A woman’s suffering face appears above a pair of tortured hands. Birds twitter…her distraught voice whispers…
All
I want to do is save the children not destroy them. More than anything I love
children. More than anything they need affection, love, someone who will belong
to them and to whom they will belong.
And then a
man’s voice is heard, “Do you have an imagination?” he asks, and the scene shifts to a
well-appointed office where an elegant gentleman is addressing the young woman whose face we have
already seen. She is now sitting in a chair and speaks animatedly with him as he
continues asking questions and explaining the situation he offers.
Deborah Kerr and Michael Redgrave |
These are the first moments of director Jack Clayton’s masterful 1961 film, The Innocents, and they set the stage and tone for a chilling and absorbing tale of bewitchment. Deborah Kerr stars as Miss Giddens, an anxious, fragile-seeming young woman who begins her first position as governess for two orphaned children on a remote estate. Michael Redgrave briefly portrays the gentleman, Miss Giddens’ employer, whose questions and revelations prime and unsettle her before she ever sets foot in the stately home where events will unfold.
The story
intensifies when Miss Giddens arrives at Bly, a magnificent manor that far
exceeds her expectations in its grandeur and beauty. She is “very excited,
indeed” to be there and her two “angelic” and precocious charges, Miles and Flora, easily charm
her. An earthy housekeeper, Mrs. Grose (Megs Jenkins), serves to ground the
excitable governess whose journey proceeds from enchantment to confusion to
torment.
Portrait of Henry James by John Singer Sargent |
The James novella tells the story of a young governess on her first assignment, the care of two children
living in a grand mansion on a sprawling estate. The plot deepens when the
young woman, daughter of a vicar, begins to suspect the presence of the malevolent
spirits of two deceased servants.
It was many
years after the book was published before critics began to wrangle in
earnest over interpretation of the story. By the 1920s a number of them had proposed
that The Turn of the Screw was less a ghost story and more the tale of
inexperienced and high-strung governess who succumbed to hallucinations and
madness. A 1934 essay by prominent critic Edmund Wilson dramatically advanced
this view. Henry James himself was equivocal about his intentions, and
statements he made on the subject have been cited to support both apparitionist
and non-apparitionist views.
Fascination with The
Turn of the Screw did not wane over the years and it would be adapted
from the page to other formats, including opera, the stage and TV as well as
film. In February 1950, Peter Cookson’s production of William Archibald’s stage
adaption of the James novella debuted on Broadway as The Innocents; Beatrice Straight (Network) starred as the governess.
Jack Clayton and Deborah Kerr on the set |
Taking the modern
view, it’s not difficult to interpret The
Innocents as an imaginatively staged depiction of an unsteady young woman’s
descent into madness: the film closely follows the increasingly erratic
behavior and visible deterioration of Miss Giddens; no one but she actually “sees” the ghosts she claims are present; by the film’s end,
even the sensible and supportive housekeeper is at odds with the hysterical governess. And there are many visual clues that the young woman may be
projecting her own delusions onto her surroundings. It is no stretch these
days to believe that a deranged governess would be capable of utterly terrifying an already frightened child.
But, viewed from
another perspective, the tale can also be read as the story of an innocent and inexperienced
but well-meaning young woman confronted with the supernatural in the form of
malicious spirits. Her fervid determination to save the children in her care from
possession could explain her unorthodox behavior. And that is what most people
believed when The Turn of the Screw was first published.
Of course, it is Deborah Kerr's finely tempered portrayal of the tortured governess that is the linchpin of this film. With nuanced gesture and bearing, with her expressive voice and bright eyes she breathes her character into skittish-but-determined being. It is Kerr's luminous tour de force performance that makes credible this strange, ghostly tale.
Kerr's portrayal, the supporting cast (with a deep bow to child actors Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin), Freddie Francis’s atmospheric cinematography, the script of Archibald and Capote, and Georges Auric’s original music all mesh under Jack Clayton’s sure hand to create the acknowledged masterpiece among the several adaptations of The Turn of the Screw.
This is my contribution to the Deborah Kerr blogathon hosted by Maddy Loves Her Classic Films. Click here to learn more.
Excellent review, Patty. This is my favourite horror film. I love a good ghost story,this one really is one of the very best. The film is fascinating and you can spend ages trying to figure out if the hauntings are real or not. I think the film remains terrifying whether the ghosts are real, or if she is having a breakdown and imagining them.
ReplyDeleteDeborah Kerr delivers such a powerful performance in this. I don't think she was ever better on screen than in this film. Such a shame she never again got a role quite like this.
Thanks so much for joining me to celebrate Deborah and her films.
Thanks, Maddy. I don't know if I ever really believed the ghosts were actually real, but this film still gives me chills whenever I watch it.
DeleteDeborah Kerr may never have had another role like this one, but at least she had this (supreme) opportunity to really stretch and show the extent of her range.
It is the haunting ambiguity that lingers with a chill long after a viewing of this masterpiece. Your article brought back every worry and every fright.
ReplyDeleteThe Academy honoured Miss Kerr with six lead actress nominations, and how this performance wasn't a seventh is mind-boggling.
It is almost bizarre that Deborah Kerr wasn't even nominated for what was arguably her best performance. One more instance of many, it seems, when the Academy got it wrong.
DeleteThe chill does linger, Paddy, I feel a little - apprehensive? - just thinking about The Innocents.
I remember this review! I am one of those who believe it's a tale about a descent into insanity--but I still appreciate its ambiguity. The child actors are extraordinary; Martin Stephens (also quite good in VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED) has some wonderfully disturbing scenes with Ms. Kerr.
ReplyDeleteGreat memory, Rick! This is a refurbishment (it needed a little work) of a post from seven years ago :)
DeleteMy take is that this is a (brilliantly executed) story of a fragile, impressionable and well-meaning woman who encounters something (a situation, an atmosphere) that unsettles and, finally, unhinges her. The ending is devastating.
In my list of screen actresses who could play comedy or tragedy equally and never gave a bad film performance, I include Doris Day, Barbara Stanwyck, and Deborah Kerr.
ReplyDeleteI like your list. I would probably include Irene Dunne on mine.
DeleteExcellent review of an extraordinary movie, one of my favorite horror movies. The book is pretty great too. Anyhow, I reviewed the film last year: https://diaryofamoviemaniac.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/the-innocents-1961/
ReplyDeleteThank you Eric. And thanks for the link to your post. Enjoyed your very insightful and articulate review.
DeleteGreat review and background on a truly classic movie. The black and white cinematography is poetic and haunting. Henry James and Edith Wharton really mastered the psychological ghost story, "The Turning of the Screw" being the greatest example. The filmmakers here really did justice to walking that fine line of the supernatural and the delusional. If you think about it, the novel was kind of Pre-Freudian, in a more conscious way than the Gothic literature that preceded it - that whole era was wonderful and fascinating. This had to be Deborah Kerr's most challenging role, and although I think she was a good 15 years too old for the character, she more than made up for it with the depth and intensity of her performance. Everyone was running on all cylinders on this project. Like so many films that we acknowledge as classics now (such as "Vertigo"), "The Innocents" had a lukewarm reception at the time and the studio apparently didn't know how to market it. Fortunately, that doesn't matter in the long run.
ReplyDeleteDeborah Kerr was just about 40 when she made The Innocents, but, as you mention, it doesn't matter, she masters her character and owns the role. She really did deserve some recognition for it at the time, but you know "the Academy"...
DeleteThis film is so well done and works so well that I don't watch it very often because it gives me the chills. Everything about it, from Kerr's performance, those of the child actors, the cinematography, the music, the location and the set design - everything is spooky. As you infer, it is so well made that it has become a classic, a highlight on the resumes of all who were involved in its production.
This was such a lovely read. I really like how you detailed the different interpretations of the film, and I totally agree with your assessment of Deborah's performance. -- Palewriter
ReplyDeleteThank you for stopping by and commenting.
DeleteThanks for taking the time to read & respond!
DeleteThe first time I,watched this film I had a hard time sleeping that night. Kerr's performance is superb.
ReplyDeleteIt does chill you to the bone, doesn't it John? I didn't mention it in my post, but this was Kerr's favorite of her film performances.
DeleteIndeed, there are many interpretations to the novel and the movie - and this is what makes the story amazing. Of course, without Deborah's talent, this double interpretation could have been lost in the film, that is a real cinema masterpiece.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to read my contribution to the blogathon! :)
Cheers!
Le