Best movie of this year hands down!

Expected more

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Due to the various censorship codes that Hollywood adopted to please religious activists, it went from showing films with two men dancing to violin (one of the earliest American films), Tarzan swimming briefly with a naked man, and even the cheesy camp The Search for Beauty which showed men's bare backsides in a locker room briefly and the muscular protagonist (who undresses inside of a towel like one of today's New Prudery locker room wimps) being glanced at while showering (in a low stall) by a young man who smiles a lot after that. None of that is particularly offensive or egregious, in terms of sexual content. But, even hints at homoeroticism were far too much for the morally superior crusaders.That Search of Beauty picture can, of course, hide behind the curtain of Eugenics (more popular in the US than in Europe, arguably, at the time). It has the big floor show that was a fad at the time, as seen in Stalin's favorite film, so it wasn't as cheesy to period audiences. However, the small amount of homoeroticism in this American film was enough to raise the ire of crusaders and Hollywood responded by preempting their attempt at pushing a censorship code by adopting their own. (Ironically, that Stalin favorite propagandizes in favor of the Soviets by opposing American racism. There was absolutely no trace of homoeroticism or appreciation of the male body anywhere in it. But, it has the elaborate '30s floor show.)The point was that the common notion in the viewing public that Hollywood always had "a vendetta against them" as JL Mankiewicz put it, is not true in the big picture. Unfortunately, though, the early years where that vendetta was largely lacking (including in Russia where people like Eisenstein were tremendously influential, despite obvious homoerotic overtones in their films) turned into a very long history of heterosexism and homophobia.That vendetta basically was throwing gays under the bus to grease the profit wheels of the industry. In Russia, it was part of the Stalinist chilling effect on freedom, liberty, and all that — under the familiar guise of family friendliness. That chill has never left.This film's loathsome over-the-top homophobia and heterosexism should be seen by film school students as a case study in how not to turn your film into a soap opera pretending to be depth. Sociology and Social Psychology students might be interested in the artificiality of the script, particularly the extremely over-the-top crying confessional scene between the two women. It's the film equivalent of putting a bar of soap into the viewer's mouth or dragging a puppy through its excrement. But, I suppose a heterosexual viewer might feel better about it. After all, they're not the ones being preached about — how it's necessary for society that they kill themselves over some brat and a bunch of bored and boring busybodies.Pass on this one. You'll find out all you need to know about it if you watch The Celluloid Closet, which documents the corrosive effects of the Hayes Code and other semi-voluntary policies adopted by Hollywood. That film is much more worth one's time (as is the book).Gays, as is so often true, are the canaries in the coal mine of politics. We're easy, soft, targets.

Fay Bainter was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actress in a Supporting Role, an award that she had won in 1938 for Jezebel. It was also nice to see Miriam Hopkins here, since she HAD previously played the part of Martha in the 1936 movie, These Three based on the same stage play. After the production code had been lifted in the early 1960s, William Wyler and Lillian Hellman were able to re-do the movie, which was more faithful to the original Hellman stage play.This is about two young women, Karen (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha (Shirley MacLain), who run a private school for girls. Martha's silly and careless Aunt Lily (Miriam Hopkins) is also a teacher at the school. One day, Mary, a vindictive student at the school oversees Karin consoling Martha (with a hug and a kiss on the cheek). Later, Mary's friend overhears Aunt Lily make an offhand judgment about Martha being 'unnatural.' Mary's wild, overly precocious imagination INSTANTLY concludes that they are lovers! (The word, 'lesbians' is not used in the movie, but what else are two women lovers?) When Mary whispers this idea to her influential grandmother (Fay Bainter), she believes it and tells other parents. They remove their girls from the school. When one of Mary's 'friends' tries to set the record straight, Mary blackmails her into remaining quiet.In the end, ALL the major characters suffer some loss from the girls' lies and rumors. The final scene also shows that they are all socially isolated from each other. Karen's boyfriend, played by James Garner, is essential to the story; but his role is never well developed. He mainly serves as another 'victim' of this essentially all-female created scandal. At the very end of the movie, the very long tracking shot of Audrey Hepburn defiantly walking past a large group of people, as they look on, is very powerful and memorable.This movie is WAY too preposterous to be believable. But, as with other movies about evil children—like The Bad Seed and The Nanny—it seems to have had a curious entertainment value during that decade. But at the time, the social scandal of an implied lesbian relationship, and its wake of victims, was also important in the movie's overall shock effect.

rumor. suspicion. and hostility.admirable performances. and the pressure of lie who obtains the appearance of truth. the great good point - remind the force of prejudice. than - realistic portrait of social cruelty. the atmosphere of play who gives realism to ambiguity of situation. the doubts and the final verdict. its gift - the science to explore each detail. the splendid collaboration of Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLain . and the message of play who becomes too profound because it reflects not only the atmosphere of school, the childhood as argument for the Emperor of Flies, the fragility of love, the darkness of solitude but the stigma who ruins lives. the isolation. and the circle of the last scene. a film for reflection. about fundamental aspects of contemporary society. about the easy manner to hurt. about the forms of deep cruelty. must see it.

The Children's HourThe best way to keep your lesbian relationship secret is by telling everyone you're sisters.The lovers in this drama, however, choose to deny their passions outright.When a spiteful private school student spreads rumors that her teachers, Martha (Shirley MacLaine) and Karen (Audrey Hepburn), are lesbians, she puts Karen's engagement to Joe (James Garner) as well as both women's careers in jeopardy.As the validity of the allegations is scrutinized by the faculty so too do both women explore their own feelings for each other. But the shame for one is too much to bear.One of the first, and few, Hollywood movies to discuss homosexuality, this 1961 film adaptation of the infamous play is a well-acted think piece that cunningly expounds on the dangers of gossip.Besides, the best way to tell if a female teacher is a possible lesbian is by having them teach a gym class.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca