Cast:
Deborah Kerr (Miss Giddens), Peter Wyngarde (Peter Quint), Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose), Michael Redgrave (The Uncle), Martin Stephens (Miles), Pamela Franklin (Flora), Clytie Jessop (Miss Mary Jessel), and Isla Cameron (Anna) Directed by Jack Clayton.
Review:
Admittedly, there are films that work best when considered for how they can cultivate atmosphere through dedicated execution, which generally happen in horror. Of course, some horror films get an interesting reputation through whosever eyes are viewing it. I was a bit curious about this film, if only because sometimes I worry a movie gets a good reputation in horror when it comes to ghost stories, real or not. This was the film to be adapted from The Turn of the Screw, an 1898 novella written by Henry James. However, it also utilizes text from the 1950 screen play (called The Innocents, which had Beatrice Straight and Peggy Feury as the star in separate theatre runs) that had been written by William Archibald. Archibald wrote the original screenplay for the film, but Clayton hired Truman Capote and John Mortimer to do re-writes because he wanted a script a bit more ambiguous on whether the ghosts were real or not. This was the third film script that had Capote as a writer. Most will know him as the writer of novels of fiction and nonfiction such as In Cold Blood (which he was in the middle of writing when approached by Clayton) but he did occasionally write for films, which included Beat the Devil (1953) and Terminal Station (1953). Mortimer was brought in to deliver a Victorian polish to the dialogue, but the film is generally thought of as having the spirit of Capote (he later described reading the novella as one without a plot). This was the second of seven films directed by Jack Clayton, who had worked a variety of studio jobs such as tea boy and editor before getting his chance to direct. The next adaptation of the material was in The Nightcomers (1971), which acted as a "prequel", and there have almost been as many television adaptations (four) than films (five).
Sure, it is possible to read a certain kind of repression and Freudian elements in a story of psychological terror. Oh sure, you could ask yourself if the ghosts are real or not, but I'll just go with the idea that they are, if only because I did not come to a ghost movie to watch a movie without a ghost (you can play the ambiguity card for only so long). However, it is the question of whether the kids are in danger or not that ends up being a really good question to think about. Besides, the movie is pretty good regardless of how you choose to view it, headlined by a tremendous performance by Kerr and an efficient pace at 99 minutes. It makes for an elegant and unnerving film, straddling itself in seeping paranoia that makes things not exactly what they seem. It has the touch of uncertainty that would be rivaled in films such as The Haunting (1963), if not topped. The cinematography was done by Freddie Francis, who had won an Academy Award for his work in Sons and Lovers (1960) before becoming a director the year after the release of this film. He helped to dissuade Clayton's annoyance at 20th Century Fox insisting that the film be shot in CinemaScope, a bigger aspect ratio than the usual standard. Francis used the wide space for shadows to make for an uneasy movie by doing things such as painting the edges of the lenses and bright lighting, and all of this works out to the advantage of the movie, although one of its sticking points ends up being a singing of "O Willow Waly" (which is actually sung by Isla Cameron) that happens from time to time. There are three key actors here: Kerr and the two children with Stephens and Franklin (Wyngarde doesn't speak, Redgrave is only in one scene and Jenkins provides some support). Kerr does tremendous here, vulnerable in all the right aspects when it comes to Victorian standards that generates interest in how one views her perspective in terms of what is seen and what isn't seen from the doubts exhibited. Stephens (known for this and Village of the Damned before becoming an architect) and Franklin (screen debut) do well, pulling one into the idea of innocence that imprints well on your mind that dawdles on the little things, such as how they interact with Kerr, such as the little embrace Stephens does with Kerr or the little moment Franklin shares when arising from bed late on a windy night (with Kerr tossing and turning) - whether they are just kids being kids or possibly possessed is up to you to squirm over. Jenkins proves quite fretful enough to support the core cast, wavering in the right points needed while Wyngarde makes a quiet terror anytime he looms for moments on screen. The climax is delicately handled to the right touch of what is needed from the source material while also circling back to its opening (writhing hands in a dark background) in the right execution. As a whole, the movie is quite eerie and effective in telling a good ghost story with a dance of ambiguity that results in a generally effective piece of looming terror fit for the patient horror eyes, one where not every explanation is needed to make the pieces fit right.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment