> Jim Marsden wrote: > > I haven't seen the film, but having taught the original James novel I'm moved > to ask if you mean the movie absent those cuts pushes the psychological > interpretation (that the governess imagines the ghosts). Because if the events > in the film can be taken equally convincingly as involving either > hallucinations or the presence of real ghosts, then it would seem Clayton's > cuts (if indeed his) would keep the adaptation very close to the James > work--and thus more, not less, ambiguous. My muddy prose I'm afraid. I think the cuts push the movie towards the 'it's all in her mind' view. This is because both the shots removed in the US version are 'objective' - i.e. no close up of the governess before we see Miss Jessell so as to suggest a point of view, while the close up of Quint does seem like a vindication of the Governess' fears - fears of course that prove fatal. I might just add I think it a shame that Clayton felt (if he did) compelled to try and be faithful to James. I belong to the school that believes the faithful ones are dull, and the unfaithful ones pretty and more interesting - or in this case a good deal less scary. Richard Davies ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]