EoER is not exactly a remake of THE LETTER since it does not really follow Maugham's play. Instead it is based more directly on the news accounts of the Ethel Proudlock story. In this version Ethel's name has been changed to Eve, and her last name has been changed to Proudfoot. But all the main aspects of colonial life are present, as well as the details surrounding the murder.
I would go so far as to say EoER, while it has its flaws, is much better in its depiction of colonial life and the culture of the natives. One, it was directed by Don Boyd who grew up in a British colony in Africa. Second, it features Judi Bowker in the lead role and she was also brought up in a British colony in Africa. So Boyd and Bowker have an understanding of this particular way of life, which comes across on screen. Third, EoER was filmed entirely in Sri Lanka so unlike the U.S. versions that were done on studio sound stages, this one benefits from being filmed on location where the incidents actually transpired. Filming in Sri Lanka provides us with authentic atmosphere and Boyd uses a lot of native people for background characters which helps.
Other differences-- the murder in EoER does not take place until 70 minutes into the film (and it's a 93 minute film). This means the lover's role is greatly expanded, and he's played by John Hurt. We get a chance to see a more fleshed out portrayal of the lover and learn how he was ensnared by her.
The lover's native mistress is played by someone named Vajira, who has no other credits on the IMDb and comes across as a non-professional actress. This means her role is largely background, quite reduced from the 1940 version; and she is certainly not menacing like Gale Sondergaard's take on the character. The native mistress is depicted as being the murder victim's housekeeper. So she is not his wife and she does not have a business in an ethnic part of the city.
The mistress has an uncle who aids her in getting a form of "justice" against Mrs. Proudfoot. In this scenario, "justice" comes in the form of being paid off by the Proudfoots.
Interestingly, there is no letter in EoER, which proves Boyd was not using Maugham's material as his source. On the day of the murder, Mrs. Proudfoot makes several urgent calls to her lover. We find out that she's begged him to come see her while her husband's away, so that she can confront him about the native mistress whom she had met a few hours earlier.
Mrs. Proudfoot is not incriminated by a letter since there is no letter. However, she may be incriminated by an audio tape in which the lover has relayed his thoughts about their ongoing affair and how Mrs. Proudfoot wants him to see her later.
Since there is no production code hanging over this version, part of her defense after she murders him is that he raped her...which may or may not be a lie. There is some ambiguity. Also Mr. Proudfoot the husband knows full well that his wife was unfaithful and yet he purchases the audio recording to keep it from being introduced in court. His goal is to punish his wife his own way after the trial ends.
There are no courtroom scenes. We only see her talking with her husband and her lawyer in a prison visiting room when court is in recess, where she is told about the existence of the tape. And then after the husband makes the purchase, it flash-forwards to her being released from prison since the trial ended and she got off the hook.
Anyway, EoER is not a perfect version and it lacks some of the punch that the 1929 and 1940 versions have, but it feels more authentic in presenting the situations the actual story is based upon. Plus, without the constraints of the production code it's freer to tell the story in a more liberated way without some of the unnecessary stereotypes we find in the 1940 version.
Our flawed female character gets away with murder and we are even meant to sympathize for her! As she and her husband leave at the end to return to England, they take a boat down a river and she looks wistfully at the countryside whizzing by...as if she is leaving the place where she had true love, before everything went wrong.
I would go so far as to say EoER, while it has its flaws, is much better in its depiction of colonial life and the culture of the natives. One, it was directed by Don Boyd who grew up in a British colony in Africa. Second, it features Judi Bowker in the lead role and she was also brought up in a British colony in Africa. So Boyd and Bowker have an understanding of this particular way of life, which comes across on screen. Third, EoER was filmed entirely in Sri Lanka so unlike the U.S. versions that were done on studio sound stages, this one benefits from being filmed on location where the incidents actually transpired. Filming in Sri Lanka provides us with authentic atmosphere and Boyd uses a lot of native people for background characters which helps.
Other differences-- the murder in EoER does not take place until 70 minutes into the film (and it's a 93 minute film). This means the lover's role is greatly expanded, and he's played by John Hurt. We get a chance to see a more fleshed out portrayal of the lover and learn how he was ensnared by her.
The lover's native mistress is played by someone named Vajira, who has no other credits on the IMDb and comes across as a non-professional actress. This means her role is largely background, quite reduced from the 1940 version; and she is certainly not menacing like Gale Sondergaard's take on the character. The native mistress is depicted as being the murder victim's housekeeper. So she is not his wife and she does not have a business in an ethnic part of the city.
The mistress has an uncle who aids her in getting a form of "justice" against Mrs. Proudfoot. In this scenario, "justice" comes in the form of being paid off by the Proudfoots.
Interestingly, there is no letter in EoER, which proves Boyd was not using Maugham's material as his source. On the day of the murder, Mrs. Proudfoot makes several urgent calls to her lover. We find out that she's begged him to come see her while her husband's away, so that she can confront him about the native mistress whom she had met a few hours earlier.
Mrs. Proudfoot is not incriminated by a letter since there is no letter. However, she may be incriminated by an audio tape in which the lover has relayed his thoughts about their ongoing affair and how Mrs. Proudfoot wants him to see her later.
Since there is no production code hanging over this version, part of her defense after she murders him is that he raped her...which may or may not be a lie. There is some ambiguity. Also Mr. Proudfoot the husband knows full well that his wife was unfaithful and yet he purchases the audio recording to keep it from being introduced in court. His goal is to punish his wife his own way after the trial ends.
There are no courtroom scenes. We only see her talking with her husband and her lawyer in a prison visiting room when court is in recess, where she is told about the existence of the tape. And then after the husband makes the purchase, it flash-forwards to her being released from prison since the trial ended and she got off the hook.
Anyway, EoER is not a perfect version and it lacks some of the punch that the 1929 and 1940 versions have, but it feels more authentic in presenting the situations the actual story is based upon. Plus, without the constraints of the production code it's freer to tell the story in a more liberated way without some of the unnecessary stereotypes we find in the 1940 version.
Our flawed female character gets away with murder and we are even meant to sympathize for her! As she and her husband leave at the end to return to England, they take a boat down a river and she looks wistfully at the countryside whizzing by...as if she is leaving the place where she had true love, before everything went wrong.