The Innocents (1961)

Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr), a nineteenth century British governess, is appointed to take care of two children, Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephens). Upon arriving at the bleak mansion she meets the housekeeper (Megs Jenkins) and also Flora. Miles arrives a few days later from school. The children seem like little angels but, following a series of bizarre events and examples of the children's wicked impulses, Miss Giddens begins to suspect that all is not what it seems.

This dark and atmospheric tale is a wonderful example of how to create an admirable horror movie that, although has violent undertones, features very little violence when all is said and done. ‘The Innocents' is certainly a psychological horror movie which leaves in doubt how much of the inexplicable happenings are supernatural, and how much is in the mind of the protagonist, Miss Giddens. Director Jack Clayton uses some astonishing visual trickery and ghostly effects to create and maintain a very unsettling atmosphere, almost from the very beginning. A number of effective ghostly apparitions are displayed on screen during the movie from varying distances which gives ‘The Innocents' a constant, foreboding atmosphere. The way some scene changes blend with the end of the previous scene are rather disconcerting and almost dream like as there are long lingering images, once again, wholly adding to the effect. Some of the dialogue may seem a little unrealistic, but in general the movie is well scripted and features a few very dramatic scenes thanks to some delightfully written dialogue and strong acting performances. William Archibald and Truman Capote both won awards for their script writing.

The only real fault with ‘The Innocents' is how fast the film moves along. Miss Giddens seems to realise the truth of what is happening all too quickly. This does not make ‘The Innocents' less enjoyable, but it would have been nice to have had an extra ten minutes or so explaining the story to us a bit more. ‘The Innocents' has a sustained tone of dread throughout the movie. It seems that Miss Giddens is unable to move without being confronted by some spectre or seeing some rather peculiar behaviour exhibited from the children. I'd compare the dark atmosphere with that of ‘The Haunting' (1963), both movies are comparable in the way they are presented and are both aesthetically pleasing. The acting was of a high standard, though one must forgive the two young performers if they occasionally seemed to overact. Martin Stephens was very good as Miles, playing his sinister part with an awful power, even though the character's superciliousness became somewhat of an annoyance. Megs Jenkins was also delightful as the anxious housekeeper Mrs. Grose. From the moment Mrs. Grose is first introduced the viewer can begin to suspect something. Jenkins came across as a friendly, but scared, woman who is desperate to maintain decorum in the house. A fine performance suited her character marvellously. One must also mention Deborah Kerr's fine performance as Miss Giddens as she played it with the right balance of inquisitiveness and fear. Deborah's dramatic performance certainly helped make this movie fantastic and one sympathises with her deeply as the film ends on the sombre and heartbreaking note that it does.

‘The Innocents' is an elegant and stylish movie that is certainly worth watching. Fans of ‘The Omen' and ‘Village of the Damned' should enjoy this as well as any fan of dark, atmospheric h

Fmovies: The Innocents is a film that has haunted me ever since I first saw it. Staggering, brilliant, masterful, The Innocents is the Rolls Royce of ghost stories. From the unforgettable camerawork by Freddie Francis to the incisive, beautiful direction by Jack Clayton to the brilliant performance by Deborah Kerr, The Innocents works on a thousand levels. This is a film for anyone who truly wants to see brilliance in its purest form. Any director who wants to make a suspense/horror piece that counts, see this film now. If you can, don't see the pan and scan version -- it was shot in black and white Cinemascope and should be viewed that way -- Letterboxed. Let's hope 20th Century Fox put it out on DVD. It is available on Laser Disc is a beautiful letterbox transfer. But if you get the opportunity to see it on a screen -- RUN. A film that lingers in the mind for decades to come. What more could you ask from a film?..............................

All great films engage us to lesser or greater degree: some emotionally, some intellectually -- a few, equally.

No film in history, to my memory, seduces the viewer into actively co-creating the piece as it unreels, as does "The Innocents." Immediately, vividly, and subtly, it arrests then implicates the viewer in every frame.

Its first "image," in fact, is a blank (black) screen -- and the haunting sound of a child's song. Instantly, viewers unconsciously react, emotionally (as to all music), to the beguiling yet off-putting song and the voice. Emotional tension, established immediately.

Yet, one's mind never stops producing thoughts and images. So, without any visual cues from the screen, the haunting song produces images in viewers' own minds -- each no doubt different. Already, then, viewers are seduced into supplying their own mental images and, whether they know it yet or not, have been brilliantly and subliminally placed in the Deborah Kerr role. This, before a single production credit has appeared. We are watching a shadow: a nothing. And our minds demand we fill it with something.

Thus does Jack Clayton's astonishing "The Innocents" begin. Certainly, other films have used the same opening device. But none with "The Innocents'" payoff.

For, as it develops (based on Henry James', "The Turn of the Screw"), "The Innocents'" themes are, "What do you see? What do you believe is true? Is it? Who is 'innocent?' The children? The nanny? You?" The emotional undertow is inescapable, perhaps more so because two-thirds of the trio of protagonists are "children in peril," always a surefire hook.

But "in peril" from what, exactly? Deborah Kerr's possible paranoia / schizophrenia? Ghosts? Or our own powerful, perhaps lurid, imaginings of what may or may not have happened to these children from their deceased and perhaps sexually perverse tutors? The children's memories or imaginings of what did or didn't happen? The film unfolds with some of the most beautiful cinematography in history (Freddie Francis). "The Innocents" requires full-size screening, or at least letterboxing to fully appreciate the visual poetry supporting the suspense.

Jack Clayton's production and direction rank among the finest in screen history.

The miraculous work he pulls from his cast is uniformly jaw-dropping.

Despite Deborah Kerr's ravishing natural beauty, one never recalls even a single performance in which she was "Deobrah Kerr": she was always the character -- whether a nun ("Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison"), an adulterous sexpot ("From Here to Eternity"), a Tennessee Williams underdog ("Night of the Iguana"), a strong-willed soprano-singing teacher ("The King and I") or a romantic comedienne ("An Affair to Remember").

Contrast Kerr's beauty, talent and career with Elizabeth Taylor, say. Equally ravishing, one was always aware of watching Miss Taylor "act." Even in stunt casting, like her Martha in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" or the debacle of "Cleopatra." Miss Kerr is the real thing. So are Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose), Martin Stephens (Miles) and Pamela Franklin (Flora).

The story and filming progressively grow more audacious, until the last heartbreaking sequence between Kerr and young Stephens.

By then, of

The Innocents fmovies. What makes a good chiller? Gore, special effects? No, as director Jack Clayton proves here, it's atmosphere, combined with the sounds of horror, that makes the difference. Granted, I've seen just about every Elm Street and Friday the 13th instalment, but "The Innocents" proves that what you don't see can scare you the most. Deborah Kerr is in fine form as an English governess who is sent to a remote mansion in the country to look after two young orphans. Their "uncle" in London doesn't have time for them. Kerr slowly begins to realize there's something not quite right with the young boy and girl. Their thoughts and actions are not consistent with the behavior of pre-teens. There's a dark secret, and Kerr sets out to discover it. We do see the ghosts, but it's when Kerr searches the house for the sources of strange noises and voices that we really feel a chill. "The Innocents" also makes great use of its black and white photography. I can't imagine it working as well in color (are you listening, Gus Van Sant?). Shadows just seem creepier in black and white. The children are well played by Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin. Franklin was 11 when she made this film, and as an adult she would go on to star in another excellent haunted house movie, "The Legend of Hell House." It's a shame that Hollywood has stopped making movies like "The Innocents." Perhaps audiences used to Halloween-style slashers, "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" would be demanding blood and guts. Yes, "Scream" was, pardon the pun, a cut above. It raised the slumping horror bar to new heights, and then "I Know..." ran under that bar, but that's another story. If you want genuine chills rather than cheap thrills, you can't do much better than "The Innocents."

Based on the novella "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James, a young governess (Deborah Kerr) for two children becomes convinced that the house and grounds are haunted.

As outsiders looking in as voyeurs, we are left wondering about what the governess sees: are the children possessed? Or perhaps they have become friends with ghosts? Or is the governess simply paranoid? The film keeps us guessing, which only adds to its creepiness.

This title has the distinction of featuring the debut of Pamela Franklin, here playing the child Flora, who would later be memorable in "The Legend of Hell House". She expertly presents herself as innocent (hence the title) while saying creepy lines such as, "Oh, look, a lovely spider! And it's eating a butterfly." Did this inspire Jack Hill's "Spider Baby"?

The film has received wide critical acclaim for its psychological thrills and also its technological achievements (cinematographer Freddie Francis made the lightning his number one focus, and also shot the film in layers, giving it a deeper look than most movies). No less than Martin Scorsese has listed it among the greatest horror films ever made.

Freddie Francis is in top form here, coming off his Oscar win for "Sons and Lovers" (1960). His mark on the horror genre would only increase in the following years, as he took the director's chair for Amicus and Hammer numerous times in the 60s and 70s.

The Innocents (1961)

The title loads this gun a little differently than the original from the long short story (or novella) by Henry James--The Turn of the Screw. But Jack Clayton's version of the story gets at the point with great ambiguity--uncertainty is key, and the suspense is partly under pressure because we don't quite know which side to take.

I can't say more, of course, because even a hint of a hint will start a viewer off on the wrong foot. But know that The Innocents is vigorously filmed in widescreen black and white, that Deborah Kerr, always a cool actress, is perfectly cool here (some might just say British, but she has no Julie Andrews in her governessing, and no Elizabeth Taylor in her at all). The two kids are both rather poised and charming as well as chilling, the boy especially intriguing for his precociousness (and preciousness). We empathize with all three equally, and yet, as you see, you can't quite see the events from their three pairs of eyes equally. Something is wrong, and you wait to see what, and how it will be revealed.

If it ever is. One of the brilliant things about Henry James is how you finish one of his books (the novels are better than the stories for this, I think) knowing what has happened but not knowing completely why. I mean, it all makes sense and feels right, but it feels suspended with an air of lingering needs. So you end up thinking about it later. As you will with this film.

There are some moments of special effects that are very well done even if a kind of 1950s/60s style of overlapping images and dreamer/dreamed simultaneousness. And the ghosts, not to give anything away, are pretty matter of fact. This is more an appreciation than a complaint, because the lack of gore, of cheap surprise, or of obvious scare tactics makes the movie a relief, and a bit of cinematic magic.