Did Quint and Miss Jessel molest the children? - The Innocents (1961) Discussion

[–] ElectricWarlock 12 years ago

I can see why you think that. I just finished watching the film myself and think there is a strong possibility that is true. As you said, there are several things in the film that may be hinting towards it.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

reply

[–] Tashtago 12 years ago

I always thought so. For example the scene where Miles kisses Miss Giddens. Very creepy and definitely more like an adult kiss then a child kissing someone good night.

reply

[–] kaysild 11 years ago

I don't think so I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the idea is that they act like adults bc they are being possessed by the two dead lovers. And that's why the kids say and do adult things. And I don't think they were molested I think they saw the lovers making love bc they walked in with out knocking, which is why you here them scolding the children don't you know to knock before entering, knock on the door knock on the door is repeated in the scene where she hears the voices of the lovers when she's running around the house.

reply

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 10 years ago

Ah! But Jessel also say "The children are watching. The children are watching." Which to me implies that Quint knew the children were there and wanted them to see. Wanted them to participate. maybe only as voyeurs maybe more. If the children witnessed Quint hitting and being sadist towards Jessel what do you think he might do.

I believe in the book there was much more the molestation going on, especially between Quint and the boy.

Even in this movie the boy was expelled because the school didn't what the boy to corrupt the other boys. "Corrupt" is a very strong word. Much stronger that the phrase "bad influence".

It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.

reply

[–] Yort14 12 years ago

I believe they did abuse the child,by exposing them to their somewhat kinky relationship.The line "It was as if she wanted the weight of his hand" comes to mind.
http://troyholden.blogspot.com/2010/07/box-office-poison.html

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 12 years ago

And during Miss Giddens' dream, you see the boy led, hand on his head, into a room by Quint. But during another scene when Giddens hears the piano play by itself and goes wandering thru the mansion with a candelabra, she comes across what appears to be the same door photographed at the same angle, and when she opens it, we hear a disembodied Miles from within say, "You're hurting me..."

As if, y'know.... she's walking in on the ghostly memory of something inappropriate.

--

reply

[–] Yort14 12 years ago

"We also hear "The children are watching" and "Stop it Quint".
http://troyholden.blogspot.com/2010/07/box-office-poison.html

reply

[–] zigfried-2 12 years ago

I believe Quint had his way with Miss Jessel regardless of the children watching. Thus the scene where we hear her say, "The children are watching." I believe the ghosts wanted to possess the children in order to continue their "physical" relationship using the children's bodies.

reply

[–] richard-III 11 years ago

"I believe the ghosts wanted to possess the children in order to continue their "physical" relationship using the children's bodies."

That's an interesting thing you're saying, and I believe you're right.
Quint and Jessel did no physical abuse to the children, but they were, in life, and are still in the story influencing them, even possessing them.

"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phillipsdan83 11 years ago

I'd bet on it. Possessed by ghosts or not, those are two screwed up kids, and Miss Giddens is out of her depth trying to deal with them.

reply

[–] eweland 10 years ago

I'd bet on it. Possessed by ghosts or not, those are two screwed up kids, and Miss Giddens is out of her depth trying to deal with them.

That's the exact reason THE INNOCENTS is the true psychological horror masterpiece and THE HAUNTING sucks out loud.
"Oh, but they couldn't show that in the film, so therefore, it isn't that scary."

Yeah - and they didn't show a single damned thing in THE HAUNTING, yet everybody wets their pants when they see that wallpaper pattern. Or when someone bangs on a door. Why the hell would a ghost bang outside on a door - just come in and get them! A cheap parlor trick.

What makes THE INNOCENTS so intensely disturbing is Miles talking like an adult, because a ghost of one is living inside of him!!!

"It was only the wind, my dear." - When was the last time you heard a little boy calmly say that?!? Seriously! Little boys would be freaking out, and clinging to their governess!

Take every line the kids say and add up how many of them actually sound like a little child talking. You'll wet your pants, alright. That's not Flora and Miles talking - it's Jessel, and Quint talking THROUGH them.

If you were dead, and you and your lover both possessed two young innocent children, wouldn't you do anything in your power to get them "back together?" In the physical sense? So you could physically reunite with your dead lover through the body of a child? OF COURSE YOU WOULD!

And some people think THE HAUNTING is scarier than that concept?

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

That's the exact reason THE INNOCENTS is the true psychological horror masterpiece and THE HAUNTING sucks out loud.

Abject foolishness.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

[–] eweland 10 years ago

Opinions aren't wrong.
And it has nothing to do with intelligence, so get off your high horse.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

Stop doing horse, eweland, which you obviously are in order to post in your 24/7 trolly fashion.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 10 years ago

My sentiments, too, Prometheus.

It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.

reply

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 10 years ago

I happen to rank 'The Haunting' very high on my list of films I recommend. I have to say, I'd be hard pressed to recommend "The Innocents".

Your post, this post, is full of screams, emphatic shouting, and derision of those that prefer "The Haunting". You shouting that "'The Haunting' sucks out loud" certainly doesn't make it so.

I had a difficult time taking your post seriously with all the words in caps and the sentences ending with over used exclamation points.

How is seeing a man in shadow or a woman from afar on sitting on a river bank supposed to be more terrifying than the effects in TH? Quint and Jessel didn't look ethereal. The implecations that they had sex in front of the children, that the sex was deviant is off putting, and it's supposed to be. But having the children speak in adult fashion wasn't any more chilling than when the doctor's wife opened up the attic trap door suddenly when Julie Harris' character, Elinore, was on the spiral stair.

The problem I have with 'The Innocents', and there are a few is that we never really get to see and know the children before they are possessed. I can't feel that their innocence has been taken away because I never saw it to start with. I'm all for innuendo and not being hit on the head with a concept; however, this film leaves far too much to innuendo and very little fact.

Does the housekeeper see the ghost or doesn't she? Do the children see the ghosts or don't they? Are the ghosts inhabiting the children or are they standing on river banks or outside windows?

There is a lot more to this story than what they were able to show us here apparently. "The Turning of the Screw" has much more about the deviance and involves much more corruption of the children and sadism of the boy to the girl.

I love Deborah Kerr but I wish she had passed on this film. I don't feel the director was able to translate the evil, perverted, deviance of the ghost characters. We know nothing really of why the uncle won't have any thing to do with raising these children other than he just want to play.

The Haunting is IMHO is superior to this version of The Innocents. By this I mean the original 'The Haunting' with Julie Harris not the remake with Liam Neeson.

In any case, your shouting and vehement exclamations didn't convince me to choose TI or TH.

It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 9 years ago

I happen to rank 'The Haunting' very high on my list of films I recommend. I have to say, I'd be hard pressed to recommend "The Innocents".

Your post, this post, is full of screams, emphatic shouting, and derision of those that prefer "The Haunting". You shouting that "'The Haunting' sucks out loud" certainly doesn't make it so.

I had a difficult time taking your post seriously with all the words in caps and the sentences ending with over used exclamation points.

How is seeing a man in shadow or a woman from afar on sitting on a river bank supposed to be more terrifying than the effects in TH? Quint and Jessel didn't look ethereal. The implecations that they had sex in front of the children, that the sex was deviant is off putting, and it's supposed to be. But having the children speak in adult fashion wasn't any more chilling than when the doctor's wife opened up the attic trap door suddenly when Julie Harris' character, Elinore, was on the spiral stair.

The problem I have with 'The Innocents', and there are a few is that we never really get to see and know the children before they are possessed. I can't feel that their innocence has been taken away because I never saw it to start with. I'm all for innuendo and not being hit on the head with a concept; however, this film leaves far too much to innuendo and very little fact.

Does the housekeeper see the ghost or doesn't she? Do the children see the ghosts or don't they? Are the ghosts inhabiting the children or are they standing on river banks or outside windows?

There is a lot more to this story than what they were able to show us here apparently. "The Turning of the Screw" has much more about the deviance and involves much more corruption of the children and sadism of the boy to the girl.

I love Deborah Kerr but I wish she had passed on this film. I don't feel the director was able to translate the evil, perverted, deviance of the ghost characters. We know nothing really of why the uncle won't have any thing to do with raising these children other than he just want to play.

The Haunting is IMHO is superior to this version of The Innocents. By this I mean the original 'The Haunting' with Julie Harris not the remake with Liam Neeson.

In any case, your shouting and vehement exclamations didn't convince me to choose TI or TH.

Yes, although THE INNOCENTS has superior cinematography (the DVD is terribly washed-out, but I hear the Blu-ray is gorgeous) and tons of mood, it remains a disjointed exercise, a series of brilliantly-realized macabre vignettes, but a weaker narrative. (And Kerr is too stagey and shrill for the film, IMHO).

THE HAUNTING has the stronger narrative, and holds together better. (Yes, Julie Harris is shrill, too, but it works).

But it's impossible not to respect THE INNOCENTS.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 11 years ago

Quint and Jessel did no physical abuse to the children

But how do we know that?

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 10 years ago

Exactly. Retorically speaking, how can you buy into these malevolent ghosts taking over the children's bodies and think they hadn't harmed the kids in anyway. We know Quint was a sadist, and we suspect that Jessel was a masochist. The film does a poor job of explaining what happens to Flora when Flora and Miles are alone. I get the sense that Quint wanted the boy to watch, at least the boy to watch.

These ideas and concepts aren't anything you can pick up in this version of the book. If you have to read that much into the film then it changes what is actually being presented. The meaning changes.

Anyway, for me this film isn't terrifying or scary, it tries to be but it just seems like... well... like blah! It's not interesting, the elements are sort of there but there's no cohesion.

It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.

reply

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 10 years ago

On the contrary; I believe at least Quint probably raped the boy. This is indicated by the dream sequences. By the reason for Miles' expulsion from school. Killing the pigeon and then keeping it under his pillow. And the kiss he gives Ms. Giddens. And his adult behavior, if it is not caused by his possession.

His expulsion wasn't because he was a bad influence. I was because the head master didn't want Miles to corrupt the other boys. Corruption of other boys is more than teaching them how to smoke or swiping candy or food.

Also, you have to include the hysterics of Flora and the death of Miles after facing Quint. At least this is one way to interpret this. Miles appears cold and calculating but it could just be his little mind attempting to block out the memories just as Flora's hysterics brings out all those nasty words, etc.

It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

Those were all things I wondered about.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

[–] linda_lee110282 10 years ago

"I believe at least Quint probably raped the boy"

At least?! I read the book a LONG time ago, and there is nothing explicity or subtly stated in it about raping either Miles or Flora. It was written more than a century ago. I guess people put much of our 21th century sensibilities and fears in it. What I got is that Quint and Jessel were far from private and discreet about their sexual affair and the children watched a lot of what was going on between them. Of course, there are lot of critics who are now Reading sexual molestation in the book, but this only happened a few decades ago. Back when the book was released, people and critics regarded it only as a ghost story.

"His expulsion wasn't because he was a bad influence. I was because the head master didn't want Miles to corrupt the other boys. Corruption of other boys is more than teaching them how to smoke or swiping candy or food."

I always sensed he talked a lot.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

I guess people put much of our 21th century sensibilities and fears in it.

Or people put too much of our 21 century awarenss into it. It's not like molestation started yesterday.

In the film, at least, Miles tells Qunit "your'e hurting me" after being escorted through a door way.

It's a reasonable possibility.

--

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg

reply

[–] linda_lee110282 9 years ago

Of course there was sexual molestation in the past, but it doesn't mean it happened in the book.

If Quint sodomized Mile (I think that's what you mean with "you're hurting me") .Miles would be deadly afraid Quint, and would avoid him at all costs. Most sexual molestation involving children doesn't involve penetration and when it does, the child is highly damage and with hatred and fear of the rapist, NOT admiration.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 9 years ago

Of course there was sexual molestation in the past, but it doesn't mean it happened in the book.

If Quint sodomized Mile (I think that's what you mean with "you're hurting me") .Miles would be deadly afraid Quint, and would avoid him at all costs. Most sexual molestation involving children doesn't involve penetration and when it does, the child is highly damage and with hatred and fear of the rapist, NOT admiration.

Sadly, that just isn't true. It's more complicated than that.

When it's the caretaker, the child often winds up ambivalent -- sometimes both admiring yet scared of the abuse recurring.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

reply

[–] linda_lee110282 9 years ago

I know that. But this type of sexual abuse doesn't envolve penetration. I am talking about a man sodomizing a child.

reply

[–] kreen 9 years ago

You're projecting 21st century tropes into a movie from 1961, based on a novella from the 19th century. The movie makes it rather clear that the children SAW the adults making love and heard vulgarities from them. For a 1961 movie, that idea itself was pretty risqué: we don't have to go further, since the filmmakers did not.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 9 years ago

So no one was molested before the 21st century? Thanks.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

reply

[–] HenryCW 8 years ago

I agree that based on the film, there was no evidence whatsoever that Peter Quint and Miss Jessel - while they were alive - had molested the children. I believe they were too busy with themselves! 

The children were lonely after the deaths of their parents, and we know that that their relationships with Quint and Miss Jessel had been close (Mrs. Grose said that Miles adored Quint, who taught him many things - including how to ride). As Mrs. Grose said, the Quint and Jessel made love in the open and didn't mind people (including herself and the children) seeing. We were also told that their love relationship was a violent one, with Quint doing all kinds of abusive and degrading things to Jessel. The children saw all that and supposedly got distorted ideas about love and sex. (Miles French-kissed Miss Giddens in one scene and almost strangled her in another). Presumably the children also learned all the vulgarities from what they heard between the couple.

As for the suggestion by some poster above that the ghosts possessed Miles and Flora because only through the children could they continue their physical relationship, that idea actually came directly from the mouth of Miss Giddens herself in the film. So if you subscribe to the possession theory (and not the alternative one that Miss Giddens was plain crazy), then in that sense they had abused the children. But to repeat, there was no hint that either Quint or Jessel had molested the children while they were alive.

reply