Karen Wright (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (Shirley MacLaine) are two teachers who operate a private boarding school. After expending a fair degree of both effort and money getting the school afloat, Karen thinks it may be the right time to leave the school in Martha's capable hands as she considers the prospect of marriage to long-time beau Dr Joe Cardin (James Garner). There are, however, multiple tensions simmering beneath the surface. Karen and Martha have more than a professional relationship; they have been friends since college and the idea of parting from Karen, even temporarily, seems to cause Martha a significant degree of distress. These feelings spill over one night when Martha verbally attacks Karen for what she perceives as potential abandonment. As this is going on, a particularly precocious and vindictive child, Mary, (played by Karen Balkin) overhears the teachers arguing and subsequently concocts an incendiary story which places the two women in the setting of a romantic relationship.
Mary initially tells her lies to her grandmother, played by Fay Bainter, the content of which are so salacious that she can not countenance the idea that they could be invented by a child. Mary's statements are also supported, under psychological duress, by a trusted classmate, Rosalie, (Veronica Cartwright) and further bolstered by Martha's own aunt (played by Miriam Hopkins) who talks of Martha's "jealous" and "unnatural" attachment to Karen. From this point forth, the rumours spread through the school like a wildfire and engulf everything Karen and Martha have worked so hard to establish. Each and every child is removed from their studies and the two women face social and financial ruin. Where they will turn next, it is difficult to discern.
Based on Lillian Hellman's, at the time, controversial 1934 play, The Children's Hour was described by the playwright as being less about homosexuality and more about "the power of a lie". It is worth noting, however, that the first cinematic adaptation of this film, These Three (1936), which replaced the rumour of a lesbian relationship with the allegation of a heterosexual menage-a-trois, had nothing of the resonance of this 1961 remake. It is also worth bearing in mind that The Children's Hour is now essentially regarded as the first major Hollywood production which focused on the concept of homosexuality in anything other than an oblique fashion. In this way, it has genuine historical relevance as one of the first LGBTQ+ films that Hollywood ever released. But, is it any good? I would argue, yes, although it is not a film without flaws.
Let's start with the positives. Despite certain critical reactions, it is fair to say that the film does possess a fair amount of courage when one bears in mind the censorship restrictions of the period. In fact, what provides the film with its power is that it is willing to show the extent to which the lie that is told actually represents a truth. Martha does love Karen, and that love is of a romantic nature. An early scene in the film provides a strong hint of this as it shows Karen and Martha in what initially appears to be a state of domestic bliss. They are both drying dishes and discussing when they will be able to get Martha's aunt out of the house so that it will be just the two of them (plus a fair few unruly children). They then go on to discuss how much money they have made for the month and what they will do with their profits. In a tender and slightly flirtatious exchange, Martha says to Karen "You need some new clothes." To which Karen replies, "So do you." "I'm strictly a blouse and skirt sort of girl." Martha says, "You're 5th Avenue, you need to be kept up." Martha then goes on to reminisce about the first time she ever saw Karen, she ends on this reflection: "I remember thinking, what a pretty girl...". It's these moments which show the film at its boldest. They establish the clearly palpable rapport that exists between Karen and Martha as characters and Hepburn and MacLaine as actors. They also show how nourishing a romantic relationship between the two could have been.
The most obvious strength the film possesses is, of course, its lead actors. Both Hepburn and MacLaine are among the greatest to step in-front of a camera and they both give measured and affecting performances. Hepburn shows grace and compassion in a role which is, at times unhelpfully, ambiguous. She possesses an innate sense of decency and propriety in her enunciation, poise and demeanour. It is this propriety which, at least to an extent, seems to prevent her from appreciating or even acknowledging the true nature of the feelings her friend has for her until they are explicitly spelt out. It also prevents the audience from establishing whether those feelings are in any way reciprocated. Yet there are clues to pick up on. For example, Karen is initially hesitant to get married to her partner and eventually decides to do so because of her desire to have a baby, the one (and possibly only) advantage a male partner would possess over a partner of the same sex. Also, when the rumours begin, Karen suggests that she and Martha move to another city together to start again. It's also worth bearing in mind that at no point in the film is Karen's attachment to Martha in any way shaken, even after she has good reason to believe that Martha does in fact have strong romantic affections for her.
There is absolutely no ambiguity, on the other hand, with Martha, who elicits deep pathos as a woman who is genuinely conflicted about her sexuality, not because she is unsure whether she is gay, she clearly is, but because she is sure that her feelings are utterly toxic and immoral. Here it should be stated that, ultimately, this is MacLaine's film, her performance is what provides the movie with its intensity and tragedy. Martha is a good woman: hard-working, loyal, dependable, and, basically, honest. She also happens to be gay and in love with Karen. The fact that her capacity for love and the inherent nature of her sexuality is what demonises her in the eyes of her community is devastating to watch and this leads Martha down a horrific path of self-condemnation and self-hatred. The film shows this, MacLaine's performance shows this, powerfully, uncompromisingly. So the film is not quite as pusillanimous as many reviewers at the time accused it of being.
Yet, when the film was released, it wasn't the 1930s any more. The '60s had arrived and would presage a revolution in social mores and attitudes. The film was in no way reflective of this and instead transposed a post-Victorian sensibility onto a world which had just witnessed the rock-and-roll revolution and the release of the contraceptive pill. The extreme hysteria over an alleged relationship between two attractive, pleasant, well-adjusted women no longer seemed credible. Certainly, homophobic attitudes existed in the '60s, they still exist today, but the way in which Karen and Martha are treated after the town hears the accusations and the speed of the disintegration of their reputation and social standing would have been more fitting if the teachers had been accused of abusing the children, it certainly did not seem proportionate as a response to the idea of them possibly having romantic affection for each other.
The film's sense of datedness in its own time and it's relative timidity are further demonstrated in the fact that the accusations are constantly and literally whispered from one character to another, indicating that the statements are too horrific to be heard by the audience's delicate ears. In this way, the tone of the film suffers from the still powerful code of censorship which existed in Hollywood in the early '60s. On a related note, it is worth asking why theatre audiences were deemed ready to process this material as originally conceived in the '30s and cinema audiences could not be exposed to it until almost 30 years later. In many ways, the consequences of this delay meant that this film was doomed to be released too late to have a truly meaningful contemporary impact.
Nonetheless, I believe that, with hindsight, cinema is a better place with this film in existence. As previously stated, very few in Hollywood were making films that were even beginning to seriously address homosexuality. In this way, I think the film deserves its recognition as a pioneering effort. We should not forget that it shows the suffering that good people endure when society treats them as monsters purely because of their sexual orientation. Whether this was the intended message of the film or not is debatable, but it is surely the aspect that resonates most deeply when it is watched today.
Mary initially tells her lies to her grandmother, played by Fay Bainter, the content of which are so salacious that she can not countenance the idea that they could be invented by a child. Mary's statements are also supported, under psychological duress, by a trusted classmate, Rosalie, (Veronica Cartwright) and further bolstered by Martha's own aunt (played by Miriam Hopkins) who talks of Martha's "jealous" and "unnatural" attachment to Karen. From this point forth, the rumours spread through the school like a wildfire and engulf everything Karen and Martha have worked so hard to establish. Each and every child is removed from their studies and the two women face social and financial ruin. Where they will turn next, it is difficult to discern.
Based on Lillian Hellman's, at the time, controversial 1934 play, The Children's Hour was described by the playwright as being less about homosexuality and more about "the power of a lie". It is worth noting, however, that the first cinematic adaptation of this film, These Three (1936), which replaced the rumour of a lesbian relationship with the allegation of a heterosexual menage-a-trois, had nothing of the resonance of this 1961 remake. It is also worth bearing in mind that The Children's Hour is now essentially regarded as the first major Hollywood production which focused on the concept of homosexuality in anything other than an oblique fashion. In this way, it has genuine historical relevance as one of the first LGBTQ+ films that Hollywood ever released. But, is it any good? I would argue, yes, although it is not a film without flaws.
Let's start with the positives. Despite certain critical reactions, it is fair to say that the film does possess a fair amount of courage when one bears in mind the censorship restrictions of the period. In fact, what provides the film with its power is that it is willing to show the extent to which the lie that is told actually represents a truth. Martha does love Karen, and that love is of a romantic nature. An early scene in the film provides a strong hint of this as it shows Karen and Martha in what initially appears to be a state of domestic bliss. They are both drying dishes and discussing when they will be able to get Martha's aunt out of the house so that it will be just the two of them (plus a fair few unruly children). They then go on to discuss how much money they have made for the month and what they will do with their profits. In a tender and slightly flirtatious exchange, Martha says to Karen "You need some new clothes." To which Karen replies, "So do you." "I'm strictly a blouse and skirt sort of girl." Martha says, "You're 5th Avenue, you need to be kept up." Martha then goes on to reminisce about the first time she ever saw Karen, she ends on this reflection: "I remember thinking, what a pretty girl...". It's these moments which show the film at its boldest. They establish the clearly palpable rapport that exists between Karen and Martha as characters and Hepburn and MacLaine as actors. They also show how nourishing a romantic relationship between the two could have been.
The most obvious strength the film possesses is, of course, its lead actors. Both Hepburn and MacLaine are among the greatest to step in-front of a camera and they both give measured and affecting performances. Hepburn shows grace and compassion in a role which is, at times unhelpfully, ambiguous. She possesses an innate sense of decency and propriety in her enunciation, poise and demeanour. It is this propriety which, at least to an extent, seems to prevent her from appreciating or even acknowledging the true nature of the feelings her friend has for her until they are explicitly spelt out. It also prevents the audience from establishing whether those feelings are in any way reciprocated. Yet there are clues to pick up on. For example, Karen is initially hesitant to get married to her partner and eventually decides to do so because of her desire to have a baby, the one (and possibly only) advantage a male partner would possess over a partner of the same sex. Also, when the rumours begin, Karen suggests that she and Martha move to another city together to start again. It's also worth bearing in mind that at no point in the film is Karen's attachment to Martha in any way shaken, even after she has good reason to believe that Martha does in fact have strong romantic affections for her.
There is absolutely no ambiguity, on the other hand, with Martha, who elicits deep pathos as a woman who is genuinely conflicted about her sexuality, not because she is unsure whether she is gay, she clearly is, but because she is sure that her feelings are utterly toxic and immoral. Here it should be stated that, ultimately, this is MacLaine's film, her performance is what provides the movie with its intensity and tragedy. Martha is a good woman: hard-working, loyal, dependable, and, basically, honest. She also happens to be gay and in love with Karen. The fact that her capacity for love and the inherent nature of her sexuality is what demonises her in the eyes of her community is devastating to watch and this leads Martha down a horrific path of self-condemnation and self-hatred. The film shows this, MacLaine's performance shows this, powerfully, uncompromisingly. So the film is not quite as pusillanimous as many reviewers at the time accused it of being.
Yet, when the film was released, it wasn't the 1930s any more. The '60s had arrived and would presage a revolution in social mores and attitudes. The film was in no way reflective of this and instead transposed a post-Victorian sensibility onto a world which had just witnessed the rock-and-roll revolution and the release of the contraceptive pill. The extreme hysteria over an alleged relationship between two attractive, pleasant, well-adjusted women no longer seemed credible. Certainly, homophobic attitudes existed in the '60s, they still exist today, but the way in which Karen and Martha are treated after the town hears the accusations and the speed of the disintegration of their reputation and social standing would have been more fitting if the teachers had been accused of abusing the children, it certainly did not seem proportionate as a response to the idea of them possibly having romantic affection for each other.
The film's sense of datedness in its own time and it's relative timidity are further demonstrated in the fact that the accusations are constantly and literally whispered from one character to another, indicating that the statements are too horrific to be heard by the audience's delicate ears. In this way, the tone of the film suffers from the still powerful code of censorship which existed in Hollywood in the early '60s. On a related note, it is worth asking why theatre audiences were deemed ready to process this material as originally conceived in the '30s and cinema audiences could not be exposed to it until almost 30 years later. In many ways, the consequences of this delay meant that this film was doomed to be released too late to have a truly meaningful contemporary impact.
Nonetheless, I believe that, with hindsight, cinema is a better place with this film in existence. As previously stated, very few in Hollywood were making films that were even beginning to seriously address homosexuality. In this way, I think the film deserves its recognition as a pioneering effort. We should not forget that it shows the suffering that good people endure when society treats them as monsters purely because of their sexual orientation. Whether this was the intended message of the film or not is debatable, but it is surely the aspect that resonates most deeply when it is watched today.