Well, because number two, as ingenious as it was, is a complete stretch and not even hinted at for one moment in the film. With all apologies to the OP, there's absolutely no reason to assume that it's all a behind-the-scenes plot by the housekeeper and the kids. Even assuming that it could have been pulled off (and that's saying a lot), there are no clues that could possibly lead us there, unless you have a very over-active imagination, or are looking for something completely at odds with where the film is actually going. (I envy the OP his or her imagination!)
Someone much earlier in the thread made the vast stretch of saying that the whole thing was due to the Krell's "monsters of the ID," and he was exactly right, even if most of you guys missed his point. His explanation is just as viable as that second interpretation. The film gives no indication whatsoever of the possibility, but sure, it's possible.
No, you have to deal with films with what the filmmakers give you...and Clayton and company gave us NOTHING to imply that Mrs. Gross (Grose?) was somehow involved in a plot, no motive, no innuendoes...no nothing. Throw that second one out the window and bury it. (Stop doing the writers' work for them!)
On the other hand, the other two remain VERY viable possibilities, and give the movie, via its ambiguity, its charm and unending fascination. (Although I've learned from watching the reviews and forums on here that a lot of people, especially Americans--and I am one, so I'm not being anti-American here--HATE ambiguity. More's the pity for them.)
Actually, I've heard that the story (I have read it, but not in quite a few years) is less ambiguous than the film, and leans obviously towards the supernatural...and I think the change for the film, for once, is admirable over the original, if true.
(By the way, another excellent example of a film with intended ambiguity that no one caught at the time--with good reason, given that "The Exorcist" had just come out a couple of years earlier--was "The Omen." Forget "The Exorcist," and forget the poor sequels, try to look at that film by itself with fresh eyes. Perhaps Damien IS the devil's spawn...or perhaps he's just a poor innocent kid torn between two contending cults of religious fanatics. It works just as well that way, if not scarier. And, from what I've heard, that ambiguity was the original intent of the filmmakers. It just got completely lost on the millions of movie-goers still sucked into the devil thing at the time...and who's gonna argue with that kind of box office?)
Losing your virginity, burying your pet and killing your sister...can take a lot out of a girl!
reply
share
Shiny-NZ
12 years ago
I politely but firmly disagree about what you've heard about the story being less ambiguous than the film. Having read it at least 10x I can tell you that it's absolutely ambiguous. In fact, as opposed to many other of Henry James's great ghost stories, in this particular novella he never even uses the word 'ghost'.
And as another poster has pointed out, the title itself is almost a dead giveaway. Especially when compared with his other works. Henry James was nobody's fool and I find it mildly insulting to his memory that some people have speculated that his writing was 'accidentally' ambiguous. As if twists in plot, and unreliable narration have only been around since Fight Club.
Having copies of all his fictional works in my library and read many books on his letters and reviews I can attest that James was no slouch. He frequently and expertly explored themes of perception. This is in part why his works as still as compelling today. I firmly believe the ambiguity was deliberate and hope that people are inspired to re-read The Turn of the Screw (why not? It's very short) as I believe this ambiguity adds to the enjoyment of this skilfully crafted and disturbing story (on every layer).
Cheers.
reply
share