Robert J. Maxwell Jodhi May is the unnamed mistress in this fine adaptation of Henry James' novela. She's about perfect for the part of the virginal governess assigned to manage two young children and the country estate of a distant magnate who finds kids boring. She's not Deborah Kerr's frightened governess with the quavering voice in "The Innocents," but just as suitable. She has dark eyes that are liquid and perceptive, and two plump lips which are usually slightly open. This lends her features a slightly dazed look. Her movements are deliberate and her seraphic voice beneficent. She seems intent on bringing purity wherever she goes. May is quite attractive and she was educated at Oxford. I'm considering sending her a proposal of marriage. Well, after all, if she can't get the tycoon who hired her, why not get the next one that comes along? On the other hand, all that virtue -- I really like the character and the way James handled it -- just the right balance between corruption and madness. Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper, tries to help but she's illiterate and stuffy and has fixed ideas about the two children -- both of them are angels. Flora, the eight-year-old girl, is a cute blond out of Matisse. Miles, the ten-year-old boy who was just expelled from his boarding school for reasons never explained, is a handsome kid. Of course, if you believe the narrator, they're both pustular with unquiet spirits but then aren't they all? Over time, the two little angels start acting queer -- standing like stone statues in the garden at midnight, cleverly ambiguous answers to straightforward questions, kissing May fully on the lips, things like that. May becomes convinced that there are two evil spirits, Quint and his pregnant paramour, Miss Jessel, that are sneaking around and giving the kids lessons on debauchery. The ghosts are closing in. The problem is that, although the kids act suspiciously, no one has actually seen or admitted seeing any ghosts. The unimaginative Mrs. Gross begins to doubt that anything sinister is going on. And May begins to look even more batty than Deborah Kerr did.Then, by means of some anfractuous logic that I've never understood, May sends poor distressed Mrs. Grose and Flora off to London, saying, "Leave the boy with me." She informs the scullery maids that she alone is in charge now, "And I run a tight ship." Hmm. What is going on? Who's possessed around here -- and by what? Before confronting Miles that night, she kneels and prays for victory over the spirits, pointing out to God that it only takes one more turn of the screw for virtue to prevail. "With your aid, Lord, I'll wring it out of him." At that point I began to wonder if "The Turn of the Screw" didn't belong to a sub-genre that was popular around the turn of the century -- a post-Darwinist but pre-Freudian pitting of suppressed impulses against strict Victorian custom , rather like "Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde" or, more broadly, religion versus science.The climactic reveal reveals nothing much. The death isn't organic to the plot, and the main question -- is May nuts or are the kids evil? -- is left hanging.

MartinHafer I have recently seen several versions of this tale by Henry James. And, being a glutton for punishment, I thought I'd see a few others so I can compare them (such as "The Innocents" and the 1974 and 1992 versions which bear the original story's title). Now I am NOT saying it's a bad story--it's quite good--but most folks don't want to see and compare the stories like this. I am doing it as a public service and because I am a solid humanitarian (well, maybe not).A governess is hired by an odd man to care for his orphaned nephew and nice. However, he has a bizarre demand--that she never contact him or expect him to have any involvement with the kids! Nice, huh? Well, she travels to one of his homes where the niece lives. The governess is surprised to see that the home is huge and quite gorgeous--and the child a sweet little thing. Life seems ideal at this home.A bit later, the nephew is sent home from his boarding school and the governess is informed he cannot return--but they never disclose in any way why. It's odd, as the boy seems exceptionally well behaved and bright. And, for some time life is swell. However, occasionally, the governess sees people--people no one else seems to see. While you'd assume she's either crazy or overreacting, her descriptions of the two figures are consistent with two members of the staff who are now dead! She assumes she's seeing ghosts--and she assumes the ghost mean to do the children harm. How she comes up with this is unknown--and opens the story up to some interpretation. In this 1999 version, the filmmakers seem to STRONGLY imply that the governess is probably insane and/or suffering from religious delusions. She might seem in this version to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or is just very uptight and impressionable--but you aren't sure. This is interesting because in most of the other versions I've seen make it seem as if there really are ghosts and the governess isn't necessarily insane. Either interpretation is possible--as in James' novel this wasn't explicit. And, in the end, what happens to the boy is NOT exactly what happens in other versions. Again, because they seem to be implying the governess is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.This made for TV version has very nice location shooting and music. However, if you are looking to get your fill of Colin Firth (for all you Firth-a-holics), you will be sadly mistaken, as he's ONLY in the opening scene and no more. And, I appreciate it emphasizing an atypical interpretation of the tale, as MANY stories have been done about it--and it's nice to see something a bit different. Well worth seeing--particularly if you are looking for a psychological picture as opposed to a supernatural story.

pifas The most important thing in here it's that The turn of the screw works as an adaptation rather than anything else. That's why I think the comparison between this TV movie with The innocents (Jack Clayton; 1961) is unfair. Although both films comes from the Henry James novella, Clayton's emphasizes in the ghosts story while one this focus on corruption and evil and character development; it´s a straightforward story but doesn't looses the strength included in the written words. It´s based on a slow pace, but never falls into boredom. And my guess is that, for a proper enjoy of this film, it's a basic thing is to have read the novel first.

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.