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.

Framescourer A wonderful screen adaptation of Henry James ghost story. There are a fair few versions of the story both direct and oblique (a recent, successful version was The Others with Nicole Kidman). This film manages capably the understated, romantic sweep and lyricism in Henry James prose with the shocks and insidiousness that are also hidden within.Colin Firth, who was something of a superstar at the time, may only appear briefly as a mature Byronic patriarch at the beginning but it's all he needs to give the whole enterprise a sense of privation, melancholy and sexual charge. Consequently there's always the possibility that the Governess ('Miss' in this version) is projecting her own sexual longing into spaces rather than actually seeing sexually malign spectres. Johdi May nurtures this potential but in a straightforward performance of power without melodrama. It's all pretty creepy and engrossing. 7/10

Dan1863Sickles The most daring thing about this adaptation of Henry James' classic tale is the way that stunning newcomer Jodhi May plays the ghost haunted governess as a living, breathing girl with flaws rather than a lifeless model of prim perfection. Deborah Kerr's interpretation in the earlier film version (titled THE INNOCENTS) was so cool and crisp that there was never any doubt that the governess would overcome the evil ghosts (and save the rotten children who serve them)through sheer icy self-control, pure virginity and stubborn virtue.Jodhi May's performance shows more psychological depth, depicting a governess who is menaced not only by the ghosts themselves but by her own voluptuous desires. Temptation surrounds the governess in this version, not only in the attentions of her devastatingly handsome employer (a stunning and very youthful Colin Firth) but also in the very comforts and luxuries of her position on the secluded estate.Watch the way she succumbs to the charms of Miles' piano playing in the film's climactic scene, not only losing track of the time but falling little by little into a deep, drugged sleep. The two children are both shown as being more alert, more aware, than the lovely governess, whose nights have been quite sleepless owing to both ghostly terrors and erotic dreams of her employer. During the piano scene, Jodhi May's shifting expression is worth watching closely, as her bewitching gray eyes sink from stern watchfulness to drooping weariness, an unwilling surrender every bit as haunted and erotic as her dreams. Note how the camera very knowingly cuts back and forth from the heavy eyes of the governess to the light fingers of Miles at the piano, his skill meant to suggest the feather-soft touch of a lover. There can be little doubt that this image suggests a woman who bears her crystal pure virginity not as a shining shield but as an exhausting burden. She wants to have her employer's hands touching her lightly and knowingly, drawing forth her full desires the way Miles draws exquisite melody from the piano. Her deep sleep leaves her at the mercy of the children, but it results from the adult strain of holding her own sensual desires at bay. What a rich, haunting story, and what an authentic, womanly performance from the beautiful Jodhi May!

Sklaeren The turn of the screw is one of Henry James' easiest novel to read, and also one of the scariest books ever, for its sense of suspense and that way to play with your nerve. And it has very cinematographic writing, when reading the most intense parts of the book you can't help but seeing it, it just scream for a movie adaptation. Well this film is as a whole quite good, very faithful to James' text. It doesn't reduce it to just another ghost story, but respects that the characters' psychology and neurosis really are the heart of it. The cast is very good, especially Jodhi May. But that little Miles boy couldn't ever be described as an angel, he's just evilly annoying and obnoxious from the start. Colin Firth, as "the master", has approximately 3 minutes of screen time to settle his dashing, charming gentleman of a character, make the governess so in love with him that she'll accept the weird job condition (and may even explain her later neurotic state), and make such an impression that has to last 'til the movie end. And he does that just well, because he's sooooo adorable. My only disappointment is the lack of general atmosphere, it's mostly too distant, and scenes like the first appearance of each ghost don't produce the shock expected (well, if you've read the book...). All of other "ghosts scene" is quite effective, if not very subtle (think dramatic music). The very end is also a lot more explicit than in the book.