Just saw this for the first time and while I really liked the acting, I didnt find the story compelling.
What really took me out of it was how easily Ms. Giddens seemed to piece everything together. But how? Is she an occult expert? Just a wild guess? It seemed utterly implausible to me that she would walk into a situation like that and come to those conclusions with so little information to draw upon.
Did I miss something?
What really took me out of it was how easily Ms. Giddens seemed to piece everything together.But she isn't piecing everything together. The point of the story is that the children's adult-like, sexualised behaviour is too much for the Victorian Miss Giddens to handle. She cannot believe that children are innately capable of "uninnocent" behaviour. Therefore she tries to externalise the source of their behaviour to "ghosts" instead of acknowledging that the children have themselves become psychologically damaged due to their exposure to Quint and Miss Jessel's unhealthy relationship. share
Well Ms. Giddens didn't appear to be altogether sane, so I don't know how accurate the story was that she pieced together. I don't think it was occult expertise that aided her in swiftly concocting her story. I think it was her PhD in Crazy that helped her do it.
shareIs the consensus, then, that everything was in her mind?
Otherwise, if the children were in the thrall of spirits, she just happened to be the right kind of crazy in the right place to figure it all out.
Not necessarily. The hard, cold fact that actually disturbed Miss Giddens was that the children, especially Miles, were no longer innocent. They had been psychologically scarred by witnessing the overtly sexual relationship between Miss Jessel and Quint. The undertone in the film is that Miles was attempting to replicate the sexual behaviour he had observed, not only with Miss Giddens, but also with Flora. That is a shocking prospect for anyone - even modern audiences - to consider. Because Miss Giddens couldn't bring herself to attribute such terrible motives to children, she blamed it on supernatural possession.
I think the film is a study of the psychological impact of sexuality, and how repressed sexuality (as seen in Miss Giddens) is as dangerous as overt sexuality (as between Miss Jessels and Quint). A more worldly-wise governess might have consulted psychologists to save the children instead of attempting to exorcise the spirits.
Great comments, Rex16.
share[deleted]
That was the main problem I had with this movie. How on earth did miss Giddens come up with this crazy story about the children being possessed by some dead couple? Why did she even think that the children were possessed? The children's behavior seemed quite normal to me. And even if their behavior was not quite normal, why blame supernatural possession? Aren't there more realistic explanations?
Sure, a possible interpretation is that miss Giddens herself was crazy, sexually repressed, and what not. Still, I would not understand how she arrives at the possession story.
I just watched it on TCM (part of their Horror Month), and this was the only thing that confused me. Then again, I was a little sick when I watched it, and my nose was running (and my box only pauses for 25 minutes!) So I gave it a second viewing via TCM On Demand.
But I did notice a few things that were unnatural for a child, even back then. Flirting with Miss Giddens is one thing, but the way Miles spoke sounded a tad too adult for a boy his age, especially that poem/role-play the kids did.
Still a great movie nevertheless.