The Turn of the Screw

1999
5.8| 1h40m| en
Details

A governess put in charge of two young children begins to see the ghost of her dead predecessor.

Director

Producted By

Meridian Broadcasting Ltd

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.
Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.
Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.
Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This adaptation is very faithful indeed with the characters, the setting, the various moments of the story, apparitions of the ghosts included. The film is also clear about the parents of the kids, the mother died of yellow fever, we assume in India, and the father died on duty in India too one year late. But the film, like Henry James' novella, does not capture the tremendous trauma the children must have gone through and then – the film is clear about that – Miss Jessel got pregnant which made her have to go, to be let go by the Master. Pregnant from whom? The situation implies from Peter Quint. But the first double trauma of the children is now amplified by a second double trauma with Mis Jessel going away and dying, by suicide as the opening scene shows, closely followed by Peter Quint dying in some kind of accident, fake or not does not matter. And strangely enough only the nameless governess is traumatized by these facts and she is led into seeing ghosts that no one else sees.The film insists on this aspect of the character. She is getting little by little haunted – but in her sole mind – by her two predecessors. The kids are at an age – and their having gone through these two double traumas helps – when they can capture the fears of adults and they can get motivated to play on these fears, for fun or in this case for liberation.The governess becomes a power and control freak and she transforms teaching into taming wild animals if not beasts. She sees them perverted while she is the one who is perverted. The film is discreet on this side of things though Henry James insisted on the governess's hugging, kissing, holding hands, embracing, etc., with Miles particularly. She was obviously falling in love with Miles and wanted to possess him so strongly that he would became part of her own self. She was cannibalistic in her unjustified love for Miles. To love a child is a lot more challenging than to love an adult because the child cannot answer, cannot say no, cannot run away and when Miles tries the governess does not understand. The film insists on that but not on the sentimental, emotional and physical love of the governess towards Miles that is definitely desire and this desire is somewhere felt as wrong, evil is her word, so she has to repress it and the ghosts are her tools to transfer her repressive desire against her perverse impulse onto the object of this pedophile lust, hence onto Miles, and accidentally Flora.She literally tortures the kids with the ghosts, till the very end, though Benjamin Britten does a far better job with that last scene about being alone and how the governess is understanding the ambiguity of the situation on which Miles is playing full blast, and it works. That's what the two kids show us in the film very clearly: they are playing with the governess like two cats and one mouse. She falls in the trap every single time and she ends up being a fool. But that fool is criminal.The film here centers this last scene on the last breath of Miles. He is more or less dragged by the governess into her arms and into an embrace and here the films innovates because the call for "Quint, you devil, Where are you, where are you?" is a call for help when Miles sees his end is close, the praying manta has captured him. But Quint won't be able to come because he is no where, near or far, he is no longer one of them. And the film is clear when it shows the governess embraces Miles to death, till death parts him from his life, and Miles is just plainly choked to death. No ambiguity, no fuzziness. She is a criminal and she was brought there by the size of the responsibility she was entrusted with and she could not cope with and up to. Well done, well directed, well performed, the film is impressive, though in no way frightening. We are horrified by the governess's fall into crime because of her repressed and unaccepted feelings and desires for a boy under her own educational responsibility. She is depicted as a closet pedophile who ends up killing the child she wants to possess, including physically. I am afraid though this takes a lot of mystery from the story without modernizing the vision. Such facts are rare in the concerned world of education, and in fact I just wonder if they are in proportion more important in this world than in the wide society around.Note there is a mistake on the back sleeve of the DVD: the children are not those of the "charming bachelor" because he is only the guardian and they are his nephew and niece. But, well, a child is a child, though exiling one's own "children" to a country house with not contact with their "father" would be more than unnatural – which it is here – but definitely inhumane and even barbaric.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Bockharn With all due respect to flinty-but-dear Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose in both the 1961 "The Innocents" and the Lynn Redgrave made-for-TV Ben Bolt-directed rendering), Pam Ferris' housekeeper seems closest to the illiterate, fierce, none-too-genteel woman of James' story. Maybe it's her sheer size, but she grounds the story completely and serves as splendid contrast to the slim, neurasthenic Jodhi May as the Governess. No "The Innocents" (the only dramatization with a point of view), still, this "Turn" works pretty well and may have the best ever staging of Miles' death.
pnagy First of all, I must point out that I've never seen other versions of Henry James' novel and neither have I read the book itself. Judged on its own merit, however, this film is 100 minutes of your life ill-spent.Sometime in the mid-19th century, a governess goes to a country mansion to look after a boy and a girl, but begins to have sightings or visions of 2 dead people who are seemingly possessing the children, and gradually driving her mad with fear and anxiety,I'm one who delights in all psychological thrillers (Sleuth is one of my favourites) but this lacks in any real horror or tension. "Horror" scenes involve the appearances of a mysterious but passive man and a woman, both thought to be dead. Ooh. Somehow there is never a sense of motivation for the heroine's behaviour, most of the time she comes across as an overreacting, hysterical fool. The children's "evilness" is also ridiculously innocent. I suppose in Victorian England you would be branded morally corrupted if your shoelaces got untied . For example: Niles goes out into the garden at night. "Miss" goes after him, and he tells her that he could have done this any night. The next day she rants to the housekeeper about him being given over to evil. What, I mean WHAT? The whole ghostliness and evilness element is handled with decided incompetence.The script also contains a lot of very stilted lines, seemingly out of character, a lot of serious material sounds somehow ludicrous. This is only aggravated by bad acting. Jodhi May (the governess) seems to spend about 80% of her onscreen time with her eyes bulging and her mouth agape in disbelief. There are about 10 scenes where she is trying to convince the housekeeper about her visions, and all of them seem alike. Niles and Flora are also very badly portrayed. I know they are only around 10 in the story, but just about any other child actor (Haley Joel Osment, Nadia Mikhalkova) would have appeared less self-conscious and less reliant on the same facial expressions for their acting. And if you're a Colin Firth fan, don't bother. He only appears for the first 5 minutes or so.4 out of 10.
robamen9 This was an interesting adaptation of James' equivocal little masterpiece. This production leaned a bit towards the Freudian camp/interpretation.I liked it. They took a bit of liberty on some of the Jamesian dialogue e.g. Flora's speech to the governess by the lake. Not as many liberties, though, as in "Wings of the Dove"Note for the pedantic: One surprising bit was the first apparition of Quint; he appears in the afternoon in broad daylight. Devotees of the James' piece and the ghost story frisson will surely remember that this occurred in twilight.