About 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
*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