I’m starting to think that I should have done this film for Halloween instead. Ah, well, live and learn. Here we have another British film from the 60s, but of a much different variety than our last entry. The Innocents is a very eerie and engaging film that plays upon the idea of whether or not the events within are psychological or supernatural. It’s the sort of film that is best watched in a dark room but will also give you more to think about than a typical horror or haunted house film. If you’ve ever seen the 1963 film The Haunting, you could see this as a predecessor to it, and both films are very much worth watching. Here’s a brief summary of the story.
We follow Miss Giddens, a woman taking up a care-taking job (or, as they call it, a “governess” position) at a mansion. She apparently loves children and is dedicating herself to making sure they grow up happy and well. The lord of the mansion, the children’s uncle, basically just wants to hand off the responsibility to someone else, since he prefers living a life of “freedom.” However, he stresses the fact that he is handing over all responsibility to her, and she is not to call him for help, to which she agrees, though slightly suspicious. Miss Giddens is initially enchanted with the mansion and grounds, as well as with the niece, Flora, however she does start to notice some strange occurrences, such as a far away voice whispering something in the air. Her slight unease only increases when Miles, the nephew, is expelled from boarding school and returns home, though he doesn’t seem to realize his situation, thinking it’s just a vacation or something. Miles, while being very polite and courteous, seems to be a little too mature for his age, almost as if something is behind his behavior. Flora herself also seems to act a little too kindly and joyous, almost like a stereotypical “proper” British girl. Soon, Giddens starts seeing visions of a ghostly man and woman in various parts of the house and grows increasingly more concerned about the children’s odd behavior. She eventually learns from Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper, that the mansion used to have another helper named Quint, who had developed a camaraderie with Miles as well as a relationship with the previous governess Miss Jessel. It seems as though the man and woman Giddens is seeing are Quint and Miss Jessel themselves, though of course, it can’t be them, because after all, those two are long dead. However, Giddens is sure that these two apparitions are influencing the children, maybe even possessing them, and she’s determined to set the two innocents free. Are there really ghosts in the mansion? Is Miss Giddens just crazy? Are the children just really weird? Well, you’ll just have to figure that out for yourself.
I have to admit, this film really got to me. Granted, I wasn’t afraid to sleep afterwards or anything, but the film’s tense and creepy atmosphere was masterfully made and really drew me in. Even the opening was disconcerting, with a very eerie song sung in a hushed tone with no music. This even carries over into the 20th Century Fox logo, which is normally very bombastic, but not here. Now it’s as cold and gray as the rest of the film. The choice to shoot this film in black and white greatly enhances the overall feel, as B&W often emphasizes light and shadow on its own, but here the shadows almost overtake the film, making the viewer feel surrounded in darkness and uncertainty, even during the day. In a way, it almost makes you dread the night, since you know that with the strange things going on during the day (e.g., eerie voices, a roach coming out of a statue’s mouth, the children’s strange behavior, etc.), you know it’s only going to get worse when the sun sets. One of the film’s freakiest scenes comes when Miss Giddens is playing hide and seek with the children. She ends up hiding behind a large window curtain with the window positioned to her left. Without a sound, a man approaches from the outside, but is he really outside? The way it’s done, it almost seems like the man is projected over the window, almost as if he were a ghost. Giddens sure seems spooked by him, and with everything else that’s happening. But this is where things get interesting: how reliable is our main character? We’re certainly experiencing the same things she’s experiencing, but are those things actually happening? We generally would want to believe her, as she seems like a good and sympathetic person, what with her desire for the children to be happy and cared for. However, it’s shown throughout the film that she has a tendency to act more like a playmate or friend than a guardian to the kids, often going along with whatever little fancy they have at the moment rather than properly disciplining them. It’s also made clear during the intro that she comes from a Christian background, and seemingly a rather strict version of it too, which calls into question what this sort of upbringing might have done to her. Perhaps it messed with her head or maybe the repression might have caused some sort of arrested development within her. She doesn’t even want to consider the idea that the children might just be really weird and in need of bigger guidance, and instead believes that there must be something else that’s controlling or influencing them, because how could they be anything but innocents? Speaking of the children, they’re an interesting factor in all this. I have to admit, I was immediately uncertain about Flora when she was introduced. She came across as a very old-style proper British girl, as I said before, and almost to the point of parody in a way. She seemed almost too perfect, or at least perfect by the standards of the time, which is also why I wasn’t sure if they were playing her to be intentionally suspicious or if it was just meant to be reflective of the time period. However, as soon as she started staring at Miss Giddens in her sleep, I knew something was up. Miles all but confirmed my suspicions about the kids, since was acting way too calm, collected, and aware throughout most of the film. The fact that he seemed to have something of a dynamic upper hand on Giddens also made things very unsettling, especially when he plants a kiss on her lips in one scene (one which she doesn’t initially draw back from……yeah). What really makes all of this work, though, is that the film never really tells you whether or not all of this is actually the work of spirits or if Miss Giddens is really just imagining it all. Other films, such as the previously mentioned The Haunting, have also toyed with this sort of idea, though The Haunting was more about an unstated supernatural presence whose identity is hinted at but never confirmed, while The Innocents puts a face and name to the presence but still makes you question the validity of, even if you can technically see it. These are the sort of horror films that can leave you with a bit more to think about compared to ones which are more about the spectacle of death. Now, that’s not to say that the latter sort of film doesn’t have their place or purpose, but with most of those, it tends to be more about basic entertainment without too much beyond it. That’s why I have to show some appreciation for The Innocents, as it gripped me on a deeper level and unsettled me in a way that was more about uncertain fear rather than physical revulsion. Plus, I just found it to be very well done and think it accomplished what it wanted to tell effectively. Even the played-up acting, which in other cases I can take issue with, felt appropriate for this scenario and presentation. It’s a tense situation set in an expansive location, and the more supposedly refined nature of the characters only helps to show what’s really behind the facade of what they truly are underneath.
Overall, The Innocents is a great psychological horror film and I definitely recommend that you go watch it. I think you’ll enjoy it quite a bit. I’m still regretting not doing this one for Halloween, but it’s all part of the learning process in the end. Go and meet The Innocents, but be mindful, as they may not be as innocent as they seem. But then again, maybe they are? After all, can we always trust our own perception? I don’t know, it is interesting indeed.