She never seemed to give a solid answer to Christine about why she wanted Rhoda to no longer attend the school. She vehemently denies that she suspects Rhoda was involved in Claudes drowning, but her behavior suggested otherwise,but what. If she suspected Rhoda, why not go to the authorities with the lifeguard as a witness. But she seemed to dance around the issue, but why?
shareRhoda had been seen with the boy near the place where he died; everyone knew how much she wanted the medal; and she had been attending the school long enough for Ms. Fern and others to observe her behavior. Just as her own mother came to notice oddities about Rhoda's behavior, the adults who dealt with her at school probably noticed things that made them suspicious too.
They may not have had any hard evidence of anything Rhoda had done but their gut feeling was probably strong enough to make them wonder what she was capable of doing. Still, it would have been very difficult, without proof, to tell a child's parents that they were thinking their daughter was evil. Besides, they were probably fearful of what she might decide to do to them. For all they know the kid might try to burn the school down with everyone in it.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
Miss Fern does not witness the murder, but sees Rhoda harassing Claude. She explains that this inappropriate behavior is sufficient cause to expel a child from her school. Miss Fern blames Rhoda for Claude running to the pier since it's obvious to her that the latter child has tried to escape the former, but has no clue that there has been an intentional killing between the two students. The head of the school views Rhoda as a secondary cause of the boy's death, which is why she becomes so uncomfortable around the said girl and Christine. Rhoda's teacher assumes the same thing that everyone else does: that Claude's drowning is an accident. However, it's clear in the beginning that Miss Fern knows that there is something wrong with Rhoda because of her forced answer to Christine's question. This tells us that the other children do not like Rhoda. As the headmistress of an exclusive school, Miss Fern would not dare disgrace herself by implying that there is something amiss about her top student whom most adults instantly adore.
shareThat was a terrific post, tm1617-2!
shareAt that point then, why didn't Miss Fern flat out say what she really thought, Rhoda was the catalist that drove him to the peir.She kept impying and then denying when asked directly. Rhoda wasn't going to the school anymore so they werent in danger of losing a payment. In the book Christine is dealing with all the Fern sisters, and they bring up occurrences that happen oover the course of the year. They had wanted to avoid speaking to Christine at all, and expelled Rhoda through a mailed letter. When this occurs, Christine can;t help but remember all incidents that occured at Rhodas previous school, which she was kicked out of for her behavior. She also can't help but remember the death of the old wome, which was much stranger than the movie lets on.
When Christine is meeting with the Fern sisters, she finally blurts out if they are saying that they feel Rhoda is connected to the death of the Daigal boy, the Fern sisters are shocked and look at her like she is crazy. They dismiss Christines worries and tell her that if such a thing was thought, they would have gone to the authorities. After the meeting Christine has lunch with one of the sisters at the location of the drowning, while there Chrisstine dropd the medal in the pilings. After, one of the Fern sisters even wants to strick up a friendship with Christine. When the Fern sister see's Rhoda and her mother she goes out of her way to greet them, but is given the cold shoulder by a dispondent Christine and a bitter Rhoda who dosent even aknowledge her old teacher. At that point Christine is fully aware of Rhodas murdering tendancy. So, in the book I think they really don't put too much blame on Rhoda for Claude, but also her previous behavior.
What makes me question Ms. Fern in the movie is that she seems to be aluding to things, then denying when asked flat out. She is not onlying blaming Rhoda for harassing Claude to the point he hides on the pier, she is placing Rhoda on the pier and being a witness if not reason for the boy falling into the water. She making serious implication, then saying that she isn't and not to worry. She even admits to acting like the accusations are serious, so why not say that they believe Rhoda is the catalist for the boy ending up dead.
It was the 50s. Ms. Fern had suspicions, sure, but they were repressed and sublimated. As she herself said, such a thing was unthinkable.
shareThank you very much, jgrv-1! LrdCharlton, Miss Fern does not go back and forth with statements about Rhoda. She incisely tells Christine that Rhoda is not only selfish and immature but also has poor sportsmanship. It does not matter what the book says. There are always differences between movies and their basis of books. The chief reason behind that is that some things carry strength and effect only in the form of text. Not everything can be acted out. Something else to consider in the case of this movie, though, is the decade which it is from. A 1950s film is not going to graphically depict violence or mental illness, especially when those two pertain to a child. The writers, director, and producer have been quite audacious for making
The Bad Seed at all in the midst of studio sanitization. They deserve points for presenting the topic of a murderous child, no matter how watered down it may be.