Le tour d'écrou

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.

While probably not wholly necessary, given how superb Jack Clayton's 1961 version of the story is, this British television adaptation of Henry James' story is nonetheless very good and pretty in keeping with the quality of Dan Curtis's other endeavors.

The main strengths are the script and the acting. The one distraction for me was the mediocre makeup of the ghosts. The male ghost has a green cast to him, while for some reason the female ghosts does not. This inconsistency doesn't make sense. Plus, the green corpse makeup isn't very good. These shortcomings are especially unfortunate because it would have taken no more effort, no more budget, and very little imagination two vastly improve the appearance of the specters.

Still, the program is pretty creepy in parts, and sets a suspenseful pace from beginning to end.

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

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.