It's faithful enough to the book in so far as it has a series of narrators, some may be self serving ... It does start off a bit into the tale before returning to the beginning. Jessie Buckley makes a much more assertive Marian. I enjoyed the melodrama of this Gothic horror tale.
Add a Review
-
Pairic21 February 2020
-
Sleepin_Dragon22 April 2018BBC I applaud you for having the courage to produce and put out something that can hardly be classed as mainstream. Wilkie Collins classic tale is known by many, how good though that this masterpiece of storytelling will be given to a brand new audience. The production team have done a fabulous job in creating the creepy, gothic, almost sinister atmosphere. I'm struck by the closeness to the text, although I'm sure in the current climate, with constant reinterpretations and changes that there'll be some tampering, however, the core story is delivered. Very well acted with all performing well, Dougray Scott and Jessie Buckley both showing their natural presence. Superb production values, great costumes etc. I enjoyed it, I'm so glad the BBC still has the confidence to produce something like this for a prime time Sunday slot.
Dear BBC I really enjoyed it, and I'm glad you updated it, but please remember there are plenty of other works that could do with a re-telling, Frances Durbridge's Melissa would be a great one, and a little different.
Enjoyed. 8/10 -
mickman91-117 November 2021The reviews for this have really baffled me. I have watched the 1982, 1997, and 2018 version of the woman in white. The 1982 has lots of merits though it is very much an early 80s low budget bbc tv adaptation. The 1997 is total rubbish - amends the plot, too short, no atmosphere, and poor acting. But this 2018 version was very impressive I thought. It is extremely faithful to the novel save for a few streamlined plot elements. And at 5 hours long everything gets covered the way it should. I watch a lot of period adaptations, Dickens, Austen, as well as a lot of theatre, Shakespeare etc. So I am very used to seeing the best of the best in the British acting pantheon take on many of the classic roles. There is no classic actor here in the main characters but nevertheless it is a rare case of a smaller profile adaptation being very good despite the lack of high profile cast and crew. What really impressed me is how you really got a sense in this version of how the many elements of the novel - detective, mystery, crime, drama, gothic - all play a part and mesh together to make a really great story. Plot wise the novel is quite difficult to follow as well because a lot of pivotal events take place before the novel begins and are gradually unveiled throughout the course of the story, so you have to keep a lot of detail in your mind as it is told rather than seen. This adaptation did a really good job with the script in making this really easy to follow the plot. Ok it was not life changing and not hugely emotionally affecting. But I don't think either is the novel. It is a classic novel which pioneered a number of features of modern storytelling we now take for granted, and I think this adaptation did as good as job as could be imagined in conveying the novel, it's tone, plot, and messages, to screen.
-
lwio196015 May 2018Having never read the book I approached this adaptation with fresh eyes. The series started well building the characters, a little obvious but acceptable. Around mid point I could see where the story was going and almost gave up but I'm glad I kept with it. The ending made it worth while. Great acting, sets, costumes in fact a lovely production. Stick with it, it's worth it.
-
mathomas-2805323 October 2018The first episode (of 5, I believe) was excellent. Clever, absorbing, twisted, dark, entertaining. Well acted. I am completely pulled in, and will look forward to finding out what's going on!
UPDATE AFTER FOUR EPISODES: Ugh. Like many of these 8-hour adaptations, it would have made a great 2-hour movie, but in order to fill out 8 hours, they have to pad and pad and pad, and stretch and stretch and stretch. Every scene is too long. Every event happens three or four times. "Same stuff, different day." Why do they do that? Cut it down to a great 2-hour movie.
If you watch this, watch it with the remote in your hand. Fast-forward is your friend. -
Tweekums8 May 2018As this five-part series opens we are told that Laura Glyde, nee Fairlie, is dead and that there are suspicions about the cause. Over the course of the series we are shown what happened. Young London artist Walter Hartright is employed to go to Cumberland to catalogue Frederick Fairlie's art collection; while there he is also to tutor his nieces Laura and her half-sister Marian Halcombe. Shortly before heading north he meets a timid woman dressed all in white... when he gets to Cumberland he is surprised to discover that Laura is the spitting image of the woman. It soon emerges that the 'Woman in White' is Anne, a local girl who had been sent to a London asylum for reasons unstated at this point. Walter gets on well with the girls, in particular Laura, so her uncle sends him away. Shortly afterwards she is married to Sir Percival Glyde and moves to his remote house along with Marian, Sir Percival's friend Count Fosco and his wife, who is also Laura's aunt. It soon becomes obvious that Sir Percival only married her for her money and the sisters' situation becomes precarious.
I really enjoyed this adaption of Wilkie Collins classic novel; the introduction may tell us that Laura is doomed but that only serves to raise tension; especially following her marriage. Sir Percival is fairly menacing from the moment we see him but gets worse after the marriage; Fosco and his wife are perhaps more frightening as we see them apparently helping the sisters while also scheming against them. There are some impressive twists that should surprise some viewers. As well as solid mystery the series has a lot to say about women's rights, or lack thereof, at the time... something that was obviously more radical at the time the original book was written. The cast does a fine job; most notably Olivia Vinall, in the dual roles of Laura and Anne; Jessie Buckley as Marian; Dougray Scott, as Sir Percival and Riccardo Scamarcio, as Fosco. There is also a fine performance from Art Malik as Erasmus Nash, the man employed to help discover the truth about what happened to Laura. While not essential to the story there is some impressive scenery to be admired during the series. Overall I thought this was a great drama; the central mystery is intriguing and there is a good sense of threat for much of the time. -
mjonesi-126 November 2018I have some sympathy for both those that love and hate this adaptation. I agree that series would have been more sharp at 3 episodes. This story did not have the breadth and depth of characters of my favorite series - Bleak House, Little Dorrit, or Our Mutual Friend, to keep you riveted for the long run. But to compare Dickens may not be fair? the strongest character is easily Charles Dance's Fairlie who disappears halfway through, (along with the Hartwright and his Italian friend Kaye). The story meanders at that point, revealing the mysteries without fanfare. Then the ending seems rushed. On the other hand I loved the cast and thought Fosco quite chilling. No the Woman in White is not up to my "Great Expectations" but it's still better than most network fare. The competition is a lot stiffer; however, from non-networks Netflix, Amazon, etc. Perhaps Andrew Davies needs to be brought back into the PBS/BBC fold?
-
The Woman in White was very entertaining and having read the book I was prepared to be either amazed or disappointed. It was the former. I had only seen one previous adaptation from 1982 but this one was every bit as good. Fosco was coprulent in the novel but in this adaptation they slimmed him down. That aside, it kept very much to the book and yes some things were tweaked here and there, it was still something that I would recommend. 5 episodes was enough. All in all, a brilliant effort and well done to all.
-
nancy-793-2288795 May 2018So atmospheric and creepy. Great cast and acting. Hoorah for the BBC!
-
msecaur7 May 2018It continues to astonish me that one of the Western world's most beloved novels has yet to be given a proper film adaptation. Having slogged through the previous film and television adaptations of "The Woman in White," I hoped that this 2018 miniseries from the BBC might be an improvement. Sadly, I was sorely disappointed yet again.
I never understand why screenwriters always feel the need to "improve" on Wilkie Collins's stories or tweak them to be more "accessible" to modern audiences. All his novels, particularly "The Woman in White," have more than enough plot and dialogue to make up an excellent film, and only need to be streamlined to better suit the medium. While the novel's original plot is followed more faithfully than either the 1997 or 1948 versions, rather than allow it to unfold in a linear fashion and let the mystery blossom before both the audience's and the main characters' eyes, the script jumps back and forth in time, using a frame story of various character giving their testimony to a lawyer investigating the case of Laura Glyde's death, a surprise that is ruined with the very first scene. A nice nod to Collins' use of multiple narrators, but the way it is used here disrupts the story's flow and saps any chance of mystery or suspense in the telling of it. I especially disliked how it was used to explain to the audience what they had just seen or were about to see, as if they were too stupid to understand otherwise. While a goodly amount original dialogue is left intact, too much is watered down into more modern-sounding language, which really ruins the sense of historical authenticity. Additionally, many of the story's most memorable moments are cut down or removed entirely in favor of new scenes that add nothing to the story or the plot but distraction.
While I suppose it is a result of today's generation having no understanding of history or any kind of appreciation for subtlety, the production overall feels too modern and more telegraphed than I was hoping for. All the characters blurt out exactly what they are thinking, and even translate the subtext of the other character's dialogue. Talk about spoon-feeding your audience! The costumes are a terrible mix of clothes from the entire Victorian period, and the less said about the hairstyles the better. And when will filmmakers get it through their heads that "The Woman in White" is not a horror story? I agree with another reviewer that the constant "atmospheric" music and sound effects in the background are annoying, as is the insistence of maintaining a constantly creepy tone both visually and story-wise. Wilkie Collins was a master at creating suspense and tension by contrast, balancing big, dramatic events with small, more lighthearted moments. None of that is present here. With the tone unsettling and grim from the outset, and with no comic relief or breathers, the more shocking and suspenseful moments lose their impact, leaving the film limp and feeling much, much longer that it really is.
But what I found most galling was the complete desecration of the characters. Part of the reason "The Woman in White" has endured for almost 160 years is that Wilkie Collins created some of his most indelible characters for it; you grow to love them and genuinely care about what happens to them, even the bad ones. In some combination of bad screenwriting and bad casting, all the life has been sucked out of them, and they are neither engaging nor interesting. I know Marian as written is a modern woman with uncommon looks and intelligence, but the sight of Jessie Buckley, who seems to spend most of her time scowling, prancing around in trousers and drinking was just too much. Ben Hardy is simply too young to play Walter, and I couldn't believe it when I saw him lolling about in his shirt-sleeves, sans waistcoat and tie. Dougray Scott as Sir Percival is boring but marvelously unsubtle, with his every vice telegraphed from his first scene, which in destroying the mystery as to who will be the villain of the piece creates another: why is Marian so insistent that Laura marry him, a man who drinks and makes lecherous advances on women? And while I like Olivia Vinall as Laura, having her dressed in almost nothing but white negligees and running around with her hair constantly undone got on my nerves.
But the worst insult of all is the "reenvisioning" of Count Fosco. As a fat scoundrel, for lack of a better phrase, the Fosco of the novel is an entertaining contradiction who provides as much comic relief as he does menace. While I understand the decision to make him a bit younger and thinner in order to play up his attraction to Marian (something Collins so deftly alluded to in the book but that is made far too explicit here), Riccardo Scamarcio is dull and totally charmless, and far less compelling than he should be. He no longer has his animals, his fondness for tarts, and in Scamarcio's hands he is tone-deaf as well. Wilkie Collins must be turning over in his grave.
Boring, overlong, miscast, and far too modernized for my taste, I'm sorry I wasted five hours watching this travesty. While those unfamiliar with Collins' novel might enjoy this, anyone who loves the book should stay far away. The definitive adaptation still has yet to be made. -
Mr Collins' Victorian Gothic Novel is given the same respect afforded to "Bleak House" in 2005 which itself was an essay on middle - class manners , morals and hypocrisy. It is apparent that our national broadcaster is still able to pull out a plum just at the time our admiration for it might have been slightly declining due to a number of sub - standard offerings of late. "The woman in white" has all the hallmarks of classic costume drama. It is carefully cast,mixing the familiar faces with the rather less so. An atmosphere of slight menace prevails even in the lightest moments,the beautiful house and its grounds,the beach,even the sea seem to contain some unspecified threat. The interior lighting conceals more than it reveals.Mr C.Dance's study is a fine example of hidden mystery. All the performances are spot on,but I might single out mesdames Buckley and Scanlan in particular for bringing more to their characters that even,fine actors that they are,might have been expected. Does "The woman in white" signal a return to form for BBC Drama? I hope so,but form is temporary - class is permanent.
-
As usual, costumes etc are generally good (though why do they so rarely get hair right?) but characters have been messed around to the point where most of them are indistinguishable. Why do modern adaptors think they know better than authors like Wilkie Collins when it comes to characterisation? Or do they just not care? Half the point of the book is that Laura really genuinely needs Marion as she is too gentle and retiring to cope, and Marion knows this, hence her desperation. But as usual these days, all female characters have to be assertive and managing so in this adaptation she seems perfectly capable of running her own affairs. All the book's emphasis on the iniquities of laws that put not only their money but the women themselves into the hands of the husband is therefore lost - this Laura lays down her expectations and opinions to Glyde and never seems remotely overawed or in his power. Fosco and Glyde are completely indistinguishable in character as well as appearance. Fosco in the book is a truly menacing character - highly intelligent, cunning, game-playing, a worthy opponent of Marion. Even his admiration of her sets our teeth on edge. His physical appearance with the very delicate habits and pet mice contrast really creepily with what we know he is really like. That's the whole point. But here we get bland villain no. 2. Glyde is completely wrong in every way, just a paler version of Fosco. Mr Fairlie and Marion are done well, though, which is what kept me watching.
-
phillipbrowning8 August 2018I will keep this brief for the sake of anyone coming upon this classic gem of a mystery for the first time. Completely disregard any review of this mini-series that's been rated lower than a 4. The people giving it super low ratings will bang on about it being an unworthy adaption or that the spirit of Willie Collins is completely lost on the writers and directors of this series. Ok I lied, not so brief of a review... but anyways these sour puss pretentious wanna be thespian mentioned above are people that have their minds made up before watching any literary classic adapted for the small screen. To them the book is always better no matter what. But guess what no duh... the books always better but that doesn't mean adapting a classic is a crime. I read the book. And having such I can tell you the makers of this show did a good job. The characters and sets were on point and the mystery delivered. I couldn't ask for more in an adaptation, much better than "the moonstone" another recently adapted Willie Collins story brought to the small screen. Sorry for the rant but I hate snobs. Watch and decide for yourself. The acting was great.
-
con-fan9 November 2018Although fairly predictable, I enjoyed this series which was recently on PBS. Being a fan of books and movies from the 1800s, I was glad to find one that I hadn't seen yet and which wasn't written by the Bronte sisters or Jane Austen. The most creepy character had to be Countess Fosco. Solid performances and gorgeous settings in the huge English countryside manors we love.
-
lowrentjake12 November 2018Great production values & a fine cast but too drawn out & tedious.
-
I had read the novel but never actually seen an adaptation but this one blew my breath away. Well acted and scripted. The only thing I found strange was how Fosco was portrayed-slim-as opposed to the novel where he is corpulent. That aside I would recommend this adaptation.
-
For years the BBC produced the very best period dramas bar none. However over the last I have found their productions to be of a very mediocre standard. Troy-Fall of a City for instance a drama I was really looking forward to, great story but the production left me cold, not up to BBC's normal high standard and imo The Woman in White also falls short, it did not hold my attention and felt very slow and dare I say it boring, as one reviewer put it, Dreary. What bothers me is Why, is it money, does not appear so as the costumes in TWIW are really good and well done and the actors are equally fine actors so is it the adaptation, I suspect so.
-
lopezpatricia-0613928 April 2021We're a massive fan period dramas especially British ones but wow eee this was unwatchable. So dreary and it takes 2 episodes before you understand what kind of story's it's even going to be. And then when that happens the whole of the rest of the story is transparent (no spoilers) also the title woman in white is kinda misleading, makes it sound a little supernatural when it's not, just a bleak bore fest.
-
dandiego-1549611 August 2020Admittedly, I did not read the book. However, I sat through as much of this garbage as I could.
I should've listened to the reviews that explained how bad this really was. If the two gals were just dumb rubes, then fine...they deserved everything they got.
But both were sold to us from the start as strong, smart women...then proceeded to do every dumb thing possible. I mean, really, how many times does one drink drugged tea, waking in a stupor the next day, before one wises up? Arrrrrrggggghhhhhh! Just one poor decision after the other from these suddenly doe-eyed dummies.
And how many times can one realistically get the vapors from being out in the rain for a couple hours?
If this would've been a 90-minute movie, it would've been easier to forgive the directors, producers and actors. But 8 hours? Come on!
Truly maddening how bad this mess is. Stay away. -
jb-9490022 April 2018Watched the first episode. A classic tale ruined by modernising with constant unnecessary background noises (not even music) presumably to create a creepy atmosphere whereas it just served to distract. With the character of Miss Halcombe being addressed as "Ms". it seemed to me that the only classic aspect of ths production was the use of 1850's costumes. The irritating background noises is enough to prevent me from watching any further episodes.
-
bdimitro18 May 2020I have see many versions of The Woman in White - none as irritating as this one. The two female leads are so naive and their expressions are irritating. They constantly seem muted/silenced by the odd and strange occurrences around them and too "weak" to do anything.
Not worth the watch it drags on for absolutely no reason. -
brtor22222 November 2018Someone here commented on what has happened to BBC drama. I think the main problem is the medium being used. Today everything is on film. That means some choppy editing sometimes and distracting jerky camera movement, and then too much background underscore music. But the main problem with film for the Brits is that the actors can't seem to do the scenes in full. In film, there are lot of takes, re-takes, cuts to move the cameras around, lots of time in between takes for the actors to lose their momentum. In the heydey of BBC period dramas, most of the scenes were in studios where the directors could use multi video cameras and the actors could do their whole scenes uninterrupted in one take, thus giving the scene more immediacy and almost like a stage play. Yes, there are downsides to that. But IMHO that is what has changed over the years in terms of the acting. The jarring switch from interior studio scenes to outdoor scenes shot on film upsets a lot of viewers today. But at the time (1970s-1980s) it was easier to shoot as much on studio videotape, than on film. Look at I,Claudius for example, totally shot on interior sets on video...no film shots at all. Look at the acting in that series!
-
clairewalter1 May 2018Seriously, it's like watching a school play. It's a shame, it had so much potential. Charles is worth watching, but not featured enough.
-
brtor22222 November 2018The original one that aired on PBS Mystery back in 1985 was so much better and a better cast that kept the plot moving. This one grinds to a snail's pace halt midway, and you can tell the producers kept padding this film with scenic elements that contribute nothing but filler to make it a 5 part thing. Ben Hardy (Hartwright) should go back to East Enders.
-
e-a-bastaki3225 May 2021The story was told in a different way from the book by a new character who was very unnecessary as it took away Mr Hartright's important part from it. I am mostly disappointed by the casting!!! From the first episode I was confused as I thought Pesca was Count Fosco as the resemblance was no where near the reference in the book and also Madame Fosco was not at all how she was described in the book. Another matter that really bothered me was the character of Marian Halcombe as she seemed weak and not as strong as she was made to be in the book (especially that unnecessary party with Count Fosco) and her relationship with Laura seemed less stronger and more conflicted here than in book. I do understand the changes that were made to the story although they bothered me I guess it made it easier for them to convey the message with just 5 episodes but I don't understand the change in character as they made Sir Percival Glyde more sympathetic to the matter towards the end. I will say the acting was good and the scenery was absolutely beautiful, If I have not read the book I would have gave it a higher rating.