The Turn of the Screw (1974) Online

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.

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***

Perhaps its unfair to rate and comment on this as I haven't seen this since its original release some thirty years ago. However I remember being very affected by it, so much so that it sent me to the novella with which I promptly became somewhat obsessed. From what I recall (Quint was very vivid, as was Miles), however, I believe this is probably a heavy-handed version of the great James story, which is tremendously ambiguous and designed (as James himself said) "to catch those not easily caught." James wrote an unconventional "ghost/horror" story using the motif of the supernatural to drive his point home. I distinctly remember the very dramatic ending of this Redgrave version (note: her father Michael appeared as the Uncle in The Innocents), it is not about possession or spirits at all. That is far too literal and misses James' meaning entirely. That said, I believe The Innocents, another version mentioned by other reviewers, released in 1961 starring Deborah Kerr, is a more faithful adaptation, but still too heavy-handed in the depiction of the children and what is (or is not) happening. Good as Kerr is, she is too old for the role and brings her own natural elegance and poise which is in stark contrast to the governess's increasing, hyper-paranoia. So while I will always be grateful for this Dan Curtis version which impressed me so much as a kid (and why I rate it a 6), it led me to Henry James and the hope that someday someone will make a proper adaptation of a truly chilling tale.

THE TURN OF THE SCREW was a natural for Dan Curtis: his groundbreaking soap opera DARK SHADOWS was essentially spawned by the Henry James story; the parallels are obvious. What makes THE TURN OF THE SCREW Scary-Plus are Curtis's patented touches: the jolting glimpses of figures believed to be dead standing outside in the darkness, staring in at the governess, Jane Cubberly (Lynn Redgrave), the sight(s) punctuated by thunderclaps or the patented Robert Cobert score. It was great to see the Eternally Beautiful Kathryn Leigh Scott as the sinister apparition, "Miss Jessel." The scenes of her hovering near the pond are every bit as chilling as the same scenes in the Jack Clayton version, THE INNOCENTS. Says Jane in the narration: "She was like a great black bird of prey hovering there. A dead thing returned." And let's not forget the two kids, who manage to more than hold their own with the likes of Miss Redgrave and the other adult cast members. Says the boy, Miles (who blinds and then gleefully kills a frog): "Will evil be good and good evil?" "Death is as real as life," he adds: "Sometimes I frighten myself..." During a recital, he refers to "those of us who love the darkness." "You talk of saving me," he chides Jane: "But tell me who, dear lady, is to save YOU...?" To some (especially those whose television upbringings have left them with short attention spans), THE TURN OF THE SCREW may seem sedate, but it nonetheless drips with lingering Menace. Done in the patented Dan Curtis fashion, it's yet another of television's high points.

******Spoiler Alert ********

Actually, I think the previous reviewer misunderstood the end of the movie. Young Miles became possessed by the spirit of the older man. He was not acting as Miles any longer. He was acting as an adult. Young Miles had never been brazen enough to drink brandy in front of his governess before. That was an obvious indication that he was possessed by the spirit. Therefore the double meaning of "Turn of the Screw" is quite appropriate.

This movie was never really horrifying to me. It was quite creepy and mildly amusing. It's an enjoyable evening if you like movies set in the Elizabethan period. Watching it during a thunder storm enhances the creepiness.

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.

THE TURN OF THE SCREW is, of course, another version of the classic ghost story written by American author Henry James. This one is produced by Dan Curtis as one of the many TV movie adaptations of classic horror literature that he turned out, and the screenplay was by sci-fi writer William F. Nolan. It's very different in tone to the classic film version of the story, THE INNOCENTS, but no less interesting. Lynn Redgrave plays the repressed nanny who becomes to believe that there's something very wrong about the children in her care. The cast do a fine job here, particularly the child actors for whom the material must have been different, and there's an appropriate atmosphere of regret and nostalgia which sees film through some of the slower moments. Redgrave does worried very well, and for once the low key nature of the production works.

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