darkblue

The first time I saw the movie, I pretty much accepted that it was a "real" ghost movie. However, on subsequent viewings I began to have some doubts. As I said before, the lady across the lake is quite convincing - but the claim of the kids to not know what the hell the governess is going on about when she sees the ghosts does instill doubt. Also, her over the top insistence makes me wonder about her nervous condition in general. Of course, this ambiguity is present in the novel that the movie is based on as well. Apparently, either "conclusion" is equally valid - and even Henry James himself resisted clarification on the matter. Here's something from Wiki: The dispute over the ghosts' reality has had a real effect on some critics, most notably Edmund Wilson, one of the first major proponents of the insane governess theory. Wilson eventually recanted his opinion after considering the governess's point-by-point description of Quint. Then John Silver pointed out hints in the story that the governess might have gained previous knowledge of Quint's appearance in non-supernatural ways. This induced Wilson to recant his recantation and return to his original opinion that the governess was delusional and that the ghosts existed only in her imagination. William Veeder sees Miles's eventual death as induced by the governess. In a complex psychoanalytic reading, Veeder concludes that the governess expressed her repressed rage toward her father and toward the master of Bly on Miles. Other critics, however, have strongly defended the governess. They note that James's letters, his New York Edition preface, and his Notebooks contain no definite evidence that The Turn of the Screw was intended as anything other than a straightforward ghost story, and James certainly wrote ghost stories that did not depend on the narrator's imagination. For example, “Owen Wingrave includes a ghost that causes its title character's sudden death, although no one actually sees it. James's Notebooks entry indicates that he was inspired originally by a tale he heard from Edward White Benson, the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are indications that the story James was told was about an incident in Hinton Ampner, where in 1771 a woman named Mary Ricketts moved from her home after the apparitions of a man and a woman day and night, staring through the windows, bending over the beds, and making her feel her children were in danger. Perhaps the critical perspective that best captures James's own thinking and methods, given the work's notably rococo style, which incessantly qualifies statements and counters any attempt at straightforward exposition, is that of Brad Leithauser: "All such attempts to 'solve' the book, however admiringly tendered, unwittingly work toward its diminution; its profoundest pleasure lies in the beautifully fussed over way in which James refuses to come down on either side... the book becomes a modest monument to the bold pursuit of ambiguity". According to Leithauser, we are meant to entertain both the proposition that the governess is mad and the proposition that the ghosts really do exist, and consider the dreadful implications of each.

Yeah, that's real believable. I wonder how much quicker the kid woulda croaked if he'd been able to see the "ghost" too.

It seems like TCM shows this an awful lot, year in and year out. They must own a copy of it. Anyway, I've seen it several times. I wrote about it at IMDb - where I gave it a 7 out of 10 score (I'm not as inclined to consider it a master work as some are) and I guess I was feeling a little cranky when I wrote the following comment back in 2006: Only One Shiver The woman seen staring across the lake is the only scene that actually gave me a shiver and I believe it's the only scene that gives any validity to this being a 'ghost' movie. If it weren't for this one instance in the film I would have to conclude that the governess is just plain batty. The ending is particularly baffling to me in that I fail to be convinced that her hysteria could cause a healthy eleven year old boy to expire. Particularly one as intelligent and adult-like as Miles. So why do I give it a 7 out of 10? First, because of the performances of the children. Flawless. Second, the black and white cinematography. Innovative and atmospheric. Third, it has all the potential to be as good a ghost story as so many reviewers here seem to think it is - if only there were a few more chilling moments on par with the 'woman by the lake' scene. If only. I haven't watched it since I wrote that, but I doubt I'll change my mind if I watch it again.

There's lots of movies involving characters that are both and neither. I believe the term given is anti-hero. The man with no name in Leone's 'A Fistful of Dollars' might be an example of this. I believe the term was used to describe Paul Newman in 'Hud' as well. With the end of the "code", movies were no longer restricted to moral certitude in the character portrayals on screen ("bad" guys were allowed to win now) - and this breakage from forced ideology has provided far more nuance in how characters are explored.

Bobby Darin was a surprisingly competent actor (for as pop star).

To paraphrase lavender, Just Stop it Already (Sob)! Seriously, just do as Topper tells you. He's the boss of what can be posted, you know. Otherwise, we'll all get another well-deserved lecture (and I'm not sure Dargo's shield of good-nature can withstand many more).

Imagine that. Along the border, south of which every single country is almost entirely populated by latino peoples, border patrol agents tend to be more suspicious of latino people crossing that border to enter the U.S. illegally than they are other races. Doesn't make any sense at all.

Well, it's clear that you can't or won't answer the question I asked. I have no other option than to believe you made it all up in an effort to stimulate a false discussion.

The day after 'Song of the South' premiered, NAACP secretary Walter White wrote: "the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, 'Song of the South' unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts." It would appear that the source material was not what was troubling (actually referred to as "beautiful Uncle Remus folklore"). It was the movie that Disney made that was troubling.

You said: why didn't black Americans who objected to the Uncle Remus stories not try to get Harris' writings banned? Why go after the movie instead of the book? Is there a vendetta afoot against Disney? You clearly stated that there were African-Americans who had a problem with the Uncle Remus stories. Again I'll ask, where'd you hear that? Just like when I asked where'd you hear that Disney pressed ahead with production against the complaints of "black" people (which I believe you've since edited) and you didn't answer then either. I know the Disney movie garnered some negative reaction from African-Americans, but your assertion that they also had a previous problem with Harris' stories is news to me. Or that they were complaining about the making of the movie even before the movie premiered. Also news to me. There's no problem with me or anyone else misinterpreting your posts. They're so wriggly, so subject to later alteration, and so all over the map in terms of changing the direction of the conversation, there's really no "interpreting" to be done at all. It would be nice if you were consistent and willing to answer simple questions with simple answers, but pretending that other members misunderstand what you say is what we get instead.

And Disney movies are specifically produced for, and marketed to, children. Children are impressionable. So Disney product receives a different kind of scrutiny than that of other companies.

See, again - I have to ask where you heard that. I'm aware that there was criticism of the Disney movie from members of the NAACP and certain African-American media figures following the premier of the movie. I wasn't aware there'd been any outcry prior to that - or of any ongoing criticism of Harris and his writings. The movie was the catalyst for the outcry - that's what I understood. I'm willing to admit I could be wrong but it would be helpful to know the source for what you're claiming. I'm not saying you're making it up. But I am wondering if you are.

I'm asking a question. I have no idea if what you're saying is factual or not - that's why I asked where you heard it. Or read it.

Where'd you hear that?

Yeah, baby! Whadda we want? Yiddish films! When do we want 'em? Now! Whadda we want? Yiddish films! When do we want 'em? Now!

It's on again at 5:15 a.m. - just a few hours from now. Set your alarm clock, GayD.

Sure is. That clip is, I believe, from George's concert for Bangladesh.

Appropriately termed, that - my voice has been doing that for years whenever I've been seriously fried.

Because he noticed you were asking the person who didn't introduce rap music into the discussion, rather than the person who did? Maybe? Possibly? And why would you engage in such transference? All worth being curious about? Maybe not.

I hear they're delicious.

Before you go, I just want to say that I did see your point - and it was a valid one - about the degree of offensiveness that can be perceived as present in each example (be it the movie or be it rap music). And I know it wasn't your intention to make a racial statement. In fact, there's a truth to the notion that feeling offended is an emotional response not rooted in rationality. But when I read your allusion to a "rational mind" in a topic that will, for some, revolve around different racial perspectives, an alarm went off in my head. It's so easy to get into trouble with any statement that can be seen as something different than intended when it comes to issues of race.

Actually, you're pretending not to know. It's knowledge that's been posted here several times - once earlier today in a post addressed to you specifically.

"Snowbirds", as they're often referred to, are part-time residents of the U.S. While there, it's easy to understand that they would cross the nearest international border to obtain meds at a reasonable cost. But trust me, when they're in Canada, there's no way they'd dream of driving all the way to Mexico for their meds. If the U.S. didn't allow such price gouging, none of this would be happening. They'd only live in the U.S. for the warm weather part of the year, which is why they are part-time residents to begin with.

Okay. It's just that the objections to the movie on the basis of racist depiction began with African-American commentators, so it's wise to remember that when questioning "peoples" rational minds.

Not sure "kook" is the description I'd go to. Let's just say he and Ted Nugent share some aspects of personality.