THE BAD SEED is the second film I've seen this October about evil (or seemingly evil) children. The first was THE INNOCENTS, which turned out to be a masterpiece. This one is. . . okay.
The material must have seemed a lot more daring back in 1956. These days, we have so many flicks about killer kids that it has almost become a genre unto itself. Watching the film today, you get the feeling the filmmakers thought the daring idea of an evil child was enough of a hook and that the rest of the movie would take care of itself. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
First, there's the look. Everything is flat and gray, and most of the film takes place in uninteresting locations -- mainly the front room of the main characters' home. This might be partially because the film is based on a play that was adapted from a novel. Looks like they didn't do much adapting from the stage version, as the film could easily be recreated on stage with minimal effort, excluding one or two scenes (the most effectively dramatic ones!).
The look is a bit of a disappointment given the fact that the film was directed by Mervyn LeRoy, who was responsible for producing some of the most visually striking films of the 1930s and 40s, including THE WIZARD OF OZ. Also, in direct comparison with the artistry in a similarly themed film like THE INNOCENTS, you can easily see a lot of wasted opportunities.
Secondly, there's the story. There's nothing really wrong with the story, it's more the way the story is told. When an elementary aged child is found bludgeoned and drowned during a school picnic, clues start pointing towards the possible involvement of seemingly perfect little Rhoda (Patty McCormack). Even her mother, played by Nancy Kelly, suspects her. The man of the house is away, thanks to government work, and the friendly landlady, armchair psychologist and all-around busy-body "Aunt" Monica (Evelyn Varden) thinks Rhoda is perfect. The creepy gardener, Leroy (Henry Jones) isn't too thrilled with Rhoda, but he seems to be up to something half the time, anyway, so at first it's unclear what's going on, there.
Anyway, the story unfolds in a strange manner, mostly involving scenes of exposition and very little on-screen action. Now that I know this was adapted from a play, this seems to make sense, but it's not really a good excuse. Characters who seem like they're in the dark at the beginning of the movie reveal that they're hiding secrets that may not have even known they had in the middle of the movie, thanks to the dubious and convenient plot device of "blocked out" and "recovered" memories. The story hinges on the question of whether someone can just be born evil, or if their environment and upbringing makes them that way. If someone can be born evil, the film argues, it must be due to genetics. They must have had evil parents, or grandparents.
The most effective scenes, barring the climax of the film when things really start to pick up, involve Rhoda's interactions with the gardener, Leroy. Leroy's clearly a little off and apparently not all that morally upstanding, but he can see through Rhoda and doesn't like her. But, Rhoda is on more of an even playing field with Leroy than some of the other adult characters, because he seems to be a little intellectually and emotionally stunted. Still, Leroy attempts to outsmart her, and, being a child, Rhoda slips up, sometimes. On one hand this is a strength of the movie over some other "killer kid" movies I've seen -- in this one, Rhoda is not perfect. She's a pretty bad liar, doesn't hide her feelings well, is easily manipulated, and bad at covering things up, just like a real kid would be. There's nothing worse than a "killer kid" movie where the kid is smart and has super powers. It's just not fair.
Unfortunately, Patty McCormack isn't great as Rhoda -- just good. She's a little too transparent when she's in "perfect little girl" mode, so cute and cloying that it's hard to buy that adults wouldn't get sick of her. She's best when she throws fits and lets down her guard. When she really starts screaming, she really gets scary and real. But, those moments are few and far between.
Nancy Kelly also isn't great -- again, she's good. There's a lot of overacting in this movie, which doesn't fit very neatly with the simple visuals and normal locations. In this kind of setting, you want very naturalistic understated acting. But, again, a lot of these people came from the theater production, and you get the feeling they're still playing to the cheap seats, making sure to project. Kelly does have one great scene where she really breaks down, towards the end of the film. She bangs her hand on the table, and you wonder if she might have hurt herself, she's that into it.
After a pretty strong (and weird) ending, things get even weirder. Without giving too much away, a narrator comes on to announce the names of the actors as each actor walks on screen for a curtain call. Then, we get a short comedic scene between the mother and child to end the movie. This seems to undermine the whole film. I'm guessing this was added as a way of the studio having their cake and eating it, too -- they wanted to make a film about a killer kid, but they didn't want to freak everyone out, so they pulled up the curtain at the end as if to say, "See? This wasn't real! You can relax. We didn't mean it."
It might even date back to the play -- it may have worked as a little emotional release during the curtain call to let the audience unwind a little after what must have been a tense performance. But, in the theater, there's an interesting relationship between reality and fiction that can be broken and repaired more easily than it can be on the silver screen. In a movie, you have to buy the reality of the film 100%, or it doesn't work. The characters have to BE the characters, not actors playing characters.
I don't want to see Rhoda and her mom joking around at the end of the movie
No comments:
Post a Comment