and pungent performance it almost unbalances the story every time he appears. Perhaps the weakest of the main parts is Simon Callow as Count Fosco. The Count is simply a monster, yet a supremely civilized and charming one. Collins described him as being of immense girth. Callow does a fine, mannered job of it, but to me he lacks a little of the monstrosity of evil.

At one point, Marian tells us, "My sister and I are so fond of Gothic novels, we sometimes act as if we were in them." Little did she know what was in store for herself and Laura.

The DVD transfer is fine although a little soft. There are no extras of any importance.