411mania.com: Movies - 31 Years, 31 Screams: In a Dark Place

It's always difficult to review any adaptation of Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw." Any discussion of the novella's events counts as a spoiler because the story itself is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

But in order to review a film so frustratingly impenetrable as Donato Rutunno's In a Dark Place, it's necessary to throw out any rules about spoilers anyway. Be warned.

James' original story "The Turn of the Screw" was also an exercise in convoluted opaque storytelling. It's told by a narrator listening to a friend read the memoirs of a governess who then becomes a secondary narrator of the actual story we're reading. Think on that for a bit.

Peter Waddington's script, however, takes on some new themes with varying individual success. The end result for the overall story is that the movie collapses under the weight of the items Waddington is piling on top. It's unfortunate too, because the film takes a side not often seen in film (but one that is vehemently defended by Jamesian scholars).

Leelee Sobieski plays fired schoolteacher "Anna Veigh." The governess in the novella is never named, which actually creates a sort of credibility to the story and puts filmmakers in the awkward position of not knowing what to call her. We catch up with Anna as she's being fired (we get some implication that Anna had an angry in-class outburst) by a lecherous principle just before he takes advantage of her. Classy.

Even though it didn't work out there, the principle recommends her to Mr. Laing (Jonathan Fox), a rich executive in need of a governess for his niece and nephew immediately. Anna accepts immediately because the pay is great, but she soon starts to question her decision when she's fed to the icy estatekeeper Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald).

Ms. Grose introduces her to Flora (Gabrielle Adam), Laing's sweet, but skittish niece. Flora refuses to paint with Anna because it's "messy" and not "ladylike." Her brother Miles is still at school, though. Anna receives a letter from Miles' school. He's been expelled for "influences." That's inappropriately vague, although given the revelations later on, it makes sense that he doesn't want to discuss it in detail.

Miles seems quite nice too, though, and doesn't display much in the way of abnormal behavior. He's a little brattish to his sister, but that's all part of growing up.

Then, everyone starts to act a little bipolar. Anna seems to have fun with the kids until she starts seeing people in the house who aren't there – a man standing in the tower or looking in at her through the kitchen window. Miles is happy-go-lucky before he puts sack on his head and goes after his sister with a scythe, claiming he's "Death." Little scamp. Ms. Grose is not immune either, going from a joyless frostybox to a sensual nurturer. None of these changes really has any explanation in the plot.

And that's the real problem with the film. Although director Donato Rotunno explains that he didn't want to know anything about any of the original films or the novella, understanding his film depends entirely on knowing the story in advance. Lord help anyone seeing this version as their first experience with the story.

Grose reveals that Peter Quint and Miss Jessel (the groundskeeper and former governess) were lovers. Miss Jessel fell through the ice on the nearby lake and was found dead by the children. Distraught Quint hung himself in the tower a few months later. Grose also reveals that Quint and Miles were very close.

Anna recognizes Miles and Flora's behavior as that of children who have been sexually abused. She knows because she was sexually abused as a child. Now, she thinks Quint has come back for Miles. Or maybe she's just reading too much into the situation because of her past.

When pressed on the "ghosts," the kids have very different reactions. Flora is happy to sleep in Anna's bed (especially during storms), but she refuses to admit anything. Miles, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with Anna or her questions. He becomes sullen and combative.

Ms. Grose has a far more extreme – and puzzling – reaction. Let's just say she embraces the love that dare not speak its name. She also reveals that she was in love with one of the dead people, and she hated Peter Quint, so do the math.

The denouement, while strange and not in line with the novel, is no less tragic. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and it's one of those "up to the viewers" endings that film geeks love and casual fans hate. I guess the moral of the story is that there are different ways to be haunted.

This is one of those "A" for effort, "F" for execution films. Retelling the tale to take the focus off the supernatural and put it onto the governess is a fine idea – one that hasn't been exploited by filmmakers up until now.

Screenwriter Peter Waddington does a fantastic job of portraying Anna's sexual abuse, something a lot of critics missed in the harsher reviews. They called the sex scene gratuitous, but it's not really. It reveals a lot about both Anna and Ms. Grose. Anna constantly puts herself in the role of victim, repeating her original abuse like a textbook abuse victim. The scene also establishes Ms. Grose as a possible victimizer, which opens a whole new avenue that the film doesn't capitalize on. It's hardly meaningless, though.

The biggest problem with the movie is that Waddington has tried too hard to create a "deep movie" with multiple layers. As a note to aspiring screenwriters: you can't leave out text and call it subtext. Subtext comes from the audience reading between the lines, not filling in gaps you left out.

Waddington also does a poor job of scripting the dialogue. Sometimes it's up to date. Sometimes it echoes the Gothic style of the original novella. Usually, it falls flat. "See how much fun it can be to be messy?!"

Sobieski doesn't help with flat and sometimes puzzling delivery. *This* is someone who was nominated for an Emmy and two Golden Globes? She's never even been utilized. She's a classical beauty and very charismatic in interviews, but the roles she's picked rarely showcase that.

It's unfortunate that Sobieski turns in such an atrocious performance, because she's the most notable thing in the film… well, she's two of the most notable things in the film, judging by how much time Rotunno spends emphasizing her breasts. In fairness, though, they are clearly real, and they are spectacular.

The bigger problem is that Sobieski's name is becoming synonymous with horrible films. The Glass House was a bland bomb that failed to make its money back. The Wicker Man remake seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was so unintentionally hilarious that it's become a youtube sensation. But she followed that up with a Uwe Boll movie and the horrible Al Pacino thriller 88 Minutes. Is she *trying* to commit career suicide?

There's plenty of fault to go around, though. For a horror story, there's not a lot of horror, just a lot of navel (and nipple) gazing. I'd be willing to give director Donato Rotunno the benefit of the doubt on this film if he wasn't so confidently clueless on the DVD extras.

The 411: What could have been a suspenseful reimagining of a classic horror tale turns into a muddled mess thanks to an unfocused screenplay that tries to sprint before it crawls and dreary career-killing performances. Check out the Dan Curtis made-for-TV version instead. C-

Post Comment (3) | Email J.D. Dunn | View J.D. Dunn's 411 Profile

Please add your comment below.

If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.

Name :

Comment :

Remaining Characters :

2800