I absolutely love this movie and the play on which it was based. I want to be a stage director someday (I'm only 17 now), and I always wanted to direct this play sometime, but I was wondering; is it dated enough that it would be considered offensive to the gay/lesbian community today? I really can't tell.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You and me both, love !
I performed the breakdown scene this past fall at a competition and went to finals with it...
We also did that same scene at a showcase so that our parents could see what we were going to be competing with there....
Everyone really liked it...and I'm sure there were whispers, but apart from the usual "WAIT WHAT??" reactions from a few people, no one seemed offended. Quite the contrary, in fact. Everyone who talked to us after we finished the scene said they loved it. Not just the "moving and powerful acting," but the actual play itself, so yeh...I don't think it's dated and I don't think it's offensive.
And by the way, I'm a lesbian....and I'm young (18)....and I don't see how this play would be offensive to the homosexual community. It was never intended by Hellman to be offensive to anyone. It was only meant to capture the portrait of one particular incident in which a singular lie "destroyed everything they had" (as the tagline for the 1961 film states so melodramatically). Hellman strove to argue that her play was not intended to be about lesbianism, but about the power of a lie.
Lesbianism happened to be a highly taboo medium through which she could demonstrate that power. That's what I believe, anyway...after reading her remarks on that particular work.
She also wrote The Little Foxes, another good play if you like Hellman.
She was quite a courageous woman....was accused of being a Communist and now I'm totally birdwalking and so I'll just stop there...
~*~"I came up from the dark without you, and every day since has been in shadow.~*~
[deleted]
I don't think it would be offensive, but I would refrain from calling gay people 'hey homosexuals' (approx). To me it always is an overly-clinical term used by people that want to accuse us of something. Just an FYI.
Next year, I'm having the Joker do my taxes.
[deleted]
I don't find it offensive at all. I'm 18 and am doing the final scene for drama and a competition, and the people who know about it seem fine - most of them are just sad at the way the whole play ends, to be honest. Apart from a few double takes there's been nothing.
Actually, I think it is still very relevant, not only for the lesbian theme, but also for the running theme of the damage that lies and prejudices can do. So I'd say go for it, if you're still interested :)
(This is one of my favourite plays too! I would love to act in the whole thing someday.)
I agree - The term 'homosexual' is offensive to gay people, or at least me.
I think the topic is rather dated in the sense that the crux of the premise is that the girls were 'naive' about the whole topic of gays/lesbians. I think with internet, etc. that sort of naivety wouldn't really exist today.
‘Six inches is perfectly adequate; more is vulgar!' (Prime of Miss Jean Brodie Re: An open window).
I didn't find it offensive though a lot of parts made me feel a little odd. Mainly the part where Karen is first told by Martha that she loved her and Karen says something along the lines of "That's a immoral way of thinking" or something. I guess that it wasn't a big deal since the whole movie I had been hoping that the characters would have to face the issue of how actual lesbians might feel since if they were it's not just slander, and when Martha came clean about her love I was really surprised and happy with how it was done. Martha was my favorite character in the movie and it made me feel a bit blindsided that she hung herself when it would have worked had it ended better. Of course I understand that she felt trapped by trying to move on especially after having told Karen her secret but it seemed sad that someone who seemed to strongly hold through would just fall apart like that. I understand why it was done but it felt a bit heavy handed on the "slander is bad" issue and not that being lesbian is not a bad thing.
sharewell, as we've been saying, the whole purpose of Hellman's play was to emphasis the issue of "a lie has the power of destroying a life, or many". Hence the issue of lesbianism, one of the big taboos of those times, as the vehicle to carry that point throughout the whole movie. Consequently, the events that occur at the end of the film are more than appropriate. If no dire or tragic consequence(s) had come from the "lie", Martha's declaration and everything that follows, that point would have been lost. The story focuses on how society would realistically react to such a situation and how that would affect the characters in question. So, the "slander is bad" issue was the core of the movie and "being lesbian is not a bad thing", sadly, had no place in this film. On the contrary....
Why is the word "homosexual" offensive?...
shareI think the film is still relevant today, I am watching it right now on TCM. The themes are not at all dated. And as a gay man, I do not find the word "homosexual" offensive at all. Then again - I am not one to be offended by words.
"the best that you can do is fall in love"
The AP, Washington Post, and New York Times style guides all call for avoiding the word "homosexual" whenever possible:
Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"
Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP & New York Times Style). http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive
Of course, we’re deleting some outdated entries. Some are obvious — companies or other entities that no longer exist, for example. In other cases, we simply decided that a term was so unlikely to be used that even a prohibition seemed outdated. We don’t expect a rash of college girls or authoresses in our pages, despite removing the caution flags from the stylebook. Dated, offensive or insensitive terms like mongoloid or admitted homosexual don’t seem to require guidance any longer. http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/the-latest-style/
While most Western people don't really think like this (homophobic). I still think the film is relevant to today. Anxiety over coming out, discrimination, and heterosexism still exist. Also, homosexuality and children is still a sensitive topic.
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6264/052311.gif
I think the film is still highly relevant today.
Sure, the majority of the population is more educated on issues like these now, but things like anxiety over coming out, relationships with old close friends, and also being a teacher is still a modern thing in many ways.
I don't think this film offends gay people in any way, if anything, the homophobic characters are the one who look bad. This film is, in my opinion, way ahead of its time. I don't think the idea of "The Children's Hour" was to tell people that being gay is right or wrong, but it does seem to imply that Martha and Karen were good women who didn't deserve all the things that happen to them just because they were supposedly lesbians.
"I really felt quite distressed at not receiving an invitation" - Maleficent
Movies hold up a mirror to life, and to nature. They help create an historical record for future generations.
This horrible account of how so many lives were ruined is one that is all to common in LGBT history. Perhaps a fresh portrayal of the events of this movie would reach younger people who may not have the historical perspective that their parents and grandparents have. This is a part of the LGBT story, part of our history, and detestable as it is it deserves to be memorialized.
Homophobia is an ugly period in human history, we ought to remember just how ugly and destructive it is.