Schloss des Schreckens

What makes a good chiller? Gore, special effects? No, as director Jack Clayton proves here, it's atmosphere, combined with the sounds of horror, that makes the difference. Granted, I've seen just about every Elm Street and Friday the 13th instalment, but "The Innocents" proves that what you don't see can scare you the most. Deborah Kerr is in fine form as an English governess who is sent to a remote mansion in the country to look after two young orphans. Their "uncle" in London doesn't have time for them. Kerr slowly begins to realize there's something not quite right with the young boy and girl. Their thoughts and actions are not consistent with the behavior of pre-teens. There's a dark secret, and Kerr sets out to discover it. We do see the ghosts, but it's when Kerr searches the house for the sources of strange noises and voices that we really feel a chill. "The Innocents" also makes great use of its black and white photography. I can't imagine it working as well in color (are you listening, Gus Van Sant?). Shadows just seem creepier in black and white. The children are well played by Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin. Franklin was 11 when she made this film, and as an adult she would go on to star in another excellent haunted house movie, "The Legend of Hell House." It's a shame that Hollywood has stopped making movies like "The Innocents." Perhaps audiences used to Halloween-style slashers, "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" would be demanding blood and guts. Yes, "Scream" was, pardon the pun, a cut above. It raised the slumping horror bar to new heights, and then "I Know..." ran under that bar, but that's another story. If you want genuine chills rather than cheap thrills, you can't do much better than "The Innocents."

Based on the novella "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James, a young governess (Deborah Kerr) for two children becomes convinced that the house and grounds are haunted.

As outsiders looking in as voyeurs, we are left wondering about what the governess sees: are the children possessed? Or perhaps they have become friends with ghosts? Or is the governess simply paranoid? The film keeps us guessing, which only adds to its creepiness.

This title has the distinction of featuring the debut of Pamela Franklin, here playing the child Flora, who would later be memorable in "The Legend of Hell House". She expertly presents herself as innocent (hence the title) while saying creepy lines such as, "Oh, look, a lovely spider! And it's eating a butterfly." Did this inspire Jack Hill's "Spider Baby"?

The film has received wide critical acclaim for its psychological thrills and also its technological achievements (cinematographer Freddie Francis made the lightning his number one focus, and also shot the film in layers, giving it a deeper look than most movies). No less than Martin Scorsese has listed it among the greatest horror films ever made.

Freddie Francis is in top form here, coming off his Oscar win for "Sons and Lovers" (1960). His mark on the horror genre would only increase in the following years, as he took the director's chair for Amicus and Hammer numerous times in the 60s and 70s.

They sure don't make movies like this one anymore. This is one of the few horror movies that does not have gory or graphic images in it. Instead, the spooks in this movie are presented in a subtle way....yet, the movie is quite scary. This is the type of horror movie that I like, one in which every now and then you see a frightening image or a startling scene, and that image or scene lingers in your mind.

Everything about this movie is haunting. First, there's the song at the beginning: you hear a young girl's voice singing a beautiful yet somber song. Later you hear that song in several scenes in the movie.

Second, there's the setting: this movie takes place in a large Victorian mansion with many rooms and passages, while only about eight people live in it....what could be more eerie than that?

Then there's the exceptional cinematography. The black-and-white photography is perfect for this movie. This movie would not have been too creepy if it had been done in color. Further, many of the shots were innovative and the lighting was used ingeniously in some of the scenes.

Additionally, I liked the way that the director chose to play around with the sound, which brought more of an element of mystery to the movie. In one particular scene, there was a lot of noise initially....and in a split second there was dead silence....then several seconds later, it was noisy all over again (all in the same scene).

But what I think is the most interesting thing about this movie is the fantastic performance by Deborah Kerr. It's fascinating to watch her facial expressions in this movie. She demonstrates her character's fear quite well.

I also think that the actor who plays Quint is very scary-looking! He has a very sinister look, and it adds to the spookiness of this movie. If you really want to be spooked by this movie, watch it late at night with all of the lights off....dare to watch it by yourself.

"The Innocents" is one of those films that prove subtlety and imagination can be ten times more terrifying than loud noises or things that go bump in the night. There are no raging spirits or escaped madmen here. Nor will you find that stock of today's second rate horror films -- the creature that embodies evil and finds amazingly obscure ways in which to slaughter naughty teenagers. No, this movie scars one's psyche with darkness and silence and possibility, all mingled with its refusal to give the audience an easy answer at the end.

Based on Henry James' novella, "The Turn Of The Screw," the story is deceptively simple. An inexperienced governess is hired to care for two orphaned children in an isolated British manor and slowly comes to believe the ghosts of the previous governess and her brutish lover are trying to possess the children's souls. Being a decent woman "who loves children," she fights back the only way she can -- by confronting the evil head on. But the question is, does the evil truly exist...or is it all in her own mind?

As told by James, the novella is a startling ghost story, without question. He adds his usual psychological insights to the characters, but never do you doubt the ghosts exist. The defining moment comes when Miss Giddens sees Quint's face in a dark window then later finds a locket bearing his portrait and comes to her realization, "Oh, he's a ghost!" But in the movie, Truman Capote and William Archibald reverse this sequence -- she finds the locket first and THEN sees the man's face in the window -- and all simple explanations go out the door.

Is Miss Giddens imagining things? Has she become overwhelmed by the responsibility of raising two precocious children without any sort of support from their selfish uncle? Is she merely sexually repressed and immature enough to transfer her crush on the uncle to a boy not even into puberty yet? And what of Flora, Miles' sister? If this is merely sexual repression on Miss Giddens' part, then why does she drag a little girl into the morass? Throughout the film, Miss Giddens offers evidence of her concerns -- a letter received from Miles' schoolmaster that she cannot fully share with Mrs. Grose because the woman cannot read; her awareness that the two innocents in her charge have a far more advanced knowledge of life than children that age normally would; stories told by Mrs. Grose about Miss Jessel and Quint and how they treated the children. So could it be the spirits of two miserable adults have come back to reclaim life in the persons of Miles and Flora? It could go either way.

There is not one wrong moment in this movie. Not one. The first time I saw it was in New York City on a double bill with "The Haunting" (1963), a "things that go bump in the night" kind of movie. The audience and I howled through that one, it was so much silly fun. And we chuckled through the first ten minutes of "The Innocents" (especially when Mrs. Grose tells Miss Giddens, "I'm SO glad you're here," with a little quiver in her voice), but by the end of that film (and I use the word "film" deliberately), the entire theater was dead silent. Any film that can shut up a room full of rowdy New Yorkers has got to be damned good.

So...is "The Innocents" a ghost story or psychological study? Who can say? And to be honest, who cares? It is, at the very least, a damned good movie...and at the very best, a horror story that makes "The Shining," "Rosemary's Baby," "The Others" and even "Psycho" (a movie I love) look like the works of children. That this film is not available on DVD is a travesty.

Amid the releases of numerous Hammer films, Jack Clayton directed a different kind of horror film, more of a psychological thriller. "The Innocents" casts Deborah Kerr as Miss Giddens, a woman hired to be a governess for two children in a manor in the English countryside. At first, the children are happy to have Miss Giddens around. But as time passes, Miss Giddens begins to suspect that something is not quite right...or is it all in her mind? The movie, based on a short story by Henry James, has a lot going for it. The black and white cinematography alone creates a significant Gothic feeling. The setting certainly adds to that: an antiquated mansion in which just about anything could be hiding; the house could easily be the star of the movie. But Deborah Kerr's facial expressions are as creepy as anything that happens in or around the house. Her expressions truly serve to make the audience wonder how much of the terror is real or in her mind. And of course the girl's song is also pretty sinister.

Watching the movie, I could see some similarities to "The Shining" and "The Others". It just goes to show that real horror comes not from blood and guts, but from what the viewer doesn't know. There were a few scenes in this movie that made my blood freeze a little bit. Without a doubt it was a solid achievement for Clayton, Kerr, and also Truman Capote (who co-wrote the screenplay). Definitely one that I recommend.