The Woman in Black [Review]

I’m going to preface this review by saying that a couple of weeks before seeing the film, I read Susan Hill’s 1983 novel, The Woman in Black, for preparation. It was an astounding read, full of sheer horror, tension and dread. Sure, it was riddled with typical horror clichés and conventions, but these were pieced together so well, with such startling results, that it didn’t matter. But this isn’t a site for book reviews. So why am I telling you all this? Because director James Watkins’ interpretation of the novel left me underwhelmed and disappointed - in part due to its lack of adherence to its source.

The original plot has been adapted rather loosely; this was, admittedly, difficult to avoid, considering the slow pace of the book and the relative lack of anything actually happening. The film follows young solicitor Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) as he travels to Crythin Gifford to handle the estate of recently deceased Alice Drablow. Of course, things are never as easy as they appear, and ghostly goings-on begin to plague Kipps, whose four-year-old son Joseph is due to meet him in a few days - a plot point with more connection to the spooky locale of Eel Marsh House and Crythin Gifford than may first be apparent.

As horror films go, The Woman in Black falls neither side of the scare spectrum; rather, it sits wistfully on the fence, wondering whether to all-out terrify or just hope Radcliffe’s acting will suffice. Scares are limited to a few odd instances of Watkins practically shouting ‘BOO!’ at the camera with his titular antagonist; the director is too eager to show too much of everything and leaves little to the imagination. As a result, we’re left with a horror film that does nothing to insinuate a sense of fear or dread; where the book slowly built tension, the film instead thrusts everything at its audience to the point where a burning child might as well be a leprechaun dancing in rainbows - such is its tendency to frighten or leave any kind of lasting impression.

It must be said that that earlier jibe at Radcliffe might be a tad unfair - the problem isn’t that his acting is terrible, just that it’s eclipsed by almost all of his comrades’ efforts. Ciarán Hinds in particular, as Kipps’ only friend Samuel Daily, is marvellous, delivering with conviction. In a further variation from the source, Daily spends much of the film caring for wife Elizabeth (Janet McTeer in an equally brilliant performance), who is often driven mad by longing, in more ways than one, for her late son. Radcliffe improves as the film goes on (he’s completely unconvincing as it opens - Harry Potter can’t be a father, he’s only 12), and seems to do more with less lines. I suppose he would have made for one of silent cinema’s finest actors. It’s just a shame he can’t handle speech too well. 

On the whole, though, the acting standard is rather remarkable. It’s just a shame that Watkins lets the film down with his revelations that come too early; his scares that come too quickly - he seems to think little of his audience’s capability to use their imagination (though in the 21st Century that might be a somewhat fair presupposition of many) and leaves nothing to them. As such, The Woman in Black makes for a finely acted, finely photographed work of film, but as a horror piece falls far too short of the mark.

✰✰✰

See also: The Wicker Man (1973)

Dir: James Watkins

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer

Hammer Film Productions, 95 mins, 10/02/12

Synopsis: A young solicitor travels to Crythin Gifford to handle the estate of Mrs Alice Drablow at Eel Marsh House. But why do the locals fear the place? Why do the marshes scream at night? And who is that mysterious woman, dressed all in black?