Karen Balkin


Does anyone know where she is now? She's the one who plays Mary.

Roseanne Season 5 comes out Sept.12

reply

[deleted]

I know it was the 60s and good child actresses are hard to find but...her performance annoyed me to death. I know, its mean to pick on a kid from the 60s...but I think the only thing that saved her performance was the text. I'm sure it could've been worse..but I think I would've preferred a "Bad Seed" type performance. A bit more understated...I dont know. I wonder if a production could be done, on stage or in film where the audience is driven to feel sorry for Mary...or understand why she does what she does. What happened to her as a child? Interesting...

reply

"but...her performance annoyed me to death"

In my opinion Karen Balkin was perfect in the role of Mary.

reply

[deleted]

I agree that Bonita Granville was amazingly wicked as Mary in these three. It's a performance that few could match. I thought Marcia Mae Jones was more effective as the original Rosalee also. I love both versions of this film.

"Dig the grave both wide and deep,
For I am sick, and fain would sleep!"

reply

[deleted]

I agree with both of you. I think her performance was both annoying and perfect for the character. A bratty little girl is often quite irritating.

reply

They couldn't have picked a better kid to play that role. It's wrong to write this and considered poor taste but I guess she did her job because I thought that kid was disgusting, repulsive , evil etc. and I just wanted to plain knock her damn teeth out !

reply

Its too bad she got out of show business because Karen was damned good. She was excellent, just as good as Veronica Cartwright. I wish they were reunited again in another movie like Alien. Those were excellent acting skills, not the wishy washy so call performance of today's current actresses.

reply

She never made another movie after her disastrous performance in The
Children's Hour and it should come as no surprise. It's the worst kid's performance of all time.

reply

[deleted]

This kid is the biggest phony they ever made. I am watching this now and this kid Mary just brought Mirium Hopkins some flowers. What an ugly kid and I don't think her performance is any good. No wonder they packed her off to boarding school. No one would want to be near her. Expell her please!!!

reply

I used to think her performance was good but, seeing it again last night, I changed my mind. She was so obviously evil and annoying that it got kind of unbelievable that anyone believed her. I just wish we had seen what Fay Bainter did to her when she discovered the truth.

reply

I thought the same thing. How could her grandmother not see how she was working Rosalie? Until Mary started at her, Rosalie was denying everything. It was rather unbelievable.

Wedding bells are going to chime, 4/29/07
Stop Genocide NOW

reply

I thought her performance was very forced and scarcely believable. Veronica Cartwright, on the other hand, as Rosalie, was very good. Seemed actually terrified of being found out and even seemed to me she got all blotchy from crying the way real kids do.

reply

Yeah--exactly. She was glaring daggers at Rosalie and was positioning herself so could glare at her---and NOBODY noticed??? I love the movie but that scene doesn't work.

reply

“I just wish we had seen what Fay Bainter did to her when she discovered the truth.”

It was nice, wasn’t it? I too wanted to see what happened at that point because you could hear a low bit of music in the background as Ms. Bainter headed to the steps, after having fallen down. But “the old taker” had a score to settle, and it was like her eyes were saying – “That’s your ass for what you did, ya lil huzzy!” to that poor little bad-assed girl. But she had it coming to her.

Oh, and I am also with those who say it was too fake how she was working Rosalie. I mean, you could clearly see her giving the evil eye after making her way round the couch to the other side of the room – just too obvious to miss, and messed up her performance. Hey, but it was the director’s call on it, and he could have changed that so it wouldn’t have been so in our faces that she’s the bad girl. Therefore, I will excuse the kid for it. But she could have done better, no question.

reply

[deleted]

Agree that Karen Balkin was not all that great as Mary. average at best. Also thought they could have found a better more convincing actress to play such a big role.

reply

Nearly 46 years after it's making, I am viewing this movie for the first time. Yes, the idea of her being so obviously wretched and no one noticing seems silly to us but she I agree with a previous poster--she was so annoying that I absolutely disgusted the character which I think is the whole point of the character! I thought she did a great job. As for the posters who don't like the scene with her changing Rosalie's mind, think about any heated discussion you have had, people are so in tuned to their own feelings and what is going on at the center of the action, they may not notice the background people goading the witness! It was a little unbelieveable watching it but if you think of it in that context, maybe its understandable. I've only seen this once though so maybe after a few viewings it gets more unbelievable.

I immediately looked up the Mary character first because I thought she did such a convincing performance and I wanted to know if she did anything else! Another board mentioned a remake, having her as Rosalie's mother or some other older character would be interesting to me! And in case she or her family reads this, I hoped to add a positive note to this board because I really did think she did a fantastic job!

reply

[deleted]

For those who didnt like Karen's performance, what should she have done instead to have merited your approval?

reply

[deleted]

I think this little girl did a wonderful job! I went to grade school with a girl very much like her though she wasn't a bully; she could have been since she was a bit taller and bigger-built than most of the schoolchildren. She spoke EXACTLY like that and had much of the same body language~tossing the hair, flouncing around, speaking out that way, and more. I don't think that she meant to act as she did. I might have been a too-thoughtful child, but I wouldn't make fun of her as others did. She was intelligent, precocious, and driven to be the best in the class, but she was also temperamental and used to having her way, being the only child. This was in the mid-Fifties to early Sixties.

Also, look at the girl bully in "The Bridge to Terabithia". Many of the mannerisms, expressions and vocal usage are very like Mary/Karen's. We saw Mary being a bully several times. Move the character up to today's society and imagine what she would be like.

Now, think of Lucy Van Pelt in "Peanuts"! Isn't she the loud, temperamental bully that Mary is? Think when Lucy originated. I would say that Charles Schulz ran into a little girl (or more than one perhaps) natured like that at some point in his life.

So, I don't believe Karen is a bad actress. She beautifully plays a willful, bratty, lying, spoiled, manipulative child who will never be the sociopath Rhoda is. Mary can't give herself that pretty, poised facade.

I'm watching the confession scene right now, in which she manages to wriggle out from under the guilt. Why shouldn't she have these facial expressions? She's shown them throughout the story. Some people are "stonefaces", stoic and capable of hiding emotions; others' faces are far too mobile, revealing every thought and emotion. More often than not, children do allow moods to show on their faces unless they have become guarded. Once more I think of Rhoda in "The Bad Seed", who rarely drops her mask. I study people a lot, and I truly feel that Karen Balkin "nailed it"! It's important that she has a see-through act. Her schoolmates are used to it; her teachers are; and even her grandmother is. Remember: She gets a smack on the bottom from James Garner's character. There's a big problem schoolteachers have at times: You can have the brattiest misbehaving boy or girl; everyone sees it~but the parents, who want to give their child the benefit of a doubt. Mary's grandmother holds on to that doubt until at last she must admit the truth. (Yes, I taught school.)

I'm going to defend this little girl's performance. This was not your usual Hollywood-kid turn. She and Veronica Cartwright might have stolen the film from the rest of the cast had they been given more scenes.

I've been watching movies for 50-plus years and have been studying them most of that time. This isn't a judgment given without some thought. At times, it was eerily like seeing my classmate again, and I find it intriguing to imagine what sort of teenager and woman Mary will become. How many lives will she ruin since I can't see her changing all that much unless Grandmother makes some changes.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

I think Karen Balkin was very realistic as a manipulative bully - my son is 10 and there are children at his school who I've seen behave this way and teachers are oblivious.
Also, as I've noticed just upon my most recent viewing, does anyone find something boyish about her face? I think this is perfect casting in a sense - possibly this character grew up to be a lesbian. Couldn't that be a nice twist? The child is starting to be drawn to same sex relationships so it's on her mind? Today, discussion of homosexuality is quite common, but when I was a child (I was born in 1955) it was not and such a thing never occured to me - this movie was set in an era even before mine - homosexuality was NEVER mentioned. Why would a child even think of such a thing unless she had a similar inclination? I have a nephew who is gay and he said he knew he was gay as far back as three years old. I think casting this rather boyish, somewhat bully-ish looking little girl was quite ingenious in light of that.

reply

[deleted]

Oh my goodness! I never realized this, but in the original play, it may have been clearer that the child most likely had lesbian tendencies or she would not have started this "rumor" - however since both films were made in times of censorship, this would have been played down somewhat. It really makes the story much more sinister and yet much more believable.
In those times, there probably was a lot of self-loathing among gay people unfortunately (and most likely still is some today). In a biography of Anthony Perkins I read about him being "treated" for homosexuality, announcing to his wife he was cured, but then proceeding to "back-slide" and hating himself for it. So sad.

reply

[deleted]

I have a cousin and nephew who are gay - the thing a lot of people don't understand is that not only does a gay person grow up with "different" feelings, there are huge pressures put on them by society to conform. When I see an old movie like the Childrens Hour - and watch the heartbreaking scene of self-loathing by Shirley Maclaine, it's amazing to think this was just a generation ago! Imagine having to live in a world where your existence is deemed monstrous - human beings never cease to amaze me with their irrational ideas. I believe society has moved quite a bit foward since the 1960s, and I think we are inching forward to acceptance for gay people. Change does take a long time unfortunately.

reply

[deleted]

It's puzzling that there is no further information about Karen Balkin after her second motion picture. When I Googled her name, I found a prolific author of nonfiction books called Karen Balkin or Karen F. Balkin. Wonder if there's a connection.

reply

does anyone find something boyish about her face? I think this is perfect casting in a sense - possibly this character grew up to be a lesbian.

What does looking boyish have to do with being a lesbian?

I have to say, I don't like Balkin's performance at all--I think she WAY overplays her beats. (One scene that makes me cringe especially is when she's all "What does un-NAT-ur-al mean?" She's just so obvious with her "puzzlement," her overly wide eyes, it's not remotely believable--to me, anyway.) She does okay in some scenes but she's very inconsistent, and is basically trying too hard. The fault really lies with the director, who should've pulled her back a LOT.

reply

[deleted]

I'm shocked – SHOCKED! – that William Wyler would cast Karen. Every scene with her is pure torture to watch. Even when she's not speaking, she's incredibly awkward. This film is very stagey overall, as you would expect of a film adapted from a play, but none of the scenes with Karen rang true with me.

Unfortunately, overacting was par for the course among children in films from the '60s and earlier, but Karen's performance stood out as especially cringe-worthy. Fortunately, Tatum O'Neal and Jodie Foster raised the bar for child actors in the '70s, which makes Karen's performance here that much worse.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, Veronica Cartwright is terrific as Rosalie, and she's had the career to prove it. The mark of a good child actress is the ability to hold her own with the adults and not appear "precocious," and Veronica did that here. It's too bad she wasn't the lead child.

I'm not surprised that Karen Balkin may have gotten this part because of Daddy's influence. She only had one more role after this film, in a forgotten 1974 movie called "Our Time." If this is the best she could do in this film, can you imagine the footage of hers that was cut? I'm not trying to be overly critical of child performers, but they need to be held to the same standard of the rest of the cast, and Karen drags this one down.

reply

[deleted]

You are very lucky to remember "Our Time"/"Death of Her Innocence." I may well have seen it on TV because the title and plot are familiar, but those are similar to a lot of those "message" movies that aired in the '70s, like the preachy "Portrait of ..." films.

It really is unfortunate that a "real" actress wasn't cast as Mary, because her character is crucial to the film. Even in Hitchcock films, it seems often child actors had the wide-eyed, "Oh please, Mommy" appearance. It's a big distraction when paired with greats like Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn.

reply

[deleted]

I had forgotten that there was an earlier version of this story involving a heterosexual love triangle. Heaven knows it never even occurred to women in the '30s to so something "unnatural" (which, come to think of it, perfectly describes Karen Balkin's acting style). So does "These Three" have the same "resolution" at the end? I suspect not, because that type of ending wasn't expected for heterosexual relationships in films of any era.

I had forgotten Veronica Cartwright's outstanding performance in "The Birds." Hitchcock was great at mixing in humor with the horror, and in that film, he had a child actress deserving of his talent.

reply

So does "These Three" have the same "resolution" at the end?
WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THESE THREE

The first time I saw These Three--after knowing The Children's Hour very well--I thought, as we approached the climax, "Hmmm, this doesn't feel like the kind of movie where someone commits suicide, it's too charming," and sure enough, instead of throwing out Aunt Lily, Martha leaves with her and--through Aunt Lily's incessant chattering--begins to piece together how Mary blackmailed Rosalie to corroborate her lie. Martha manages to convince Rosalie to tell the truth and then instigates a reunion between Karen and Joe... in Vienna!




"Please! You're not at home!"

reply

Thank you for the response. I'm not surprised that "These Three" doesn't end in suicide. That ending seemed needlessly bleak and mean-spirited in the case of "The Children's Hour."

Does anyone know how much Lillian Hellman's original play was changed, for both films? I believe her original play was indeed about lesbianian, but I'm not sure if the ending in "The Children's Hour" was tacked on for whatever reason. And if it was tacked on, what was the reason? As if I need to ask.

reply

The 1961 film is very close to Hellman's original play, probably needlessly close. The movie is opened up a little here and there in the conventional way, but the major changes as I recall are:

In the play Martha shoots herself but in the 1961 film she hangs herself.

In the play, Mrs. Tilford comes to make amends after Martha's death; in fact Karen's rejection of Mrs. Tilford's offer of help is the end of the play. In the movie, of course, Mrs. Tilford comes earlier, while Martha is still alive.

The wordless graveyard scene that ends the film is, of course, an addition.


"Please! You're not at home!"

reply

Thanks very much for your comparison of Hellman's play and the movie. I suspect you are very right that the film follows the play a bit too closely, because this feels very much like a live stage production – although an excellent one at that (with the exception I've discussed earlier in this thread).

Maybe the reason for William Wyler tacked on that final scene is for "closure" on Karen's part. I have just watched the finale scene again, and Karen lays flowers on Martha's grave and says: "Goodbye, Martha, I'll miss you with all of my heart." Then she walks out of the cemetery alone, her head held high, as Joe and everyone else watches her.

I know this has been discussed in other threads, but do you think that Karen may have had romantic feelings for Martha that she felt she couldn't express? I got that distinct feeling toward the end, and the final scene reaffirmed that for me. I suspect that Hellman intentionally created Martha's character as ambiguous, and she's much more interesting that way. Also, is the word "lesbian" ever used in Hellman's play? I don't remember hearing it in the film.

Thanks again for your comments.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, the film is certainly about a lie – that Martha and Karen had engaged in an "unnatural act." On the other hand, it's hard to separate the truth of lesbianism from it. Does anyone really think that Martha would have been just fine if she had just found the right man and settled down?

So even though this film is officially about the lie, I don't think the other "l-word" can be ignored. Hellman wasn't writing Martha as a heterosexual, was she? I suspect she was intending for us to ask the same questions of Karen as well.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

:) I agree.

Yes, Veronica Cartwright did a great job. Balkin's performance is, as you say, very much in the mold of child performances of that time, a little too obvious. Another example, also from a very stagey movie that was adapted from a play, is The Bad Seed where Patty McCormack has the "misfortune" of being cast as Rhoda several years after she originated the role on Broadway, and is really a little too old for it. You really need a smaller child, a younger child of about 7-8, to see why Rhoda is considered charming when she says "If I give you a basket of kisses, what will you give me?" It doesn't really play well with 11-year-old Patty still in braids and a little girl's dress and I think she's trying a little too hard to be "cute."

However, she's a much higher caliber of actor than Karen Balkin--Patty was rewarded with an Oscar nomination, and is pretty damn creepy in the non-"cute" scenes in this movie. She might've been a little old to play Rhoda, but she sure nailed the scary stuff. And of course her career is still going now, a testament to her talent.

reply

[deleted]

I adored this little girl's acting. The way she threw that cup when she first saw her grandmother makes me laugh every time I see it. She is a very good actress and I don't believe she did too much more after this movie.

reply

[deleted]