User Reviews

The secret to mastering the horror genre is atmosphere. Modern directors can keep their unrealistic monsters, their overuse of gore, their sudden cheap scares – great horror is all about atmosphere. For this very reason, Alejandro Amenábar's 'The Others (2001)' is one of the finer chillers to have come our way in the last decade, and it's not altogether unsurprising to discover that the film borrowed extensively from an earlier film, Jack Clayton's masterful ghost story, 'The Innocents (1961).' Adapted from Henry James' 1898 novella "The Turn of the Screw," the film's screenplay was co-written by William Archibald and Truman Capote. Like James' original story, which has been endlessly debated by literary critics for over a century, Clayton's film has, after all these decades, retained its tone of ambiguity. Is it a ghost story? Is it a psychological exploration of a sexually-repressed woman? Whichever way you interpret it, 'The Innocents' remains one of the horror genre's landmark achievements, and the secrets of an old, dark mansion have rarely been more sinister, nor indeed, more beautiful.

The elegant Deborah Kerr stars as Miss Giddens, the reserved daughter of a country parson, who agrees to become governess to two orphaned children in the care of a wealthy, indifferent businessman (Michael Redgrave). After travelling to a remote country mansion, Miss Giddens meets Flora (Pamela Franklin), a warm and vivacious young girl with a fondness for her pet tortoise. However, when Flora's brother Miles (Martin Stephens) is mysteriously expelled from school and sent home early, life at the house begins to take a sinister turn, despite the boy's charming and seemingly-innocent demeanour. Peculiar apparitions begin to appear, supplemented by an unnerving selection of unidentifiable creaks, voices and music. Large homes, it seems, breed large secrets, and it doesn't take long before Bly House reveals its tragic past, a scandal involving the former valet Peter Quint (Peter Wyngarde) and Miss Giddens' predecessor Miss Jessel (Clytie Jessop), who were romantically involved and who both died in bizarre circumstances. Could the mansion's past, long thought forgotten, be returning to haunt and corrupt its current residents?

Placing Kerr in the main role was a very deliberate and effective casting decision. Few actresses are able to project such grace and reverence, and, consequently, the audience is expected to treat her character's suppositions as sensible and well-founded suspicions. But, indeed, is it sensible to suppose that two former lovers, to allow their continued romance, have inhabited the souls of two young children? Why has Miss Giddens alone witnessed these perplexing manifestations? The participation of author Truman Capote contributes elements of Southern Gothic literature, and the perceived haunting might justifiably be approached as the metaphorical personification of Miss Giddens' repressed sexual desires. Having endured a confined childhood with a smothering religious father, she has taught herself to suppress these desires, and her feelings towards Michael Redgrave's prosperous businessman instead manifest themselves in the form of the ghost of Peter Quint, a handsome rogue who represents everything from whom her parson father had shielded her; Quint's former lover, Miss Jessel, could conceivably have been her in different circumstances.

In the film's most shocking and unsettling twist, Miss Giddens' ill-directed sexual desires transfer themselves from the absent businessman to his roguishly-charming nephew, Miles, a pre-pubescent boy. Their frictional relationship, which must have caused severe headaches for the censors, culminates in a alarmingly-sensual kiss, which Miss Giddens' feebly returns in the film's final moments. If we were to exclude for the moment the possibility of ghostly possession, the perceived "corruption" of the two young children could be viewed as a result of their abuse by the now-deceased lovers, and it is strongly implied that the children may have been present when the pair performed sexual acts; it is only when forced to confront these memories that the children finally deteriorate into hysterics, and permanent emotional damage is done. Both children are excellent in difficult roles, but Martin Stephens is the genuine sensation, approaching the role with maturity and assuredness that suggests an actor twice his age. Stephens recognises perfectly that young Miles should not be an openly sinister character, and yet every charming complement is undertoned by the subtlest hint of sardonic menace.

At the end of the day, whether one accepts 'The Innocents' as a psychological thriller or a traditional ghost story, the unambiguous truth is that Jack Clayton's film is brilliant. The black-and-white Cinemascope photography by Freddie Francis {who also worked on 'The Elephant Man (1980),' and has directed his own share of films} is breathtaking to behold, with many scenes seemingly lit only by the flickering flame of a single candle. The sound design, particularly in a virtuoso sequence of "things that go bump in the night," employs bird and insect calls, wind and faceless human voices to evoke the desired atmosphere, and Georges Auric's musical score complements the tone beautifully. The film is similar in style to Robert Wise's haunted-house chiller 'The Haunting (1963),' itself one of the horror genre's greatest entries. Surprisingly underseen in most circles, 'The Innocents' deserves to be lauded among cinema's finest horror movies, not just due to its extensive creepiness, but because of the film's impeccable artistry and thematic depth. What a treat this would be on the cinema screen.

Miss Giddens, an uptight but pretty young woman, takes a job as a Governess for two orphans on a grandiose estate in the English countryside. Flora and Miles seem like thoroughly innocent and angelic children, but soon, whispers of corruption begin to materialize. Miles is expelled from school for reasons he is reluctant to discuss. Miss Giddens learns of the fate of the prior governess, a masochistic young woman named Miss Jessel who was having an affair with a sadistic man named Quint. Soon, Miss Giddens is seeing the ghosts of the arrogantly handsome Quint and the forlorn Miss Jessel everywhere and comes to believe that the children have been possessed. But is she only imagining these horrors? And will she destroy the children in her attempt to save them?

This movie is creepy, claustrophobic and totally paranoid. Filmed in moody black and white with an almost non-existent musical score (other than the chilling song "Willow Waylee" sung in a child's voice over the opening credits and throughout the film) "The Innocents" is a flawless suspense drama. I hesitate to call it a ghost story, as the presence of the ghosts is never confirmed (or denied, for that matter.) Nor is the sanity of the main character. Is the prim English Governess (played with classic elegance by Deborah Kerr) simply an uptight prude having obscene fantasies, or are the two children she's caring for really possessed by the evil and perverted spirits of the former governess and her sadistic lover? There's no gore, no stupid incidental music, no insufferably adorable children and no happy ending. Unspoken horrors, dark secrets and things that "decent people" don't discuss, fill this film with sick shadows and diseased memories. Whether or not the ghosts exist is a moot point by films end. This film is about corruption and perversion. Indeed, there are no "Innocents" in this film...only the facade of innocence, a flimsy backdrop of beauty drawn over the ugly, festering truth. But what IS the truth?

This film is a masterpiece of dread and still has the power to disturb even some forty years later. I would highly recommend it to ghost enthusiasts and psych majors alike!

I titled this review with one of the most overly used clichés I could think of, with a wink and a nod, but recognizing that it fits this movie as closely as you can get. Indeed, this film comes from a bygone era. The product of a short story (which no one writes anymore) written in a style that has long since gone out out of vogue and made into the sort of Gothic ghost movie that Hollywood never attempts to make anymore. Many critics and scary movie lists will tell you that this is one of the classics of the genre and they are not wrong, but I am, also, willing to acknowledge right off the bat that the average 18- year old will despise this movie. This is a "film lovers" movie and is never going to be the sort of thing that appeals to a mass audience anymore. Indeed, it didn't appeal to a mass audience at the time.

At the turn of the 20th Century, the public was becoming more literate and had more time on their hands, creating a wave of magazines that specialized in short fiction. Some of the most popular of these magazines were selling horror fiction. Mind you this is a century ago and what we think of as horror was not yet developed. Most of these stories were Gothic "pot boilers" influenced heavily by Poe and Hawthorne, that were more about mood, suspense and atmosphere than any real spooks. Quite possibly, the creme de la creme of this min-genre was THE TURN OF THE SCREW, which this movie is based upon. It became the benchmark for this sort of fiction.

By the time this movie was made, in the 60s, that genre was out of style. When the monster movie died in the 40s, Val Lewton brought on a new focus on these sort of films, culminating in gems like THE UNINVITED and THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE. By the 60s, though, we had Hammer Studios, Maria Bava and PSYCHO, all revolutionizing the horror genre. Even by then this sort of shadowy, psychological ghost film was a risk, but one that resulted in what just might be the pinnacle in this style. While many critics will point to THE HAUNTING, for me, this is the best of the Gothic ghost movies.

DO NOT expect rattling chains, ghostly apparitions and things that go bump in the night. This is not that kind of ghost story. In fact, the sum total of "ghostly scenes" is probably a handful at most. Rather, this is the kind of ambiguous ghost story that Hollywood almost intentionally killed off in the 70s. Richard Matheson, in particular, rallied against it when he created HELL HOUSE, but I am digressing in my history lessons here. What I mean by ambiguous is that the viewer is left to wonder many things at the end. Where there actually ghosts? Is our heroine just mad?

There are so many things that work so well in this movie, that help it create that perfect tone. The direction and camera-work are spot on. The viewer sees many things from our heroine's perspective, aiding in the illusion that we are seeing things as she does, but left to wonder if anyone else sees them. The magnificent use of wide angle shots often creates a sensation of loneliness and isolation, putting characters on far opposite ends of the frame. The astute viewer will take notice of the use of light and shadow. The movie begins on a brilliantly lit summer day, but as the movie progresses we see less and less sun and more of the shadows. When we do get our glimpses of "ghosts" they are unsettling and tense. These aren't Scooby Doo goblins, but stark imagery that sticks wit the viewer.

Of course, the best part of this movie might just be the acting of the two children, who are excellent in their roles. Our governess is convinced that they've become possessed by their former caretaker and her lover, destroying their innocence and corrupting them. The roles demanded an acting grace that is uncommon in children this young. The young boy may just be calculatingly evil or may just be an ordinary naughty boy, while his sister shows off both playful and carefree, then switching to a girl haunted by things out of her understanding, starting into space. So many scenes can be seen in dual ways with these children. Are they ordinary children, acting out in ordinary child- like ways, or are they corrupted and possessed and whispering secrets?

The rock in all of it is Deborah Kerr as our main character. She seems to age before our eyes as the madness and terror overwhelm her. From scene to scene, or even, shot to shot, she can switch from a caring, loving woman to a frightened madwoman, surrounded by forces beyond her control. This movie revolves around her in so many ways and could have been a boring disaster in lesser acting hands, but Kerr is superb, pulling empathetically on the viewer's strings, drawing us into liking her and caring for her, which becomes so vital as we need to see things from her eyes to see the madness unfold.

You probably know if you are the right person for this movie. That's lazy reviewing, but that's the truth. If you can appreciate an older style of film and a movie that focuses far more on its' acting and directing styles than any plot-driven action, than you will appreciate this movie. It is "old-fashioned" and was old- fashioned at the time, but that does not mean that there isn't a lot to love about this movie.

Like THE HAUNTING, this is a slow-moving and subtle film which manages to evoke a true sense of fear with the viewer. Easily the definitive version of Henry James' novel THE TURN OF THE SCREW, this is an intelligent, gripping horror film which gives us time to get to know the principal characters before dropping them in at the deep end. Indeed, the first half an hour is quite hard to sit through as nothing particularly happens, and the characters are merely introduced, but things soon become unbearably spooky and surprisingly dark before the downbeat conclusion. This is frightening, adult cinema, and not a film for those with nervous dispositions.

Unlike THE HAUNTING, we do actually get to see the ghosts here - albeit briefly. They take the form of normal-looking people, not bloody or gory, standing silently, watching. These are scary apparitions, and I think ghosts in films are more effective when they don't actually do much except stand around and look scary - there's something understated about them which adds to their creepiness, as if they are like statues (for another great example of these silent spectres, check out ENDLESS NIGHT, which has a really frightening moment towards the end).

The acting is excellent, especially from Deborah Kerr as the haunted governess who is not afraid to believe in the spirit world and remains refreshingly open-minded; I for one am sick of principal characters disbelieving ghosts and having to be convinced in films. Kerr gets to display a range of emotions here; love, compassion, fear and disgust, making her performance really good in my eye. However, the acting of Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin surpass even Kerr's performance - Stephens and Franklin being a pair of very creepy kids. On the outside they're polite and respectable, but you just know that there's a dark and deadly secret waiting to burst out at any moment. Franklin descends into incoherent screaming at the end of the film, while Stephens you may recognise (with blond hair this time) from his equally menacing role in VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED. Megs Jenkins and Michael Redgrave also do quite well with their underdeveloped housemaid and 'Uncle' characters respectively.

Freddie Francis was on hand to perform some nice crisp photography, and it shows, as the film is beautifully filmed. It also isn't afraid to leave some loose ends and also have a surprisingly tragic finale - one which is totally unexpected. This is an unnerving, classy haunting film which easily achieves what it sets out to do.

Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr) is a precocious young woman who gets a job as a governess over two young children, Miles and Flora, in a mansion basically uninhabited and neglected by the two children's uncle. Her enthusiasm for the job is quickly met with Gothic horror, however, as the seductive nature of the children, the brooding atmosphere of the estate, and the appearance of things that go bump in the night causes Giddens to believe that the children may be possessed by the spirits of their previous caretakers, a dysfunctional duo of lovers that met untimely demise.

As an exercise in Gothic horror, "The Innocents" is a very well crafted genre piece. Suspense is built slowly as chiaroscuro, editing, and graceful long takes builds up the horror and anxiety in the main character. However, what's strange about this movie is that it pretty much literally is about a woman who suffers from schizophrenia, leading her to kill and damage the children she was attempting to protect. On that note, however, it's very interesting how this movie makes the insane character utterly relatable by maintaining its perspective in her own conscience and imagination, while making all of the truly sane characters by making it seem like they're hiding something.

Part of the reason of this is that Giddens' paranoid schizophrenia rises mainly from the fact that the children she's taking care of are so creepy, plus that they are in such a desolate and disturbing space. It's easier to understand her perspective when a little child is giggling secretly behind a curtain than to get into the children's perspective when they refuse to tell the truth. It's a very interesting exercise which builds very well... to a disappointing ending. At least, however, it did not go "Psycho" and decide to explain itself.

--PolarisDiB

I can't imagine being scared by this movie.. and isn't that what "horror films" are about? You have two obnoxious children, a repressed governess (played by an actress who is much older then the character she plays)a gloomy house and a lot of dark photography with dramatic lighting.

That's about the whole story. The children are snotty bores, the governess I think was hitting the bottle when we weren't watching, the sweet old housekeeper has bugs in her bonnet, and the house only has 3 rooms that we see... despite it being as big as Windsor Castle.

I watched the entire thing - in the letterbox version - and kept hoping it would get better. It never did. It was almost a relief when the kid dies in the end, if he ever grew up he'd be intolerable. When the movie started out - it appeared it might be good - much to my disappointment it quickly deteriorated into a turgid senseless mess.

I know the fans are going to say this isn't a helpful review, but perhaps one or two people will be saved having to sit through this mess. Or not.. if you want to see a vastly overrated mess, have at it.. you can't say YOU WEREN'T WARNED! (Nurse is in the lobby with coffee to help you wake up if you fall asleep during the screening of this feature..)

I'd suggest you rent/Netflix/whatever the original "The Haunting" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057129/ one of several movies/miniseries about the same evil house.. THAT movie is genuinely scary and has two wonderful performances in it (Julie Harris and Claire Bloom..)

In the 1960's people just didn't talk about child sexual abuse. They also didn't depict it outright in movies. The fact that this movie was cast in the setting of Victorian England further demonstrates its intent to highlight an era of extreme sexual repression, when feelings and emotions that didn't fit with the social and cultural mores of the time were subjugated to evil thoughts and deeds.

Miss Giddens was a perfect example of a woman who was raised in a highly religious and fundamentalist environment, who could never admit that sexual longings and urges exist in herself. Nor could she ever conceptualize how young children could suffer abuse from observing violent and sexual acts committed by adults in their presence. Whether there was any direct abuse to the children is speculative, but anyone who has had any training or education in the field of psychology knows that vicarious trauma can be transmitted to children who witness sexually deviant and violent acts.

Miles exhibits classic sociopathic behaviors at school and we're given clues to this when we're told "the other children are afraid of him" and Miles himself starts to admit that he "hurts things". There is also the scene where Miles hides a dove with a broken neck under his pillow and Miss Giddens assumes was killed by Quint's ghost, but in actuality, Miles is committing a classic behavior that many children of sexual abuse do at a young age, which is to kill or maim animals.

Individuals who have been sexually abused are often described as "seductive", which is more about lack of clarity around boundaries and intimacy. A child's ability to develop strong boundaries around their sexuality can be destroyed from sexual abuse and physical violence. We can see that Miss Giddens is drawn into the seductive nature of both children, but especially Miles. As her own sexual repression and desires are projected onto Miles, as she is pulled into a desire that causes her lose all her senses about the fact he is a "child", and not the sexually deviant, yet desirous "Quint". Her desire is so strong that she allows herself to be drawn into an inappropriate kiss from Miles, further demonstrating that the child's sexual boundaries are lost, and so too are hers.

In the end, Miss Giddens forces Miles to confront a "memory", which is aptly stated by Mrs. Gros when she attempts to point out to Miss Giddens that the little girl is overwrought, not from witnessing the presence of a ghost, but from a "bad memory". Mrs. Gros knows that these children witnessed unspeakable horrors and seems to be often taken aback when discussing these issues with Miss Giddens. Miss Giddens immediately considers these events as evil abominations of ghostly presence rather Mrs. Gros' apparent sense of real incidents that are too taboo to discuss out loud.

The fact that Miles dies from the knowledge that he forced to confront is more of a "psychological death", as many children of abuse suffer a "death of the soul" after such abuse. In its excellent dramatic and cinematic effects, The Innocents documents events that are too unspeakable to present outright. The emotions and psychological impact of such events are brilliantly portrayed and touch the viewer somewhere deep in the psyche.

Atmospheric period thriller, ghost story, psychological study of repressed fears and sexuality, "The Innocents" (1962) adapted by Jack Clayton from Henry James' novella "The Turn of the Screw" fits perfectly all these genres and blends them in the unique, one of its kind film. Ms. Giddens (Deborah Kerr) is hired by a rich, self-centered man (Michael Redgrave) to take care of his young orphaned niece and nephew who live in the country side. He needs her to be completely responsible for them and never bother him with any problems. The young woman is very eager and exited to meet two children and to become not just their governess but their friend. She is ready to love them. The huge mansion where a brother and sister live is full of dark and gloomy secrets. Very soon, the young and inexperienced governess begins to suspect that the children who act strangely may be possessed by the spirits of two former servants who both died under the mysterious circumstances. Are the children possessed or is that Ms. Giddens' imagination and fears play with her mind? Do the ghosts appear or is she the only one who sees them? We would never receive a definite answer but it does not make a movie any less interesting and compelling.