Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Feb 21, 2020
Anya Taylor-Joy.... mesmerising (2 more)
Gorgeous to look at; stunning locations and costumes
Witty and well-observed debut script
Simply Sublime
I loved the look of "Emma" from the trailer. And I was not disappointed. It is a simply sublime piece of comic entertainment.
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Richard Jewell tells the true story of a security guard, hailed a hero for spotting a suspicious package at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, before going on to be accused of masterminding the whole thing and having his life turned upside down by the media and the FBI. Directed by Clint Eastwood, Richard Jewell is another one of those stories from recent history that I knew very few details about, other than there was a bombing at the Olympics, and it's a story that clearly deserves to be told.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.