The Turn of the Screw (1974)

THE TURN OF THE SCREW was a natural for Dan Curtis: his groundbreaking soap opera DARK SHADOWS was essentially spawned by the Henry James story; the parallels are obvious. What makes THE TURN OF THE SCREW Scary-Plus are Curtis's patented touches: the jolting glimpses of figures believed to be dead standing outside in the darkness, staring in at the governess, Jane Cubberly (Lynn Redgrave), the sight(s) punctuated by thunderclaps or the patented Robert Cobert score. It was great to see the Eternally Beautiful Kathryn Leigh Scott as the sinister apparition, "Miss Jessel." The scenes of her hovering near the pond are every bit as chilling as the same scenes in the Jack Clayton version, THE INNOCENTS. Says Jane in the narration: "She was like a great black bird of prey hovering there. A dead thing returned." And let's not forget the two kids, who manage to more than hold their own with the likes of Miss Redgrave and the other adult cast members. Says the boy, Miles (who blinds and then gleefully kills a frog): "Will evil be good and good evil?" "Death is as real as life," he adds: "Sometimes I frighten myself..." During a recital, he refers to "those of us who love the darkness." "You talk of saving me," he chides Jane: "But tell me who, dear lady, is to save YOU...?" To some (especially those whose television upbringings have left them with short attention spans), THE TURN OF THE SCREW may seem sedate, but it nonetheless drips with lingering Menace. Done in the patented Dan Curtis fashion, it's yet another of television's high points.

This version of Henry James' novel of the same name was directed by Dan Curtis--the same guy who brought us the TV show "Dark Shadows". During the 60s and 70s, Curtis was responsible for several exceptional made for TV horror movies--including ones about Frankenstein, Dracula and Dr. Jekyll. "The Turn of the Screw" is one of his lesser-known horror tales. And, like these others, it's exceptional and well worth seeing. And, when I checked IMDb, I noticed that there have been TONS of other versions of the story--including the 1961 film "The Innocents".The story is told from the governess' (Lynn Redgrave) viewpoint and she narrates the film as well. She is given the job of looking after the niece and nephew of a man who has absolutely no interest in them--and he even tells the governess that! When she goes to this house in the country, she finds that the little girl is very sweet and all seems well. Soon the boy is expelled from school and the governess decides to keep him there and teach him herself. However, it's odd the school never explained WHY he was expelled and the teen never discusses it either. Still, everything seems pretty normal. But, over time, the governess begins seeing apparitions--ghosts of the old governess and master of the house. She learns that the pair are dead--and it CAN'T be them she keeps seeing. But, she also notices that the more the spirits appear, the more vile and bizarre the children's' behavior--particularly the boy. What eventually follows is a struggle between the governess and the ghosts for possession of the children. Who is to win? The best thing about the film isn't the plot (which isn't bad), but the very creepy mood that Curtis is able to create. The slow brooding pace works well and I was impressed that the story was very close to the original story. A very creepy horror story--one that is well worth your time. Also, there's a nice featurette on the DVD--featuring interviews with Lynn Redgrave and Dan Curtis. Very interesting and I recommend you see it as well.

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***Perhaps its unfair to rate and comment on this as I haven't seen this since its original release some thirty years ago. However I remember being very affected by it, so much so that it sent me to the novella with which I promptly became somewhat obsessed. From what I recall (Quint was very vivid, as was Miles), however, I believe this is probably a heavy-handed version of the great James story, which is tremendously ambiguous and designed (as James himself said) "to catch those not easily caught." James wrote an unconventional "ghost/horror" story using the motif of the supernatural to drive his point home. I distinctly remember the very dramatic ending of this Redgrave version (note: her father Michael appeared as the Uncle in The Innocents), it is not about possession or spirits at all. That is far too literal and misses James' meaning entirely. That said, I believe The Innocents, another version mentioned by other reviewers, released in 1961 starring Deborah Kerr, is a more faithful adaptation, but still too heavy-handed in the depiction of the children and what is (or is not) happening. Good as Kerr is, she is too old for the role and brings her own natural elegance and poise which is in stark contrast to the governess's increasing, hyper-paranoia. So while I will always be grateful for this Dan Curtis version which impressed me so much as a kid (and why I rate it a 6), it led me to Henry James and the hope that someday someone will make a proper adaptation of a truly chilling tale.

I was only 10 years old 1984, when i saw this movie for the first time. I bought it in a video store for about 5 dollars. I have seen it a couple of times, and now last spring again. It had still the dark horror feeling I remember. Swedish-Denna film fanns ett tag på video på ett bolag som hette Mariann Video, då under namnet Barnens hemlighet.The movie is about 120 minutes