criterionforum.org

The Turning

This adaptation of The Turn of the Screw (updated to 1994) ends abruptly, the audience let out a gasp of disbelief and some laughter, as it left too much to the imagination. I suspect there was a longer version the studio nixed but maybe that one didn’t make any sense either. A shame as the settings look great and there are some interesting actors aboard.

I’m not sure that Finn Wolfhard fits the role of Miles. He’s too old and he slides into his evil side quickly and convincingly, enough to cause anyone to run for the hills given the haunted house milieu. Brooklyn Prince as Flora is more appropriately cherubic. I enjoyed Barbara Marton as the gothic Mrs. Danvers-like loyal housekeeper, made up to look like a zombie. Mackenzie Davis as the governess is quite good in the emotional scenes in which her sanity is challenged. Unfortunately there’s not enough credible context to approach the artistic precision of the Deborah Kerr version.

Mr Sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:49 pm The Turning

This adaptation of The Turn of the Screw (updated to 1994) ends abruptly, the audience let out a gasp of disbelief and some laughter, as it left too much to the imagination. I suspect there was a longer version the studio nixed but maybe that one didn’t make any sense either...

I've been reading a number of reviews that complain about the ending being too ambiguous, but fail to note that the James' novella and the 1961 adaptation The Innocents also allow for more than one interpretation. It appears that your assessment is that the ambiguity is less of a problem than poor execution; is that right?

My understanding of the negative response isn’t that the ending is ambiguous, but that it makes no sense and then the film just ends, leaving people confused and angry rather than contemplative or engaging in the possibilities

It is in the execution, there are too many missing pieces to warrant a satisfying ambiguity. I was able to decipher a reading I think the filmmakers were going for, somewhat akin to the more explicit Michele Dockery version of the ‘00s. But there’s not much in Davis’s performance to see any clues.

The movie impelled a re-reading of the novella. It’s better than I remembered, James’ dramatic instincts are brilliantly expressed in his ghost stories. I don’t think any film version has used his prologue which sets a context and anticipation. The Turning omits the guardian as well and though he’s only alluded to in the novella he is an important element in the building confusion of the governess.

Although The Turning by any conventional critical checklist is undoubtedly a failure, it’s sticking in my mind, not just in terms of contrasting adaptations but as a visual experience. Sean Baker’s letterboxd comments coincide with mine..

“And quite honestly, I was satisfied with just watching Mackenzie Davis for 90 minutes. DP David Ungaro lights her wonderfully and she becomes hypnotic... very much like the genre starlets of yesteryear. If you think about the Italian giallo films for instance, many are nonsensical and rely simply on a beautiful woman in peril, walking around a cool location with cool lighting... and that's what I got with this film.”

Sigiamondi is if nothing else a very talented visual artist. Too bad her narrative sense does not seem as strong.