Like much of the lesbian pulp fiction of the 1950s, "The Children's Hour" comes from that era when homosexuality was considered the "worst evil of all." I'm not sure if William Wyler meant to or not, but in this film the director finds a surprising sympathy for his main character Martha. Despite its emphasis on the supposed lesbianism of the two leads, "The Children's Hour" is not really a story about being gay. Instead it focuses (or tries to) on how one bad little girl can ruin two adults's lives forever simply by opening her mouth.
With relative restraint rather than melodrama, Wyler illustrates the power of a child's words. A student at the boarding school "Karen" (Audrey Hepburn) and "Martha" (Shirley MacLaine) run, "Mary" (Karen Balkin) spreads malicious rumors (are there any other kind?). On the surface these rumors aren't true, but as things progress and Karen and Martha interact in their strong friendship and professional partnership, we see that Martha may indeed have "unnatural" feelings for her best friend.
Things reach a fevered pitch as Mary's grandmother takes action and decides Karen and Martha are not to fit to run a school for young girls. Legal action is taken, careers are destroyed and a friendship that once was fun and light-hearted is now fraught with tension.
I don't like to reveal endings to movies, so I won't do that here. All I WILL say is that Shirley MacLaine gives the performance of her life as she unravels emotionally, devastated at what is happening around and inside her. Filmed during a time when gays and lesbians were treated as criminals and freaks, "The Children's Hour" is not as harsh as it could have been. Some people would probably call Wyler's film unfashionably dated, but the sad truth is it's coming back in style now that we are slowly returning to an era that demonizes gays and lesbians and won't let them have a happy ending.
Though long cited as a landmark for anyone studying the history of gay and lesbian film, The Children’s Hour was a last-minute addition to my syllabus. I wasn’t convinced of the prudence or efficacy of showing this movie to twenty-first-century eighteen-to-twenty-one-year-olds. It could play to them as both upsetting and horribly dated, perhaps too melodramatic in its plot machinations (triggering mockery from the students) and offensive in its tragic final moments (courting outright rejection from them).
The author discovers that her class reacts differently than she had expected, much the way I reacted the first time I watched:
I tried to offer a few words of care, though I found myself choked up. This surprised me—to be moved anew by a film that I, like so many queer scholars and critics and movie lovers, had a long, complicated, even superior attitude about. Most of the students shuffled out wordlessly, but a few came down to the front of the sloped lecture room; some had tears in their eyes, others were ashen. “I know” was one of the small responses I had to offer, promising we’d talk more about it at next week’s class.