stupid decisions - The Children's Hour (1961) Discussion

[–] jescci 14 years ago

"First of all, it was stupid of Karen to press Joe into asking her if the rumor was true, it was stupid of her to let him go"

SPOILERS

That bothers a lot of people inclucing me. If we go by the author's intent, we have the explanation; Hellman said the play was not about lesbianism, but about the destructive power of a lie (or words to that effect). The lie destroyed their relationship. But, yeah, it still seems stupid.

I don't see how the movie is not at least in part about lesbianism (I never read nor saw the play). The early dialogue suggests and not so subtley that Martha has romantic feelings for Karen. At the end, Martha kills herself not because of the lie, but bcause she is a self-hating homosexual. Getting back to Karen and Joe's relationship, it is more satisfying for those of us who never bought her reasons for the breakup to conject that Karen also had homosexual tendancies.

As far as Joe's wimpiness, the only scene that showed him to be anything other than an upright guy was in the beginning when he was taking food from the refridgerator and Martha made snide remarks about his freeloading. Then again that scene may have been designed to show and only show Martha's negative feeling towards Joe.

reply

[–] shibany69 13 years ago

I don't agree, Karen was under the impression something had changed in Joe's behaviour, she knew she would never be sure of his trust anymore when she saw he couldn't face her.

Damage was already done then, she had doubts so she pushed him and he actually had doubts too. There are no questions in love and there is no love without trust, simple as that…

reply

[–] Sugarminx 12 years ago

"...Karen was under the impression something had changed in Joe's behaviour...."

The *impression* that something had changed in Joe's behaviour.

The lie caused her to question every little thing he did and perhaps misinterpret it. There is a scene towards the end where Joe walks towards her and pops a match in the fire place. Karen immediately bristles and says "why did you turn away from me just then?" he was only putting something in the fireplace but she's begun to imagine things.

I don't know whether she was, on some level, looking for excuses to call off her relationship with him or not, but this horrible lie certainly made them question their feelings.

I think she realised that she would be forever questioning what he 'really' thought of her and that's not the path to a healthy relationship - her only option at that stage was to end it and start over.

Telling, I think, that she wanted to start afresh with Martha....

Tap Tommy

reply

[–] Noel_MarquisDeMaynes 13 years ago

Hello Dougster! You say this is not a great movie because it makes you sad. What is your definition of a great movie? Does is have to make you feel happy?
So a tragedy can never be great by your definition?

Im my opinion, a great movie, play, or book moves the audience emotionally. Towards happiness, or sadness, or maybe even anger. This one was intended to make you feel sad, and it succeeded completely.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jodi437 13 years ago

I don't think Karen had any lesbian feelings for Martha at all, I think she was shocked when the final twist was revealed and Martha turned out to be a lesbian the whole time. She pushed Joe away before Martha came out in the end becasue she sensed a vibe that Joe had a little bit of doubt. It may seam like kinda a dumb thing to do but if you think about it, you can't really be with someone who doesn't fully trust you. Even though I think Joe was pretty sure that it was a lie he still admited that he wasn't 100% sure when he asked "Is it.. Was it ever true?" even the smallest dout may have effected thier relationship later on. Karen didn't really break up with him anyway, she just thought they needed space to give him time to decide if he would ever fully turst her. I do think he should have went to her in the end though.

About Martha admiting that she was a lesbian, well I think she felt that even though she knew it was a lie, she still partly blammed herself since she did in fact have lesbian feelings for Karen. If you remember she tells Karen that Mary must have picked up some of her "lesbian vibes" which is why she partly is blamed herself. She thought it was her fault that Karen's life was ruined and that her relationship was ruined becasue of it. So I would say she kinda did killed herself because of both the lie and blaming herself for being gay.

As far as the grandmother beleiving Mary, well yes she may have known that her granddaughter was a trouble maker but let's not forget, back in the 60s homosexuality was considered evil and not talked about with children. Remember the part when she says something like "How would a child that age even know about such stuff"? I'm not saying what she did was right but she obviously wondered how Mary could possibily know about "homosexuality" and "lesbianism" if it wasn't true. She wasn't aware that Mary had been reading those books about sex. Besides, maybe the "affair" itself wasn't true but Mary also overheard Martha's Aunt saying that Martha was always jelous when any of her girl friends wanted to play with anyone either then her and how she was never interested in any man.

reply

[–] julytwentyfourth 12 years ago

Sorry gotta agree with The Dougster. If this had a happy ending Id say it was the best film I'd ever seen but it just gets sadder and sadder and when Martha kills herself, from that point it becomes the most depressing film I've ever seen.

reply

[–] deliaw1946 13 years ago

homesick, Karen HAD TO KNOW how Joe felt, if he had any doubt at all. He did have doubts so Karen had to let him go. I wouldn't want to be with a man who had doubts about me. Even though I loved him, he'd be gone. He thought Karen might have been with Martha, so in effect, Karen was hiding something from him. I couldn't be with a partner who doubted anything about my feelings for him. Also, I don't think the grandmother really understand what a little *beep* the child was, which is why she believed the kid. Also, the reason Joe didn't go to Karen was he knew he's blown it. His loss.

reply

[–] Trippetta10 13 years ago

Given the situation it was understandable why Joe had his doubts, and if you insist on a partner having 100% trust in you at all times, you'll probably end up alone. Karen was acting too much like a martyr when she insisted she and Joe break up.

reply

[–] deliaw1946 13 years ago

ovaltie, she didn't insist they break up. He was saying "I'll be back" and the look on her face made it clear she didn't expect him back. She loved him, but if you've read my other posts her, you know I didn't like Joe and his superior attitude toward both women.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ComtessaLaRue 13 years ago

The ending may not have been over-the-moon happy, but it was happy in a classical sense. Karen held her head high and retained her pride. That's a happy ending.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard.fuller1 10 years ago

NONE of it made any sense how it played out. If Grandma was such a headstrong pillar of the community, why didn't she confront these two YOUNG girls (Karen and Martha) on her own, instead of relying solely on the words of her granddaughter, who was a known troublemaker, and the ditsy aunt?

The assumption was supposed to be she heard it from two sources who were unrelated, but she had already been told by her granddaughter about overhearing the 'unnatural' comments WITH the aunt, so that essentially was the single same source.

Was this PRIVATE GIRL'S SCHOOL, which to be run, has to have some credentials on the part of the two owning and operating it instead of a teaching degree, that brand new?

And the way ALL the parents flew to the school and took the girls out like that was ridiculous, none of them confronting the two women and asking if it were true what they heard? Only the one guy?

None of them questioned the grandmother as to who HER sources were for this, all of a sudden, the girls were being taught by less-than-desirable young women?

"But wait a minute, Mrs. Grandma, isn't your own grandson or nephew (whatever he was) ENGAGED to one of those girls-in-question?"

The movie wanted to make the conflict upon Hepburn, MacLaine and Garner, but it just wasn't there.

The idea that this was a manipulated situation by one little girl like the Salem Witch Trials was just a total miss.

I didn't see any reason for Martha to admit to anything at the end either. It didn't connect, just to make it look by today's standards of a hate crime, but it wasn't there.

I'm interested to see the original now, which I understand is changed in its content, but this one was just ridiculous. Women with too much time on their hands was all I saw.

reply

[–] Kowalchuk 10 years ago

richardfuller1 said
NONE of it made any sense how it played out. If Grandma was such a headstrong pillar of the community, why didn't she confront these two YOUNG girls (Karen and Martha) on her own, instead of relying solely on the words of her granddaughter, who was a known troublemaker, and the ditsy aunt?

It makes perfect sense in the context of 1962. "The love that dare not speak it's name" was so repulsive, many, especially the elite (conservative) couldn't stand to even discuss it. Think AIDS circa 1982.

The assumption was supposed to be she heard it from two sources who were unrelated, but she had already been told by her granddaughter about overhearing the 'unnatural' comments WITH the aunt, so that essentially was the single same source.

I didn't make that assumption. She was not a reporter sourcing quotes, she was an old lady hearing an unbelievable story from her granddaughter then hearing the aunt confirm it in her own words.

Was this PRIVATE GIRL'S SCHOOL, which to be run, has to have some credentials on the part of the two owning and operating it instead of a teaching degree, that brand new?

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here and quite frankly nitpicking, besides, standards were much different in 1962.

And the way ALL the parents flew to the school and took the girls out like that was ridiculous, none of them confronting the two women and asking if it were true what they heard? Only the one guy?

See my first answer.

None of them questioned the grandmother as to who HER sources were for this, all of a sudden, the girls were being taught by less-than-desirable young women?

You answered your own question with "Grandma was such a headstrong pillar of the community"

"But wait a minute, Mrs. Grandma, isn't your own grandson or nephew (whatever he was) ENGAGED to one of those girls-in-question?"

She assumed he didn't know, hence why she said "you can't marry her".

The movie wanted to make the conflict upon Hepburn, MacLaine and Garner, but it just wasn't there.

That was one element but there was much more going on here.

The idea that this was a manipulated situation by one little girl like the Salem Witch Trials was just a total miss.

The McMartin preschool trial was predicated on a child's painful bowel movement so who's to say.

I didn't see any reason for Martha to admit to anything at the end either. It didn't connect, just to make it look by today's standards of a hate crime, but it wasn't there.

Martha didn't "admit" to anything, she revealed a terrible secret to the one person who could possibly understand. She was a wreck and felt responsible for ruining all of their lives. Totally plausible, I don't understand that you don't see this.

I'm interested to see the original now, which I understand is changed in its content, but this one was just ridiculous. Women with too much time on their hands was all I saw.

Your complaints don't seem to make any sense and your comment about "women with too much time on their hands" is just silly. Which women? The actresses? The teachers? The mothers/grandmother of the children? You see what I mean, your comments don't make any sense.

reply

[–] richard.fuller1 10 years ago

Kowalchuk said: ".. ....."
---------------------------------------

All I'm going to say is the more things change, the more they stay the same. "It was 1962," is no excuse. Things were not as 'different' as we like to believe.

Someone is being naïve, and it isn't the Donna Reed-Beaver Cleaver mentality, or maybe the Donna Reed-Beaver Cleaver set has shifted to what is considered . . . The New Normal?

But I especially loved how you alleged I was making assumptions, then worked in your own there about the movie. Good going, friend.

Generally when someone does all this dissecting on a respose, I don't bother reading them, as tho each little retort is case closed.

reply

[–] Kowalchuk 10 years ago

So you replied to tell me you weren't going to reply...mkay.

reply

[–] sjtoomey-128-655266 10 years ago

I don't like the way Dr. Joe is portrayed in the end. He stood by Karen and Martha through the trial and the rumors that eventually forced him to give up his job, sell his house and move. The insecurity that Karen showed by hounding him to ask the question didn't do him justice. At the end of the movie she walks away, with her head held high, as if to say "all those others at the funeral were beneath me." This shows a her cavalier attitude to the man she supposedly loved.

reply

[–] cosmic_surveyor 10 years ago

Being a doctor didn't elevate Joe any higher in the pecking order of the society he belonged to. He seemed beholden to the money that funded his medical license. He seemed beholden to the string-puller(s) that got him his practice in town.

Karen might not even be of quality stock for him to be married to.

I would say Joe didn't get into enough fights or struggles to develop a decent backbone. He got challenged by Karen and he waffled. And he got toasted.

____________________

When animals forage, is it for grocery, hardware or medicine?

reply