I prefer the stage production. I like how it took liberty with the original book but it easily had the better story and atmosphere. I liked the movie but I'm not the biggest fan of the book, entire class found it a bit dull.
shareThe 1989 TV adaption.
share[deleted]
I like this movie. I found the book and 89 movie a bit pedestrian. I've never seen the stage play, so can't judge that.
---
House. My room. Cant walk. My medal. My father. Father, dont!
Although the play takes a certain theatrical licence by making it a story-within-a-story, it is the version which is most faithful to the plot of the novel. It was originally produced in Scarborough at a very low cost and some of its "metatheatre" or what you might if you like call "Brechtian" elements, such as telling the story through the elderly Kipps and a stage actor creating a staged re-enactment of events, minimal use of props, etc, came about because they couldn't afford more elaborate set design and could only afford to pay two speaking actors. However, unlike the other versions, it keeps the actual plot of the novel more or less perfectly intact. In my opinion, the most chilling and eerie adaptation was the 1989 television film (it beggars belief how many say it's "dull" or "not as scary as the remake") but that had one significant betrayal of the original plot, which was that, in the end, the woman in black killed Kipps, his wife, and his child all in one fell stroke instead of the much more cruel act of allowing Kipps to survive to live on as a broken man (which the play is faithful to, and does it full justice).
shareI'm with you, I liked the play -- particularly the chilling ending.
share