The most important thing in here it's that The turn of the screw works as an adaptation rather than anything else. That's why I think the comparison between this TV movie with The innocents (Jack Clayton; 1961) is unfair. Although both films comes from the Henry James novella, Clayton's emphasizes in the ghosts story while one this focus on corruption and evil and character development; it´s a straightforward story but doesn't looses the strength included in the written words. It´s based on a slow pace, but never falls into boredom. And my guess is that, for a proper enjoy of this film, it's a basic thing is to have read the novel first.
16 Reviews
Yet another version of this famous ghost story/psychological thriller.
countryway_488641 May 2002
Henry James wrote, perhaps the most famous ghost story in the world: The Turn of the Screw.
The suggestion in the book is that the governess might be having hallucinations brought on by sexual hysteria, OR she might, indeed be caught between the living children under her care, and the dead lovers who communicate with each other through the children.
Benjamin Britten wrote an opera that is absolutely bone-chilling called The Turn of the Screw. Many films have also been made either called The Turn of the Screw or, in a brilliant adaptation, The Innocence.
In The Innocence, Sir Michael Redgrave is the owner of Blye and the person who hires Deborah Kerr to be in complete charge of his niece and nephew.
In this new Masterpiece Theater adaptation, called The Turn of the Screw, Colin Firth plays The Master of Blye who hires Jodi May as governess.
Redgrave is older, detached and uninterested in the workings and daily problems of Blye and simply wants someone to run things for him.
Firth is young and VERY sexy. So much so, that he uses his sexuality to convince a naive and hesitant May to take the position.
This sexual attraction, on May's part, is underlined with a scene where she enters The Master's bedroom at Blye, and touches his clothes.
But the haunting of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel are presented as VERY real, and very threatening.
What is merely suggested in the older Kerr version, is played out with more emphasis in this Masterpiece Theater version.
The sets are lush. The setting beautiful. The children too perfect. Flora is smug and deceptive. Niles is heart-breaking in his corruption.
The question remains. Was the governess mad or was she overwhelmed by the evil of Peter Quint? Were the children possessed or was the governess?
An excellent version, although there are scenes in the Kerr version that are truly jolting.
The suggestion in the book is that the governess might be having hallucinations brought on by sexual hysteria, OR she might, indeed be caught between the living children under her care, and the dead lovers who communicate with each other through the children.
Benjamin Britten wrote an opera that is absolutely bone-chilling called The Turn of the Screw. Many films have also been made either called The Turn of the Screw or, in a brilliant adaptation, The Innocence.
In The Innocence, Sir Michael Redgrave is the owner of Blye and the person who hires Deborah Kerr to be in complete charge of his niece and nephew.
In this new Masterpiece Theater adaptation, called The Turn of the Screw, Colin Firth plays The Master of Blye who hires Jodi May as governess.
Redgrave is older, detached and uninterested in the workings and daily problems of Blye and simply wants someone to run things for him.
Firth is young and VERY sexy. So much so, that he uses his sexuality to convince a naive and hesitant May to take the position.
This sexual attraction, on May's part, is underlined with a scene where she enters The Master's bedroom at Blye, and touches his clothes.
But the haunting of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel are presented as VERY real, and very threatening.
What is merely suggested in the older Kerr version, is played out with more emphasis in this Masterpiece Theater version.
The sets are lush. The setting beautiful. The children too perfect. Flora is smug and deceptive. Niles is heart-breaking in his corruption.
The question remains. Was the governess mad or was she overwhelmed by the evil of Peter Quint? Were the children possessed or was the governess?
An excellent version, although there are scenes in the Kerr version that are truly jolting.
Ghosts! Or Maybe Not.
rmax30482313 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Jodhi May is the unnamed mistress in this fine adaptation of Henry James' novela. She's about perfect for the part of the virginal governess assigned to manage two young children and the country estate of a distant magnate who finds kids boring.
She's not Deborah Kerr's frightened governess with the quavering voice in "The Innocents," but just as suitable. She has dark eyes that are liquid and perceptive, and two plump lips which are usually slightly open. This lends her features a slightly dazed look. Her movements are deliberate and her seraphic voice beneficent. She seems intent on bringing purity wherever she goes. May is quite attractive and she was educated at Oxford. I'm considering sending her a proposal of marriage. Well, after all, if she can't get the tycoon who hired her, why not get the next one that comes along? On the other hand, all that virtue --
I really like the character and the way James handled it -- just the right balance between corruption and madness. Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper, tries to help but she's illiterate and stuffy and has fixed ideas about the two children -- both of them are angels. Flora, the eight-year-old girl, is a cute blond out of Matisse. Miles, the ten-year-old boy who was just expelled from his boarding school for reasons never explained, is a handsome kid. Of course, if you believe the narrator, they're both pustular with unquiet spirits but then aren't they all?
Over time, the two little angels start acting queer -- standing like stone statues in the garden at midnight, cleverly ambiguous answers to straightforward questions, kissing May fully on the lips, things like that. May becomes convinced that there are two evil spirits, Quint and his pregnant paramour, Miss Jessel, that are sneaking around and giving the kids lessons on debauchery. The ghosts are closing in. The problem is that, although the kids act suspiciously, no one has actually seen or admitted seeing any ghosts. The unimaginative Mrs. Gross begins to doubt that anything sinister is going on. And May begins to look even more batty than Deborah Kerr did.
Then, by means of some anfractuous logic that I've never understood, May sends poor distressed Mrs. Grose and Flora off to London, saying, "Leave the boy with me." She informs the scullery maids that she alone is in charge now, "And I run a tight ship." Hmm. What is going on? Who's possessed around here -- and by what?
Before confronting Miles that night, she kneels and prays for victory over the spirits, pointing out to God that it only takes one more turn of the screw for virtue to prevail. "With your aid, Lord, I'll wring it out of him." At that point I began to wonder if "The Turn of the Screw" didn't belong to a sub-genre that was popular around the turn of the century -- a post-Darwinist but pre-Freudian pitting of suppressed impulses against strict Victorian custom , rather like "Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde" or, more broadly, religion versus science.
The climactic reveal reveals nothing much. The death isn't organic to the plot, and the main question -- is May nuts or are the kids evil? -- is left hanging.
She's not Deborah Kerr's frightened governess with the quavering voice in "The Innocents," but just as suitable. She has dark eyes that are liquid and perceptive, and two plump lips which are usually slightly open. This lends her features a slightly dazed look. Her movements are deliberate and her seraphic voice beneficent. She seems intent on bringing purity wherever she goes. May is quite attractive and she was educated at Oxford. I'm considering sending her a proposal of marriage. Well, after all, if she can't get the tycoon who hired her, why not get the next one that comes along? On the other hand, all that virtue --
I really like the character and the way James handled it -- just the right balance between corruption and madness. Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper, tries to help but she's illiterate and stuffy and has fixed ideas about the two children -- both of them are angels. Flora, the eight-year-old girl, is a cute blond out of Matisse. Miles, the ten-year-old boy who was just expelled from his boarding school for reasons never explained, is a handsome kid. Of course, if you believe the narrator, they're both pustular with unquiet spirits but then aren't they all?
Over time, the two little angels start acting queer -- standing like stone statues in the garden at midnight, cleverly ambiguous answers to straightforward questions, kissing May fully on the lips, things like that. May becomes convinced that there are two evil spirits, Quint and his pregnant paramour, Miss Jessel, that are sneaking around and giving the kids lessons on debauchery. The ghosts are closing in. The problem is that, although the kids act suspiciously, no one has actually seen or admitted seeing any ghosts. The unimaginative Mrs. Gross begins to doubt that anything sinister is going on. And May begins to look even more batty than Deborah Kerr did.
Then, by means of some anfractuous logic that I've never understood, May sends poor distressed Mrs. Grose and Flora off to London, saying, "Leave the boy with me." She informs the scullery maids that she alone is in charge now, "And I run a tight ship." Hmm. What is going on? Who's possessed around here -- and by what?
Before confronting Miles that night, she kneels and prays for victory over the spirits, pointing out to God that it only takes one more turn of the screw for virtue to prevail. "With your aid, Lord, I'll wring it out of him." At that point I began to wonder if "The Turn of the Screw" didn't belong to a sub-genre that was popular around the turn of the century -- a post-Darwinist but pre-Freudian pitting of suppressed impulses against strict Victorian custom , rather like "Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde" or, more broadly, religion versus science.
The climactic reveal reveals nothing much. The death isn't organic to the plot, and the main question -- is May nuts or are the kids evil? -- is left hanging.
Straightforward adaptation of the classic story.
Cajun-425 June 2000
This TV production doesn't break any new ground in it's retelling of Henry James ghost story, but it's a nicely handled version all the same.
The relatively unknown cast give good performances. Johdi May as the governess has just the right mix of shyness and repression and is attractive without being overly glamorous. The freudian aspects of the story are hinted at but are not overdone.
As usual with a Masterpiece Theater production the production is superb and the English country house setting is beautiful.
The relatively unknown cast give good performances. Johdi May as the governess has just the right mix of shyness and repression and is attractive without being overly glamorous. The freudian aspects of the story are hinted at but are not overdone.
As usual with a Masterpiece Theater production the production is superb and the English country house setting is beautiful.
A Decent Adaptation
atlantean5418 February 2005
A fairly faithful adaptation of Henry James' story of malevolent innocence and evil. Although some scenes lagged in appropriately constructing the atmospheric richness present in the novella - the film adaptation stays true to the building of character, as the secrets of Bly become apparent. Jodhi May certainly delivers an unrelenting, powerful and convincing performance as the disordered governess. She made this film worth watching. A brilliant acting talent. The rest of the cast give an average performance - which was quite a let down on my part. Nevertheless, a film to look out for if your a fan of James' work and appreciate period drama. Or in this case a good old fashioned thriller.
Film Rating: 7/10
Film Rating: 7/10
Good performances, lack of atmosphere.
Sklaeren23 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The turn of the screw is one of Henry James' easiest novel to read, and also one of the scariest books ever, for its sense of suspense and that way to play with your nerve. And it has very cinematographic writing, when reading the most intense parts of the book you can't help but seeing it, it just scream for a movie adaptation.
Well this film is as a whole quite good, very faithful to James' text. It doesn't reduce it to just another ghost story, but respects that the characters' psychology and neurosis really are the heart of it. The cast is very good, especially Jodhi May. But that little Miles boy couldn't ever be described as an angel, he's just evilly annoying and obnoxious from the start. Colin Firth, as "the master", has approximately 3 minutes of screen time to settle his dashing, charming gentleman of a character, make the governess so in love with him that she'll accept the weird job condition (and may even explain her later neurotic state), and make such an impression that has to last 'til the movie end. And he does that just well, because he's sooooo adorable.
My only disappointment is the lack of general atmosphere, it's mostly too distant, and scenes like the first appearance of each ghost don't produce the shock expected (well, if you've read the book...). All of other "ghosts scene" is quite effective, if not very subtle (think dramatic music). The very end is also a lot more explicit than in the book.
Well this film is as a whole quite good, very faithful to James' text. It doesn't reduce it to just another ghost story, but respects that the characters' psychology and neurosis really are the heart of it. The cast is very good, especially Jodhi May. But that little Miles boy couldn't ever be described as an angel, he's just evilly annoying and obnoxious from the start. Colin Firth, as "the master", has approximately 3 minutes of screen time to settle his dashing, charming gentleman of a character, make the governess so in love with him that she'll accept the weird job condition (and may even explain her later neurotic state), and make such an impression that has to last 'til the movie end. And he does that just well, because he's sooooo adorable.
My only disappointment is the lack of general atmosphere, it's mostly too distant, and scenes like the first appearance of each ghost don't produce the shock expected (well, if you've read the book...). All of other "ghosts scene" is quite effective, if not very subtle (think dramatic music). The very end is also a lot more explicit than in the book.
As dreadful as the novel
irish235 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I read "Turn of the Screw" over 20 years ago but I recall that it struck me as dead boring. I watched this adaptation in the hopes the story would grow on me over the years. Alas! The film has lovely sets, costumes, and music. It occasionally has decent acting. But overall it can be watched on fast-forward most of the time and not lose anything. Perhaps it relies on the idea that viewers will be so familiar with James' story that dialogue and even (gasp) exposition might be necessary to flesh things out a bit. I learned more from reading the viewer comments here than I did from watching the film.
Poor Jodhi May must have drunk gallons of water during filming, since she seems to spend about 50% of her on screen time with eyes bulging and her mouth hanging open. Her descent into madness is believably gradual, but her Victorian ideas of purity and evil seem to leap from nowhere. Her character desperately needed context in order to be more clear.
I saw "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr a few years ago and it was genuinely creepy. This Masterpiece Theatre production lacked Innocents' clarity of narrative and commitment to interpretation. Instead, it wandered through far too many long shots, pan shots, and crane shots across an English country estate. And the ending was completely anti-climactic, with May's emotional level the same as it had been throughout most of the rest of the film, when instead it should have been leaping off the screen.
Three stars for pretty pictures and occasional acting; minus seven stars for poor script, vision, and direction.
Poor Jodhi May must have drunk gallons of water during filming, since she seems to spend about 50% of her on screen time with eyes bulging and her mouth hanging open. Her descent into madness is believably gradual, but her Victorian ideas of purity and evil seem to leap from nowhere. Her character desperately needed context in order to be more clear.
I saw "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr a few years ago and it was genuinely creepy. This Masterpiece Theatre production lacked Innocents' clarity of narrative and commitment to interpretation. Instead, it wandered through far too many long shots, pan shots, and crane shots across an English country estate. And the ending was completely anti-climactic, with May's emotional level the same as it had been throughout most of the rest of the film, when instead it should have been leaping off the screen.
Three stars for pretty pictures and occasional acting; minus seven stars for poor script, vision, and direction.
Interesting Adaptation
robamen928 February 2000
This was an interesting adaptation of James' equivocal little masterpiece. This production leaned a bit towards the Freudian camp/interpretation.
I liked it. They took a bit of liberty on some of the Jamesian dialogue e.g. Flora's speech to the governess by the lake. Not as many liberties, though, as in "Wings of the Dove"
Note for the pedantic: One surprising bit was the first apparition of Quint; he appears in the afternoon in broad daylight. Devotees of the James' piece and the ghost story frisson will surely remember that this occurred in twilight.
I liked it. They took a bit of liberty on some of the Jamesian dialogue e.g. Flora's speech to the governess by the lake. Not as many liberties, though, as in "Wings of the Dove"
Note for the pedantic: One surprising bit was the first apparition of Quint; he appears in the afternoon in broad daylight. Devotees of the James' piece and the ghost story frisson will surely remember that this occurred in twilight.
Appallingly stilted
pnagy30 October 2002
First of all, I must point out that I've never seen other versions of Henry James' novel and neither have I read the book itself. Judged on its own merit, however, this film is 100 minutes of your life ill-spent.
Sometime in the mid-19th century, a governess goes to a country mansion to look after a boy and a girl, but begins to have sightings or visions of 2 dead people who are seemingly possessing the children, and gradually driving her mad with fear and anxiety,
I'm one who delights in all psychological thrillers (Sleuth is one of my favourites) but this lacks in any real horror or tension. "Horror" scenes involve the appearances of a mysterious but passive man and a woman, both thought to be dead. Ooh. Somehow there is never a sense of motivation for the heroine's behaviour, most of the time she comes across as an overreacting, hysterical fool. The children's "evilness" is also ridiculously innocent. I suppose in Victorian England you would be branded morally corrupted if your shoelaces got untied . For example: Niles goes out into the garden at night. "Miss" goes after him, and he tells her that he could have done this any night. The next day she rants to the housekeeper about him being given over to evil. What, I mean WHAT? The whole ghostliness and evilness element is handled with decided incompetence.
The script also contains a lot of very stilted lines, seemingly out of character, a lot of serious material sounds somehow ludicrous. This is only aggravated by bad acting. Jodhi May (the governess) seems to spend about 80% of her onscreen time with her eyes bulging and her mouth agape in disbelief. There are about 10 scenes where she is trying to convince the housekeeper about her visions, and all of them seem alike. Niles and Flora are also very badly portrayed. I know they are only around 10 in the story, but just about any other child actor (Haley Joel Osment, Nadia Mikhalkova) would have appeared less self-conscious and less reliant on the same facial expressions for their acting. And if you're a Colin Firth fan, don't bother. He only appears for the first 5 minutes or so.
4 out of 10.
Sometime in the mid-19th century, a governess goes to a country mansion to look after a boy and a girl, but begins to have sightings or visions of 2 dead people who are seemingly possessing the children, and gradually driving her mad with fear and anxiety,
I'm one who delights in all psychological thrillers (Sleuth is one of my favourites) but this lacks in any real horror or tension. "Horror" scenes involve the appearances of a mysterious but passive man and a woman, both thought to be dead. Ooh. Somehow there is never a sense of motivation for the heroine's behaviour, most of the time she comes across as an overreacting, hysterical fool. The children's "evilness" is also ridiculously innocent. I suppose in Victorian England you would be branded morally corrupted if your shoelaces got untied . For example: Niles goes out into the garden at night. "Miss" goes after him, and he tells her that he could have done this any night. The next day she rants to the housekeeper about him being given over to evil. What, I mean WHAT? The whole ghostliness and evilness element is handled with decided incompetence.
The script also contains a lot of very stilted lines, seemingly out of character, a lot of serious material sounds somehow ludicrous. This is only aggravated by bad acting. Jodhi May (the governess) seems to spend about 80% of her onscreen time with her eyes bulging and her mouth agape in disbelief. There are about 10 scenes where she is trying to convince the housekeeper about her visions, and all of them seem alike. Niles and Flora are also very badly portrayed. I know they are only around 10 in the story, but just about any other child actor (Haley Joel Osment, Nadia Mikhalkova) would have appeared less self-conscious and less reliant on the same facial expressions for their acting. And if you're a Colin Firth fan, don't bother. He only appears for the first 5 minutes or so.
4 out of 10.
tiresome
nmheavy28 April 2012
I had heard of 'TURN OF THE SCREW' and thought it sounded interesting. The novel may well have been, however, I found this adaptation grew more tiresome the longer I watched. The first time I saw Quint on the tower, I was intrigued, but by the end I'd lost all interest and couldn't wait for it to finish. This adaptation appears to have neither rhyme nor reason, and is often confusing, revealing no real explanation for any of the characters actions/reactions. Caroline Pegg who plays the starring role has a terrible posture, craning her neck out literally the whole time, her mouth open in disbelief for the vast majority of the film (seemingly her only other expression). Her acting is at best average. A lot of her dialogue sounded ridiculous. I wouldn't waste your time with this one.
More Jane Eyre-ish than James-ish but with a GREAT Mrs. Grose
Bockharn5 December 2003
With all due respect to flinty-but-dear Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose in both the 1961 "The Innocents" and the Lynn Redgrave made-for-TV Ben Bolt-directed rendering), Pam Ferris' housekeeper seems closest to the illiterate, fierce, none-too-genteel woman of James' story. Maybe it's her sheer size, but she grounds the story completely and serves as splendid contrast to the slim, neurasthenic Jodhi May as the Governess. No "The Innocents" (the only dramatization with a point of view), still, this "Turn" works pretty well and may have the best ever staging of Miles' death.
Well worth watching.
Doc-4725 January 2001
This is a solid adaptation of a novella often used in highschools and colleges. Like James's book, this version uses point of view masterfully.
A note for teachers: This adaptation is an excellent way to teach interpretation, especially when it is compared to the 1961 Jack Clayton production "The Innocents."
A note for teachers: This adaptation is an excellent way to teach interpretation, especially when it is compared to the 1961 Jack Clayton production "The Innocents."
AT LAST a strong adaptation!
sydneypatrick24 February 2003
The 1961 Deborah Kerr vehicle, "The Innocents" went for the
supernatural chills and is likely the best adaptation ever (at least
it's likely the most popular), but this straight-forward rendition of
Henry James' best known short novel is probably the closest to the
author's intentions to date. By sticking with psychological terror
rather than creepy SFX, this production succeeds in portraying a
young woman's descent into madness that too often takes a
backseat to the realm of ghost story in lesser productions. Jodhi
May's wide-eyed performance is nothing short of brilliant. Pam
Ferris and Colin Firth round out the strong supporting cast
(although Mr. Firth is seen only in the first five minutes of film and
nothing more, so you Pride & Prejudice fans beware!).
supernatural chills and is likely the best adaptation ever (at least
it's likely the most popular), but this straight-forward rendition of
Henry James' best known short novel is probably the closest to the
author's intentions to date. By sticking with psychological terror
rather than creepy SFX, this production succeeds in portraying a
young woman's descent into madness that too often takes a
backseat to the realm of ghost story in lesser productions. Jodhi
May's wide-eyed performance is nothing short of brilliant. Pam
Ferris and Colin Firth round out the strong supporting cast
(although Mr. Firth is seen only in the first five minutes of film and
nothing more, so you Pride & Prejudice fans beware!).
Jodhi May's Heavy-Eyed Beauty Takes On A Classic Tale
Dan1863Sickles2 June 2007
The most daring thing about this adaptation of Henry James' classic tale is the way that stunning newcomer Jodhi May plays the ghost haunted governess as a living, breathing girl with flaws rather than a lifeless model of prim perfection. Deborah Kerr's interpretation in the earlier film version (titled THE INNOCENTS) was so cool and crisp that there was never any doubt that the governess would overcome the evil ghosts (and save the rotten children who serve them)through sheer icy self-control, pure virginity and stubborn virtue.
Jodhi May's performance shows more psychological depth, depicting a governess who is menaced not only by the ghosts themselves but by her own voluptuous desires. Temptation surrounds the governess in this version, not only in the attentions of her devastatingly handsome employer (a stunning and very youthful Colin Firth) but also in the very comforts and luxuries of her position on the secluded estate.
Watch the way she succumbs to the charms of Miles' piano playing in the film's climactic scene, not only losing track of the time but falling little by little into a deep, drugged sleep. The two children are both shown as being more alert, more aware, than the lovely governess, whose nights have been quite sleepless owing to both ghostly terrors and erotic dreams of her employer. During the piano scene, Jodhi May's shifting expression is worth watching closely, as her bewitching gray eyes sink from stern watchfulness to drooping weariness, an unwilling surrender every bit as haunted and erotic as her dreams. Note how the camera very knowingly cuts back and forth from the heavy eyes of the governess to the light fingers of Miles at the piano, his skill meant to suggest the feather-soft touch of a lover. There can be little doubt that this image suggests a woman who bears her crystal pure virginity not as a shining shield but as an exhausting burden. She wants to have her employer's hands touching her lightly and knowingly, drawing forth her full desires the way Miles draws exquisite melody from the piano. Her deep sleep leaves her at the mercy of the children, but it results from the adult strain of holding her own sensual desires at bay. What a rich, haunting story, and what an authentic, womanly performance from the beautiful Jodhi May!
Jodhi May's performance shows more psychological depth, depicting a governess who is menaced not only by the ghosts themselves but by her own voluptuous desires. Temptation surrounds the governess in this version, not only in the attentions of her devastatingly handsome employer (a stunning and very youthful Colin Firth) but also in the very comforts and luxuries of her position on the secluded estate.
Watch the way she succumbs to the charms of Miles' piano playing in the film's climactic scene, not only losing track of the time but falling little by little into a deep, drugged sleep. The two children are both shown as being more alert, more aware, than the lovely governess, whose nights have been quite sleepless owing to both ghostly terrors and erotic dreams of her employer. During the piano scene, Jodhi May's shifting expression is worth watching closely, as her bewitching gray eyes sink from stern watchfulness to drooping weariness, an unwilling surrender every bit as haunted and erotic as her dreams. Note how the camera very knowingly cuts back and forth from the heavy eyes of the governess to the light fingers of Miles at the piano, his skill meant to suggest the feather-soft touch of a lover. There can be little doubt that this image suggests a woman who bears her crystal pure virginity not as a shining shield but as an exhausting burden. She wants to have her employer's hands touching her lightly and knowingly, drawing forth her full desires the way Miles draws exquisite melody from the piano. Her deep sleep leaves her at the mercy of the children, but it results from the adult strain of holding her own sensual desires at bay. What a rich, haunting story, and what an authentic, womanly performance from the beautiful Jodhi May!
An interesting sort of interpretation.
planktonrules5 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have recently seen several versions of this tale by Henry James. And, being a glutton for punishment, I thought I'd see a few others so I can compare them (such as "The Innocents" and the 1974 and 1992 versions which bear the original story's title). Now I am NOT saying it's a bad story--it's quite good--but most folks don't want to see and compare the stories like this. I am doing it as a public service and because I am a solid humanitarian (well, maybe not).
A governess is hired by an odd man to care for his orphaned nephew and nice. However, he has a bizarre demand--that she never contact him or expect him to have any involvement with the kids! Nice, huh? Well, she travels to one of his homes where the niece lives. The governess is surprised to see that the home is huge and quite gorgeous--and the child a sweet little thing. Life seems ideal at this home.
A bit later, the nephew is sent home from his boarding school and the governess is informed he cannot return--but they never disclose in any way why. It's odd, as the boy seems exceptionally well behaved and bright. And, for some time life is swell. However, occasionally, the governess sees people--people no one else seems to see. While you'd assume she's either crazy or overreacting, her descriptions of the two figures are consistent with two members of the staff who are now dead! She assumes she's seeing ghosts--and she assumes the ghost mean to do the children harm. How she comes up with this is unknown--and opens the story up to some interpretation. In this 1999 version, the filmmakers seem to STRONGLY imply that the governess is probably insane and/or suffering from religious delusions. She might seem in this version to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or is just very uptight and impressionable--but you aren't sure. This is interesting because in most of the other versions I've seen make it seem as if there really are ghosts and the governess isn't necessarily insane. Either interpretation is possible--as in James' novel this wasn't explicit. And, in the end, what happens to the boy is NOT exactly what happens in other versions. Again, because they seem to be implying the governess is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
This made for TV version has very nice location shooting and music. However, if you are looking to get your fill of Colin Firth (for all you Firth-a-holics), you will be sadly mistaken, as he's ONLY in the opening scene and no more. And, I appreciate it emphasizing an atypical interpretation of the tale, as MANY stories have been done about it--and it's nice to see something a bit different. Well worth seeing--particularly if you are looking for a psychological picture as opposed to a supernatural story.
A governess is hired by an odd man to care for his orphaned nephew and nice. However, he has a bizarre demand--that she never contact him or expect him to have any involvement with the kids! Nice, huh? Well, she travels to one of his homes where the niece lives. The governess is surprised to see that the home is huge and quite gorgeous--and the child a sweet little thing. Life seems ideal at this home.
A bit later, the nephew is sent home from his boarding school and the governess is informed he cannot return--but they never disclose in any way why. It's odd, as the boy seems exceptionally well behaved and bright. And, for some time life is swell. However, occasionally, the governess sees people--people no one else seems to see. While you'd assume she's either crazy or overreacting, her descriptions of the two figures are consistent with two members of the staff who are now dead! She assumes she's seeing ghosts--and she assumes the ghost mean to do the children harm. How she comes up with this is unknown--and opens the story up to some interpretation. In this 1999 version, the filmmakers seem to STRONGLY imply that the governess is probably insane and/or suffering from religious delusions. She might seem in this version to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or is just very uptight and impressionable--but you aren't sure. This is interesting because in most of the other versions I've seen make it seem as if there really are ghosts and the governess isn't necessarily insane. Either interpretation is possible--as in James' novel this wasn't explicit. And, in the end, what happens to the boy is NOT exactly what happens in other versions. Again, because they seem to be implying the governess is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
This made for TV version has very nice location shooting and music. However, if you are looking to get your fill of Colin Firth (for all you Firth-a-holics), you will be sadly mistaken, as he's ONLY in the opening scene and no more. And, I appreciate it emphasizing an atypical interpretation of the tale, as MANY stories have been done about it--and it's nice to see something a bit different. Well worth seeing--particularly if you are looking for a psychological picture as opposed to a supernatural story.
I enjoyed to see the young womans convincing efforts to protect the children.
Benny_L21 July 2000
I enjoyed to see the young womans convincing efforts to protect and take care of the children. She was very focussed, both the movie character and the actress.
The clear and precise english language added extra value to the movie.
The clear and precise english language added extra value to the movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
