This film is about a small town's efforts to ban a book in the local library. At first, the librarian is willing to play along with the city council's decision but changes her mind in the name of freedom of expression. As a result, she is fired and vilified by the council and soon the entire community turns against this brave lady.
The idea of doing a film about banning books in the public libraries is a great idea, as I am a huge proponent of the First Amendment--which gives complete freedom of expression. A discussion of some well meaning idiots who wish to remove books "for our own good" is very, very important. However, this movie fails in two important respects. First, the timeliness of the film is a problem--Hollywood SHOULD have made this movie in the early 50s when such movements were at their height. Making an anti-book banning film in 1956 didn't take a whole lot of guts as by then people in America realized that the Red Scare had gone too far. Second, by using a script that has zero finesse, zero intelligence and cardboard characters it ultimately sinks this to the comic book level at best.
Bette Davis stars as a matronly lady who is at least 10 years older than Ms. Davis actually was. This was a brave but typical choice for her, as being glamorous wasn't important to her but playing the character truthfully was key. The only problem is that her character is a bit too nice--almost Mary Poppins nice. Having her character love kids was fine, but to stop them on the street to buy them things (especially on a librarian's salary) seemed unrealistic as well as her willingness to forgive and forget after she was treated like dirt by practically everyone. However, in general Ms. Davis did a fine job and she's one of the few bright spots in this dreary movie.
The problem is the supporting characters and the dialog. Some are so one-dimensional and stupid (such as the father of the little psycho boy) and others (the little psycho boy) make absolutely no sense at all. According to the writers, there is a little boy who adores reading and the librarian (who is probably his best friend). However, because his father and the community turns against her, this "normal" kid is pushed over the edge and becomes a psychotic arsonist who eventually burns down the library!!! Talk about a total lack of subtlety!!! Plus, after the 7 year-old runs amok, the entire community abandons the librarian and the library is burned down, she forgives and forgets and agrees to rebuild a new library?!? Come on, get real!!
As I am so fond of saying, this film must have been written by lemurs---really, really dumb lemurs. As a result, it's only of interest to die-hard Bette Davis fans or those interested in seeing Joseph Kearnes (the original 'Mr. Wilson' from "Dennis the Menace") playing a nice person or Brian Keith (the annoyingly nice 'Uncle Bill' from the god-awful "Family Affair") play a fascist.
The idea of doing a film about banning books in the public libraries is a great idea, as I am a huge proponent of the First Amendment--which gives complete freedom of expression. A discussion of some well meaning idiots who wish to remove books "for our own good" is very, very important. However, this movie fails in two important respects. First, the timeliness of the film is a problem--Hollywood SHOULD have made this movie in the early 50s when such movements were at their height. Making an anti-book banning film in 1956 didn't take a whole lot of guts as by then people in America realized that the Red Scare had gone too far. Second, by using a script that has zero finesse, zero intelligence and cardboard characters it ultimately sinks this to the comic book level at best.
Bette Davis stars as a matronly lady who is at least 10 years older than Ms. Davis actually was. This was a brave but typical choice for her, as being glamorous wasn't important to her but playing the character truthfully was key. The only problem is that her character is a bit too nice--almost Mary Poppins nice. Having her character love kids was fine, but to stop them on the street to buy them things (especially on a librarian's salary) seemed unrealistic as well as her willingness to forgive and forget after she was treated like dirt by practically everyone. However, in general Ms. Davis did a fine job and she's one of the few bright spots in this dreary movie.
The problem is the supporting characters and the dialog. Some are so one-dimensional and stupid (such as the father of the little psycho boy) and others (the little psycho boy) make absolutely no sense at all. According to the writers, there is a little boy who adores reading and the librarian (who is probably his best friend). However, because his father and the community turns against her, this "normal" kid is pushed over the edge and becomes a psychotic arsonist who eventually burns down the library!!! Talk about a total lack of subtlety!!! Plus, after the 7 year-old runs amok, the entire community abandons the librarian and the library is burned down, she forgives and forgets and agrees to rebuild a new library?!? Come on, get real!!
As I am so fond of saying, this film must have been written by lemurs---really, really dumb lemurs. As a result, it's only of interest to die-hard Bette Davis fans or those interested in seeing Joseph Kearnes (the original 'Mr. Wilson' from "Dennis the Menace") playing a nice person or Brian Keith (the annoyingly nice 'Uncle Bill' from the god-awful "Family Affair") play a fascist.