MovieChat Forums > In a Dark Place (2007) Discussion > What the heck was this movie about?!

What the heck was this movie about?!

posted 16 years ago by marycrank
24 replies | jump to latest

Seriously. What was this movie even about? They don't ever explain what was going on, and you don't know who she is at the end. Not only was this movie incoherent, but they threw in a few disgusting nude scenes and some lesbian action that has nothing to do with the plot. Not only that, but the movie draaaags on, taking forever getting to what you assume will be the answer to the riddle (that really isn't terribly intriguing to begin with), then doesn't give you anything. And what the heck is she doing standing in front of a window where everyone (including the children) can see her wearing almost nothing? El sucko grande! I wish I could get my 2 hours back. I could have been looking at the inside of my eyelids. I could have made a cake. I could have gone to Wal-Mart. I could have cleaned my house. I could have shaved my cat. I could have done anything else and it would have been more worthwhile than the time I unfortunately spent watching this idiotic piece of crap on celluloid.

[–] mauipono 16 years ago

I concur. Anybody want to tell us what this sucky movie was about?

[–] alicenwndrln 16 years ago

I sure wish someone would. I haven't a damn clue. What a piece of crap.

I agree with the first poster. What the hell was up with the random lesbian scene? What was up with the secretary playing the violin & then writhing on the bed showing her boobies? Was Anna insane or what? What had she done with/to the kids? I didn't get any of it, & it bored me to tears. NOT impressed with Leelee.

[–] ajnemajrje 13 years ago

The book and original movie adaptation both were so much better. If you get a chance read the book and watch "The Innocents"

I think they threw in the lesbian scene to make it more modern and hip but in the original the secretary was a matronly older woman so the sex scene would have been completely different.

Funny the movie was so bad that the lesbian scene didn't even make it any better. It wasn't hot at all in my opinion. The kissing seemed like they were just mashing their lips together and then when she was kissing her neck all I heard was a sucking sound.

It is supposed to be left open (in the book) as to whether the ghosts are real or not but they tried to hard to tie up any loose ends that they got rid of all the atmosphere of the original.

And that robe she was wearing just made her look chunky instead of looking sexy like I think the costumer was going for.

[–] bcook128 16 years ago

I MUST agree to all of the above posts...this movie was a complete waste...thank God I rented it from Redbox so it only cost $1. The movie went NOWHERE. The last line of the movie, I think, was Leelee: "I'm the only one that knows"......um I'm thinking she was talking about the only one that knows what the heck was going on. At the end of the movie, the boy (Miles) drowns himself....I have to admit I was contemplating a similar fate for myself. I had to swallow a little vomit SEVERAL times while watching Leelee Sobieski's acting, if you can call it that. Her "laughing" and "crying" could use a little work, and could somebody PLEASE teach her a facial expression that doesn't look like a sullen 3 year old!! "In A Dark Place" should STAY in a dark place and never see the light of day.

[–] shadow_rebel_13 16 years ago

This movie was based on the book The Turn of the Screw by Henry James. The book was quite good, and rather short, so if you aren't doing anything some afternoon, you should really read it. The movie, on the other hand, will give the book a bad name. You are supposed to decide for yourself what happened.

Let me repeat: YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHAT HAPPENED. It's the same way in the book, you don't get all the questions answered, you have to decide. Was Anna crazy? Maybe, but was she driven crazy by ghosts or her past? (let me just say here, in the book, she was not raped as a child, nor was Mrs. Grose a lesbian, and they certainly didn't have sex, nor did Mrs. Grose play a violin and writhe in aparent ecstasy mostly naked) So the movie presents another option, but mostly answers it at the end.

Really, the movie gives you two basic options (not the two the book gives, but still), either Anna is really trying to protect the children from real spirits, or she's just bloody nuts and she's the one hurting the children although she can't seem to remember doing it. Slightly reminiscent of "Hide and Seek." Right up until the end, it seems that there really are spirits, evil ones, that the children commune with. But the end of the movie seems to be saying that Anna is the monster, hurting the children in the night, losing her mind and justifying it. Or you could see it as, her past is so closely related that she's the only one who could possibly understand. There. Two options. It says a lot about you, personally, which way you think it went.

The ending of the book is so much better: Miles death is much more mysterious, and the children seem so much more evil.

~Where are you going, dark restless one?~

[–] scoobydooamyl 16 years ago

thanks for that, now i actually get wut that movie was talking about, it was so confusing!

[–] kmsgurlie 16 years ago

wait but at the end it flashed and it showed anna with her childhood face or soemthing and it looked dead . why did it do that?

luv ya,
::sammy::

[–] Random Terrain 16 years ago

The movie doesn't really give us two options. Only a nut would watch a kid die and do nothing about it. Seems like the filmmakers were saying "You thought you were watching a ghost story, but it was about a nutty girl instead! Got you! Ha ha!"

[–] mammasan 16 years ago

I agree completely with Random Terrain. There is no doubt that she is crazy and is hurting and/or molesting the children. It reminded me of "The Others". It was a waste of time to watch to the end, I was just hoping that it would be clearer at the end. I was wrong.

Try Jesus. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.

[–] shadow_rebel_13 16 years ago

*kmsgurlie
I suppose it might be implying that her past had taken over her present and she was always going to be that hurt little girl trying to deal with the rape.

*Random Terrain
Lol, exactly! But, still, she described the ghosts exactly, without once seeing a picture of them. Maybe she was completely fruitloops at the end, but there was still something else going on. Mayhap the dark spirits had forced her into her craziness by making her relive her worst nightmare, thus making the present seem...oh, who am I kidding, I'm just grasping at straws here. She was psycho at the end, truly. The writers botched an otherwise fantastic story by making it so that she was bleeding nuts. I recommend the book. It was great.

*mammasan
Random thought here...Maybe the evil spirits made the children draw her as the monster, thus making her relive the memories she most despised. She saw her past being lived by the children, with her starring as the wicked monster, and it made her go crazy. Didn't save the boy because she saw death as a preferable option to living with the repressed memories. Who knows, maybe she went and killed herself afterwards?

I just like discussing things, so I'm super difficult lol. Apologies all around.

~Where are you going, dark restless one?~

[–] AJSabbo 16 years ago

Some of us believe that schizophrenia sometimes has direct links to paranormal activity, ie that possibly some of the schizophrenics that seem to talk to "imaginary" people, may have some unverifiable link with some spirits. What I'm saying is that maybe both scenarios are true in this movie, Anna is losing her mind and she has actually seen spirits that she percieves to be out to hurt the children whether they are or not. The Problem with these types of movies is that you have no way to know what actually happens and what may just be in her mind. For instance, could Miles drowning himself have been a symbol of one her mental demons expiring(or some such nonsense)or did kid really off himself?

[–] enamoredsoul 15 years ago

Shadow Rebel 13:

I'm so glad someone out there has read the book, rather than just watching this movie that does not do the book justice. It is just sad that whereas the book pushes the reader to conjure up their own version of the horror, the movie makes the paltry effort to be both (unsuccessfully) decisive and inconclusive at the same time.

In the movie, they have already decided what they want the viewer to think/believe, and have embedded various subliminal messages in the movie to that effect, but the problem is that they have done a piss-poor job at leading the audience to that conclusion!

Yes, Anna is sexually abusing the children. There are no ifs and buts about it (in the movie). There are many key scenes that point to this. (Subliminal Message #1) When Flora crawls into bed, she says to Anna "I'll do anything" which is often the plea bargain of an abused child (psychology). (Subliminal Message #2) When Anna talks to Miles in her room, and he blows out the candle, that is a clear indication of a sexual plot at play (you've seen it in a million other movies, why doesn't it resound in your head with this movie? Just because it's a child who did it?), and the next morning he says, "I've been here with you all night." In some ways, these messages aren't even subliminal, they're really quite indicative.

The "voices" that are the "ghosts" in Anna's head, they always occur when she is about to hurt, or is hurting, the children. At the end, when she is talking to Miles as he drowns, she says "He's never going to hurt you anymore" - how does a ghost HURT a child? Scare them, yeah. Psychologically frightens them, yeah, but she talks as if this ghost is physically inflicting pain on the children, which isn't possible, except in her head! The thing is, she was sexually abused as a child, and she never was able to save herself (save the little girl) from that, and therefore, she grew up with wanting to "save" a child from some horrible fate. However, the abuse inflicted on her left her confused and demented, and subconsciously in order to vent her pain, she began inflicting the abuse on these children! The children (or anyone else) cannot see them because they do NOT exist. It is Anna that keeps telling them that they are there. For example, at the end, when Peter Quint is (apparently *groan*) at the window, she says to Miles "There's a man outside the window, and he wants to hurt you", I am sure she has done this on various occasions, which is why the children drew the two figures in their drawings! Oh, and as for the argument that she saw the "ghosts" and was able to describe them before she saw the pictures - that is not entirely true. Who is to say she has not been snooping around before, when she is not entirely conscious of her actions? We have never seen her in that state, thus it is safe to assume, she could do something like that!

She needed something to "save" those kids from, and thus she conjured up the "ghosts". They were her way of getting close to the children, and telling them, I'm doing this to protect you, someone is out to get you - you need me to protect you, so let me do this to you. When really, she was the one they needed protection from!

At least, that's what I think happened. Although to be honest, that was on twisty effin' movie! *sigh* Oh, and for God's SAKE, there was NO need for nudity or the lesbian sex scene in the damn movie...but God, gotta sell some tickets, when the plot sucks ASS, right!??! lol :P

Gotta love Hollywood! :)

P.S...feel free to argue any of the points, I kind of like discussions such as this myself! :) And am never offended by a rebuttal! :)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xckakaxx 15 years ago

Okay, I just watched it and this is the explanation I came away with:

The ghosts are real, and they drove the previous nanny to kill herself with the help of the children. When she saw the pictures he drew of her as a monster, she realized that the children had a plan with the ghosts to make her look like she was abusing them, so that she couldn't help them. So, she let the boy die because she thought it was the only way to free him from the ghosts.

Personally, I liked this movie because I felt like it gave you a "book experience." You know, like you still have to use your imagination a little instead of everything being set for you.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xenatikkanen-1 16 years ago

LOL

Truthfully, though I understand your consternation about this movie, I wouldn't agree that it was as horrible as all that (now, House of 9, THAT movie fits your category here!). I do love the original story, but it is not exactly fleshed out too well here in this celluloid take. I watched it mainly because I like LeeLee, though I could have done without 90 minutes of her boobs in all their glory all boobs all the time (as strikingly beautiful as they are and as she is! sorry, she's not my type hehe).

I found the first part of the picture to be full of good, creepy atmospheric fun, but it disintegrated toward the end, and I am still trying to figure out what happened in this movie, to be honest!

Say you subscribe to the theory that most or all of what is happening is in Anna Veigh (what the heck kind of name is that!??!?!) the nanny's head as a result of her implied and stated sexual molestation and subsequent allowance of continued sexual assault by her employer Mr. James. It is also why she allows Ms. Grose to have her way with her too, because she uses sex as a weapon when she is in trouble. Ms. Grose shows her attraction to Anna immediately, and Anna uses it to her advantage because she doesn't know any other way to express her angst.

That leads to several questions like: did Mr. James assault Valerie Jessel too? Did she kill herself or was she murdered (by Quint or Ms. Grose? Or the children???)? Did Anna imagine the ghosts? If so, why did it appear that the children talked to the ghosts and drew the ghosts (which makes the ridiculous picture at the end where ANNA is the monster that Miles drew more incongruous)? Why was Flora always whispering to someone? Or was ALL of THAT in Anna's mind too? Maybe paranoid delusion that there even was a voice at all, whispering? If these two kids simply were good lil ones, then why was Miles expelled 3 times and why wouldn't he discuss it? What the heck does "influences" mean in this case? If a headmaster gave me that reason for expulsion, I would have socked him in the jaw to get my money's worth, just like an MLB manager being ejected from a game by an umpire! Why does Miles run around with a Jason Voorhees potato sack on his head with ax to scare everyone (and standing in the snow on the remote possibility that Anna would look out the window at THAT moment to scare her???)? Why the heck was Ms. Grose masturbating and playing the violin if she wasn't channeling Ms. Jessel? Why did they hire someone with NO nanny experience if they were so concerned about the kids? If these kids were simply traumatized by the death of their parents, then why do they act like it's no big deal? Why do they dance around in the cemetery like goofballs? They aren't simply rambunctious kids. They aren't kids who act as if they just lost their parents. They ARE deeply disturbed, regardless of the fact that Anna may be deeply disturbed (and understandably so). There is NOTHING normal or regular about these two kids. They act at every turn as if they had been molested as well and that they were haunted by something or someone. So, laying it all on Anna's fractured mind and soul at the end is totally ridiculous.

Jennifer B Jacobs
Sports/Video Traders' Network
Knoxville, TN 37923-2271
http://www.myspace.com/xenatikkanen

[–] Ma5656 15 years ago

Ahem...it's a remake of the classic - The Turn of The Screw.

[–] Loomis_Orange 15 years ago

I'm assuming there are two versions of this film that I haven't seen, The first and the last. The last one is on in about two hours (that's why I'm here) I liked the Deborah Kerr version. "The Innocents" The song little Flora hums all through the Innocents is very eerie and haunting, much like the theme to Rosemary's Baby. It sticks with you long after the film is over.
I believe Valerie Bertinelli did the Television version of this film. It carried the original "The Turn of the Screw" title.

I can only wait for the final amnesia, the one that can erase a life.

[–] melsen 15 years ago

There's only one good film version of this famous story, "The Innocents", an eternal classic and forever #1.

[–] Dewhistle 14 years ago

Funny thing is, I read The Turn of the Screw and hated it. Here I was trying to wait patiently to find out what was going on and in the end the stupid book just stops, giving the reader about as much closure as you could get from Practical Magic.

I know it's verboten to fail to appreciate any book labeled as a classic. But for my part I came away feeling that it was overrated and that Henry James just couldn't think of a satisfactory ending, so he cheated, he did the same thing as makers of b-movies often do... he just left certain spots empty and called it suspense. Hey, they say, it's not that we couldn't come up with an explanation, it's that not knowing makes people tense and that adds to the mystery! Like I said, cheating.

[–] Geechee 14 years ago

I loved the book. I liked the way James didn't give you the answer to the mystery. I think that's the brilliance of the book. It's what has kept it popular for so long. It has led to endless discussions about it. Sure, it would have been easy for James to tell you at the end that Anna was nuts and there weren't really any ghosts or that there were ghosts and Anna was really trying to protect the children but, then, it would have been just another Gothic horror story. We probably wouldn't even be talking about it now.

This move did a great injustice to the book, the main one being that the director didn't even bother to read the book. There have been several versions of the book made over the years but none as well done as "The Innocents".

[–] nightmare0308 15 years ago

Ok, so i read all your opinions which lead to my discovery of the answer. im just gonna go in order of the original complaint. Let me begin by says every scene in this movie is very important to understanding the movie itself. even the hated lesbian sex scene

There are no ghost. To prove my point, the children never see them when Anna does. like at the lake (both times) or at the end with just Anna and miles. How come mills doesn't jump or even react when he hits the glass. Well that brings up the question what about the pictures. Well theirs two different types of the "ghost" in these painting. one they have a face and you can tell its there parents. the other is a gray/black stick figure. When i was a kid i had a friend who died. and in a lot of drawings that my father still has i drew my friend even after his death. Well what about the other one. If you remember the scene where miles paints over the snow man using gray and makes him just a stick figure. Anna ask why and he replies that he didn't like it.

Where the children Sexual abuse by anna. Yes!!! indeed they were. Let me explain anna before i explain my evidence. You learn that anna to was sexual abused. but if you pay attention while this is happening (the abuse that is) she's reaching for something(honesly i have no idea what it was i thought it was a strawberry lol) but when the guy is done with her he hands it to her. which sets her up to think she can get what she wants with sex and her body. which happens alot with sexual abuse victims in real life. think about that same scene that leads to the sex scene. right before that the other ladie whos name i dont remember was yelling at anna for these "ghost" and how there not real. The yelling and argueing doesnt stop till she puts her head on that ladies breast.and then they have sex and then there happy with each other again. She got what she wanted. This is also shown through the little girl when she gets in annas bed cause she's scared. well anna dont seem to happy about it till she says "ill do anything" the little girl knows with sex she can get to sleep in the bed. they left out previous encounters to make it more of a mystery. i also read someone asked why did she have those slutty shirts around kids. well duh the kids noticed. like the scene where annas in the chair and miles is opening up her shirt whiles shes sleeping. Why did miles wait outside. he knows when annas scared she pays attention to him and he gets well to be honest her. that why he says i did it to scare you also i notice she asked how would you know that i would be looking. he replies along the lines of because i knew you would look for us (in there bedroom) so apparently this was a nightly thing. which lead to the hinted sex scene with her and him. and the following morning he said i was with you all night with kindof a cocky attitude. a key scene that no one notice what the bathroom scene with the one girl and anna when the girl says i want you out tommorow morning. anns cries and says please help me (trying to pull of her shirt) the women says i dont think thats such a good idea. She didnt get what she wanted (starting to get the picture?) also i notice that a subliminal thing was that anna only got what she wanted in those revealing shirts. when she at the lake, then the bathroom, then chasing miles she is covered head to toe. when she's not getting what she wanted.

The women playing violin and masturbation scene is also a key scene. your really supposed to compare her and anna. both are artist of there own trade. music and painting. both like sex (lol). but theres a difference notice all scene with anna theres someone else to pleasure her. the women does fine on her own she doesn't need anyone. Also note that anna is with the kids at the time. Cause she needs them. She needs someone.

The scene where anna see's the "ghost guy" at the window is nothing more the foreshadowing. notice she grabs the knife and is at the window just like he was, explaining to the other women what happened and the two kids are just laughing and not scared of her. later on with miles, hes scared of her only this time she doesn't have the knife and she hits the window just like the "ghost" did and he runs. so basically in the beginning she hadn't done much harm but by this point she has and the kids are afraid of her. *also just figured out that was a reference to how she was the real "ghost" not as in she was a god but that it was her. and what i mean is the ghost where in her head so she was really the one doing all of this. the one that was hurting the children. thats also y she appears at the window like he did. thus y the little girl said get her out of here when she couldnt breathe. and also all the monster pictures. Which the monster pictures is what she absolutly could not handle, i mean after all she did to "help" they dare call her a monster that has to crush her.

The scene with miles at the very end is what explains everything. notice when hes on the branch everytime anna speaks or reaches out he move back. but only when she speak or reach out does he do that. in other words she tried to help when help wasnt need thus pushing them farther away from being ok.. when he actually falls in she closes her eyes saying the same stuff. Why doesnt she help him? Cause she thinks there nothing wrong, she spent all this time trying to help when nothing was wrong and when something was wrong she thought everything was ok.

What about the demented face on anna at the end. let me start off by saying the was creepy made me jump. then again it was 3 in the morning lol. but thats supposed to be her as a kid. what thats saying is she was basically still stuck on the inside as she was when her "tragedy" happened. she didn't know any better she just wanted to help. Which brings up the other key scene i purposly didnt mention yet. When all 4 are at the lake and the three run of with out anna. she throws a fit. like what you might ask. like alittle kid she thrashes around screaming and crying until the woman come back and cuddles her like a child. anna doesnt know how to deal with problems other then sex and using her body in some way or another.

o yea the call in the bathroom. i didnt see the first 25 mins or so of the movie so im guessing she called her old employer that i read from another reply also had her way with her. which thus proves my case even more she doesnt know how to deal with the kids so y not go back to the boss that she got what she wanted through what else but sex. (i think i didnt see the beginning but thats my guess on that part)

I can't help but think theres something im forgetting so any questions just ask please. and im open for debate.

All and all i like the movie and the girl that played anna might have not been the greatest actress but she was a good looking women i wish i could have been miles opening her shirt and for the rest of that night lol

[–] tbonesays 11 years ago

Okay, I think there are few stories being played out here. The film doesn't really pick one over the other.

Revenge Ghost The family mistreated nanny #1 and her lover, even playing some vague role in their deaths. (Head lady was jealous over lost lesbian lover?) Her ghost come back to possess Anna and make the family pay for their sins.

Cycle of Molestation AV, having been abused as a child, was exploited as a teacher and nanny by her superiors, reenacting the rape. She takes it out by abusing the two children, not on camera of course. She sees ghosts that her mind invented as the perpetrator.

Heeeeere's Johnny, the Psychic Boy has some ESP. His mental machinations lead to bad things, like getting kicked out of school, and to the death of nanny#1. That's why he knew the man ghost Anna saw, and he is painting those ghosts, and he eventually draws AV as a devil, because he knows she tormented by the demonic forces. His suicide is him wanting out of his painful existence.

Is she or isn't she? The movie tries to set up another knock of The Shining with the setting of The Others. It's set up around the ambiguity of whether their are ghosts around or if it is all just a mental disorder of Anna.

There's some overlap between those stories of course.

My question is about the author. did he intend a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity? Are we supposed to find the answer in the film? Or was he simply confused? Did he start with a standard ghost story but then loaded it up with tropes that don't fit.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]