Sort of OT: The Innocents

[Mark Rainey]

I broke my own rule of not watching AMC last night to check out The Innocents, which for some reason I have managed to never see in all these years. It's based on Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw," and it's a wonderful movie; very eerie, and featuring excellent performances by Deborah Kerr and particularly Martin Stephens as the little boy. This movie really drove home how much the introductions of Quentin and Daphne in Dark Shadows were based on the James story. And the opening of the movie looks as if it might have inspired the beginning of Night of Dark Shadows as well, with the long approach to the house and beautiful views of the estate grounds.

If you haven't seen The Innocents, check it out. I think it just became one of my favorite spooky movies. There are several scenes that honest to God gave me a little case of the creeps. I shudder to think what today's generation of moviemakers would've done to the slow pacing, subtle chills, and haunting atmosphere of the house.

--Mark

[Bette]

I saw that one in the movie theatre when it first came out and I remember that it scared the bejeezus out of me.   

Great movie!


Bette

[Gerard]

I caught the tail end of it Friday night.  Dang!  I love that movie.  But I also generally now avoid AMC since it went down the crapper.  We put on the play when I was in college - I got to play Quint!  Using the film as a basis, we did everything in somber colors, primarily black, white and grey.  We also had the choice (which one can do with the play) of whether or not showing the ghosts (so the audience can determine for itself if this is a real haunting, or just the product of the governess' imagination, brought on by her sexual frustration, even though with her seeing the ghosts one can still debate it).  We decided to show the ghosts, but only within shadows.

Gerard

[Mark Rainey]

My personal interpretation of "Turn of the Screw" is that the ghosts are quite real. Otherwise, for me, it just ends up being -- "Oy, another wacko who thinks there are ghosts... ka-CHING!" Thank God in DS it was made quite clear that Quentin and Daphne were not mere figments. I mean, to prove it, all you'd have to do is look at the phone bill.

--Mark

[Philippe Cordier]

My personal interpretation of "Turn of the Screw" is that the ghosts are quite real. Otherwise, for me, it just ends up being -- "Oy, another wacko who thinks there are ghosts... ka-CHING!"

I've read "The Turn of the Screw" several times over the past 20 years, and my conclusion after close, analytical reading is that Henry James deliberately created the story so as to be ambiguous.  On the surface, it's a ghost story -- and I believe from some of the academic criticism I've read, that it was quite a while (decades) before some critic first proposed the theory that the ghosts were figments of the governess's imagination.  I do think that James cunningly suggests that possibility, too, though there are still aspects to the story that argue against the psychological explanation.

I have a hard time buying into the idea that the ghosts were creations of the governess' overheated mind as a reaction to repressed sexuality.  But then I'm not a big fan of Freud, whose theories receive little credence      from scientifically oriented psychologists today.  I don't know if even Freud had a case study where sexual repression led to someone seeing ghosts, but I doubt that there's much evidence to support the theory outside of Freudian fantasies.

It's interesting that the governess does act in the manner of a medieval Inquisitor, though, and there are hints that she has romantic attractions to the uncle.

I wasn't overly impressed with "The Innocents" when I first saw it, after reading high praises for it here, primarily because I didn't like when it departed from the novella.  Seeing it a second and third time, though, my opinion has completely changed and I accept the movie not as a line-by-line adaptation of the book but as an interpretation of it, and as such I find it a visually stunning piece of artistry.

Didn't know it was on AMC, since like Gerard I stopped watching AMC long ago.  I think the commercial breaks would especially ruin one's viewing of "The Innocents," though if they showed the widescreen version I would have taped it.  My tape is the "formatted to fit your TV screen" version and I know there's one scene at least where two people are talking to each other and you only  see the tips of their noses.

Let's hope the studio executives see the value of a DVD release (along with "Eye of the Devil" and many others ...).

[Mark Rainey]

I've read "The Turn of the Screw" several times over the past 20 years, and my conclusion after close, analytical reading is that Henry James deliberately created the story so as to be ambiguous.

I believe this is quite true. It's far more tantalizing to have more than one possible interpretation, and I'm sure James was aware of this. In stating my belief in the actual "ghosts," I should probably say my "preference" rather than "interpretation" because I doubt there's a definitive answer. Even if one could go back and ask James himself, that would be largely irrelevant, since to many, authorial intent has little, if any, bearing on the nature of the work.

AMC's print is full screen, though generally a good one. It was really a fluke to watch this one, though, because ever since they went to editing movies, mostly showing full-screen versions, and running commercials, I have made it my business to not watch AMC, for all the good such manner of protest does.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

[Philippe Cordier]

I doubt there's a definitive answer.

Ambiguity can be frustrating because most of us would like things to be cut and dried, black and white, clear rather than murky.  Yet ambiguity (I remind myself) forces us to think of multiple possibilities, exercising our mind and expanding our responsiveness.  American movie audiences tend not to be enamored of anything that doesn't provide a satisfactory resolution, so it's no surprise that "The Innocents" was not a popular success.  I think the movie did push the psychological interpretation but still maintained a level of ambiguity.

My personal theory of the book reaches to a deeper layer than the psychological, being a symbolic level.  I think there are suggestions of a pagan - Christian conflict going on at Bly (interesting that "Eye of the Devil" uses this theme more explicitly).  And there are sexual things beneath the surface, too; I just don't ascribe to the notion that if you aren't having sex (or enough of it?) that will make you hallucinate ghosts.

I can't think of another film that is so visually suggestive with symbolism.  The odd imagery adds significantly to the overall ambiguity, I think.

DS's more straightforward approach is a lot of fun, though.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Yet ambiguity (I remind myself) forces us to think of multiple possibilities, exercising our mind and expanding our responsiveness.

I love dramatic movies with ambiguity for all the reasons you mention. And I also agree with Mark that it can be far more tantalizing to have more than one possible interpretation. One of the fun things about such films is that they'll often stimulate deeper conversations about the film than it might otherwise. (It'll probably come as no surprise that I love discussing films with friends after we've watched them.  )

American movie audiences tend not to be enamored of anything that doesn't provide a satisfactory resolution

More's the pity.    (And another thing we can most probably thank focus groups' reactions for fostering.  )

so it's no surprise that "The Innocents" was not a popular success.

Thankfully, though, it's one of those films that's come to be appreciated by audiences far more than it was originally.    (Critics always seemed to love it.  )

[Raineypark]

   American movie audiences tend not to be enamored of anything that doesn't provide a satisfactory resolution

Well that's a pretty sweeping condemnation of American movie-goers.  Perhaps what we tend not to be enamored of is a film industry that runs shrieking from anything that smacks of originality or controversy.  Perhaps it's having our collective intelligence insulted by sophomoric comedy and mindless violence.   Or maybe it's the relentless race to the bottom line of profits that we find so off-putting.  Those are all reasons why I tend to be skeptical of new films.....the possibility of an ambiguous ending was never one of them.

[Philippe Cordier]

   American movie audiences tend not to be enamored of anything that doesn't provide a satisfactory resolution

Well that's a pretty sweeping condemnation of American movie-goers. 

"Sweeping condemnation"?  That slightly overstates what I said.