The Children's Hour

Rating:
Summary: Very Good Movie
Review: This movie was very good. When I first saw it I did not know it was about the topic of lesbianism so I was suprised. This movie is based on a play by the same name which when it came out it was very controversial. I really thought that it was a little ahead of its time. The other movie called These Three took the entire theme of lesbianism which made the movie nothing more than every other movie of its time. I was dissapointed by the movie These Three so I stopped watching it because it took alot of the movie. 2 women "supposedly" fighting over a man, so what big deal. That is why when I saw the children's hour I was rlieved that they stuck with the orginal theme.I love Audery Hepburn and wish she really would have been a lesbian in the film. Now there just needs to be a version that takes it a step further and make the characters lesbians in love. (oh wait has that been done already?)

Rating:
Summary: Great actors keep this relevant even in a time of "gay chic"
Review: This story, about two women friends accused of lesbianism, is uneven, reflecting its production in the early 1960s. Due to the new openness in society and the media, it could be remade today into a much more powerful film, even retaining its original setting of the 1930s. In a remake, the central question would need to be readdressed: is this a film about the power of gossip, or is it a story about homosexuality? In fact, the first celluloid version of play "The Children's Hour" is "These Three," which turns it into a typical love triangle between the two women and one woman's boyfriend. (It also has a bit of a strange ending, set in Austria - considering that it was made in 1936, Hitler's heyday).

But this is worth watching for the terrific performances. MacLaine is tough and tender, conveying so much through her troubled eyes, while Hepburn portrays a woman who is kind, but somehow needs to be protected, taken care of. It's great to see Miriam Hopkins return, as she played MacLaine's role in "These Three". Casting Garner is somewhat of a coup - precisely because he's so strong, masculine and confident, an "ideal man" for the times. Badly-directed child actors can really ruin a film, but the ones that act well are usually underrated (with the exception of Margaret O'Brien and Haley Joel Osmond). Veronica Cartwright is sweet and believable as the weak-willed kleptomaniac, and Karen Balkin's bad seed is easy to hate.

The final scene is open-ended, but what it implies is a bit shocking. It's that vagueness that marks the film as a product of its time, where it pretends to be sensitive but really has it both ways. In the cable movie "If Walls Could Talk 2," two gay characters watch the film in 1961, obviously touched by it, and how it reflects their lives. But by the same token, the film also reiterates beliefs about homosexuality which were common in pre-AIDs era films.

For an interesting jolt, see "Julia", which is a wonderfully written and acted film about Lillian Hellman, the playwright who originally wrote "The Children's Hour", also adapted as "These Three". In that 1970s movie, actress Jane Fonda, playing Hellman, slaps a man after he insuniates that she has a "special" friendship with co-star Vanessa Redgrave, who plays her best friend. "Julia" is also based on "Pentimento," Hellman's biography, which I have yet to read - so I'm not sure whether this was a true to life incident, perhaps one that influenced "The Children's Hour".

Rating:
Summary: Mildly diverting but mostly a bore
Review: This William Wyler production of Lillian Hellman's once-notorious play might have been daring in 1961, but today its approach to its semi-taboo subject - all whispered confidences and meaningful looks - seems not only evasive but somewhat mean and sniggering, especially in its treatment of Shirley MacLaine's character. Audrey Hepburn and MacLaine are the headmistresses of a girls' school accused of lesbianism by a vengeful brat; James Garner is the somewhat unnecessary third wheel to the party. It's got all the ingredients of a courtroom drama, but we never get the courtroom scene; instead, we get an agonizingly protracted and melodramatic conclusion that seems to drag on for years. Very stoic and literal-minded treatment results in a somewhat suffocating film, redeemed only by a few stray moments in which Wyler allows the actors to breathe and be themselves (MacLaine walking by herself in the courtyard, a scene echoed at the end of the film with Hepburn).

Rating:
Summary: NIGHTMARE FROM THE PAST - EXCELLENT MOVIE.
Review: We shouln't be deceived into believing that this film is absolutely dated, and now everything is O.K. In the first place, a similar fate to that which marred the lives of the main characters is possible today. On the other hand, the strength of slander, whatever its sources and its facial or apparent contents hasn't lost its power. The only antidote for all that is for the people to understand and accept that every human being is master upon himself or herself. Of course, the correlative freedom of bystanders of acting according to their own values towards people who don't share those values is also standing... if they confine themselves to personal or mental disapproval and don't take any coercive steps to interfere.

This film aroused strong feelings in me, and that means that it is a successful work, as far as my interest or viewing pleasure is concerned. These two wonderful women, Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLain tackle with force a taboo subject. There is more to it. Children can be terribly wicked and perverse sometimes. Let's draw on our own memories of childhood to confirm this. My impression at the time I watched the movie was one of outrage. Maybe our contemporary gay and lesbian scene -I thought sometimes- go overboard with their pride days and so on. We need just freedom, that's all. But when one sees how it was in the late fifties, one can't feel but sympathy and solidarity. I felt myself hoping that Audrey and Shirley claimed: "Yes, we are exactly that. So what?" And proceed showing their love and passion for each other.

In fact, the last part surprised me, and Shirley has grown in my respect and admiration. She dared to play the girl with real lesbian tendencies.

Excellent cinematography, a good play -by the otherwise not very much realiable and a liar herself Lilan Hellman- and, watched now, a sense of nightmare from a past that scares in many respects but is now present still in other forms. Only that some dialogues sound phony and artificial, in spite of the effort by all the actresses and actors involved. James Garner is very good here too.

Rating:
Summary: What the loudest whisper can do...
Review: What the maliciously whispered lies of one nasty little kid can do! What can it do? I recall Malcolm McDowell's character in if... saying how one bullet in the right place could change the world. Well, something similar happens here, only the world that is shattered results in the discrediting of three innocent people.

Mary is an aggressive troublemaker at the Wright-Dobie School For Girls, run by Karen Wright and Martha Dobie, women who graduated from college together. The school's actually a large two-story house where the children sleep upstairs and have classes downstairs. Mary lies, steals, blackmails, and even overracts just to get out of trouble. Karen, who has been patient with her, finally decides to punish her, and that's when Mary decides to act. She uses gossip she hears from other girls, blackmails a girl with a penchant for stealing, but the second worst thing she does is manipulate her caring but strict grandmother, Ms. Amelia Tilford, into being the agent for the destruction of innocent lives. It is Tilford's spreading the lie of the schoolteachers being lovers that causes the school to collapse.

For the two women, assisted by Martha's meddlesome aunt Lily Mortar, running a school's not easy, but things are looking up. They've finally made a profit, expecting some more students, and Joe Cardon, the local doctor and cousin of Mary's, has finally agreed on a date to marry Karen. All this though has been surrounded by tensions. Joe has been snappish, Martha is a bit sharp with Joe, and everybody's tired from running this school. And tensions boil when Lily berates Martha for being possessive and jealous of Karen to the point that Martha dismisses her own aunt from the school. But the scandal brings with it the mind-twisting madness of how certain words spoken have a different connotation. "Everything I say is meant to mean something else," Joe says in frustration. To which Karen says, "Every word has a new meaning. Child, love, friend, woman...not many safe words anymore."

The darkly lit interior scenes in the empty schoolhouse, once bustling with activity, mirrors the somber atmosphere after the scandal breaks. Based on Lillian Hellman's play on an actual incident in early 19th century Scotland, and initially filmed in 1936 under the title These Three, and also directed by William Wyler, it was a perfect opportunity to test the waters of the newly liberated Production Code, but the word "lesbian" was never used, mainly because Hepburn was nervous about content. There were some scenes that played up on a potential relationship that were cut, and Shirley MacLaine regretted that Wyler didn't keep the ball rolling in that regard. As a result, it's not the film it could have been.

The stars are all good, with even James Garner showing some emotional depth when things between Joe and Karen finally become strained as a result of the scandal. Miriam Hopkins, who played Martha Dobie in These Three, plays the role originally done by Catherine Doucet. Audrey is laudable enough here, but for her, saying no to Wyler, who directed her to fame in Roman Holiday, was tantamount to saying no to God, otherwise, she probably wouldn't have come out in this. But Fay Bainter (Ms. Tilford) turns in a role for which she was given a Best Supporting Actress nomination, as someone concerned, and too trusting to be blinded from the truth. When it does hit her, there is a scene when she collapses. She shrugs off any assistance, rises, and stares imperiously while her granddaughter stares in fear at being finally revealed.

While not one of Hepburn's most memorable movies, it's certainly one of the most depressing, and thus seems longer than it's 1:47 running time.

Rating:
Summary: Still a period piece
Review: When this movie was written, a lot of years had passed since the first movie version was made. The person who wrote this screenplay did not take advantage of a more liberal world. Free love was still a few years away but the time was right for more sympathy for the Shirley McClaine character. The performances were generally quite good on all counts but accomplished actor James Garner, always a bit of a likeable noncomformist in his other roles, is forced to play a part that in the end was not suited for his persona. He would never let Audrey Hepburn get away. The book and the script drawn from it changes the focus from the lies of a mean little girl to the heavier matter of lesbianism itself, much like "House of Games" years later changed the focus from the world of conmen to an examination of their victim's quirks. Not entirely satisfying. Without the revelation made by Shirley McClaine's character, much of the emotional devastion could have been healed and we'd have had a satisfying movie. As it was, the movie, as presented, was meant to leave us perhaps inexplicably uncomfortable and was not about "the children" after all.

Rating:
Summary: Incredible Film, FIVE STARS
Review: Whenever one hears the name Audrey Hepburn, they often think of Sabrina, My Fair Lady, or Breakfast At Tiffany's. THIS film is one of Hepburn's greatest, and even as one of her biggest fans, I never heard of this movie...until I saw it at blockbuster.

At first, my mom didn't want me to see it. She claimed that the themes were too mature and about "women loving women." About a month or two later, I saw The Hours. I think I was ready for this 1961 movie.

I began The Children's Hour automatically thinking that Audrey Hepburn would be my favorite character. I was wrong. I'd never seen Shirley MacLaine in a film before, and now, not only do I suspect that she's Renee Zellweger's mother, but I believe she is an amazing actress of the screen.

I was also quite impressed with the performance of Veronica Cartwright, who played Rosalie (is she the sister of Nancy Cartwright, who played Brigita or someone in the Sound of Music?? they look exactly alike!!). The girl who played Mary was also a good little actress, I was just bugged by her "confused" and "scared" looks. They cracked me up, because they were so bad.

Sure, it's kinda cheesy that since they can't say the word "lesbian" on screen they have to whisper it, or say it behind a door or something. But that's what you have to respect. Nowadays, you can just SAY something in a movie, and everyone knows what you're talking about. Back then, there were certain words that couldn't be said. Words that you had to express through acting. And Shirley MacLaine did an unbelievable job at it.

Fay Bainter was nominated for her role as the evil grandma (not really evil; mary is, but whatever). What I want to know is why Shirley MacLaine didn't get nominated!! She was excellent!! Amazing!! Her performance blew me away and had me sobbing SO hard at the end of the movie!! (WAAAAAAAH!!!)

Shocking, twisted, captivating and an unbelievable achievement for one of Hollywood's very first movies about lesbians, The Children's Hour is something you really don't want to miss.

Rating:
Summary: Exploration into Deceit
Review: William Wyler's THE CHILDREN'S HOUR is a multi-layered exploration into deceit and lies. The focus and origin of the deceit and lies is based on an accusation of lesbianism. Two schoolmistresses (Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine), as seen through the eyes of an affluent community, supposedly practiced this sexual deviation (circa 1961), at a girl's school. Initiated by a pouting pupil to her guardian, the accusation ultimately brings speculation and despair, which leads to an overbearing feeling of hopelessness for all concerned. Questions of behavior arise from outside and from within the various principal characters. Lies and deceit are perpetrated by characters unto other characters but these same lies and deceptions are held unto each characters' self. Director Wyler and screenwriter John Michael Hayes have elevated the focus of the plot away from the issue of lesbianism and have instead created a story on the devastating effects of falsehoods and unfounded accusations. What I found visually astounding about this film were the set and art designs by Edward G. Boyle and Fernando Carrere. Initially the school is seen as a place of well founded security where warm sunlight fills the homelike atmosphere of the rooms uplifting all in attendance. We see doors and windows open where we can hear the outside world and breath fresh air. Later, after the accusations have taken their toll, the school takes on a look of utter hopelessness. Its rooms are empty and cold. Doors and windows are bolted with drapes and blinds drawn. Sun no longer enters giving the rooms a look and feel of cold and stark hopelessness as Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine sit huddled talking idly in circles of a situation that they can not fully fathom but must also come to grips with. This is a devastating film.

Rating:
Summary: Devastating Drama
Review: Written and first staged in the 1930s, THE CHILDREN'S HOUR was master playwright Lillian Helman's first great success. It also provoked a scandal: the story concerned two women who run a school for girls--and who suffer scandal and personal tragedy when an unruly student accuses them of having a lesbian affair. The play was such a success that Hollywood wasted little time in buying the film rights, but the material was too hot for the 1930s film industry; the story was significantly rewritten into a fairly insipid love-triangle melodrama and was released under the title THESE THREE. It would be another thirty years before American film was ready to tackle the play head on.

Many critics have noted that THE CHILDREN'S HOUR is not about lesbianism, but about the power of a lie. There is some truth to this, for the entire plot rests on the child's lie and its devasting effect. But Helman was not a superficial writer: once the knife goes in, she twists it several times, first in a series of emotional revelations between the leading characters and finally in a portrait of society that attacks any one perceived as different in any way--even to the point of driving them to death. Some complain that this is merely another Hollywood stereotype in which the gay character has to be punished by the film's conclusion, but I disagree; if anything, Helman's point remains as unfortunately valid today as it was in the 1930s and again in the 1960s.

The cast ranges from solid to exceptional, and the supporting cast is exceptionally fine. Fay Bainter and Mirian Hopkins, both legendary actresses, give truly memorable performances in supporting roles; child actresses Karen Balkin and Veronica Cartwright also give remarkably powerful performances. And Audrey Hepburn and James Garner are rock solid as school teacher Karen Wright and her beau Dr. Cardin. But the raw power of the film comes from Shirley MacLaine, who gives one of the most inspired performances of her career as school teacher Martha Dobie. In this case superlatives are not enough: no one who sees the film will easily forget her tortured, passionate performance. Director William Wyler tells the story with great simplicity and to tremendous effect. Strongly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Very good, but...
Review: Yes, this movie was probably highly controversial at the time, and one of the first to approach the subject of lesbians (here called "un-natural"), but notice who suffers most at the end: the "bad" one. At the end she is told that she will be very missed. What I heard between the lines was:"You will be very missed, even though you're a you-know-what". Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid and expecting a bit too much from 1961, but I just had to point out that this film isn't as open-minded as it seems at first sight. I do think Hepburn and MacLaine are fantastic here as actors, and that MacLaine was unbelievably courageous to accept this part.