The Turn of the Screw

This version of Henry James' novel of the same name was directed by Dan Curtis--the same guy who brought us the TV show "Dark Shadows". During the 60s and 70s, Curtis was responsible for several exceptional made for TV horror movies--including ones about Frankenstein, Dracula and Dr. Jekyll. "The Turn of the Screw" is one of his lesser-known horror tales. And, like these others, it's exceptional and well worth seeing. And, when I checked IMDb, I noticed that there have been TONS of other versions of the story--including the 1961 film "The Innocents".

The story is told from the governess' (Lynn Redgrave) viewpoint and she narrates the film as well. She is given the job of looking after the niece and nephew of a man who has absolutely no interest in them--and he even tells the governess that! When she goes to this house in the country, she finds that the little girl is very sweet and all seems well. Soon the boy is expelled from school and the governess decides to keep him there and teach him herself. However, it's odd the school never explained WHY he was expelled and the teen never discusses it either. Still, everything seems pretty normal. But, over time, the governess begins seeing apparitions--ghosts of the old governess and master of the house. She learns that the pair are dead--and it CAN'T be them she keeps seeing. But, she also notices that the more the spirits appear, the more vile and bizarre the children's' behavior--particularly the boy. What eventually follows is a struggle between the governess and the ghosts for possession of the children. Who is to win?

The best thing about the film isn't the plot (which isn't bad), but the very creepy mood that Curtis is able to create. The slow brooding pace works well and I was impressed that the story was very close to the original story. A very creepy horror story--one that is well worth your time. Also, there's a nice featurette on the DVD--featuring interviews with Lynn Redgrave and Dan Curtis. Very interesting and I recommend you see it as well.

The two hours come across as a tantalizing version of the classic Henry James novelette. To me, the story appears more a psychological mystery then a ghostly horror tale. But either way, the results are fascinating, though I can see why viewers preferring cut-and-dried story lines might be unhappy with the results.

A well-meaning governess Miss Cubberly is hired into an English country mansion to tutor two young children. While there, she's drawn into a web of creepy events. The young brother and sister are beautiful and charming, but perhaps they are also possessed by the evil spirits of dead former governess Miss Jessel and dead former house valet Quint. On the other hand, perhaps the ghostly visitations are actually mental projections of the new governess about whom we crucially know very little. For example, she certainly appears consumed with her charges welfare, but is she also mingling their behavior with her own deep-seated confusions about innocence and sex. Does she, for example, confusingly blend the sexual libertine Quint with the budding adolescent Miles.

Story here is foremost. There's no real interest in mood, or even Technicolor ornaments. Instead, we're riveted to the characters, minus peripheral distractions. Acting-wise, Redgrave's just right for the well-meaning governess, though I would have preferred a little more ambiguity in some of her behavior. Stealing the film, however, is young Jasper Jacob as Miles. I don't know that I've ever seen one so young (14) convey such a sense of wickedness, particularly with his gimlet shaped eyes. Several of his scenes with the mature Redgrave are unusually unsettling in their teetering sexuality.

I've read James' novelette, but had a hard time with the congested prose, which I assume was meant to provide insight into the governess's mental state. Nonetheless, the book was, like the movie, oddly captivating to the end. And as an exercise in dark psychology, I don't think I've read or seen anything more mysteriously tantalizing. So, if you don't mind ambiguities, catch up with this little exercise.

In this 40+ year old, made-for-TV version of the classic horror novella, a sense of dread and impending danger permeates the whole. With no special effects to enhance the atmosphere, the story, script, direction and acting must support the production. They do so admirably. We expect no less from Lynn Redgrave, but the entire cast, especially the children, deserve notice.

Jasper Jacobs, as the 14-year-old Miles, so effectively personifies evil and corruption, I felt a chill every time he was on screen. Young as she is, Eva Griffith handled material one would assume went far beyond the scope of a young child, It is beyond refreshing to see child actors truly act without any of self-consciousness we have become used to from Hollywood. Even the young Benedict Taylor, as Timothy, was utterly believable.

I found the rather slow pace to be one of the most effective methods of communicating the pace of 19th century country life; a challenge in these times of high tech, electronic perception bombardment.

Surprisingly effective made-for-TV adaptation of Henry James' classic ghost story "The Turn Of The Screw" which had already spawned an acclaimed cinematic version in Jack Clayton's THE INNOCENTS (1961); for the record, I am also familiar with THE NIGHTCOMERS (1972), a serviceable prequel written originally for the screen. Prior to this, I had checked out the following TV movies from director Curtis: THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1968; which he only produced), THE NIGHT STALKER (1971), THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972), Dracula (1973), THE NORLISS TAPES (1973) and TRILOGY OF TERROR (1975), and this generally measures up to them quality-wise. Anyway, to get back to the film at hand: having watched THE NIGHTCOMERS in 2004 (as part of a Marlon Brando tribute) and THE INNOCENTS in 2005 (while studying in Hollywood) – that is to say, not too long ago – I knew more or less what to expect from the plot; of course, being the early days of TV/video technology, the alternately grainy and flat look emerges as its weakest element and cannot hope to challenge Freddie Francis' renowned chiaroscuro work on the 1961 film version. Incidentally, I opted to watch this now as an extension of my brief tribute to Natasha Richardson – since it stars her aunt, Lynn Redgrave; I have also acquired THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE (1984) – based on another popular novel, by John Irving – which, in its turn, was directed by her father i.e. Tony Richardson. Redgrave is a fitting replacement for Deborah Kerr – managing a quiet fortitude in her dealings with the mansion's absentee landlord, the kids (who are anything but innocent, and the boy rather overbearing!) and even the apparitions (the valet and his lover/preceding governess, resuming their corrupting influence on the children). Probably sticking rigorously to the source material, William F. Nolan's script comes across as too literary and the film itself decidedly overlong at 118 minutes; similarly, Curtis' approach is atypically reserved most of the time – with the manifestations themselves well-handled but hardly chilling…apart from the very last sequence, which then brings the film to an abrupt close! While I readily admit to being wary of remakes – and, when badly done, they are certainly redundant – I have grown tolerant of those emanating from other media (mind you, the 1970s was pretty much the Golden Age of TV); with this in mind, I look forward now to Dan Curtis' own version of FRANKENSTEIN (1973) despite being the nth rendition of the Mary Shelley tale that I would be sampling

I was only 10 years old 1984, when i saw this movie for the first time. I bought it in a video store for about 5 dollars. I have seen it a couple of times, and now last spring again. It had still the dark horror feeling I remember. Swedish-Denna film fanns ett tag på video på ett bolag som hette Mariann Video, då under namnet Barnens hemlighet.

The movie is about 120 minutes