The Woman in White

Wilkie Collins' "The Woman in White" is a great read--a creepy and funny mystery novel with multiple narrators, one of which is one of the strongest female characters I've ever come across in Victorian fiction. Unlike some of the other IMDB critics of this film version, though, I read it only after seeing the BBC production. While I thoroughly enjoyed the film, its plot is almost totally different from the novel. It made me wonder if the writers had read two Wilkie Collins novels and decided to combine them, taking the character names from one and the plot twists from the other.

The look of the production is impeccable--gorgeous costumes, lovely English country houses, and a use of light and shadow that perfectly captures the pervasive disquietude. I especially liked that two of the scariest scenes took place in broad daylight, in light-colored places, instead of such customary gothic locales as dark, cobwebby dungeons. The BBC's recent Victorian productions have all striven for an accuracy of period detail (no more beehive hairdos worn with hoopskirt gowns)--that includes dirt and squalor, along with sumptuous furnishings. The Pre-Raphaelite art angle, though not in the book, is neatly tied in, too.

And the acting is excellent. Tara Fitzgerald and Justine Waddell seem to have cornered the market on these period pieces, and Fitzgerald in particular, is perfect as Marion, the steely but loving sister of the soft and sweet Laura. Ian Richardson (the diabolical MP Francis Urquhart in the "House of Cards" trilogy) is brilliant as the girls' hypochondriac uncle, thrown into paroxysms at the sound of loud noises. Simon Callow is Count Fosco, the villain who kills with a caress. He and Marion are worthy opponents; don't miss the scene in the British Museum, when she glares at him over an Egytian sarcophagus and subtly lets him know that she is onto him.

One flaw in the production is the irrelevant voice-over at the beginning and end of the film, but it is not serious enough to mar one's enjoyment of this film.

This film adaptation is a real missed opportunity. The cast is good and does its best with the screenplay but the subtlety of Collins's novel is largely lost. It is quite possible to see why the format of the original novel would require some structural changes but quite why the makers of the film felt it necessary to change so much in the plot is frankly a mystery.

It feels like they had decided who they wanted to play the parts and changed the story accordingly. Marian Holcombe is portrayed by Collins as having an ugly and masculine face; Tara Fitzgerald has anything but so they changed the character. Why change her name to Marian Fairlie? Sir Percival Glyde is too young and Fosco too thin.

Ah well, it's entertaining enough but like so many adaptations, you will be disappointed if you know the book. Out of curiosity I must now try to find copies of the other adaptations to see how they fare.

I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .

Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie

I have seen the 1982,2018 and 1997 version and frankly this is by far the worst and doesn't have many merits. It is too short, it amends (not just abridges) the plot significantly to fit the runtime, and totally lacks the tone and atmosphere of the novel. The acting is also nothing to write home about and production low budget and uninspired. It is a shame because I really like Justine Waddell. And while Andrew Lincoln isn't a great actor I quite enjoy watching him. But this was poor. I can't see any reason why I would recommend it. It is also isn't too easily available. Though though is a low quality upload on YouTube if you must watch it.

I have not seen this movie yet, nor have I read the novel. In fact, I have not seen any version of this story, including the recent musical. I have this 1997 DVD though, as well as the London cast recording, both of which were gifts. That having been said, I just want to point out an error in two of the reviews...

I am no fan of Hollywood, usually preferring foreign versions of most movies. Unfortunately, reviewers dad-hunter (j. hunter) from the UK and harrsman5 from Chicago have it wrong. Dad-hunter wrote, "For reasons known only to Hollywood" and ends his review with, "Badly done, Hollywood!" Harrsman5 asked, "I wondered how badly Hollywood could screw this up," and said that the movie makers "Hollywoodized" the story.

This was a British production, not a Hollywood project. This is clear from the credits, as well as the IMDb.com description. It is a co-production for the BBC by Carlton International Media, Ltd and WGBH. Carlton and the BBC are in the UK, and WGBH, a PBS affiliate, can hardly be considered Hollywood. While harrsman5 may be confused by seeing it on Masterpiece Theater here in the US, I was very surprised by dad-hunter's comments since s/he is from the UK.

As for critics who chastise it for not being faithful to the novel, I think it's better to rate the movie on its own merits. Many of us have never read the novel, nor plan to. When I finally view it, I will judge it based on the movie alone..