Le Fantôme de Canterville

This is a classic story in true Oscar Wilde wit and flair. It's both haunting and funny. It's a fairy tale for all ages. In this story a young American girl helps to free the tormented spirit that haunts an old English castle. It's very well written and a beautiful tale for all ages. It's too bad this wasn't the best adaptation.

The best adaptation of The Canterville ghost, in my opinion, has to be the version with Patrick Stewart as the ghost, it was made for television in 1996. Though set in the 1990s it's very true to the book. The worst adaptation of the Canterville ghost, in my opinion, is the version set in 1944. It had been turned into blatant war propaganda and was almost unrecognizable, it's plot having nearly nothing at all to do with the original story by Oscar Wilde, which is a true classic.

I never knew Oscar Wilde wrote this story before I watched it on DVD. Ian Richardson was terrific as Simon De Canterville. The cast is excellent especially Celia Imrie as the American Wife and Rolf Saxon as the rich American who bought the mansion and estate with its alleged ghosts. Edna Dore is a terrific British actress who appears here as the longtime housekeeper. Pauline Quirke played the psychic. As for the film, it is an engaging and entertaining story about an American family who buys into the manor. The film is probably more funny than frightening. I bought the DVD to see my favorite actor, Rolf Saxon, as Hiram Otis. The film is highly amusing and entertaining overall.

This is a really bad adaptation. To start with, Oscar Wilde's wit is almost completely absent here. It is also too serious, too moralistic (with absurd morality of modern secular west applied anachronistically to past), and way too sappy romantic. In contrast, Oscar Wilde made witty fun of seriousness, all kinds of morality, and sentimental romanticism, in his creations. While it is excusable, when adapting works to art, to cut, add, or change, details of plots, characters, and settings, to suit the audience & medium, adapters should take care to remain within the spirit of the original to be counted successful. Inability of the makers of this production to do that is obvious. They should have done better to create an original work under a new name. But they chose to borrow and destroy.

I have seen 4 of the "manifestations" of THE CANTERVILLE GHOST, and this one comes closest to Wilde's satirical comedy novelette. Even here, though, the production team has seen fit to emend and amend, but not to excess. The ages of the young and old are correct, and so is the ghost's "crime". He killed his wife because she was "plain" and a lousy cook into the bargain! Her relatives chained him up and let him starve to death in a concealed room in the Canterville Chase castle. He can only be released from his limbo by the prayers and tears of a "golden girl" That's our "Virginia", but you'll have to see the movie to see if it works. Wilde's story is a rather "wild" satire on the foibles of well-to-do Americans vis-a-vis the British aristocracy. The movie tones this down only a little. It's very well done for a TV movie, with a most capable cast. If you don't get a chuckle out of Mr. and Mrs. Otis and their lovely daughter Virginia, something is wrong with your chuckler. Ian Richardson makes a very querulous ghost, very much according to Wilde's sketch. Don't look for horror. There isn't any and Oscar Wilde didn't intend any so far as I can tell from a recent reading of "The Canterville Ghost".