Change Your Image
MarriedMom
Reviews
The Twilight Zone: Mute (1963)
Different Times (Era) Leads To Misinterpretations
It seems 3 previous posters must be younger than me because they are not aware of how things were at the time of the making of this episode. (The > to the left of a line means that was quoted from a prior post from someone else.)
> lyraaqb3 from Ireland wrote: >the horrible schoolteacher, Miss Frank, who psychologically brutalises Ilse. There is even an undercurrent of a repressed desire to inflict physical punishment on the child >as she generally picks up and clutches a ruler as she questions the girl. Miss Frank never gets her comeuppance nor is her cruelty ever recognised
At the time this episode aired, that was not considered abuse or cruelty, just stern and appropriate authoritative control. Teachers not only raised rulers to their students but were allowed to hit children with them at the time. They considered it "discipline", not abuse - my teachers "disciplined" several students in everyone's view with the standard (for the time) wooden rulers that had the sharp metal jutting out the side simply for not memorizing something they needed to know for a test. (I don't condone their actions, just stating the attitude of the time.)
> jcravens42 from Portland, Oregon, wrote: >Like many episodes, some of the biggest fiction is how officials are portrayed and emergencies supposedly handled: for instance, how a law enforcement officer deals with a >traumatized, suddenly-orphaned girl -- medical exam? psychological exam? social worker visit? They are never mentioned. He just brings her home to his wife, no >problem.
They did mention getting a medical exam. As for psychological exams, that wasn't really done at the time unless there were serious behavioral issues (e.g. the person appeared to be a danger to him/herself or someone else, or appeared to be what they considered at the time to be insane). As for a social worker, agencies like CPS (Child Protective Services) didn't really come about until sometime between 1974 and 1980 (11 to 17 years after the airing of this episode). In 1974, efforts by the states culminated in the passage of the federal "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247) providing federal funding for wide-ranging federal and state child-maltreatment research and services. In 1980, Congress passed the first comprehensive federal child protective services act, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272). As for taking in an homeless child without any paperwork or real authority, I knew several people who did that and it was considered charitable, not unlawful.
>planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida, wrote: >Oddly, all of these folks look too old to do such an experiment--as they look to be at least middle-aged. >you, too, might find yourself wondering what makes the freaky school teacher tick---she's pretty intense (i.e., not child-friendly) and has an odd back story that is never fully >explained.
When Ilsa (actress Ann Jillian) is age 13, the actress portraying the woman she's living with had just turned 40 (just a couple weeks earlier) and actresses played roles of females younger than their actual ages so she was probably supposed to portray someone in her 30s, appropriate at the time for the role of a mother (adoptive, guardian, etc.) of a 13 year old.
I explained above about the teachers actions and attitude. She wasn't meant to be portrayed as not child friendly, she identified with Ilsa (she explains she was also trained as a child to be a mute telepath) and didn't want the little girl to feel like a lab experiment instead of a typical child. She was offering "tough love" as a way to help Ilsa learn to speak and become educated. (Again, I'm not condoning the actions and such, just stating the attitude of the time.)
The Uninvited (1996)
The Uninvited, with Beau Bridges
I read a post by aesgaard41 of Hendersonville, TN, about this movie. This person wrote: " There's the bodies buried on the property (it's not built on a cemetery as some commenters have thought)". I just watched this movie, for the second time, and it IS on a cemetery. Maybe not a public one, it's a family cemetery, but still a cemetery. The bodies are buried around a huge, contorted tree and Beau Bridges digs around the tree looking for proof that it was a burial ground. He finds several headstones before running into the house to his children. I really like movies with Beau Bridges and the woman who played the mother showed love for children. I have only 2 complaints. The first is one I have of many horror movies, is that the characters take too long to react. A few seconds may not sound like a long time but if your child was drowning in a tub, you wouldn't stand there in the hall and watch for a few seconds before deciding to run and help him out. The second is that the family proves the house is haunted and even wins a lawsuit (it's written at the end of the movie) but the house is shown being sold again, and still haunted. The family doesn't stop the next homeowners from suffering the same fate.
I just read another post on it. Khultman from New York writes: "the poltergeist, of course, turns menacing". That's incorrect. The "playful supernatural force" he/she refers to is the first of 2 spirits in the house. The first one is a playful little boy, the second is the father who murdered him. The second one is the menacing one, they are not the same spirit.
Fail Safe (2000)
Someone made an error in their review comment
Tomaroon wrote: ..."when General Bogan and the Russian General are discussing their time... (the 1964 film), here the location has changed to Paris. I really can't see the reason why"
The actor did NOT say Paris, he said Persia.
The movie was great, the black and white was a great affect (and I'm generally prefer color) and I loved the fact that it was live. I do agree with those who said the lighting was bad, it looked cheaply made but that was because it was supposed to appear to look like the times (like when they make westerns with mostly brown tones, even though everything wasn't brown, it sets the atmosphere for the times). However this person unfairly knocked this movie and was bothered by things that he/she misunderstood (like the name of the city where the two people just missed meeting).
See it and judge for yourself.