Lillian Hellman is an American Icon. A woman ahead of her time, in every department. Her women are never easy to read but they are real. From the icy Regina in "The Little Foxes" to the sisters of "Toys In The Attic" - Jane Fonda played her, brilliantly, in "Julia", Here, her women walked a slightly edgier plane."The Children's Hours" was a big Broadway success and William Wyler, one of the best, directed the film version as "These Three" in the 1930's, washing away any reference to homosexuality. I think that may be one of the reasons why he remade it in 1961 under its original title "The Children's Hour" Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner, Fay Bainter and Miriam Hopkins who also was in the original in Shirley MacLaine's part. The film is compelling and looks wonderful and I think it's more a document of its day by one of the most courageous writers of her day. The strange thing here is that the women are the ones who remain firmly in their day, they show us the outrage from their perspective and that's why it feels "dated" They would behave very differently today but not the rich southerners. I believe, they would also remove their children from the school. just like they did then. The oppressed have move on but the oppressors, have diminished in numbers, but they havent changed much. A fascinating film.
Add a Review
-
totalwonder15 March 2018
-
Karen Wright (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (Shirley MacLaine) are best friends since college and they own the boarding school Wright and Dobie School for Girls with twenty students. They are working hard as headmistresses and teachers to grow the school and make it profitable. Karen is engaged with the local doctor Joe Cardin (James Garner), who is the nephew of the powerful and influent Mrs. Amelia Tilford (Fay Bainter). While the spiteful and liar Mary (Karen Balkin), who is Amelia's granddaughter and a bad influence to the other girls, is punished by Karen after telling a lie, Martha has an argument with her snoopy aunt Lily Mortar (Miriam Hopkins) in another room. Lily accuses Martha of being jealous and having an unnatural relationship with Karen. Mary's roommate Rosalie Wells (Veronica Cartwright) overhears the shouting and tells Mary what Mrs. Mortar had said about her niece. The malicious Mary accuses Karen and Martha of being lesbians to her grandmother and Amelia spreads the gossip to the parents of the students that withdraw them from the school. Karen and Martha lose a lawsuit against Amelia and have their lives destroyed. Further, Karen calls off her engagement with Joe when he asks her if what was said about Martha and she was true. The lie ends in a tragedy.
"The Children's Hour" is a cruel and heartbreaking story that shows how destructive power of a lie may be. William Wyler is among my favorite directors and this film is a little gem with a magnificent screenplay. Shirley MacLaine has awesome performance in the role of a woman that does not accept her (homo) sexual preference and the girl Karen Balkin is amazing in the role of one of the meanest characters I have ever seen. In the mid 90's, in São Paulo, Brazil, the owners of the Escola Base were falsely accused of pedophilia in a national scandal and had their lives destroyed. Years later, it was proved that they were innocent, in a case of life copycatting fiction. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Infâmia" ("Infamy") -
majikstl26 October 2004The Children's Hour More than just an ounce of truth... ((((SPOILERS))))) THE CHILDREN'S HOUR has gotten a rather bad rap over the years. It has gained this reputation that it is somehow a noble effort, but nonetheless a failure. That because of its subject matter and the era in which it was made, the need to gingerly handle the subject of lesbianism makes the end result seem dishonestly incomplete at best or just cowardly at worst. The fact that it is a tragedy which ends in the death of a gay character, underscores this need by some to devalue its importance and deride its power because it doesn't meet the harsher standards of political correctness.
It is probable that if the film (or more accurately Lillian Hellman's original play) were to be filmed today, much of it would be altered. Even if a new version were set in the 1960s of the movie or the 1930s of the original play, the filmmakers would face considerable pressure to make the gay characters more defiant, the homophobic characters more transparently belligerent and the presumed nature of the lesbian relationship more explicit. And that would be the wrong thing to do. Even though the film was made on the eve of an era that saw censorship beginning to crumble, it depicts a time when homosexuality was barely mentioned, let alone something to inspire defiant pride.
It has been suggested by Hellman, director William Wyler and star Shirley MacLaine that the gay angle of the story is really secondary to the story's main concern, that being the power of lies to destroy. I think this is more than a little disingenuous, a way of sidestepping the issue. Homophobia is the point of the story, whether the "lie" in the story is really a lie or not. That's why the 1936 film version, THESE THREE (also directed by Wyler), doesn't work, despite being well made and well acted. THE CHILDREN'S HOUR rings true, despite its evasive nature.
Both films deal with two women who run a small, exclusive girls school whose lives and careers are destroyed by stories told by a couple of their pupils. In THESE THREE the story is sanitized so that it deals with accusations that one of the teachers has had an affair with the other's fiancé; THE CHILDREN'S HOUR returns to the play's original plot wherein the two teachers are accused of lesbianism. THESE THREE, though melodramatically played, has little dramatic weight: unsubstantiated accusations of an affair that everybody denies ever happened, might raise eyebrows, but hardly would carry such dire consequences, especially since the two children making the claims are shown to be so unstable and unreliable. And the film's desperate attempt at a happy ending doesn't help.
Homosexuality has to be the linchpin of THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, because little else would create such irrational fear. The "lie" of the story would have to be so very threatening in 1961, otherwise it would not be credible that parents would overreact so fiercely or that the words of three upstanding citizens would be rejected over the claims of two foolish little girls. I think the film paints a fair and accurate picture of a time when homophobia wasn't considered a bigotry, but a logically parental concern. As such the film is neither pro-gay nor anti-gay, rather a consideration of a time of ignorance.
Faye Bainter's Mrs. Tilford is what we would now call homophobic, but she is not an evil person. She is foolish to the extent that she can't see how manipulative and dishonest her grandchild is, but her actions against the school and its teachers are based on the prevailing social outlook of the time. She acts out of genuine concern, not hysterical outrage. Indeed, her view of homosexuality is not all that different from that of MacLaine's Martha Dobie, one of the accused teachers. It is Martha's suicide, upon admitting her true romantic feelings toward Audrey Hepburn's Karen Wright, that disturbs many who criticize the film. Martha is no more comfortable with homosexuality than Mrs. Tilford, but her fear of homosexuality is intensified and internalized. But Martha's death is not mandated to appease the moral atmosphere of the time, as some have suggested, nor because of her own self-hatred, but because that is the unfortunate logical path the story has to take. In a tormented confession, Martha reveals the contempt and shame she has for her feelings, but this is not meant to represent the honesty of homophobia, but rather the dishonesty of traditionally accepted mores. Pride and defiance are not options to Martha; she has neither the understanding nor the strength to endure the battle between her feelings and the moral convictions that society has taught her. As a tragic figure she is more than an appropriate symbol of her time. As a character, she is beautifully and sympathetically embodied by MacLaine in one of her finest performances.
The film's message is not that homosexuality destroys Martha, but that ignorance poisons the waters. Martha's death is undeserved, but not a punishment of her lesbianism. Martha is a good person, a person who has our sympathy, not our pity. The injustice of her death confirms the film's empathy for the homosexual character. Unlike the faux happily-ever-after conclusion of THESE THREE, THE CHILDREN'S HOUR forces the viewer to question conventional morality.
The film ends on a strangely ambiguous note. Martha confesses her feelings to Karen, but Karen evolves into an enigma. Even before Martha reveals her true feelings, Karen finally rejects her fiancé (played by James Garner), by forcing him to express the doubts about their relationship that she herself has apparently being harboring all along. But she accepts Martha's confession of love, yet makes no attempt to reciprocate. The film hints, but won't confirm that the "lie with the ounce of truth" is as true about Karen as it was about Martha. Karen seems to have gone from denying her feelings toward Martha to accepting them and then repressing them. The film ends with Karen leaving Martha's funeral, apparently strong-willed and defiant, but it is not clear just why. It's not likely that Karen feels vindication over Mrs. Tilford's apology, yet it is equally unlikely that Martha's death could possibly have inspired feelings of pride and defiance. The final shots of Hepburn possess an undeniable power, perhaps foreshadowing the changes in the way society would eventually view homosexuality. Martha's martyrdom makes Karen a stronger person, whatever her sexual inclination. It's not a happily-ever-after ending, but it is a promise of better endings to come. -
bregund13 March 2003There are spoilers in this review.
What a dark, brilliant film. Audrey Hepburn, Shirley Maclaine, and James Garner are absolutely wonderful in this timeless gem of a movie. The immutable power of a child's false witness is seldom portrayed better than in this film. History has shown that just a few impressionable adults and one vengeful child can produce a mountain of misery: for example, witness the abominations of the Salem witch trials or the Wenatchee, Washington child sex ring.
Karen Balkin is absolutely perfect in the role of Mary Tilford, the vicious little rich girl who easily puts Patricia McCormack from `The Bad Seed' to shame as she falsely accuses her teachers of having a lesbian relationship. She ruins several lives with her deceit, breaks up an engagement, shuts down a school, and destroys the loving bond of her family. It is wrenching to watch the desolation that ensues because of her bald-faced dishonesty: yokels stop in front of the abandoned school and point and stare, a delivery boy smirks at them, and the whole town turns their backs on them. The end of this film is unutterably sad and poignant; Maclaine, the best actor in the group, wrings every last bit of pathos from her character, and the devastation is unapologetically crystal-clear.
The unfairness of life and its attendant majority group of people who readily accept easily-believed lies was never made more lucid than in this film. The sad thing is that this sort of thing goes on every day, all over the world, which makes this film a cautionary tale about judging your neighbor too quickly. -
My favorite review of this film is a short, concise one entitled WOW written in 2000 (read it and you'll read my feelings exactly!). I believe it says a lot that over 40 years later, we still want to comment and view this movie (a movie that is not necessarily a popular classic that people know about). I had never heard of this movie until looking on Netflix and deciding to rent all the Audrey Hepburn movies. While she is fabulous, I thought Shirley M was the shining performance in this movie. James Garner is so genuinely loving and likable (as usual!) The other characters are also fabulous but for length I won't list them all! I highly recommend this film to someone who appreciates dramatic film with good character development. It is definitely not what I expected from something on an Audrey Hepburn list (which makes me love her more)! Some raters feel that this movie has homophobic undertones and is not appropriate for today's society (because we are so open minded now???). As someone who has worked with youth of today in a small town, I believe it is still relatable. I think it would open up a good discussion because I felt hope in the midst of tragedy (I don't want to give away anything but basically a "what could you have done instead" dialog).
I weeped at the end but would watch it again as it is superb. I would give it a 10 but having only seen it once, I feel biased as I'm sure there are minor flaws somewhere! I give it a 9.9/10 instead! -
tex-4229 January 2006Sad, well done movie about how the lies of a vengeful child can destroy everything they touch. The story concerns two single female teachers running a small girl's school. The school is finally making money and one of the teachers in newly engaged until a malicious student makes up lies about them to avoid being punished for her misdeeds. The lies spiral out of control and soon enough the school is out of business and the women find their lives ruined before it is finally realized that the student was lying all along, much to the horror of the adults who were all too ready to believe her.
This movie is a strong reflection of the time it was made in. While even today, homosexuality is controversial, in this movie, it is only spoken of generally in code and hinted at with words like "unnatural acts." The story doesn't set out to lecture, but rather shows how easy it is for one lie to lead to another, and how idle gossip can become much more venomous if given the chance. -
hitchcockthelegend25 October 2008The themes explored in The Children's Hour are far from dated, so i just can't conspire to other writers who feel this way.
Karen and Martha are best friends who share a home together, they also work at the same all Girls school. Mary Tilford is a spiteful little child, when she is caught out for a lie she is duly scolded. In retaliation she starts casting doubts about the nature of Karen & Martha's relationship, pretty soon the gossip spirals out of control and the ladies are faced with empty classrooms and strained relations at home. A court case is in the air, but just what will be the outcome with a society so quick to frown on something that they deem unnatural?, regardless of it being truth or fiction.
Coming as it did in 1961, The Children's Hour was something of a brave picture, possessing as it does, a plot strand about lesbianism. Yet the film is itself a remake of These Three from 1936, tho also penned by Lillian Hellman {William Wyler directing both pieces}, These Three was built around a heterosexual tryst. The force driving The Children's Hour on is its willingness to explore a then frowned upon topic, whilst simultaneously running a plot arc about the power of a devious tongue, the innocence of youth a cloak shielding bitter intentions. Audrey Hepburn is a wonderful piece of casting, her portrayal of Karen is very restrained, giving the character an aura of worth and gracefulness. James Garner plays Karen's beau, Dr. Joe Cardin, he's a crucial part of the story but Garner never really dominates the screen in the way you feel the character should, however in the face of the films best performance, it's probably understandable that Garner is hardly worth a second glance. That best performance comes from Shirley MacLaine, it's a towering acting job full of wrought emotion and steely determination, it's only during the films last quarter do you realise just how well MacLaine has layered Martha. MacLaine and Hepburn are very different in acting styles, and this makes The Children's Hour a character piece to savour in any decade. 8/10 -
bondgirl678113 August 2006Lilliam Hellman was a modern female writers and ahead of all of the female writer of her time (except for my fave Zora Neale Hurston). The film "The Children's Hour" based on Hellman's play tells the story of two young women whose lives and reputations are destroyed after a horrible little girl tells everyone that the two young women are lesbians. In a time period from which the play was set does not use the words "lesbian" or "homosexual" and are substituted with "unnatural." Homosexuality in the play/film was treated the same way as it was back then: a tragic and horrible disease punishable by death for certain. It is a painful film to watch. Audrey Hepburn is lovely as always as Karen and she was also one of the few actresses who was not afraid to take on a role that was avaunt garde. She has tender and sweet moments with James Gardner, who is also wonderful as Dr. Joe Cardin, Karen's fiancée. And then there is my favorite: Shirley MacClaine who steals scenes with such agony as Martha, a young woman who realizes that she is in fact different and is a lesbian, but lives in a time and place that would not never allow her to be free to express her feelings. In a touching and agonizing scene, Martha reveals her true feelings for Karen. MacClaine breaks your heart and many can relate to her. She wins us over and breaks our hearts. Other supporting actors included are Fay Bainter as Mrs. Tilford, the rich and powerful woman who is made the pawn of spreading the lies told by her granddaughter; the wonderful Miriam Hopkins is Martha's judgmental and hypocritical Aunt Lilly Mortar; Veronica Cartwright is sweet and innocent as the young girl tortured into confirming the lie. And of course, the little girl we all love to hate: Mary played by Karen Balkin. Mary is a nasty little girl and throughout the film all you want to do is strangle her. Why the character of Mary Tilford didn't make the AFI list of 100 Greatest Villains I will never know because here is an "innocent" child telling a horrible lie without realizing the consequences of her actions. "The Children's Hour" is a very hard film to watch at times, but one of the most important films pivotal to the 1960s.
-
Karen Wright (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (Shirley MacLaine) are best friends with their own little boarding school Wright and Dobie School for Girls. Karen is engaged to Dr. Joe Cardin (James Garner) who is the nephew of Mrs. Amelia Tilford. Her granddaughter mean girl Mary Tilford goes to the school. She gets punished by Karen for telling a lie and refusing to admit it. Martha feels abandoned by Karen. Martha's argumentative aunt Lily Mortar accuses Martha of having an UNNATURAL relationship with Karen. Mary's roommates eavesdrops on the argument and tells Mary who in turn tells her grandmother Amelia. To avoid going back to school, she adds even more lies. Talkative aunt Mortar is leaving and adds even more fuel to the fire. The gossip quickly spreads to all the parents.
The little girl Mary is so deliciously evil. Young Veronica Cartwright plays the other girl who stole a locket and threatened by Mary. The actors are great although the acting gets very melodramatic. It's also very intense. It doesn't let go. Everybody is just so insanely annoying. It's overwrought and proud of it. -
jotix10028 July 2005William Wyler showed he wasn't afraid to tackle again this Lillian Hellman's play. He had directed the film years before, but the tone had been changed during the first version of "The Children's Hour". In fact, there is no gayness to speak of in the previous adaptation, "These Three".
Even for 1961, when the film was released, lesbianism, was not treated, or seen, in the same fashion one encounters it everywhere today. In fact, the dialogue of the film doesn't include the word "lesbian" at all! Lillian Hellman was a woman committed to show the ills in society she lived in. Hypocrisy is dealt with in most of her work. In this film, she emphasizes the fatal consequences of how a lie can destroy lives, as it's the case here. Because of a brat's hatred for authority and discipline, Karen's and Martha's reputation suffer greatly because the adults are so bent into condemning them without much of an investigation to see if the accuser is lying, or not.
Martha at the end reveals her feelings for Karen, which we suspected all along. There were no indications or tell tell signs between these two young women of any kind to substantiate the charges. In fact, Karen is extremely hurt by just being accused of being a lesbian, when she, for all appearances, is in love with young and handsome Dr. Cardin.
When the truth is realized, we see how things change, but it's too late for Martha, who has taken things in her own hands. At the last scene we watch most of the people that have been instrumental in accusing Karen and Martha at the cemetery as they all feel guilty of what they have done to ruin these women.
William Wyler got good acting in general of his small cast. Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn make good contributions as Martha and Karen. Miriam Hopkins is the self-centered aunt Lily. Fay Banter is Amerlia Tilford, the woman who is instrumental in ruining the women. James Garner is good as Dr. Cardin, and Karen Belkin makes an impression with her evil Mary Tilford.
The film seems today as somehow dated. Mr. Wyler finally was able to do justice to Ms. Hellman's play. -
GeoPierpont15 January 2014What does one take away from this unexpected film? You adore Audrey with her flawless complexion and perfectly symmetric facial features, you admire Shirley with her dramatic expressions of sincerity, you despise a child that is evil beyond her years, you want to strangle an annoying aunt who allows a school to be destroyed, i.e. many disjointed emotions.
The one key element I found to be treated with great disdain is the revelation of how one discovers their true sexual identity. What was in that secret book the girls were squealing about? How do we move from inspiration to education with such limited treatment of the real subject?
I found this script to be alarming in that it was as unexpected as Shirley's discovery. Heartbreaking to see such a pureness in character be defamed as to consider suicide a single option. This is no theatre drama, this is reality current day. -
ilpohirvonen14 February 2010Audrey Hepburn stars in William Wyler's film, based on Lillian Hellman's play, The Children's Hour. It's a story about a girls' school and its two teachers Karen Wright (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (Shirley MacLaine). Things seem to be going well in their school until a trouble maker, Mary (Karen Balkin) makes up a rumor about the teachers' relationship, based on her thoughts and what she has heard. Everybody in the town start to believe in the story Mary has made up, leading Karen and Martha to despair.
If you didn't guess already, this is a survey of homosexuality. In the movie, they don't dare to say the word out loud. But we see discussions behind doors and windows, we see the gestures of the characters. We follow the events as outsiders. To which the almost expressionistic black-and-white cinematography gives a great touch. The strong grip of nature, relying on the experience of an individual and simplified milieus fit for the story better than well.
The rumor did much more harm than Mary could have guessed. It destroyed the relationship between Karen and her husband to-be Joe Cardin (James Garner). It destroyed everything they had worked hard for. But it also made Martha think about her real feelings about her good friend. The film is open for interpretation and it is not made clear whether the rumor was true or not in the first place. Or did the rumor just make Martha realize something, did it change her or did her mind change her because of the rumor. Wyler makes it clear that, actually, it doesn't matter whether the rumor is true or not. All the people are so shocked of this horrible sin that they blindly follow a child's story and drive two women into despair.
Even that The Children's Hour approaches the case of being a lesbian carefully, I found this movie very brave. The censorship of Hollywood had loosened but still they had trouble bringing this up on the screen. I'm amazed with the result and I'm sure this touched many people in the 60's and made a lot of people broaden their horizons - and it still can. Many people even today are shocked to here about homosexuality. There still are many people who just can't accept it and that's what makes this movie timeless.
The acting is superb - one of Hepburn's greatest performances but I liked the acting of Shirley MacLaine as well. Many people might know the director William Wyler as the director of Ben-hur; he's one of the greatest American filmmakers. This was another proof of his talents, The Children's Hour was very capturing, the characters were sympathetic - easy to relate to - and well built. It's no masterpiece but it is an incredibly capturing melodrama. Slightly expressionistic imagery and Wyler's calm, mature approach subject make this a remarkable film.
The film's built on strong emotional scale. People scream, yell, cry and moan. It portrays pure grand emotions, and the topic's pretty harsh. But the director has placed a satirical twist to the film. Showing the people whispering, talking quietly about it but never saying it out loud. They're so afraid of it that they can't even say the word. Perhaps all the people are so insecure and vulnerable that they try to dodge the whole subject. Not even trying to search for themselves. It's never too late to find your identity and stop pretending. If looking at the film from this angle it breaks out from being just a provocative film about an unmentioned taboo. It's reaches an universal level studying the true identity of man. -
FilmOtaku28 December 2003About a year ago, I remember seeing `These Three', the film The Children's Hour is based on. Both films deal with a scandal that brings down all of the characters involved, and both contain hideously screeching young girls, one who could be a sibling of the `Demon Seed' and another who is pathetically spineless and unwittingly seals the fate of people she admires and likes.
*Spoilers within*
The Children's Hour features a very stoic and serene Audrey Hepburn as Karen, who along with Martha, a high-strung and emotional woman played by Shirley MacLaine, found an exclusive boarding school for girls. They struggle from the start, but manage to attract a group of rich, privileged little girls - most of whom are compliant and harmless with the notable exception of a spoiled rotten child, Mary. By the time the school actually makes a tiny profit, Mary decides that she's had enough of being treated like everyone else and in a bid to get out of the school, tells her rich and influential grandmother, whose nephew Dr. Joe (James Garner) is about to marry Karen, that Karen and Martha are in love `that way' and are not hiding it from the students. The accusations swiftly bring down the school as well as the reputations of the two women and Dr. Joe who is guilty by association. The three sue unsuccessfully for libel, further damaging their standing and further edging them into financial ruin.
The most glaring difference between this film and its predecessor is the introduction (or omission) of lesbianism between Karen and Martha. In `These Three', the `scandal' was that there was a love triangle among the two women and fiancée, but the women were in love with the man. In The Children's Hour, the word `lesbian' is never used, but Martha proclaims to Karen that she does indeed love Karen `that way'. It is not completely clear what Karen's final thoughts on the matter are - it is left fairly open to interpretation, but what is clear is that while being commendable and daring for introducing the hint of homosexuality in a mainstream film starring one of Hollywood's most beloved actresses, they fall into the cliché that the ONLY result of these feelings, unrequited or not, is going to be tragedy. Hollywood was not ready to be that progressive at that point, and really wasn't for another thirty years, but it is daring enough to still be relevant and noteworthy nonetheless.
If you can put up with some histrionics, a bleak story and a couple of jarringly overdramatic children, it is more than worth it to watch this film. It is good, but not great yet is powerful and compelling enough to still garner a fairly strong reaction.
--Shelly -
moonspinner5512 April 2006Two female teachers who run an all-girl's boarding school face financial and personal ruin after a despicable youngster starts a rumor about the ladies, which hits too close to home for one of them. Audrey Hepburn, following up her fashionable triumphant as Holly Golighty in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", and Shirley MacLaine, one year after receiving her best notices for "The Apartment", star in this lugubrious reworking of 1936's "These Three", helmed by that film's director, William Wyler (apparently going for a no-holds-barred version of Lillian Hellman's play). The complaint from the director at the time was that the material was ultimately softened with edits by order of the studio chiefs. Sadly, even in 1961, homosexuality was an extremely touchy subject for the movies, and this film shows that the times had yet to catch up with Hellman's original vision (Hepburn uses the word 'lovers', but we never hear 'lesbians'). A rather fascinating and unglamorous soaper, though one which is overstated in all the wrong ways and yet timid where it shouldn't be. Wyler manages some effective sequences, and Hepburn and MacLaine are both good under the circumstances. Karen Balkin, the beady-eyed child at the center of the story, is truly a hateful brat, but what was Wyler's point in foisting her repulsive face at us in one close-up after another? Yes, we're supposed to dislike the monstrous child, but perhaps a conniving little schemer--a ruthless girl instead of a spoiled one--might have added some compelling subtext. ** from ****
-
Chris-56422 September 1999A 'classic' film, (whatever that may be), can almost never be re-made in quite the same way again. It's something that we've thought about for quite a while, though - and noted filmmakers (including Gus Van Sant and Sydney Pollack) have tried and failed to re-make films to jazz up their appeal, and make them more accessible to a wider audience. It's something that passed through my mind quite a few times as I watched "The Children's Hour" today. Quite clearly, this is a film that more people deserve to see and know about, and it would certainly be interesting to try and re-make it, but we would definitely lose something in the translation.
The largest reason for this is because it is a film of a definite period - the issues raised in the film are widely discussed these days, whereas in the period the film was set, homosexuality was something to be feared and despised. Similarly, we do not have the various elaborate codes of honour that are so prevalent in the film, and dictate the actions of almost all characters. It's a pity, then, that this film will be alien to lots of people today. The answer, however, is not in a re-make (the film is itself a re-make of a 1936 film by the same director called "These Three", and an adaptation of a play of the same name by Lillian Hellman), but a re-release of this fine example of moviemaking.
Boasting a terrific cast including Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine and James Garner, "The Children's Hour" is the story of two teachers, Miss Dobie and Miss Wright, who found a school for young girls in an idyllic town in America. Then, out of boredom, spite and plain maliciousness, a child tells a vicious lie that will bring about the downfall of the school, the teachers, and all caught up in the horrible set of affairs. It is quite possible to see the creeping evil and hatred that stems from Mary, the child concerned (played wonderfully by Karen Balkin). Eventually, it reaches out and destroys all it touches.
The photography is great (it was nominated for an Oscar) - there are many scenes which are so wonderfully composed that each frame paints a thousand words: the climax of the movie is a great example. The relationship between MacLaine and Hepburn is delicately and sensitively portrayed, especially for a cast who didn't know what they were doing (according to MacLaine in an interview for "The Celluloid Closet"). James Garner is also good in his role as the doctor about to marry Hepburn, although the movie is clearly not aimed at giving him the best lines. There are also many, many superb supporting roles - and the film's strength comes from a great ensemble performance.
It doesn't really matter what the child accuses the teachers of (indeed we only find out a good hour into the film, although it has been strongly implied), because the film isn't really about homosexuality. As MacLaine points out in "The Celluloid Closet" (a cracking documentary about the history of homosexuality in the movies), it is about "a child's accusation". It is also about the power held by a town to bring about the downfall of two perfectly nice, perfectly ordinary young people. The are lines in the film that one should never forget and it should also make us think about the way our words shape the situations in which we live: ("unnatural" is a great example).
All in all, a lovely film from director William Wyler ("Ben-Hur", "Roman Holiday", "Funny Girl"), and one that deserves to be seen by a wider audience - re-release, please! -
michaelRokeefe20 April 2009William Wyler directs Lillian Hellman's provocative adapted play. A sensational story that exhausts emotions. The sensors must have really been put to task considering the early 1960's mores. Shirley McClaine and Audrey Hepburn, friends since high school, have partnered in running a private school for girls. Its been several years of operating without profit; but good news...the school has finally made some money and Hepburn becomes engaged to her doctor boyfriend James Garner. Things are all of the sudden no longer roses and wine, but poison ivy. Spoiled schoolgirl Karen Balkin decides to get back at her two teachers by spreading rumors that they are lesbians. The aggravating girl's grandmother Fay Bainter spreads the falsehood and all of the students are taken out of the school. Suspicion, tension and anxiety. Just how do you defend yourself against such sensational accusations? McClaine is flawless and Balkin is so real you want to reach out and grab her by the throat. Also in the cast: Miriam Hopkins, Veronica Cartwright, William Mims and Hope Summers.
-
HotToastyRag26 June 2017It's always a shame when classic movies' breakthroughs have been so overdone that watching the original loses its meaning. I hope when you watch The Children's Hour you can appreciate how groundbreaking and scandalous it was in 1961.
Based on a Lillian Hellman play (that's your cue to prepare yourself for a very heavy movie), Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine play two teachers at an all-girls school. One of the students is a terrible, pot-stirring brat, and she starts a rumor about her two teachers. She claims she saw them kissing, and the aftermath of her accusation wreaks havoc on the good friends' careers and lives. In the original film, the evil-minded child says she saw one woman's fiancé go into the bedroom of the other woman. That was all that could get past the censors in 1936. Audrey Hepburn does have a fiancé, James Garner, but there are no sparks flying between him and Shirley MacLaine. In fact, when you watch the movie for a second time, you can really see the animosity and resentment Shirley feels towards him.
The acting in this movie is fantastic. Fay Bainter's supporting role as the little girl's grandmother is the best of her career. Given very little dialogue, her face speaks volumes during every scene. Miriam Hopkins, another old timer, gets to play Shirley's self-centered aunt - and in a cute casting choice, she played Shirley's role in the original version. This is one of the last movie you'll get to see James Garner do any real acting, before he got typecast as "the scrounger". Shirley really steals the show, though. She knows when to take the backseat, and she knows when it's her turn to shine; when she does, she sends goosebumps up your arms. The Academy made her wait until 1983 to receive an award. Here at the Hot Toasty Rags, we were very happy to award her in 1961 for The Children's Hour.
This is a tough movie to watch, so only rent it when you're in the mood for something heavy. Obviously, moral discussions will abound afterwards, but what gets under my skin the most is the trouble-making child. So often, children and teenagers do damage without realizing the consequences. I hope someday young people will be less selfish and learn to see the bigger picture. Revenge, self-righteousness, and deception are terrible qualities. Hopefully The Children's Hour can teach a valuable lesson. -
encroisade11 October 2008In 2007 in a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, a male teacher with seniority was politely asked to resign by the high school where he had worked for several years because his personal website (where his name did not even appear) contained suggestive photos of himself and his lover; it was somehow found and reported on to the principal. So you see, the premise of "The Children's Hour" is not at all out-of-date!
What is absolutely fascinating about this film, and what makes it unique in all the dramas which have been made on the subject of homosexuality, is the treatment of the road of self-discovery taken by these two very different women.
MacLaine wants Hepburn to buy some new clothes in an early scene, because she remembers how stylish her friend liked to be in her university days, and she even shares the memory of her first sight of Hepburn, when she said to herself, "What a pretty girl!" By the time the action of this movie begins, these two women have already lived and worked together for at least ten years. There was university together. Then, they both started teaching and accumulated several years' worth of experience; and it must certainly have taken a while to save up the money to set up the private girls' school of their dreams. That is a long relationship, a very committed relationship. Many similar career women in the 1960's, back to the 1870's (!) - famous women novelists, scientists, musicians, artists, poets - are now casually described in academia as lesbians, if they had any kind of a lengthy partnership with another woman at all. It has become a fashionable, politically correct label. But are these labels accurate?
Years ago, a sisterly friendship was accepted as just that. Now some kind of sex act is required and assumed. Nobody is supposed to be able to exist without regular orgasms. Nonsense! The culture has turned us all into Pavlovian dogs who salivate on cue. It is not true that 'everybody is doing it.' It wasn't true in past generations, and it isn't even true today.
The women in "The Children's Hour" were not 'doing it' either. But the movie is thrilling because it is not concerned with the spasms of body parts, but with the deep things of the heart.
MacLaine adored Hepburn, and always had. Hepburn was surely conscious, at some level all those years, of that adoration. Every lasting friendship between two people has unspoken dynamics, reasons why the individuals relate strongly to one another, key roles they play in each others' life story; sex may or may not be involved at all.
But, in this case, we can be sure that sex was involved, at a repressed level to start with. MacLaine came to realize that even touching Hepburn's hand was a pleasure which formerly she had chosen not to analyze too closely.
Mary, the awful, precocious schoolchild, whom we have seen reading some 'dirty book' in bed at night with a flashlight, evidently got her hands on something very graphic indeed, and this is what horrified the grandmother when she whispered what she couldn't say aloud, in the back of the rich old lady's limousine. There was more to this account than merely a story of 'kissing'.
As MacLaine says in her own great scene, somehow that monstrous little girl had sensed by intuition 'a grain of truth' to wrap her lie around. That 'grain of truth' becomes a snowball, by the end of the movie. MacLaine has confessed her love for Hepburn. Without histrionics, but with quiet honesty, Hepburn has confessed the same to her friend: "I love you, too." And Hepburn, even faced with total vindication and financial security from the libel award, never once considers contacting James Garner and putting their marriage plans back on track. Why not? The answer is that she herself has slowly come to a realization of her own need to make a life with MacLaine. She goes for her walk, ready for the future ahead.
But it is MacLaine, looking lovingly out the window at Hepburn, almost blissfully, secure for the first time that she is loved and valued by the person she cares about the most, who still knows that the future ahead for the two of them will entail a higher price for her than she is willing to pay. She cannot face the inevitable physical expression of her love for Hepburn. She is also burdened by a dysfunctional family background, with her only relative being the crazed, delusional aunt who has sponged off of her, and then let her down when she ignored those telegrams pleading for her to come back to testify for the two of them.
MacLaine and Hepburn do know, as they reveal in one of their final conversations, that there are lesbians, someplace, out there somewhere, who do accept themselves and who do somehow make lives for themselves. But MacLaine says, "We are not like that."
Hepburn has the strength to try. MacLaine isn't strong enough.
This is what Hepburn senses as she walks back towards the house, as she has been thinking things over on her walk. The aunt's calling out, looking for MacLaine, makes her really alarmed. But by the time she breaks down MacLaine's door, it is too late.
Hepburn's second walk, after the funeral, so purposefully reminiscent of the previous walk, is the quick step of a soldier, marching to battle. She is not afraid. And she is free to make any choice she wants. The stick figures of the townspeople standing at the edge of the graveyard can never touch her again. -
William Wyler's atmospheric drama has two teachers (Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine) be accused of lesbianism by a guileful schoolgirl, and then have that rumour ruin their job, their lives and their friendship.
Somewhat of a taboo for the 60s, Wyler bravely tackles the subject with honesty and integrity, and his cast work well to bring the tense atmosphere to us. As the engaged, straight, Miss Wright, Audrey Hepburn suffers commendably, fighting always for the truth as she sees it, and as a result, losing her fiancée. Shirley MacLaine is the more ambiguous character of the two. It is not on whether the allegations were true (it is clear from the off that they are just slander of the worst kind from a bored, vindictive little girl) that the mystery of the film lies, but in whether her character does secretly love Hepburns', as more than a friend.
The children are less apt in their roles. None of them have names worth remembering, but the main one who spreads the rumours does it with such exaggerated facial expressions that it is difficult at times of most intense drama not to laugh, and the other girl, who aids her in the spreading of lies, is also laughable in her "fear." However, if the intention was to make us dislike the children as much as possible, then they have succeeded.
But the message is clear lies of such a powerful decree even if they are spawned off what is guessed to be the truth, will damage others. It's a hefty topic, and one that lacks slightly, due to the censorship of the time, no doubt, but the behaviour and actions of the characters still ring true today the hypocrisy of the kind aunt, the spreading of cruel lies just for fun, the boyfriend's abandonment, and how, at the end of the day, it is always the innocent that suffer, yet some, like Hepburn's character, are brave enough to walk out in the public, with their head held high in the air, because they know they were innocent. -
lasttimeisaw20 December 2013Wyler's second filmic adaption of Lillian Hellman's controversial play THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, the first attempt is THESE THREE (1936), 25 years later, he marshals his favorite girl Hepburn with the blossoming MacLaine to lead the pack and recounts the taboo lesbian tale with a more provocative approach.
As an indoor drama with flourishes of false accusations, venomous manipulations, fierce rejoinders, highfalutin buffooneries and affecting confessions among its players, a somewhat gnawing touch of agitation originates from the setup of an evil child (Balkin), whose performance and mien is fiendishly maddening, perhaps it is an intentional option to cast an unappealing girl to magnify the dark side of a child, but if the utter repulsion is the aim, it absolutely scores the bullseye.
Unlike in the sensational BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S (1961, 7/10) of the same year, Hepburn strips down to an unostentatious skeleton to portray a woman with unsullied discretion and devoted commitment to her friend, but her pride is too demanding for her spunky fiancé (Garner) to respect, the woman of independence theme runs gloriously in the ending where Hepburn's textbook smile and dignified swanking are emitting gratifying signals both on and off screen. Nevertheless, the obvious and more taxing work is from MacLaine, a closeted lesbian at that time, whose darkest secret has been catalyzed by a contumacious girl's fallacious slander, her confession scenes is one heck of a sensation which persists to impress audiences from generations on. Shamefully, the only acting nomination from the Academy is for the venerable Bainter, who is in every way deserves it and even the win as the moral yardstick at then to reprimand the "unspeakable sin" and becomes the victim of her own (and her granddaughter's) deeds, one may wonder, what will she act if ever she finds out the truth of the story, it's a vivid rendition full of nuances and certainly upgrades her role's credibility from a one-note slant. While Miriam Hopkins is a complete laughingstock here and it is also the big screen debut for the freckle-faced Veronica Cartwright, who can effortlessly give Balkin a good run for her money.
In conclusion, Wyler and the team pluckily open the Pandora's box and lay bare the elephant in the room with calculated cautions, THE CHILDREN'S HOUR is a significantly edifying allegory should be seen by as many as us possible, and an essential prerequisite is if you can fast-forward all those scenes with Karen Balken in it (there are quite a few close-ups which overstay their welcome). -
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 devastating 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.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer -
jaketpajor19 November 2020This movie took me by surprise! I love Audrey Hepburn and decided to dig into some of her work I hadn't seen yet and this one is a true tragedy. I finished "Wait Until Dark" and thought this might be in the same vein but it most certainly is not. It's a weighty film emotionally and seems ahead of its time in some ways. After watching "Portrait of a Woman on Fire" earlier this year I can see parallels in the exploration of love and desire between the two. The pace does drag at points but considering this was made in 1961, and considering the subject matter, the execution is quite good. Overall it is a movie I would enjoy rewatching but I'll need some time to emotionally recover. 7/10.
-
bkoganbing31 March 2007The big screen finally got to see The Children's Hour as Lillian Hellman meant for it to be seen, a searing drama on the power of self hate of one's sexuality.
This Pre-Stonewall gay drama is about two teachers who run a select school for wealthy young adolescent girls. One of them, Audrey Hepburn, has been engaged for a couple of years to Doctor James Garner, but she never quite gets around to getting married. The business of running the school with her friend and business partner Shirley MacLaine consumes all the time for both of them.
A really bad seed of a kid, Karen Balkin, gets disciplined once to often as she sees it by Hepburn. The young girl concocts a story about seeing the two of them in a sex act and tells her guardian and grandmother Fay Bainter. Bainter does her own 'investigation' and confirms it in her eyes. The word spreads and the kids are withdrawn from the school rather than be tainted by being around those horrific lesbians.
The Code was coming down. Though the word lesbian is never used in the film, that's what it's all about. Back in the day, Samuel Goldwyn took this story and made it a straight triangle story with Merle Oberon, Miriam Hopkins, and Joel McCrea. Back in the day the Code said that homosexuality could not even be discussed let alone dramatized. Now we're seeing what was a landmark drama about gay people, Lillian Hellman's vision as it really was.
Just denying it isn't enough because there's a grain of truth to it. Repressed sexuality is a terrible thing and it's taking a strain on both of them. Shirley MacLaine finally cracks under it and admits that she's been crushing out on Hepburn ever since they first met in college. Remember that she lived in a society in the Thirties when The Children's Hour was first written where being gay was in some eyes worse than being an ax murderer. Finally coming out with it in the end was too much for her and it brings on terrible consequences for MacLaine.
Back in the day when I was a working investigator for New York State Crime Victims Board, I recall a case where a man killed someone and wounded two other people. The Assistant District Attorney told me after the case was over that it was because the perpetrator was involved sexually with the deceased and the deceased was not in the closet whereas our perpetrator was. The victim wanted to tell the world about what he thought was the new love of his life. The perpetrator flipped out at the mention of it and killed him and wounded two friends. Self hate, internalized homophobia can be an awfully evil thing. Hellman could easily have written her play that way as well.
Audrey Hepburn also, though she doesn't articulate it, wonders why is it she's stayed shut away in that school and doesn't commit to finally take the plunge and marry Garner. The Children's Hour is more than a play about the love that dare not speak its name, you can't even think it in the world of that time.
MacLaine and Hepburn give two of their best performances of their respective careers. Miriam Hopkins who was in These Three, plays MacLaine's aunt who's a silly creature and who betrays the two women rather than be thought she condones the alleged lesbianism. Fay Bainter gave her final big screen performance here and was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.
William Wyler who directed These Three back in the day finally got to do the version as Hellman wrote it. He does as well for Hellman here as he did in The Little Foxes. He gets some of the best work out of all the players involved, even James Garner who's playing a distinct third fiddle here in a woman's picture in every sense of the word.
The Children's Hour came to the screen in 1961. Brokeback Mountain which in many ways has the same themes as The Children's Hour for gay men was set originally in 1963. Both are great examples of the strides gay people have made in their quest for a place in the sunlight.
Yet that case I described from my working years took place in the early Nineties. The closet might be thought of as a refuge, but it's a terrible prison for too many. -
Daniel Karlsson4 December 2002This is a pretty good movie, perhaps not Wyler's best, but it has partly great acting and camera work. So long it deserves a 3/5. But the last 15 minutes are by far the best. It's really masterly done, and every scene is so beautiful I wish I had a set of photos from that part of the film. I especially love when Audrey is walking along the path and the camera follows her and the wind blowing in the trees as background...Hepburn is Wyler's Anna Karina.
7/10 -
preppy-32 April 2001Two teachers (Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine) have their lives destroyed when an evil child wrongfully accuses them of being lesbians. This was pretty strong stuff in 1961 (in fact, the word "lesbian" is never even uttered!) but it doesn't date well. The reactions of people in this movie seem way overdone and the script can't overcome the fact that it was based on a stage play--I expected to see a curtain descending halfway through the movie! Also a crucial trial sequence was cut out by the studio before the film was released, so there's a big "hole" in the middle. However, the cinematography of Franz Planer is beautiful...the imagery tells you exactly what characters are thinking without a word of dialogue.
The acting varies--Hepburn is too mannered (and seems very uncomfortable) and James Garner (as her boyfriend) walks through his role. However MacLaine is excellent (especially at the end) as is Miriam Hopkins (as a meddling aunt) and Fay Bainter (Oscar-nominated as a concerned parent and the main villainess).
The main problem, as I said before, is the script. It's too damn stagy! Most of it sounds unrealistic. Also hated the tragic ending (but that's the only way it could end in its era). So, it was a trailblazer in terms of gay representation on the screen but (unfortunately) it doesn't hold up.