Woman In Black: Book Versus Movie Review

Out in cinemas May 10th, comes the most anticipated movie of the year, The Woman in Black. Directed by James Watkins and starring Britain’s most famous wizard, Daniel Radcliffe, this film is bursting the seams with tense and unsettling moments. Having been based on the chilling Novel by Susan Hill (1983), it brings the book to life as it captures true fear and imagination whilst keeping in the style of the rich and traditional gothic horror that is set in the Victorian period.

From battling You Know Who for ten years, to fending off a grief-stricken ghost out for revenge, Radcliffe has proved to be a solid casting. Though he appears to be too young to play the character of Arthur Kipps, a solicitor with a four-year-old child, it brings a certain outcast quality to the character as he is much more youthful than all the other adults in Crythin Gifford, therefore enhancing the idea that others know much more than he does, creating an unsettling mystery throughout the film. Having only worked on a single film set for ten years, Radcliffe plays a challenging role well, and full of potential- as further elaborated by director James Watkins- ‘For Daniel, it was a massive challenge. Having spent his last ten years on a huge set, always working with many cast members, this film really tested him. Most of the time he was by himself and having to act without having anything to react to, which was hard as usually, you have actors feeding off one another whilst Daniel only had the environment, which is a tough thing to do.’ he recalls, ‘he was highly committed to this character and worked hard to understand this guy who felt like he was on the edge of death, but ends up being brought to life by the horrors this ghost brings him. ‘

Watkins – who also directed Eden Lake (2008) and My Little Eye (2002), focused on ‘making a classic ghost story’. Choosing to create a traditional film is really exciting, especially for those who love the old-fashioned way, as it focuses on the aspect, ‘less is more’, for example; what’s behind that door? What’s hiding in the darkness? It plays to the imagination of the audience and lets their mind do the work. By not using gore and literal horror, and instead capturing true mystery and imagination, it intensifies the tense and chilling moments that had some audiences ‘on the edges of their seats’ with others ‘hiding behind their hands, occasionally peeking’.

Though based off Hill’s famous novel, the film isn’t altogether faithful to the order of events. It has been reorganised with certain scenes changed, although the key elements still stand: the fog ridden marshes, the creepy isolated house, the comforting dog and the famous creaks of the rocking chair. However, being completely true to the book isn’t always vital, as with this case it’s clear that Watkins worked hard to keep true to the spirit of the original story and kept important factors the same, which ended up helping it exceed already high expectations.

Jane Goldman (X Men: First class, Kick Ass), the films script writer, brought a lot of her own ideas to the table, starting with one important alteration. In the novel, it begins with Arthur Kipps happily married and bursting with joy over the news of becoming a first-time father, however Goldman turns this on its head and rewrites Kipps as a widower, filled with trouble and pain over the loss of his wife who died during child birth. Whilst he adores his son, he brings back memories for Kipps, ones of his wife, who still haunts him with visons. This fully changes Kipps’s character, in the book he’s a satisfied man set on a task but is brought down by the horror the house brings him. Here, he’s a hollow man, battling ghosts in his head. He’s entranced by how the fear brings him to life, which gives him a reason to keep going back. It was a brave change but it payed off. By having the main character suffering with his own inner demons, it adds to the darkness of the story. The idea that this man is searching for something, instead of the cliché concept of being in a position where one could lose all that he loves, is slightly more compelling and brings an exciting twist to Hill’s original narrative.

The biggest blunder of the film, was the new and not improved ending. Up until now, the film hasn’t had to rely on the obvious and familiar clichés we see in all the big budgeted Horrorwood movies, however the ending puts quite an unoriginal and uneventful shadow over the film. It dissipates all the fear that had been building up to this stage, and though still a sad and horrible, it’s not needed. It certainly didn’t improve the ending of the novel, as Hill’s was one that sent chills down your spine and kept you awake for nights. Whereas, this ending just doesn’t fit the gothic bill in the same way, and though satisfying, it doesn’t link with the purpose of this film, which is to mess with the mind. Instead it ties the film in a nice neat bow, giving a happy ending for Kipps as he is reunited with his wife- which is all a bit cliché. It’s a shame as up to that point the film was full of mind twisting and intense scenes which seemed like it was leading up to a unforgettable ending but instead it was an slight anti-climax.

That said, this film is a must-see as it will certainly have you jumping out your seats, and you’ll be leaving the cinema differently than when you entered it. You’ll be wanting an early sleep, but with the lights on and the bedroom door locked.

Shut tight your doors and keep the lights on as you won’t be sleeping tonight, or any night for a while.