The Innocents (1961), directed by Jack Clayton and adapted by William Archibald and Truman Capote, keeps Henry James's household almost intact but changes one thing straight away: the governess gets a name, Miss Giddens, played by Deborah Kerr, where the novella never names her at all. Shot in black and white on a wide CinemaScope frame by cinematographer Freddie Francis, it trades the book's narrator-led doubt for what the camera does and doesn't show you.
If you clicked through wanting to know whether the book itself is any good, I've already answered that in my review of the novella — go and read that first if the plot's still fuzzy. This piece is the other half of a book-and-film night: what the film does with the story, and how to set the evening up so it gets a fair hearing. No spoilers here either — I'll tell you what it changes, how it looks, and what to argue about afterwards, not how it ends.
What does The Innocents (1961) change from the book?
The Innocents was directed by Jack Clayton and released in 1961, adapted by William Archibald and Truman Capote, with additional dialogue from John Mortimer. The first thing to know is that the governess gets a name here: the film calls her Miss Giddens, played by Deborah Kerr, where James's novella never names her at all. That's a small choice with a big effect — a story that lives on a narrator's uncertain voice on the page has to find another way to hold that uncertainty on screen, and giving her a name is part of how the film keeps her as a person rather than a symbol.
Advertisement
The household is otherwise intact: the two children, the absent uncle who wants no contact, the housekeeper holding things together. What's different is pacing. A novella can dwell in a single paragraph of doubt for as long as it likes; a two-hour film has to dramatise that doubt in scenes, glances and silences instead. Whether that works better or worse than the page is exactly what I want you arguing about after the credits.
How was The Innocents (1961) filmed?
The film is shot in black and white, in a wide CinemaScope frame, by cinematographer Freddie Francis, and that choice does most of the film's frightening for it. A wide frame in black and white leaves a lot of empty space at the edges of the picture, and the corners sit in darkness you can't quite resolve. I spent most of my first watch scanning the edges of the screen rather than the middle of it, which is precisely the trick.
It's worth knowing before you press play, because it changes how you should watch it. This is not a film that rewards a small laptop screen with the brightness turned down to save the battery. The gardens at Bly are gorgeous and slightly wrong at once, and you need the size and the dark to get the wrongness.
Deborah Kerr, and the children who are worse than the ghosts
Kerr plays Miss Giddens as warm and entirely competent to start with, which matters — you have to believe she's a safe pair of hands before you can watch that certainty come apart. The two child performances are the other reason the film holds up: they are polite, articulate and slightly too composed for their age, and that composure is what unsettles rather than any obvious strangeness. Nothing about them looks wrong. That's the point.
How do you set up a book-and-film night for The Turn of the Screw?
A few things I'd actually do differently for the film than for the book:
- Watch it bigger and darker than usual. That wide frame needs room to breathe — the biggest screen you've got, curtains shut, no lamp this time. The book can survive a bedside light. The film can't.
- Check the format and region before you buy. I've picked out The Innocents (1961) for the link below, but it's worth checking the listing for playback format and region, since I can't promise what suits every setup.
- Don't put the film on straight after finishing the book. Leave a day between them if you can. Watching it too close to the last page makes you compare scene-for-scene instead of just watching the film. A gap lets it be its own thing.
- Save the ambiguity question for after the credits, not during. The film's ending plays its cards differently to the book's — I won't say how — so let it land before anyone starts making the case for either reading.
What to ask each other afterwards
The book leaves you arguing about a manuscript and a narrator's word. The film leaves you arguing about what the camera actually showed you — because a camera can't hedge the way a sentence can, and Clayton uses that. Ask each other what you actually saw happen versus what you assumed happened. It's a different argument to the one the book gives you, and in my house it's usually the longer one.
That's the pairing: read the ambiguity, then watch it get harder to hide from. Let me know which one convinced you first.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. How the links work.