Mike Flanagan reveals first look at The Haunting Of Bly Manor, confirms even more spooky ghosts hidden throughout
Aux Features TV
Mike Flanagan has maintained a very consistent batting average with horror, from his adaptations of Stephen King’s Doctor Sleep and Gerald’s Game (both of which were previously thought to be unadaptable properties) to The Haunting Of Hill House—his terrifying and deeply poignant Netflix series based on Shirley Jackson’s novel of the same name. The filmmaker returns to Netflix this fall with The Haunting Of Bly Manor, another series based on the work of a classic author; this time, it’s Henry James, whose The Turn Of The Screw inspired the Hill House followup. Vanity Fair debuted the first images from Bly Manor and spoke with Flanagan about some of the connections between this series and its predecessor—including returning cast members like Victoria Pedretti, who plays the lead role of Dani Clayton, an American tutor who travels to the English countryside to care for the orphaned Wingrave children: Miles (Benjamin Evan Ainsworth) and Flora (Amelia Bea Smith).
Dani’s surname is a nod to Jack Clayton, director of 1961's The Innocents—another adaptation of The Turn Of The Screw. That decision appears to reflect Flanagan’s overall approach to the series, which is both an adaptation of James’ novel and an homage to his other works; the filmmaker says he also took elements from “The Jolly Corner” and “The Romance Of Old Clothes.” Producing partner Trevor Macy says they used the same “literary remix” approach as they did with Hill House. And like that series, Bly Manor also updates the source material, this time to 1987. While there are other notable similarities between the two series, Flanagan explained that it was important to tell a different story with Bly Manor:
At its foundation, the Haunting series is very much about haunted spaces and haunted people. The way we make those things dance together is really going to be what’s uniform about Hill House and Bly. Outside of that though, it was really important for all of us not to play the same notes we played for the first season. The first season is very much entrenched in family dynamics and death and grief and loss and child trauma. We all collectively felt like we’d said everything we wanted to say about that.
As such, Pedretti’s character this season is very different from that of the tragic Nell Crain. Also returning from Hill House are Henry Thomas as the Wingrave kids’ Uncle Henry, and Oliver Jackson-Cohen as his manipulative and opportunistic business associate, Peter. They’re joined by T’Nia Miller as Mrs. Grose, the manager of Bly Manor; Tahirah Sharif as the children’s previous governess, Rebecca; Amelia Eve as the manor’s groundskeeper; and Rahul Kohli as the house chef, Owen. Kate Siegel, who played Theo in Hill House, is also returning—this time in a secretive role.
Also back are the ghosts hidden throughout scenes in the series. Flanagan says he loved hiding figures and faces in the first season, and viewers enjoyed rewatching the series to find all the ghosts lurking in various scenes. This time around, the filmmaker says the hidden ghosts will have more meaning:
This season we wanted our hidden elements to tell their own story. And very much unlike the first season, they’re actually going to be explained. By the end of the season, you’re going to know who they are and why they’re there.
16 Comments
Hope he can stick the landing on the ending this time because he kind of ruined Hill House
I was told the ending sucked before watching. I was still floored how bad it was. I still love it but episodes 4 5 and 6 clearly were the peak.
It’s an interesting one – I to an extent disagree on that but to side step the endless debate on the quality/consistency of tone within the ending of HH it’s more interesting in this case to look at the intentMike Flannagan clearly decided he wanted to show to have some degree of a happy ending. I suspect (may be wrong) that we’re supposed to see the family outside of the house as having a somewhat happy ending and family inside the house being trapped in the house (and that’s not a good thing). The latter is definitely a question of whether he conveyed what he wanted to but the former seemed simply his intent for the story.
So it seemed that MF thought the show needed a more optimistic ending than say a horror film might traditionally have. Which makes sense, the show was about the siblings trauma. To follow them and have it all mean nothing, they’re screwed etc would be less satisfying storywise. Nillistic endings in TV are harder to land given the amount of time spent with the characters.So it’s entirely possible he’ll try and do a similar thing to last season. It’s quite possible that sort of ending may be a trope for this show (a bit like how gonzo killings to end character’s stories are trope in American Horror Story ). You may disagree on whether it works but if the fundemental idea of a happy ending didn’t work for you then it maybe you’ll not like what he wants to do in the show. Dunno if that quite makes sense?
Entirely possible he’ll adjust based on criticism of season 1 though…
More curious but impossible to discuss here without spoilers is what the ending of The Turning of The Screw is, how it may be adapted or not. How that show adaptation might work based on any similarities to the book ending of HoHH. Also whether any differences in the two endings might affect if the show can do what it did in season 1 and turn the book ending more into the setup for the story than the ending..
The problem was in his decision to adapt a horror story as family drama series. The latter practically has a genre requirement for a happy ending, whereas horror stories are one of the genres where an unhappy ending (as Shirley Jackson) wrote works. And everything leading up to the finale would have fit that unhappy ending, so the ending he gave us feels really out of place.
The series wasn’t able to convey the acerbic cynicism of the novel, which is why I think it’s a good series, but a mediocre adaptation. I actually may have enjoyed it even more if they had dropped the connection to the book altogether. As it stands, it’s probably the third best version of that story (the novel (of course), the ‘63 film, the series, and the ‘99 film in that order).
100% agreed. I like the series fine as its own thing (the ending was certainly a letdown, but didn’t ruin the overall experience for me) but I’m confused by what I can only view as a fundamental misunderstanding of what made the novel so great. I like Mike Flanagan, I expected more from him.The ‘63 film is as good an adaptation as one could ask for, in my opinion. If I hadn’t seen it, I’d probably believe that the story is unfilmable.
Because he didn’t drop the connection to the book, that made the series internally inconsistent, and thus not that good in my book even if it did have good elements (I like all of Flanagan’s films, he’s not incompetent).
Can it really be called an adaptation? It was a totally different story with names and passages lifted from book, often awkwardly out of context.
Nell popping up and screaming in the middle of her sisters’ argument may just be the greatest jump scare ever made. Not only is it absolutely terrifying in the moment, but it actually serves a purpose beyond that moment and is firmly rooted in the development of all three characters. Hopefully this season has something to measure up to it.
I didn’t love Doctor Sleep. I liked it a lot but I wasn’t pissing my pants scared (I love being scared as a horror dork). But Hill house did scare me silly so I will check this out.
The one real horror moment in Dr. Sleep is the one with Jacob Tremblay. After that it’s more like an X-Men movie.
Yes and I felt it dragged to long. I get they wanted to show how evil these people were but it was just a little to long for me. But you are right that was clearly the main horror moment. I will say the shower lady did scare me again but that’s more from my fear of her from the Shinning.
I enjoyed that movie a lot more when I watched the director’s cut and realised it’s really more of a character study than a horror. there a few unnerving moments, but the real horror is watching Danny struggling with the looming threat of a relapse and his demons resurfacing (and the one genuine yell-out-loud scary moment in the movie, when he wakes up in bed with the dead woman and her baby, is a direct link to that fear)
It was good and the director’s cut was better. A solid B for me but I was waiting for more horror. But it was for sure a strong movie based on the character of Danny and how his life would be a mess after the original movie/book.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s NEVER accept a job as a governess of small British children in a mysteriously empty country manor.
I knew it was a Turn of the Screw adaptation and therefore knew the plot going in, but “The Innocents” is the only “old” black and white horror movie that absolutely scared me the first time I saw it, and that I still find incredibly eerie and atmospheric and chilling on every rewatch.