THE WOMAN IN BLACK 1989 Vs 2012 | YCFT 

I was really surprised to hear that the 1989 version was aired on Christmas Eve, but then I remembered that in the book, Arthur is together with his (step?)family on Christmas Eve and the kids are pestering him to tell a scary story, so eventually he does and ruins everyone’s Christmas. Maybe ITV had the same intention? 😂 I went to see the play at the Fortune Theatre and it was a fairly quiet midweek performance so I was lucky enough to have been upgraded to the stalls. It was an aisle seat, and I was so invested in the amazing performance onstage that I didn’t notice the woman in black was coming up the aisle, and her dress brushed against my arm 💀 I have literally never been more terrified. I was also quite sceptical to begin with when I realised the play only had two actors (plus the woman), but I loved how the writers had anticipated that scepticism and actually had the characters address it very early on in the performance. I can’t remember it word for word but I think one actor says something like, how are we going to make this story believable with only two of us to tell it, and the other actor replies something like, we’ll need to ask the audience to use their imagination. I think they also only had one main prop, a big basket with a lid, but they used it as a (pony and) trap, a desk and plenty of other things. Their use of sound and lighting was really outstanding. A very unique production but very effective and scary! I felt like Crythin Gifford was almost two completely different places in the 1989 version and the 2012 version. The 1989 Crythin Gifford (and the book Crythin Gifford) is a bustling little town with market days and a lot of trade and the people and children seem happy enough going about their day to day lives, whereas I feel the 2012 Crythin Gifford is much more solemn. The grief of all the parents who’ve lost children to the woman is still so apparent. There doesn’t seem to be any activities or movement in the village at all. The kids are always being shepherded into their houses. No one wants Arthur to be interfering with the house and they keep trying to send him home to London. But as mentioned in the video, the villagers can’t just leave, because they work off the land. It was interesting that both films were set in different time periods. The most noticeable giveaway was the clothes. In the 2012 version the men wore starched collars and the women wore very large skirts, whereas in the 1989 version, the clothes are a lot plainer. In the 2012 version they rely on telegrams (“not even Mr Jerome has a telephone”) but in the 1989 version, at least a couple of people tell Arthur that he can telephone him if needed. There’s also a public bus in the 1989 version, which I’m almost certain didn’t exist in the Victorian era. Also, in the 1989 version Eel Marsh House has electricity, and electricity wasn’t commonplace in British homes until the 1920s/30s. Like you say, poor Daniel Radcliffe was relying on oil lamps and candles. I reckon the 1989 version is set about 40/50 years after the 2012 version. I much preferred the 2012 veiled woman to the 1989 unveiled woman. I watched a behind the scenes featurette from 2012 and the costume designer said that they experimented with exactly how many layers of veil would be needed to make her ‘seen but not seen’. When she appears in the grounds of the house or in a window, it’s only for a few fleeting seconds and we don’t get a chance to properly see her face until much later in the nursery. The 2012 ending was my favourite. I love the look that the woman gives the camera at the end. I think she was so angry because she wanted Joseph’s spirit to add to her collection, but his family was reunited in his death whereas hers was torn apart. Anyway, if you’ve read this far you deserve a medal 😂

I think Arthur’s wife coming for them saved his son from being trapped by Jenet. I thought the 1989 version had some really creepy parts and I never considered it was Nathaniel locking Arthur out of the nursery good catch

What you said about people who saw the movie as children coming back to try to conquer the trauma is SO true lol. I was a kid when the 2012 version came out and that movie was a huge trauma for me, the most terrifying experience I had had until then, and here I am now as an adult trying to fight my trauma combined with my found love for horror movies

I always remember scaring myself watching the 1989 version waiting to see her outside the nursery door when ever Arthur went up the stairs just from the camera angles xxx

I found the 1989 on RU-vid back in 2010 I think, thought it was scariest film I’ve seen back then. Watched 2012 version with interest, but I found it dull- especially Radcliffe- wooden, un-engaging, not scary. 1989 performances much better. Thanks for your deep review- I was surprised you had no criticism about either version- I’d like to have seen a little more judgement and preference stated.

Overall I prefer the 2012 version. However, I thought the 89 version did two things better: the scene where Arthur is out on the marsh and you hear the pony/trap and the people screaming. In the 89 version, you only hear it, whereas in 2012, you see flashbacks to the incident, which I thought took some of the scariness out of it. The other thing I thought 89 did better was that ending where Jennet is standing on the lake. Talk about freaky!

That jump scare in the 1989 version is the reason why now im addicted to horror movies😮😂

I always felt the reason she couldn't claim the sons soul was because of the mother claiming them when they died. Like ghost mother wouldn't let the lady in black have her son.

Loved this convo about one of my all time, top 10 favorite scary stories. The 2012 version was my personal favorite also listened to an audiobook version that was okay, hoping to find one someday that makes it "sound" more frightening. Thanks for this, you two!

When Steven Spielberg figured out how to do the sound and redirection for making the type of jump scare we still see used to this day in movies during the making of Jaws for the underwater scene they tried to add more jump scares to the film. They let a bunch of the crew watch and monitored their reactions to the film with more or less jump scares when watching the whole film. They soon noticed if they added more jump scares it diminished the effect of all scares after the first. Apparently you needed around 45 minutes between jump scares for the audience to relax enough for it to again have full effect. So he and his colleague's decided jump scares should only be done once or twice in a film. So they ended up only keeping two for the film which made those two scares all the more shocking. I think that's a big reason why the lone jump scare in Woman in Black 1989 is so insanely effective.

Haven’t seen the original version since it was broadcast broadcast back in 1989. Crikey 35 years ago! I can’t believe it has been that long. I remember being absolutely terrified when the apparition appeared in the bedroom more especially as it brought to mind my grandmother’s recollection of having seen the ghostly apparition of a young man dressed completely in black looking over her as she lay in bed. Truly terrifying😱

The 1989 version is very unsettling. I Watched it yesterday and found it a lot more scary.

That opening to the 2012 version of the three girls jumping out the window in very chilling. Unfortunately I can’t rewatch it without being reminded of Denholm Reynolm from the IT Crowd jumping out the window after the police called about irregularities in the pension fund. 😂

In the 1989 version, Daniel is targeted because he saved a child from being killed by the Woman in Black. I think one of the villagers alluded to it. I haven't watched in ages, but I have a vague memory of Daniel being shocked that no one even attempted to save the little girl...and I think it was because all the village knew what would happen if they did.

I just found your RU-vid. So apologies but in the '89 version the child is locked safely in its room. The mother can't get to that child. The old lady has protected that child all that time from her. When he leaves and goes with Arthur she feels that's a betrayal too. He's free from the room and instead of going with the mother the child chooses to go with Arthur. In the 2012 one at the end, Arthur is living a miserable life missing his wife. I actually believe she orchestrates it so they can be together. They aren't shown suffering. They walk away together. The mother, the baby and Arthur in a way she thanked him for rejoining her with her child but still she's keeping the other children with her.

Apparently the British blu-ray of the 2012 version is lacking some stuff to receive the 12 rating. I don't remember anymore what had to be cut at the time. I'm not sure if they later released it uncut on later blu-rays. I remember getting the German blu-ray at the time to be sure to get it uncut a the time.

I love the 2012 movie so much 🖤

Daniel radcliffe acted outside of Harry Potter before, so this wasn't his first non potter role; it was just his first right after the series ended!

I remember watching the 1989 TV movie when it was aired I was 14 at the time I enjoyed it thought it was creepy in parts ( for the time ) I also enjoyed the 2012 Daniel Radcliffe movie and I've also read the book which I still have

Angel of Death was definitely not that impressive to me only because it was a mostly recycled piece of material that instead of the events occurring in the late 1800s to early 1900s, the story takes place during the 2nd World War and the plot did not make much sense to me.

the 89 one is better, in tradition of old xmas ghost classics

She stopped being a real person and became CGI. The 1989 film is superior by far.

Sorry, I don’t buy into most of the “mansplaining” bullshit and don’t mean to be snarky, but oh my god this guy needs to stop interrupting and talking over his co-host so much. It’s really off-putting, made it hard to watch. So many times she was just getting into her explanation of something and he cuts in and hijacks it. And at the end, he asks her which is her favourite ending, and he almost immediately just jumps in and answers his own question. Like man, I get it, you’re enthusiastic, but Jesus. Give her opinions some space, allow a few “ems” or moments of silence for her to express her opinions. And I’m not white knighting here, honest to god. It‘s just super hard to listen to. And it’s a shame because it is a super interesting topic and comparison exercise.

1989 film was better.

The Woman in Black is my favorite horror story, and the Mexican stage production is unparalleled. Both movies are good, 2012's was better for my taste... but for crying out loud, man, let her speak! She tries and tries and tries to get into the conversation and you keep going on and on and on, it's more a monologue than a conversation. Ugh, much as I love everything surrounding the Woman in Black (and there's obscenely little content to be found here on RU-vid), this was one frustrating watch just for that.

daniel version is better and more scary.................good scenery too