Talk:The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eric, thanks for taking on the review. I'm tempted by FAC (I'm going to rewatch the film, first) so please feel free to be as critical as you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If we can come to some kind of agreement about the psychiatrist issue then I'd be more than happy to list this article as a GA, and even recommend it for FAC. Eric Corbett 18:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• "... the film is set in the 1920s, and extenuates the sexual elements that some theorists have identified in the novella. I'm not clear what you're trying to say with "extenuates".
  • I assume I meant "accentuates"- corrected. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Production

• "This allowed Welch to more plausibly introduce the Freudian psychiatrist interviewing the main character". Why "more plausibly"? More plausibly than what?
  • I've clarified that it's "the setting" which makes it more plausible- the point is that we can believe a Freudian psychiatrist would be working in 1920s Britain, but Freud was only a young child in the 1840s, which is when the novella was set. Perhaps you can think of a better way to phrase this? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

    Freud hadn't even been born in the 1840s. It's been a while since I read the story, so I'll see if I can find my copy. Eric Corbett 12:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

    The major difference between the novella and the film is that the book's story is told as a first-person narrative, no psychiatrists involved, so that "more plausible" doesn't work for me. The story line was altered to the 1920s to allow the introduction of the psychiatrist, and therefore the flashback style, which I think ought to be made clear. Eric Corbett 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

    • I have changed the text to "The adaptation was screenwritten by Sandy Welch, who set the film in the early 1920s, in contrast to the novella's 1840s setting. This allowed the introduction of the Freudian psychiatrist interviewing the main character; this framing device is not used in the original novella, but both the novella and the film share a first-person narrator. The updated setting also allowed the First World War to account for the lack of male staff at the house." How is this? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

      I think that addresses my concern nicely. Eric Corbett 09:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• "... with Ann's repressed sexual feelings for the Master resulting in a number of highly sexual sequences." Why is "Master" capitalised, as it isn't a proper noun? Master of what anyway? Master of the house perhaps?
  • "the Master" (with a capital M) is the character's name- see this BBC press release. In the film, he takes on a kind of quasi-mythical quality- Ann fantasises about him and looks forward to the day he comes to the house, while Mrs. Grose speaks in hushed tones about how he'll never visit. I could clarify the character's name in the lead, if you think it would help frame the subsequent discussion? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

    If that's the name given by the BBC to the character then I suppose it's fine. Eric Corbett 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• "... creating unease and horror through subtle distortions of reality, not producing a "screaming-banshees-and-horrible-corpses style of ghost story". The film utilises subtle horror ..." The repetition of "subtle" in two consecutive sentences looks a little awkward.
  • Adjusted. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• "The film is told in a series of flashbacks". Films aren't "told".
  • Adjusted. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Ann fantasises about the Master". As above. Every time I see "the Master" I'm reminded of Dr Who.
• "Ann travels to Bly and meets the all-female household staff—led by Mrs. Sarah Grose (Johnston), the housekeeper—and young Flora (Sayer), one of Ann's new pupils". The way that's written makes it seem like Flora was a member of the female staff.
  • I thought this phrasing avoided the problem- I've tried to make it clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "Ann's relationship to the Master".

• This article has been promoted. Eric Corbett 09:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for the review and copyediting- thoroughly appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)