Movie Review: The Turning

The Turning * ½ / *****

Directed by: Floria Sigismondi.

Written by: Carey W. Hayes and Chad Hayes based on the novel by Henry James.

Starring: Mackenzie Davis (Kate), Finn Wolfhard (Miles), Brooklynn Prince (Flora), Barbara Marten (Mrs. Grose), Karen Egan (Nancy), Mark Huberman (Bert), Niall Greig Fulton (Peter Quint), Denna Thomsen (Miss Jessel), Kim Adis (Rose).

 

It isn’t fair to compare The Turning, the latest adaptation of Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw, to Jack Clayton’s The Innocents – a previous adaptation, and one of the great gothic horror movies of all time – and yet, it’s also inevitable for those of us who have seen it (the studio is banking on the fact that audiences in 2020 haven’t seen that nearly 60-year-old film – and or the most part they would be right). Still, I didn’t expect a horror movie released in January after being pushed back nearly a year to be as good as one of the greatest horror films of all time – but I did expect it to be better than this. Directed by Floria Sigismondi – the talented music video director, making only her second feature – 10 years after her first (the underrated The Runaways), and written by Carey and Chad Hayes – whose previous credits include The Conjuring, the best of this kind of film in recent years – The Turning ends up being a murky mess – a film that someone both takes away the ambiguity at the heart of James’ novella, and previous screen versions, and yet ends in a head scratching, abrupt way.

 

The story is well-known – a newly hired governess, Kate (Mackenzie Davis) is hired to teach little Flora (Brooklynn Prince, from The Florida Project) at her spacious, gothic estate. Her parents have died, and her previous governess ran off without so much of a goodbye. She is watched over by the mysterious housekeeper Mrs. Grose (Barbara Marten). Eventually Flora’s older brother Miles (Finn Wolfhard) shows up as well – and he’s creepy in a way that makes you wonder if he’s evil, or just a teenage boy. Soon secrets spill out about the previous governess – and the previous groundskeeper, who died shortly after the governess disappeared.

 

This version takes place in 1994 – for no discernable reasons, except perhaps because the filmmakers didn’t want to set in when the novella was written 1898 – but also didn’t want there to be cellphones all over the place (other than a passing mention of the recent death of Kurt Cobain, there’s nothing really that screams 1990s about the film). In the novella, and previous versions, there is always some doubt about what the governess sees – when the ghosts appear, are they real, or do they spring from sexually repressed subconscious- which she then turns on the children. Here, the screenplay makes no bones about what she sees being real or not, even as the others act the same way – that Kate is just going crazy. It spells out a lot of things that was subtext in the past – further proof that filmmakers think (perhaps not incorrectly) that modern audiences don’t want subtext – they want everything spelled out for them in full. Or perhaps they just didn’t want a full movie to come out in 2020 when everyone has to debate whether or not to believe a woman who is describing sexual violence. I will say adding in a mentally ill mother for Kate – and playing with genetic links to mental illness doesn’t seem like a good substitute though.

 

The cast is mostly game though – Davis is fine as she spirals out of control. There is something incredibly creepy about Prince in this movie, even though she doesn’t do anything outwardly creepy. Wolfhard is trying too hard I think – but the screenplay does as well. Marten is fine as Mrs. Grouse – even if she won’t ever join the ranks of the best overly involved housekeepers in movie history.

 

The movie though is mainly a murky mess. Considering horror movies are often about atmosphere, you would think having one set in a massive gothic mansion, or a creepy sprawling estate, would do half the work for you – it doesn’t really though. There’s too much muddy blackness everywhere, and it all just ups the confusion, rather than the atmosphere – you’re straining to see, when there’s nothing much there.

 

And then there is the ending, which is one of the most abrupt endings I can remember. I suppose it’s better than having scenes after, where everyone talks about what just happened, but the ending is also one big nothing. It doesn’t really answer anything, or even shock you. It’s there, and then the credits role. If you haven’t seen The Innocents – do so. That film is a masterpiece. The Turning is not.