...then Flora would not have screamed at the sight of Miss Jessel, and would have not reverted to some catatonic state. And what else could have caused Miles' demise if it were not for the exorcism of Peter Quint from his soul? It was sad that he died, but in a way it was also a relief because it meant that he would not have to suffer the evil influence of Master Quint.
There are lots of examples that make me believe absolutely that Miss Giddens knew something was amiss and that she was right, but this film was masterful at working on your imagination in the most fiendish way!!!
Flora does not scream at the sight of Miss Jessel, she screams from Miss Giddens badgering her. When Miles runs away from her at the end he trip and falls hard, it looked like he hit his head on the pavement. An accident like that can cause death a short time later.
Miss Giddens is scaring these two children. She's going to "help" them even if they don't want her help. She destroys these two, already freaked kids by making them see her own sexual fantasies of what happened with Quint and Jessel. http://troyholden.blogspot.com/2010/07/box-office-poison.html
Miss Giddens is scaring these two children. She's going to "help" them even if they don't want her help. She destroys these two, already freaked kids by making them see her own sexual fantasies of what happened with Quint and Jessel.
Completely agree. Miss Giddens was off her rocker. Deborah Kerr in an interview said that she felt Miss Giddens was repressed and going insane, so she played it that way.
Last night at the dance, my little brother paid a buck to see your underwear. reply share
Maybe someone could die shortly after hitting their head on the rock the way Miles did, but that would absolutely not go with the flow of the horror of this movie, so I have to disagree with that.
But, I cannot imagine Flora screaming, cursing and basically turning into another person, a total blank, simply because Miss Giddens is badgering her. Seriously! That does not make any sense at all. I mean, maybe Flora might start to weep quietly, or say something like "please leave me alone" or run to the chubby lady for comfort or just brush her off, but Miss Giddens' "badgering" her would not so completely crush Flora's spirit in the way the film depicts. No way!
Miss Giddens was trying to force Flora to see the ghost of her last governess, who Flora cared for deeply. Miss GIddens INSISTED that that Miss Jessel was there, and INSISTED that Flora saw her. She tried to force Flora to see something that was not there. That was what caused Flora's hysteria.
Exactly. I would've done the exact same thing in Flora's situation. An authority figure badgering me and forcing me to admit to seeing something that I clearly did not see. Oh, yeah. I'll be in hysterics. Maybe if you were a strong, street smart child you would not. But I don't think Flora is a wise cracking, street smart, kid.
Flora goes crazy because Miss Giddens is making her remember the disturbing memory of Miss Jessel, whose relationship with Peter Quint and death traumatized the children.
As for Miles, we're meant to understand that he died of schock and fright. It's a bit convenient, but that's the way the original novella ends. I think such "deaths from emotion" were a common trope in literature from that era.
I can see Flora doing all that from being badgered by Miss Giddens (who is an authority figure). Flora's a child. Not an adult. And I can see a timid child being totally crushed in spirit by Miss Giddens. Her and Miles are living in near isolation and so are vulnerable. At least Flora is. That said, I do think there is something supernatural going on and it's not all in Miss Giddens head.
Like others have said, it's not just because Giddens is badgering her, but because she's bringing back up the disturbing memory of her much-loved previous governess and, not only that, but insisting VERY forcefully (in a state of borderline panic) that said governess' ghost is standing right over there and the kid must see it. How could anyone, especially a small and vulnerable child, not get freaked out by that? What do you think is going through that kid's head at that moment?
I am with you on this. I just watched that scene again, and the total extent of Miss Giddens' badgering is less than 30 seconds! Before that Giddens and Flora are having a discussion, and Flora answers rather smartly most of the time. Only at the end of it, which again, is less than 30 seconds, does Giddens badger Flora and try to get her to admit to seeing Miss Jessel. Before long Miss Grose intervenes and that's the end of it. So I ask all of you - really? - less than 30 seconds of badgering results in Flora carrying on in hysterics for literally hours? That's ridiculous. Not just at the gazebo, it continued on into the night, when Giddens and Miles were sitting at the fire. Flora's reaction was seriously disproportionate to what Giddens did. On top of that, Ms. Grose even makes a comment, after leaving Flora's room, about how she's never heard such obscenities coming out of the mouth of a child. This clearly indicates that Miss Grose herself feels Flora's reaction is way over the top/out of control. After Miss Grose makes that statement, Giddens jumps on it and says "NOW do you believe me?" Assuming she meant, the children being bewitched or possessed.
I didn't think she was crazy. She seemed like a genuinely kind person who wanted what was best for the children. I think the malevolent spirits were also very clever. They knew how to make people turn against Miss Giddens and exactly what to do to make her look crazy. Just as evil as Quint was in life, he also was in death and was very manipulative. I know lots of people disagree, but I think there really were supernatural forces at work here.
I didn't think she was crazy. She seemed like a genuinely kind person who wanted what was best for the children. I think the malevolent spirits were also very clever. They knew how to make people turn against Miss Giddens and exactly what to do to make her look crazy. Just as evil as Quint was in life, he also was in death and was very manipulative. I know lots of people disagree, but I think there really were supernatural forces at work here.
I completely agree. It's just so "hip" to say she's nuts. It's MUCH more disturbing to think that a ghost that appears like an angry demon at the window IS capable of manipulating the world of the living from beyond the grave.
1) Miles French-kisses Miss Giddens before bedtime. Why else would she be so shocked unless something's happening to her that we can't see? (She now has some of that Quint-controls-Miles possession - inside HER, physically.) That wasn't just an INNOCENT KISS from a young boy. 2) Miss Giddens touches Miss Jessel's ghost's tear, on the desk. She now has Miss Jessel's-controls-Flora possession - inside her, as well. 3) The way that Miss Giddens kisses the dead Miles so passionately seems to imply that whatever was inside of Miles by way of Quint - is now inside Miss Giddens. SHE initiates a rather ill-timed kiss onto the lips of a dead boy. Or is that Quint is now - using her? 4) Did Quint's spirit enter Miss Giddens when it left Miles (and as a result, killed him)?
Nah - she was insane. It's much easier to take the easy way out. This movie is famous decades later because of people who believe the ghosts were real, and the incestual/pedophilic horror was IMPLIED, because the censors would not allow that to be shown implicitly. Go watch your Shyamalan movies, they do the thinking for you.
1) Miles French-kisses Miss Giddens before bedtime. Why else would she be so shocked unless something's happening to her that we can't see? (She now has some of that Quint-controls-Miles possession - inside HER, physically.) That wasn't just an INNOCENT KISS from a young boy. ----------------------
YES!!! That part where Miles gives Miss Giddens a good night kiss was absolutely terrifying, it never fails to send chills down my spine. Particularly unsettling was the subtle, self-satisfied look on his face right after the kiss, which - as you already said - was NOT the face of an INNOCENT young boy. brrrrrr....
I believe it was the films intention to confuse the audience a bit and have us wonder if there were supernatural forces at play or not just like the characters themselves were confused. I love the scene where the maid asks her what she should tell the uncle. "Tell him the truth". The maid then looks confused as if she has no idea what the truth actually is. Brilliantly done!
"The Innocents" is a favorite movie of mine and continually has been, ever since I saw it in the theater when it first came out. I was always of the opinion that Miss Giddens was actually seeing the ghosts of Quint and Miss Jessel, because if she was seeing them (in the movie) and so was I, I believed they had to be real.
However, what really used to aggravate me is that after she saw the picture of Quint in the music box from the attic and described him to Mrs. Grose, she was told that perhaps she really didn't see Quint's ghost when she was playing hide and go seek with the children and was only describing him from what she saw in the picture. Then she sees Miss Jessel walking about the mansion, in the lake and close-up in the school room. If she had just described Miss Jessel to Mrs. Grose, whose picture she had never seen, perhaps it would've gone a long way to prove that she wasn't going mad and the ghosts existed. I suppose this was never done to (as usherman said, above) "confuse the audience".
And yet you may notice that Miss Jessel's face is always very overexposed making it hard to see her distinctly. When we see her at the lake, she is far away. When we see her in the classroom she has a window with bright light shining in behind her. The only ghost whose FACE she sees with distinction is Quint's, because she saw his picture.
You make an interesting point, Zigfried-2. It never crossed my mind that Miss Giddens couldn't see the ghost of Mary Jessel clearly and that may have been the reason she didn't describe her to Mrs. Grose. However, I saw the movie when it came out in 1961 in a movie theater and you could see Miss Jessel's apparition more distinctly in the movie, especially when she was sitting at the desk in the school room (or at least that's how I remember it). Miss Giddens maybe could have described to Mrs. Grose how Mary Jessel wore her hair or what color her clothes were or something. I guess that was never done just to leave the audience up in the air and to make their own decision about the ghosts. Still, a great movie!
Miles didn't die, he just went into a shock (his eyes are closed when she picks him up but opened in between when she looks down at him. His dying don't make sense...children fall down all the time, they don't die of it and seldom will a young child die of heart attack etc (unless he had some existing heart condition which is never mentioned), they are more common as one grows older.
And that girl has to be a retard, singing the same song all the time, looking down her bedroom window in the dead of night and smiling as if someone was there (when there was no one right!!)....if yes pretending she couldn't see the ghost across the river later on..
I think there was considerable ambiguity in the interpretation of what really happened. There was no doubt, however, that Miss Giddens - who had come from a religious family (daughter of a parson) in a strict Victorian society - was sexually repressed, high-strung, and mentally unstable even at the time she took up the appointment. She was hypersensitive to noise and appeared to hear voices that might or might not have been there. She always had a suspicious look and saw sinister implications in almost everything - like, for example, Flora putting a flower on Miss Jessel's grave. When Flora and Miles were talking and laughing, to Mrs. Grose it was just children's talk, but Giddens found it irritating and said they were possessed and so "talked like adults".
That Miss Giddens was mentally unstable, however, does not rule out the presence of the supernatural. One might ask: if there are ghosts, why don't people see them? One possible answer might be that ghosts and people live in different worlds - we are on different "wavelengths", so to speak. We don't see ghosts, just as ghosts might not be able to see living persons (as in the film The Others). In some cultures, there is the belief that if you see (or think you see) people that were supposed to be long dead, then you yourself do not have long to live: as one approaches death, one's "wavelength" comes closer to that of the dead. It is just possible that with her religious background and fragile mental condition, Miss Giddens might be able to see the supernatural while nobody else in the film did.
In the film, there was the question of whether the images of Quint and Miss Jessel that the viewers see were supposed to be real, or they were just from Miss Giddens' POV. If it was the former, then the ghosts were undoubtedly real. If it was the latter, it could be argued that they were just "in her head" or her hallucinations - given her mental state. It might even be suggested that the sexually repressed Miss Giddens, having heard the story from Mrs. Grose, indulged in fantasizing the pair possessing the children as the only possible means of continuing their physical/love relationship.
In the film, Miss Giddens as an adult not only bludgeoned her way on the children to make them admit that they "saw" people that were long dead - which undoubtedly would have been traumatic on Miles and Flora who had close relationship with the deceased - she did the same thing to Mrs. Grose who was not her equal in terms of schooling (she was illiterate) and status, not to mention that Giddens was given complete and absolute authority by the uncle - and completely dominated her. In the lake scene, she repeatedly forced Flora to admit that she "saw" Miss Jessel on the other side. Was it of any wonder that the child broke down and fell ill? It was remarkable that Mrs. Grose saw nothing either and later Giddens accused her for lying. In reply, Mrs. Grose said she didn't have to lie - she had seen nothing. Later, when Mrs. Grose was sent away with Flora she asked what she should tell the uncle. Miss Giddens said "the truth" and the poor woman looked genuinely puzzled! Then at the end she actually violently shook Miles and repeatedly forced him to admit that he saw Quint. I think it is legitimate to ask why Giddens sent everyone away and wanted to be alone with the boy - instead of the obvious choice of sending him away from the house for safety. One might surmise that she just wanted to force her own belief on the boy without possible intervention from anyone.
In brief, if the images of Quint and Miss Jessel seen in the film could be treated as just Miss Gidden's imaginations, there was nothing in the film that convincingly contradicted the "it's all in her head" theory.
In the film, there was the question of whether the images of Quint and Miss Jessel that the viewers see were supposed to be real, or they were just from Miss Giddens' POV.
I could buy your hypothesis about all of this being in Miss Jessel's head...except we, the audience, see Quint's grimacing face approaching the window before she's even aware of his presence. That scene proved to me that the ghosts were very real.
Also, Quint was dressed shabbily, with a few days beard growth. Earlier, Miss Giddens had found a locket-sized portrait of him dressed as a gentleman. Why would she then see him outside, in work clothes? She'd no idea he'd been a stable hand, not until Mrs. Grose revealed it.
Also, she saw Miss Jessel in the pond. Just a coincidence that she later learns that Miss Jessel drowned herself in that very pond?
My view is that the film was meant to be ambiguous in the interpretation of what really happened. It might be noted that the entire story was told from Miss Giddens' point of view - there was hardly any scene in which she was not (at least implicitly) present. You have taken a very literal interpretation of the scenes - and their sequencing. If one takes the "it's all in her head" theory, then it is not really valid to distinguish what the audience saw and what Miss Giddens saw - they were supposed to be the same. After all, we the audience saw the apparitions of Quint and Miss Jessel many times - in the film! So if you take these literally, then the ghosts were of course real and the debate in this thread would be meaningless. But if the film was meant to be the story told by Miss Giddens, if she was able to imagine all those apparitions in her head, she certainly could have imagined Quint's grimacing face at the window before she came near too.
To repeat, my point is that in the film, the audience was expected to adopt Miss Giddens' POV - what we and Miss Giddens' saw were the same. If, on the other hand, the audience (and the film) adopted Mrs. Grose' POV, then there won't be any apparitions, and of course this wouldn't be much of a film.
As for the other scenes you mentioned, Miss Giddens certainly knew about a governess that had left before she accepted the job. Even though Quint dressed up nicely and was clean-shaven for the photo (that was the end of the 19th Century, you know), Miss Giddens knew he was the gardener and it was quite natural to imagine him in work clothes.
I am not saying that the "it's all in her head" theory must be valid, but your references to the scenes here are not sufficient to disprove it.
Despite a disparaging remark early in this thread to the effect that thinking the ghosts are the governess's imagining is some modern "hip" slant on the story... the possibility was seen right from the beginning of the novella's history. And it's not a matter of declaring that interpretation X or interpretation Y is definitely true -- the ambiguity, the fact that we can't quite be sure, is itself the point. The idea of innocent young children being "possessed" by their former caretakers, even after death, is a good scary ghost story in itself. Or is it more scary if it's their current caretaker who imagines the possession, and with the best of conscious intentions, badgers them into hysteria and death? We can't be sure, and that's the point.
Despite a disparaging remark early in this thread to the effect that thinking the ghosts are the governess's imagining is some modern "hip" slant on the story... the possibility was seen right from the beginning of the novella's history. And it's not a matter of declaring that interpretation X or interpretation Y is definitely true -- the ambiguity, the fact that we can't quite be sure, is itself the point. The idea of innocent young children being "possessed" by their former caretakers, even after death, is a good scary ghost story in itself. Or is it more scary if it's their current caretaker who imagines the possession, and with the best of conscious intentions, badgers them into hysteria and death? We can't be sure, and that's the point.
This, to me, is what makes both the book and the film interesting. It has been interesting to many readers and critics, since 1898, with some staunchly on the "there were ghosts" side, some as firmly on the "governess is going mad" side, and some, like me, loving the ambiguity.
Google "Turn of the Screw" and add words like haunting and psychological, and see how many hits come up, from every era since the book was written.
reply share