Sybil

It's a tough act to follow: the 1976 miniseries Sybil starring Sally Field and Joanne Woodward. Not only was that one lengthy enough to go into the full story, but silly little "Gidget" showed shocking dramatic acting chops, and Joanne got to sit on the other side of the desk from her turn as a patient with multiple personalities from 1957's The Three Faces of Eve. What was the draw for 2007? It was shorter, not even ninety minutes. People already knew Tammy Blanchard could act. And Jessica Lange didn't suffer from schizophrenia in Frances or Blue Sky, so there wasn't any winking at the audience at her taking the position of the therapist this time around. In short, there wasn't any draw.

Sybil is a certain type of actress's dream role. You have a terrible backstory, the entire story focuses on your emotional journey, the audience is desperate for you to get "cured" before the end credits roll, and you have sixteen different personalities you can ascribe funny voices and one-dimensional facial expressions. But, since everything is either completely spelled out for you or purposefully one-dimensional, it's not really possible to give a good performance. You can give sixteen different caricatures, and you can do a lot of screaming and crying, but a solid performance as Sybil isn't very likely.

And in this version, since it's so short, it doesn't get into too much of the nitty-gritty. Tammy's emotional scenes are sudden and explosive. When her father says the therapy is directly responsible for her behavior getting worse, we can't help but agree with him. Before she enrolled in therapy, she was a college student and living independently. After her sessions, she couldn't even sit in the audience at a piano recital without throwing a fit and urinating on the carpet. Is Jessica really helping her? Unfortunately, it takes longer than 83 minutes to show their progress.

Although I usually really like Jessica Lange, I didn't like her performance. I appreciated the warmth and unconditional support she showed her patient, but when she confronted the father and talked about Sybil's abusive childhood, she actually smiled and laughed. She must have thought it was effective to seem so disgusted and incredulous at his bad parenting that she would use those expressions - but I don't think it would be possible to smile and laugh in that situation. If you found out what Jessica found out, you would be heaving into a toilet. You'd be actively restraining yourself from attacking the father. You wouldn't be smiling.

If you insist on watching a version of Sybil, stick with 1976. I'm not the biggest fan of that one, either, but at least you learn more of the story and give Sally more of a chance to show her character.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to adult content and upsetting scenes involving a child, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

First, let me say one thing about people who don't feel the story of 'Sybil' is 'real,' or 'true;'

You must remember; the original film was a version of the book, Sybil, which in turn was made from the work-notes of Dr. Cornelia Wilbur, who - to shield her patient's privacy - had to...'adjust' the story.

In other words, the film was not simple 'here-say' - it was a 3rd (or, perhaps 4th) generation of the story removed from the source.

Whatever the case may be, the CORE of the story - the HORRORS Sybil (Shirley Ardell Mason (1923–1998) endured, were so, so overwhelmingly sad.

I - like a many of you - had seen the original SYBIL, with Sally Field, and, for many years, I liked it (it's weird to say 'like' about such a harrowing tale).

The hall-of-mirrors-from-hell tale - and Ms. Fields' riveting performance - stayed indelibly etched in my mind.

As the original version was made-for-TV in the '70's, the true horrors Sybil endured had to be 'cleaned up.'

But, what was there, was a terrifying story of a young woman's tortured life.

I only saw this version for the 1st time a year ago, and, I've always on the fence, when I hear 'remake,' because, they're usually inferior.

This was one of the few exceptions.

As embodied by Tammy Blanchard, this SYBIL (who does somewhat have a similarity to Ms, Fields' Sybil) is touch more rounded.

Ms. Blanchard gives a brilliant performance (why isn't Ms. Blanchard's name better known?!?! She CAN act!), and, as the strict confines which were imposed on first filmed version of this story have loosened, much more of the horrors Sybil endured at the hands of her mother are shown (in this case, it helps the viewer better understand the depths of depravity done to Sybil and the damage incurred, and it's even more poignant).

Jessica Lange's Dr. Wilbur - while I don't think much 'better' than Ms. Woodward's performance, definitely is portrayed by Ms. Lange with enough strength to help sustain - not only the drama, but, to portray a person (who happens to be a doctor) who Sybil can actually count on, and whose VERY in-depth support of Sybil enabled Sybil to be 'born whole' and live.

I remember when the original version was shown, how, soon after, seeing people reading the book was a common sight. The story is just so shocking, so unusual (remember, at the time - before Springer, et al, when people's problems are flaunted EVERYWHERE, this WAS an almost 'unique' story).

I commend the performers, and the entire production, as a good example of a remakes which can actually dig deeper, enhance a story, rather than the all-to-common ripping off the original.

This Sybil - more than amply - stands on it's own (VERY) strong legs.

The plot line is decent I'll give it that. But I think it's a bad movie. I give movies a fair chance and this one I shouldn't have. Do not recommend

When it comes to remake's I'm definitely not a fan but have given some a chance. My judgement watching a remake is very tough because it has to at least be somewhat near the original. It's been 48 years since the original with Sally Field and Jo Ann Woodward and their performances were incredible. Now watching the new version my first thought was of course the two main leads Tammy Blanchard and Jessica Lange were good.

Here they mainly show the child abuse in small pieces focusing mainly on character and patient study between doctor and patient. Their performances are good and together they compliment the original. Tammy Blanchard kinda had big shoes to fill playing the part of Sybil, Jessica Lange herself gave a stellar performance. It's hard to compare both movie's as they both covered a case unheard. The one thing that grabbed my attention quickly was the length. They took a 3 hour movie and made it a 85 minute one. So what impressed me is this movie isn't rushed they just don't focus that much on the abuse the original did but focus on the treatment.

I would recommend this as this one actually stands tall by itself and doesn't insult the original. Shockingly this movie wasn't up for any Awards such as Emmy or Golden Globe and both actresses gave award worthy performances in my opinion.

The only thing that hurt this movie from getting a 10/10 from me is that even though this movie wasn't rushed it doesn't give ample time to feel the main characters. It jumps too fast and feeling for them becomes a challenge. Still I give it a 8/10 for a great try.

I always thought that the scariest things in the world, among everything shown in terror movies, were not monsters, supernatural, or things like that. It's people, and all the terrible things that they can do to each other. And the everlasting scars that are left, so hard to heal. That's what comes to my mind, after a short reflection. How much of the story is real, we may never know. It's highly controversial, and it seems that all the people involved are not around anymore. But it doesn't really matter. Even considering this history as a fiction, it looks frightfully real, because it brings us the memory of so many people whose minds and lives have been shattered through child abuse. On the other hand, it does remind us of the amazing difference that a single person who care can do. Anyway, it's a great and touching movie, with a nice production and great acting. Certainly worth a close look!