One of John Cassavetes earlier directed classics, it is one of the very few times we get to see Judy Garland the actress and not Judy Garland the little girl. There is not sweet eye candy in this movie. Everything hits you in this movie! One hard hitting blow after another. Its personal direction, the original story, and some of the best acting from both Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster. A relic of a movie, you don't see too many classic like these. An enjoyment, a true taste of the human soul. It is forever an amazing film for the simple reason in the story's message of hope.
56 Reviews
Lancaster and Garland butt heads on how to educate some special needs kids.
planktonrules17 April 2011
"A Child Is Waiting" is a film showing the happenings at a state institution for developmentally delayed kids. Back in the bad old days, people were routinely sent to giant state schools to live out their lives. Not only the mentally retarded, but blind, mentally ill, deaf and various disabled adults and kids were routinely sent off to these places--and it was the rare case where they stayed home with their families. This warehousing of these 'defectives' was thought to be best and fortunately for most of these individuals, such mass institutionalization has become a thing of the past (though de-institutionalization offers its own set of problems as well). The school in this film isn't quite a warehouse (you do get to see one later in the film) but it's far from a homelike environment. So, when you watch this movie, understand that it was very typical for the early 1960s--but not today.
Burt Lancaster plays a doctor who runs the institution in the film. In some ways, he's very likable and committed and in others he's a very hard individual. He hires a new teacher for the place--an inexperienced by well-meaning lady (Judy Garland). At first, things seem to go well but when the two disagree on how to handle a particularly troubled kid, sparks start to fly. This boy has been abandoned by his family and they never visit him--and Garland is determined to do something to get him to open up and become a happier and higher-functioning resident. She also wants to give her love to the boy. But for Lancaster, pity is not on his agenda--he wants to toughen up the kids--to force them to respond to his less cuddly ways.
For me, the story about the one boy is not all that important. To me, what's important is the insight it gives in the treatment and education of developmentally delayed kids--and to show how it was done long ago. to psychology majors, those who work in the field or anyone who lives with and loves someone with developmental delays, it's well worth seeing. A very good film--and you might want to keep a box of Kleenex handy just in case.
By the way, one of the kids in the institution was played by Billy Mumy--the same kid who later starred on "Lost in Space" and as an adult on "Babylon 5"--and played the scary kid with freaky powers on "The Twilight Zone". Barbara Pepper who played 'Doris Zipfel' on "Green Acres" plays one of the teachers. Also, Steven Hill plays the disturbed boy's neglectful and rather angry father. He played the original lead on "Mission:Impossible" as well as the original District Attorney on "Law & Order". Finally, this was one of Judy Garland's last films. In 1963, she made this as well as "I Could Go On Singing" before dying so tragically young.
Burt Lancaster plays a doctor who runs the institution in the film. In some ways, he's very likable and committed and in others he's a very hard individual. He hires a new teacher for the place--an inexperienced by well-meaning lady (Judy Garland). At first, things seem to go well but when the two disagree on how to handle a particularly troubled kid, sparks start to fly. This boy has been abandoned by his family and they never visit him--and Garland is determined to do something to get him to open up and become a happier and higher-functioning resident. She also wants to give her love to the boy. But for Lancaster, pity is not on his agenda--he wants to toughen up the kids--to force them to respond to his less cuddly ways.
For me, the story about the one boy is not all that important. To me, what's important is the insight it gives in the treatment and education of developmentally delayed kids--and to show how it was done long ago. to psychology majors, those who work in the field or anyone who lives with and loves someone with developmental delays, it's well worth seeing. A very good film--and you might want to keep a box of Kleenex handy just in case.
By the way, one of the kids in the institution was played by Billy Mumy--the same kid who later starred on "Lost in Space" and as an adult on "Babylon 5"--and played the scary kid with freaky powers on "The Twilight Zone". Barbara Pepper who played 'Doris Zipfel' on "Green Acres" plays one of the teachers. Also, Steven Hill plays the disturbed boy's neglectful and rather angry father. He played the original lead on "Mission:Impossible" as well as the original District Attorney on "Law & Order". Finally, this was one of Judy Garland's last films. In 1963, she made this as well as "I Could Go On Singing" before dying so tragically young.
Warm and touching
Marie-626 February 2002
I saw this movie because many said Judy Garland was excellent in it. I thought, though, it'd be boring or stupid because it was going to be more artistic, like Audrey Hepburn's "A Nun's Story" (major dissappointment) but I couldn't have been more wrong. Judy stars is this with Burt Lancaster of course but the real star of the movie is Bruce Ritchey, who plays a mentally challenged boy. Jean Hansen (Garland) wants more in her life and gets the job as a music teacher for the mentally challenged children at an institution. Dr. Clark (Lancaster) is a physchologist with very controversial methods of getting the children to behave. Hansen falls in love with one of the boys, not romantically but more on a nurturing basis. He returns her love and they become the best of friends and inseperable. This worries Dr. Clark. He doesn't want to see the boy get hurt...Or more Ms. Hansen get hurt. He knows that "Love isn't enough" and in a very compelling, tear jerking scene, he shares this little tip with Ms. Hansen. This movie is wonderful. I think that Ms. Garland became more beautiful with each passing year. She was fantastic. Mr. Lancaster, too, was excellent as was the woman who playe Reuban's mother. This got an 8/10. I suggest that any Judy Garland fan see it. It took a lot for her to do this picture.
'Dorothy' is Not in Kansas Anymore
juliafwilliams13 July 2004
A Child Is Waiting is definitely a breakthrough movie, not only to showcase the unique gift for straight acting of Miss Judy Garland, but also to dramatize the dynamics and ramifications of working with people who are today called 'mentally challenged'.
Much has changed since the release of this movie. And while mentally challenged individuals are living more productive lives and being partially, if not fully, assimilated into general society, there is still quite a ways to go in preparing them for a productive life in society.
I am grateful that A Child Is Waiting was made, if only to educate the moviegoing public about mental challenges.
I think this movie is worthy of a remake.
Much has changed since the release of this movie. And while mentally challenged individuals are living more productive lives and being partially, if not fully, assimilated into general society, there is still quite a ways to go in preparing them for a productive life in society.
I am grateful that A Child Is Waiting was made, if only to educate the moviegoing public about mental challenges.
I think this movie is worthy of a remake.
Emotionally Draining Drama Focuses on the Funding-Challenged Treatment of the Mentally Disabled
EUyeshima11 August 2006
What an odd, unexpected movie this is. Stanley Kramer reunited Burt Lancaster and Judy Garland from his 1961 "Judgment at Nuremberg" for this grim near-docudrama about mentally disabled children in a state-run institution. Again working from a script by Abby Mann, Kramer handed over the directorial reins to John Cassavetes in only his third film. Some of Cassavetes' cinema-verité style is on display here, though there are definitely enough soap opera turns to make you realize that this is ultimately a social message film.
The director cast real patients from the Pacific State Hospital in Pomona, California, as most of the handicapped children and in one harrowing scene, as the mentally defective adults. This lends a searing veracity to many of the scenes, and the effect is mesmerizing. Intriguingly, a few are actors, and you are likely to recognize a quick glimpse of Billy Mumy (Will Robinson in TV's "Lost in Space") as one of the children. In the central role of Reuben, a borderline case, a twelve-year old actor named Bruce Ritchey is convincing in evoking the emotional isolation and inward terrorism of his character. The plot revolves around Reuben and the battle of wills over his treatment between Dr. Matthew Clark, the fair-minded director of the mental hospital, and Jean Hansen, a newly hired teacher.
Lancaster is such a forthright screen presence that he is automatically credible in the authority role of Clark. Garland, looking bloated and overly made up, has a role that suits her persona at the time. As Jean, she poignantly conveys an unfulfilled maternal instinct especially as she starts to focus most of her time on Reuben to the inadvertent detriment of the other children. Even without an Arlen song, Garland can capture the internal tremolo of a woman whose only avenue for love is the children. Obviously the character was tailored for Garland, as Jean is a former musician trained at Julliard who failed to become a concert pianist. In a defining moment, she does get to teach one simple rhyming song, "Snowflakes", to the children for a Thanksgiving pageant.
I like the fact that there is nary a romantic spark between Lancaster and Garland in the story, as they are there to represent opposing perspectives. I only wish there was a bit more emotionalism in the way they argued about it, as it takes an hour for either one of them to raise their voices. Due mostly to Mann's unimpactful, enervating script, the whole film feels mannered in that way, which is what prevents the film from being wholly satisfying. The lack of an emotional pay-off, while realistic, does not provide the closure a viewer needs with such a desultory story.
Familiar faces fill the supporting cast. Cassavetes' wife, a young Gena Rowlands, plays Reuben's brittle, guilt-ridden mother Sophie, while Steven Hill plays the emotionally disconnected father who takes Reuben to the hospital only to abandon him. Paul Stewart and John Marley play state officials who need to assess future funding of the school. It's a tough movie to sit through, but the honest depiction of the children and the state of such facilities at the time, along with the low-key sincerity of Lancaster and Garland, make this one worthwhile.
The director cast real patients from the Pacific State Hospital in Pomona, California, as most of the handicapped children and in one harrowing scene, as the mentally defective adults. This lends a searing veracity to many of the scenes, and the effect is mesmerizing. Intriguingly, a few are actors, and you are likely to recognize a quick glimpse of Billy Mumy (Will Robinson in TV's "Lost in Space") as one of the children. In the central role of Reuben, a borderline case, a twelve-year old actor named Bruce Ritchey is convincing in evoking the emotional isolation and inward terrorism of his character. The plot revolves around Reuben and the battle of wills over his treatment between Dr. Matthew Clark, the fair-minded director of the mental hospital, and Jean Hansen, a newly hired teacher.
Lancaster is such a forthright screen presence that he is automatically credible in the authority role of Clark. Garland, looking bloated and overly made up, has a role that suits her persona at the time. As Jean, she poignantly conveys an unfulfilled maternal instinct especially as she starts to focus most of her time on Reuben to the inadvertent detriment of the other children. Even without an Arlen song, Garland can capture the internal tremolo of a woman whose only avenue for love is the children. Obviously the character was tailored for Garland, as Jean is a former musician trained at Julliard who failed to become a concert pianist. In a defining moment, she does get to teach one simple rhyming song, "Snowflakes", to the children for a Thanksgiving pageant.
I like the fact that there is nary a romantic spark between Lancaster and Garland in the story, as they are there to represent opposing perspectives. I only wish there was a bit more emotionalism in the way they argued about it, as it takes an hour for either one of them to raise their voices. Due mostly to Mann's unimpactful, enervating script, the whole film feels mannered in that way, which is what prevents the film from being wholly satisfying. The lack of an emotional pay-off, while realistic, does not provide the closure a viewer needs with such a desultory story.
Familiar faces fill the supporting cast. Cassavetes' wife, a young Gena Rowlands, plays Reuben's brittle, guilt-ridden mother Sophie, while Steven Hill plays the emotionally disconnected father who takes Reuben to the hospital only to abandon him. Paul Stewart and John Marley play state officials who need to assess future funding of the school. It's a tough movie to sit through, but the honest depiction of the children and the state of such facilities at the time, along with the low-key sincerity of Lancaster and Garland, make this one worthwhile.
One of the most extraordinary filmgoing experiences you'll ever have.
Hermit C-22 November 1999
This is a remarkable motion picture. Its subject, mental retardation, is one that most of us avoid as much as possible. But it's a fact of life for millions--those diagnosed with it, their families and friends, and the people who work with them. If they have the courage to face up to it every day, we should at least have the nerve to do something as easy as watch a film. It turns out to be a much more rewarding experience than many might expect.
Judy Garland plays Jean Hansen, an over-thirty woman "drifting" through her life. To give it some purpose, she applies for work at an institution for mentally retarded children, though she has no expertise in the field. Dr. Clark (Burt Lancaster), who runs the place, has doubts about her altruism, but gives her a chance. Miss Hansen soon becomes attached to one young boy in particular--too attached for Dr. Clark's liking. He's a proponent of a modified "tough love" approach, one that calls for the students to do whatever they can for themselves to the best of their abilities.
Unlike the popular style of today, the children aren't played by actors who try to imbue their characters with a Forrest Gump-like "wisdom." They are real children who play themselves and in doing so bring a power to this film that a cast of the world's greatest actors couldn't hope to equal. At the movie's conclusion the students are seen performing a Thanksgiving play before an assembly and the effect on the viewer is staggering. We like to think that in our present-day society we deal much more openly with subjects that were taboo in the past, but no one else to my knowledge has had the courage to take such an unflinching look at mental retardation as this 1963 film does. For that we can thank producer Stanley Kramer for bringing it to the screen and to director John Cassavetes for making it tangible. I can't imagine that there is anyone who wouldn't benefit from watching this movie. I also can't recommend it strongly enough.
Judy Garland plays Jean Hansen, an over-thirty woman "drifting" through her life. To give it some purpose, she applies for work at an institution for mentally retarded children, though she has no expertise in the field. Dr. Clark (Burt Lancaster), who runs the place, has doubts about her altruism, but gives her a chance. Miss Hansen soon becomes attached to one young boy in particular--too attached for Dr. Clark's liking. He's a proponent of a modified "tough love" approach, one that calls for the students to do whatever they can for themselves to the best of their abilities.
Unlike the popular style of today, the children aren't played by actors who try to imbue their characters with a Forrest Gump-like "wisdom." They are real children who play themselves and in doing so bring a power to this film that a cast of the world's greatest actors couldn't hope to equal. At the movie's conclusion the students are seen performing a Thanksgiving play before an assembly and the effect on the viewer is staggering. We like to think that in our present-day society we deal much more openly with subjects that were taboo in the past, but no one else to my knowledge has had the courage to take such an unflinching look at mental retardation as this 1963 film does. For that we can thank producer Stanley Kramer for bringing it to the screen and to director John Cassavetes for making it tangible. I can't imagine that there is anyone who wouldn't benefit from watching this movie. I also can't recommend it strongly enough.
Children of a Greater Good
wes-connors13 July 2011
Emotionally disturbed Judy Garland (as Jean Hansen) gets a job looking after children at the Crawthorne State Mental Hospital and Training School. A former music teacher, Ms. Garland becomes attached to 12-year-old Bruce Ritchey (as Reuben Widdicombe) and clashes with psychiatrist boss Burt Lancaster (as Matthew Clark). This eventually leads to a crisis, but both Garland and young Ritchey grow from the experience. Working with the bond formed by "Reuben" and Garland, Mr. Lancaster also learns something. Garland directs the children in a Thanksgiving play, and another chapter in Ritchey's life unfolds...
This was the first of two final feature films for Garland, though she continued to be taped and filmed in many fine appearances. Both "A Child Is Waiting" and "I Could Go on Singing" take into consideration Garland's emotional state and musical abilities; here, her rough edges become part of the characterization. Lancaster and Garland do not disappoint, but the real treat is watching the nearly hidden away story and performances of parents Steven Hill (as Ted Widdicombe) and Gena Rowlands (Sophie), a realistic couple who love their children but make mistakes. Of course, this description fits any set of parents...
There are some concerns here with editing - one of the problems between filmmakers Stanley Kramer and John Cassavetes that has been documented publicly - mostly, this leads to confusion about exactly when "Reuben" arrived at which institution. And, some unnecessary pity and cuteness can occasionally be felt. Otherwise, this is a fine social conscious-raising drama, for the time. Presently, most of the institutionalized individuals depicted herein show little reason not to be back in their regular communities, with their parents and peers. Everyone loses when we exclude people who are different, for that reason alone.
******* A Child Is Waiting (1/14/63) John Cassavetes ~ Judy Garland, Burt Lancaster, Bruce Ritchey, Steven Hill
This was the first of two final feature films for Garland, though she continued to be taped and filmed in many fine appearances. Both "A Child Is Waiting" and "I Could Go on Singing" take into consideration Garland's emotional state and musical abilities; here, her rough edges become part of the characterization. Lancaster and Garland do not disappoint, but the real treat is watching the nearly hidden away story and performances of parents Steven Hill (as Ted Widdicombe) and Gena Rowlands (Sophie), a realistic couple who love their children but make mistakes. Of course, this description fits any set of parents...
There are some concerns here with editing - one of the problems between filmmakers Stanley Kramer and John Cassavetes that has been documented publicly - mostly, this leads to confusion about exactly when "Reuben" arrived at which institution. And, some unnecessary pity and cuteness can occasionally be felt. Otherwise, this is a fine social conscious-raising drama, for the time. Presently, most of the institutionalized individuals depicted herein show little reason not to be back in their regular communities, with their parents and peers. Everyone loses when we exclude people who are different, for that reason alone.
******* A Child Is Waiting (1/14/63) John Cassavetes ~ Judy Garland, Burt Lancaster, Bruce Ritchey, Steven Hill
Greatly Under-rated Film; We'll Always Be Waiting ****
edwagreen5 March 2006
Shortly after making the blockbuster "Judgment at Nuremberg," Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster again teamed in "A Child is Waiting."
Ms. Garland, again takes a non-singing role, is captivating as a very sympathetic worker in a home for mentally retarded children. She encounters Lancaster, a child psychologist, whose strict methods are in reality what a child in this situation needs so that he or she can function later in life.
Garland takes an immediate interest in Reuben, whose parents left him at the institution and have never visited him. The father is an embittered worker and Gena Rowlands does well as the heartbroken mother.
Frustrated with his deficiency and wondering where his parents are, the child acts out. Garland shows sympathy but her feelings run contrary to Lancaster's methods and the two conflict.
It is not until the child runs away from the institution that the situations are resolved.
A truly wonderful movie which was under rated by critics.
Ms. Garland, again takes a non-singing role, is captivating as a very sympathetic worker in a home for mentally retarded children. She encounters Lancaster, a child psychologist, whose strict methods are in reality what a child in this situation needs so that he or she can function later in life.
Garland takes an immediate interest in Reuben, whose parents left him at the institution and have never visited him. The father is an embittered worker and Gena Rowlands does well as the heartbroken mother.
Frustrated with his deficiency and wondering where his parents are, the child acts out. Garland shows sympathy but her feelings run contrary to Lancaster's methods and the two conflict.
It is not until the child runs away from the institution that the situations are resolved.
A truly wonderful movie which was under rated by critics.
Very moving
preppy-330 August 2000
A film that deals with a diffiult subject (mental retardation in children) very tastefully without pulling any punches. Burt Lancaster is very good as the director of a hospital for the youngsters. And all the youngsters (I believe played by children who really were mentally "challenged") are incredible. At first you're disturbed by the way they look and act, but you come to realize they have no choice in the way they behave, and they deserve love and respect like everyone else. The direction by John Cassavates is also impressive--I never liked his movies until I saw this one. The one bad thing about the movie is Judy Garland. Now I love her, but she looks terrible (her face is horribly bloated) and gives a one-note performance. As everyone knows now, she was heavily addicted to drugs and alcohol at that time and, sadly, it shows. Still, a powerful, moving film. A real tear-jerking ending also. Don't miss this one--it's very hard to find.
A painful but compelling study about retarded children.
lugonian16 February 2001
A CHILD IS WAITING (United Artists, 1963), directed by John Cassavetes, is a groundbreaking study about mentally retarded children (today called mentally challenged), as seen through the eyes of Jean Hansen (Judy Garland), a new music teacher. Besides the top-billed Burt Lancaster, excellent as Matthew Clark, a strict but fair superintendent doctor of a state institution, the central character here is a 12-year-old-boy named Reuben (Bruce Ritchey), a borderline case, who is abandoned at the institution by his father (Steven Hill), who cannot accept his son's state of condition, which puts a conflict on his marriage. Although he and his wife (Gena Rowlands) also have a younger daughter, the father is the one who tries to forget about Reuben's existence. Two years pass with the silent and sad-faced Reuben seen patiently waiting, in hope that one of his parents will some day come to see him on visiting day. He fails to make friends with the other kids and remains mostly to himself, sometimes becoming difficult in the classroom, but after he meets Miss Hansen, he soon bonds with her. In spite of Dr. Clark advising her to stay out of the family affair, Miss Hansen tries to see what she can do to get one of the parents to come to visit with him. After tense moments between Miss Hansen and Reuben's mother, as well as with Dr. Clark, a compelling scene ensues when Reuben's mother leaves without making an effort to see Reuben. She gets in her car, drives away only to be spotted by Reuben, who tries to chase after the car.
What makes this movie particularly interesting to watch is not only seeing Judy Garland, known for her musical film roles in her glory days at MGM, tasking a difficult role with warmth and conviction, but the use of retarded children, actual patients of the Pacific State Hospital in Pomona, California, where most of the movie was filmed. Baby boomers who grew up watching the 1960s TV show, LOST IN SPACE, will notice young Billy Mumy of that same program appearing very briefly as one of the patients who greet Miss Hansen at the early portion of the story after arriving at the institution.
While the movie itself was a commercial failure when released, mainly due to its sensitive subject matter, I find that it was ahead of its time, and only Stanley Kramer, who produced this, could challenge such a project and make it work so well. Yes, there are moments when a viewer will try to refrain from getting all teary-eyed, but be warned, it's impossible not to do, especially before the fadeout. The scene with Miss Hansen directing a Thanksgiving play with the children performing for the audience, their parents, is also moving, as is the scene where Reuben, after appearing in the show, stepping down from the stage and being surrounded by a crowd of people only to look up and find that special person there to greet him. A CHILD IS WAITING, available on video, can also be seen occasionally on Turner Classic Movies. When last aired on that station, host Robert Osborne has mentioned that the movie was originally a 1957 television play. But as for the 1963 screen adaptation, done tastefully with conviction, it should be seen and studied, for that a movie such as this only comes around once. And let's not forget young Bruce Ritchey as Reuben in a great performance of his short-lived acting career. (****)
What makes this movie particularly interesting to watch is not only seeing Judy Garland, known for her musical film roles in her glory days at MGM, tasking a difficult role with warmth and conviction, but the use of retarded children, actual patients of the Pacific State Hospital in Pomona, California, where most of the movie was filmed. Baby boomers who grew up watching the 1960s TV show, LOST IN SPACE, will notice young Billy Mumy of that same program appearing very briefly as one of the patients who greet Miss Hansen at the early portion of the story after arriving at the institution.
While the movie itself was a commercial failure when released, mainly due to its sensitive subject matter, I find that it was ahead of its time, and only Stanley Kramer, who produced this, could challenge such a project and make it work so well. Yes, there are moments when a viewer will try to refrain from getting all teary-eyed, but be warned, it's impossible not to do, especially before the fadeout. The scene with Miss Hansen directing a Thanksgiving play with the children performing for the audience, their parents, is also moving, as is the scene where Reuben, after appearing in the show, stepping down from the stage and being surrounded by a crowd of people only to look up and find that special person there to greet him. A CHILD IS WAITING, available on video, can also be seen occasionally on Turner Classic Movies. When last aired on that station, host Robert Osborne has mentioned that the movie was originally a 1957 television play. But as for the 1963 screen adaptation, done tastefully with conviction, it should be seen and studied, for that a movie such as this only comes around once. And let's not forget young Bruce Ritchey as Reuben in a great performance of his short-lived acting career. (****)
STUDIO CASS FLICK WITH SERIOUS SUBJECT1
shepardjessica-117 October 2004
One of two of Mr. Cassavetes' forays into studio film-making in the early 60's which did not work for him (Stanley Kramer as produce, duh). Actually a touching film dealing with mentally challenged children, dysfunctional parenting, and the System. Gena Rowlands is beautiful and very moving as the main boy's mother and Steven Hill does justice as the father. Burt Lancaster is fine as Ms. Judy Garland in a dramatic role that's within her capabilities. The main child actor is excellent!
A 7 out of 10. Best performance = Gena Rowlands. I'm sure this film bombed because the studio re-edited it and Cassavetes was not pleased (no surprise). Beautiful script and cinematoraphy as well.
A 7 out of 10. Best performance = Gena Rowlands. I'm sure this film bombed because the studio re-edited it and Cassavetes was not pleased (no surprise). Beautiful script and cinematoraphy as well.
An excellent moving showing how truly talented Judy Garland was and how she truly cared about others, regardless of what the press has made her to be.
henrysieg4 September 2005
This movie is really an absolute marvel, it shows such a variety of emotion. Judy Garland plays her part wonderfully and also her musical talent is extraordinary. The way she interacts with the children in this movie, is extremely moving. You can tell she really does care for them, and the performance at the end of the movie really is one of the most touching moments I have seen in a film. A++ for Garland, and Lancaster is an outstanding character as well, Gena Rowlands also makes a great effort in this film. The children who acting this movie could not be closer to your heart, the way it is done you can actually still feel for them to this day, they did a wonderful job casting for this movie. I could not say enough of how the film was done, along with all of the talent put into it, especially by Judy.
Simple, warm, unusual treatment of difficult subject...
Doylenf27 August 2006
JUDY GARLAND, as a naive music teacher looking for more fulfillment in a job that helps retarded children, and BURT LANCASTER as the head of the school for such youngsters, are the principal reason for watching this movie. Garland gives a very sincere, unaffected performance of the woman who eventually clashes with Lancaster when her coddling of a favorite student is deemed an inappropriate way to deal with his handicap.
Directed by John Cassavetes, this has an almost documentary feel to it as we meet the retarded and see how the staff is dealing with them. As scripted by Abby Mann, it's a sensitive study of an unusual theme and has been given a tremulous but low-key performance from Garland, one of her better mature roles and one that shows what an admirable actress she could be. As the stern taskmaster, Lancaster too never lets down his share of the acting requirements, being completely believable and authoritative in all of his scenes.
A bit slow-moving, but worth your attention for its sincere attempt to tell a heart-warming story.
Directed by John Cassavetes, this has an almost documentary feel to it as we meet the retarded and see how the staff is dealing with them. As scripted by Abby Mann, it's a sensitive study of an unusual theme and has been given a tremulous but low-key performance from Garland, one of her better mature roles and one that shows what an admirable actress she could be. As the stern taskmaster, Lancaster too never lets down his share of the acting requirements, being completely believable and authoritative in all of his scenes.
A bit slow-moving, but worth your attention for its sincere attempt to tell a heart-warming story.
Curious vehicle for the stars has good intentions, little appeal
moonspinner557 July 2007
Potentially dramatic exploration of the human heart is simplified into a standard-issue soap opera (with do-gooder trimmings). Judy Garland, shaky but determined, plays middle-aged woman working at a children's school for the mentally-challenged; she immediately gets on the wrong side of school principal Burt Lancaster, who seems to sneer at her ambition and gives her a good dressing-down. Garland bonds with a near-catatonic child with absentee parents, and we are immediately made aware this woman needs to fill a personal void in her life by taking care of others--providing a certain emotional pay-off upon discovering her vocation in life may be to teach these kids (and reach their parents). I didn't quite believe anything in "A Child is Waiting"; it leaves behind no evidence that director John Cassavetes' heart was in it, nor why these particular talents would want to be involved. The good intentions may hook some, but Cassavetes shows little of the arty obtuseness which would drive his later, more ambitious and personal films about shattered men and women. ** from ****
Supportive, descriptive.
sedaka14 October 2001
A truly heartwarming look at the every day lives of children at a mental facility. Judy Garland gives a great performance as Jean Hansen, a lonely woman on the look out for just the right kind of job.
Burt Lancaster is very convincing as the hospital psychiatrist. He is strict but in many ways kind to the kids. However, the one standout child in this movie is Bruce Ritchey who portrays "Reuben Widdecombe". The boy dislikes Lancaster for his strictness.
I thought Billy Mumy "Lost In Space" and "Twilight Zone" would have had a bigger part in this, yet he is only in a supporting role. Bruce Ritchey looks like "the boy next door", like any other normal kid. Judy Garland takes a great interest in Ritchey and gets his parents to come out to the hospital to see him.
The dad, Steven Hill, wants to forget that his son ever existed and refuses to come see the boy until the mother, played by Gena Rowlands, tearfully persuades her ex-husband to visit he son. She comes to the hospital herself but refuses to see Reuben.
All in all, the movie is wonderful. You will definately need to have a box of kleenex nearby. Ritchey will win your heart! I give it an enthusiastic 2 THUMBS UP!
Burt Lancaster is very convincing as the hospital psychiatrist. He is strict but in many ways kind to the kids. However, the one standout child in this movie is Bruce Ritchey who portrays "Reuben Widdecombe". The boy dislikes Lancaster for his strictness.
I thought Billy Mumy "Lost In Space" and "Twilight Zone" would have had a bigger part in this, yet he is only in a supporting role. Bruce Ritchey looks like "the boy next door", like any other normal kid. Judy Garland takes a great interest in Ritchey and gets his parents to come out to the hospital to see him.
The dad, Steven Hill, wants to forget that his son ever existed and refuses to come see the boy until the mother, played by Gena Rowlands, tearfully persuades her ex-husband to visit he son. She comes to the hospital herself but refuses to see Reuben.
All in all, the movie is wonderful. You will definately need to have a box of kleenex nearby. Ritchey will win your heart! I give it an enthusiastic 2 THUMBS UP!
Love, or Discipline?
keoldham7 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the comments here have mentioned Dr. Clark's (Lancaster) belief that the children should not be given love (which would indeed be heinous). I saw it a different way. I didn't think he objected to love so much as coddling and not enforcing a gentle discipline; the first time we see him in the institution with Reuben (Ritchie) and Reuben misbehaves, he applies discipline - which to Miss Hanson (Garland) seems unkind and extreme. Her wish is to protect the children from the world - from all hurts, all responsibilities. Clark even states that without learning some sort of discipline, the children have no hope of learning anything else.
Miss Hanson's philosophy is echoed in Reuben's father's (Hill) wish to remove Reuben from the institution and have him privately cared for, where he could have anything he wants, and didn't "have to do anything he didn't want to." As a former educator, I think it's possible to truly love your students and show them that you do, without foregoing the gentle discipline it will take to help them prepare for the world.
As a film, I wasn't too impressed. I too felt that Garland's performance was lacking and that she looked older than her years, though her sedate performance did seem to fit in with the character she was playing. I felt that several scenes were either mechanisms for forwarding Miss Hanson's "education," or devices to elicit sympathy. Still, it was a very thought-provoking film.
Miss Hanson's philosophy is echoed in Reuben's father's (Hill) wish to remove Reuben from the institution and have him privately cared for, where he could have anything he wants, and didn't "have to do anything he didn't want to." As a former educator, I think it's possible to truly love your students and show them that you do, without foregoing the gentle discipline it will take to help them prepare for the world.
As a film, I wasn't too impressed. I too felt that Garland's performance was lacking and that she looked older than her years, though her sedate performance did seem to fit in with the character she was playing. I felt that several scenes were either mechanisms for forwarding Miss Hanson's "education," or devices to elicit sympathy. Still, it was a very thought-provoking film.
An absolute treasure
GTinsdale21 March 2005
I saw this movie when I was 11 years old as part of the Million Dollar Movie when Channel 9 in NY would play a movie for an entire week. I was in 6th grade and I had the flu and stayed home all week, and watched this film every one of those days - discovering new emotions every time I watched it.
This is truly one of the finest, most honest and beautiful films you are ever likely to see. It's incredibly well written and directed, and the acting is nothing short of perfect. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. John Cassavetes nailed it perfectly. If your local Blockbuster doesn't carry it, INSIST they buy it.
GT
This is truly one of the finest, most honest and beautiful films you are ever likely to see. It's incredibly well written and directed, and the acting is nothing short of perfect. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. John Cassavetes nailed it perfectly. If your local Blockbuster doesn't carry it, INSIST they buy it.
GT
Painful to digest. Watching and dealing with the mentally challenged!
thejcowboy228 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie personally hits home with me. I am personally attached to people with mental disorders. I had a cousin who was born with a brain injury. I watched my siblings and cousins grow with the usual maturation process except for my damaged cousin as she did develop as a woman yet her brain remained unvaried. I also watched her parents, my second cousins deal with her condition. They loved her and treated her as if she was normal., (whatever normal is?). Moreover her parents were huge members of The organization AHRC (Association for the Help of Retarded Children) to raise money for programs and therapy. I always wondered how parents dealt with their mentally disabled children? I was first exposed to this shocking film when I was about ten years old. Witnessing a boy adjust to life in an institution by his lonesome. As I stated I witnessed this world of the mentally challenged and being an impressionable 10 years old I wondered what it would be like to be discarded by your own parents. Knowing from my own personal feelings my first few days at sleep away camp I cried myself to sleep yet Rueben doesn't seem to show that emotion. In fact he appears down right defiant as he does his best to get his music teachers love and attention. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Our movie starts with an upscale couple, the Widdicombes, Ted and Sophie played by Steven Hill and Gena Rowlands. Their new born child Rueben who seems dormant lying in his crib uninterested. This is questioned by his mother. Rueben's father retorts to his concerned spouse, claiming that another boy didn't speak for years and grew up a success. A few years have passed and on surface Rueben looks like a normal boy his age. The Widdecombe's have a second child, a girl, who is normal yet there's something off about Rueben. Mr. Widdecombe takes Rueben for IQ tests to various doctors who claim he is under the normal curve in intelligence. The parents realize that their son is mentally damaged. Mr. Widdecomb coldly plans to discard his son at an institution. Mr. Widdecomb drives at top speed to a mental institution and coerces Rueben out of his car. Our scene shifts to new players in our tearful story. Dr. Matthew Clark (Burt Lancaster) who runs the facility. The headmaster / Doctor has strict methods in his teaching approach to the disabled and refuses to coddled them along rendering them dysfunctional in adulthood. Lancaster yet strict is restrained throughout and never uses harsh language or acts of violence like you would see in an Oliver Twist institution. Enter our other star, the chunky yet vulnerable Jean Hansen played by Judy Garland who is hired as the music teacher in the film. Being rejected by his folks Rueben consistently acts despondent to the displeasure of Dr. Clark but Miss Hanson intercedes and that causes a rift between the two. They both argue over the teaching methods of the children particularly Rueben. Rueben being discarded by his parents, (who never come on visiting day) was painful site to witness. Miss Hansen takes it upon herself to be a surrogate Mom to Rueben. This becomes quite evident among st the consternation on the other students. The pressures of the job get to Miss Hansen who had no prior experience in working with mentally handicapped. As I watched this film I saw the hopelessness and felt sorry for Rueben. I empathized with his frustration throughout the film. I wondered why his parents were so ashamed due to a birth defect which they had no control over. As for the acting I found it refreshing seeing Judy Garland in a serious role and pulling it off with tears and compassion. Burt looked more like a GQ magazine cover model than a headmaster of an institution. His acting was professional yet I felt he was miscast due to his appearance. A thought provoking film that makes you cringe at the sight of the dark side of human existence where these loving children were dealt a bad card by Mother Nature. Today I have a Niece and Nephew who are mentally challenged and discarded by their Father. I take the Father's place and show them love, respect and mostly time together making life more palatable for them. You love your children unconditionally. Furthermore kudos to Stanley Kramer for producing another controversial inspiring film.
Very Moving
jeffy-317 July 2000
This was one of the most moving films I have ever seen. The cast is exceptional, the direction sure-footed and matter of fact, and the screenplay rarely pontificates. The inclusion of real handicapped children adds to the realistic atmosphere. Should be seen by everyone, especially young people. Judy Garland is perfect in one of her last roles.
The surprisingly quality film that caused Cassavetes to stray from the Hollywood studio system
agboone73 July 2015
"A Child Is Waiting" is the third film directed by John Cassavetes, in my opinion one of the two or three greatest American filmmakers to ever live. The main thing that needs to be kept in mind about this film, however, is that it is not truly a Cassavetes film at all. It is much more of a Stanley Kramer film. Kramer produced the film; Cassavetes directed it, but it feels much closer to "Judgment at Nuremberg" than it does to "Too Late Blues", which itself was more conventional and mainstream than most of Cassavetes' work.
It seems that Cassavetes was set, for awhile at least, on being a commercial filmmaker. His debut film, "Shadows" (1959), was a very amateur, underground film. It was the polar opposite of commercial cinema, and while it was not a very good film, I have an immense amount of respect for it. It was an exercise in unmitigated realism that, in some ways, foreshadowed the films of the nouvelle vague, which was just getting underway at the time. Cassavetes' next film was "Too Late Blues", which maintained the realism of "Shadows" to some extent, but also employed a more polished, classicist mode of filmmaking, giving it more commercial entertainment value than its predecessor. It was halfway between "Shadows" and mainstream, commercial cinema.
Then comes "A Child Is Waiting", released in 1963 by Paramount. It stars Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster, who had just appeared together in one of Kramer's recent films, "Judgment at Nuremberg", which Kramer directed himself. As you can tell from the cast, "A Child Is Waiting" is purely commercial cinema, which is highly uncharacteristic of Cassavetes. Nevertheless, his hallmarks aren't completely absent from the film. First, there is the presence of Gena Rowlands, Cassavetes' leading lady for many of his films. Secondly, although it is ultimately a classicist film, "A Child Is Waiting" does utilize a certain amount of the documentary-style realism that Cassavetes was famous for. For a commercial film, it's very minimalistic, and even though it feels more like Kramer's film than it does like Cassavetes', the latter's influence is evident nonetheless.
Interestingly, on a side note, Kramer had produced one other film between "Judgment at Nuremberg" and "A Child Is Waiting". It was called "Pressure Point", and it starred Bobby Darin, who had starred in "Too Late Blues", and Peter Falk, who would star in two of Cassavetes' later films, "Husbands" and "A Woman Under the Influence". I suppose this is likely just a coincidence stemming from the fact that these actors were probably all under contract with Paramount at the time.
Cassavetes wasn't originally supposed to direct the "A Child Is Waiting". When the original director had to pull out, however, the film's screenwriter recommended Cassavetes, who was still under contract with Paramount. Kramer and Cassavetes clashed, evidently because of the unconventional nature of Cassavetes' methods. As we know, Cassavetes loved improvisation (his claim to fame), but Kramer and the film's cast did not share the sentiment. Finally, during post-production, while editing the film, problems between Kramer and Cassavetes boiled over. Cassavetes wanted to highlight the theme that mentally handicapped children (the subject of the film) were, in their own way, superior to the so-called "normal" adults of the world — a theme that absolutely survived to be seen in the final product — whereas Kramer wanted to focus more on the alienation of these children due to their treatment by society, encouraging the idea that they be put in institutions where they can be with other children like themselves and ultimately overcome the isolation that plagued them in the outside world. In the end, Kramer fired Cassavetes, and Cassavetes disowned the film. After its release, Cassavetes said that he didn't think Kramer's film was bad, but simply that it was, indeed, Kramer's film, and not his own. To any viewer who's familiar with Cassavetes' work, this will be obvious within about five minutes of watching the film. Kramer stated that Cassavetes was "difficult" to work with, and with the immense power that Kramer held in Hollywood, this spelled the end of Cassavetes' career as a studio director.
This was, of course, for the best, when all was said and done. It seems as if Cassavetes would have preferred to continue working as a studio director, had it been up to him, and I hate to think of all the great films we'd be bereft of today if things had turned out that way. Having been basically blacklisted as a Hollywood director, Cassavetes returned to the independent method of filmmaking that had produced "Shadows", and the result was what I believe to be his greatest masterpiece, "Faces". "Husbands", "A Woman Under the Influence", "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", and "Opening Night" followed, all strong, unique films that established Cassavetes as a true auteur, something he'd have been entirely unable to achieve within the studio system.
Nevertheless, "A Child Is Waiting" is a good film, really. I was surprised. I hadn't expected much, and it's actually quite a quality picture. Lancaster is very good, and although Garland, who was dealing with personal problems at the time, was by far the film's weakest link, she avoided an all together terrible performance. She was mediocre, at best, but she did the bare minimum to support the role.
Like in "Judgment at Nuremberg", Kramer asks all the big questions regarding his subject matter. He tackles the subject comprehensively, asking intelligent questions about important issues, and isn't afraid to leave them essentially unanswered. The film's entertainment value is sufficient, but where it really excels is on a thematic level. Despite being a largely forgotten film, "A Child Is Waiting" has some really good things to say, and it is actually a deeper, more profound work than the vast majority of the films that Hollywood was releasing in the early '60s.
RATING: 7.33 out of 10 stars.
It seems that Cassavetes was set, for awhile at least, on being a commercial filmmaker. His debut film, "Shadows" (1959), was a very amateur, underground film. It was the polar opposite of commercial cinema, and while it was not a very good film, I have an immense amount of respect for it. It was an exercise in unmitigated realism that, in some ways, foreshadowed the films of the nouvelle vague, which was just getting underway at the time. Cassavetes' next film was "Too Late Blues", which maintained the realism of "Shadows" to some extent, but also employed a more polished, classicist mode of filmmaking, giving it more commercial entertainment value than its predecessor. It was halfway between "Shadows" and mainstream, commercial cinema.
Then comes "A Child Is Waiting", released in 1963 by Paramount. It stars Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster, who had just appeared together in one of Kramer's recent films, "Judgment at Nuremberg", which Kramer directed himself. As you can tell from the cast, "A Child Is Waiting" is purely commercial cinema, which is highly uncharacteristic of Cassavetes. Nevertheless, his hallmarks aren't completely absent from the film. First, there is the presence of Gena Rowlands, Cassavetes' leading lady for many of his films. Secondly, although it is ultimately a classicist film, "A Child Is Waiting" does utilize a certain amount of the documentary-style realism that Cassavetes was famous for. For a commercial film, it's very minimalistic, and even though it feels more like Kramer's film than it does like Cassavetes', the latter's influence is evident nonetheless.
Interestingly, on a side note, Kramer had produced one other film between "Judgment at Nuremberg" and "A Child Is Waiting". It was called "Pressure Point", and it starred Bobby Darin, who had starred in "Too Late Blues", and Peter Falk, who would star in two of Cassavetes' later films, "Husbands" and "A Woman Under the Influence". I suppose this is likely just a coincidence stemming from the fact that these actors were probably all under contract with Paramount at the time.
Cassavetes wasn't originally supposed to direct the "A Child Is Waiting". When the original director had to pull out, however, the film's screenwriter recommended Cassavetes, who was still under contract with Paramount. Kramer and Cassavetes clashed, evidently because of the unconventional nature of Cassavetes' methods. As we know, Cassavetes loved improvisation (his claim to fame), but Kramer and the film's cast did not share the sentiment. Finally, during post-production, while editing the film, problems between Kramer and Cassavetes boiled over. Cassavetes wanted to highlight the theme that mentally handicapped children (the subject of the film) were, in their own way, superior to the so-called "normal" adults of the world — a theme that absolutely survived to be seen in the final product — whereas Kramer wanted to focus more on the alienation of these children due to their treatment by society, encouraging the idea that they be put in institutions where they can be with other children like themselves and ultimately overcome the isolation that plagued them in the outside world. In the end, Kramer fired Cassavetes, and Cassavetes disowned the film. After its release, Cassavetes said that he didn't think Kramer's film was bad, but simply that it was, indeed, Kramer's film, and not his own. To any viewer who's familiar with Cassavetes' work, this will be obvious within about five minutes of watching the film. Kramer stated that Cassavetes was "difficult" to work with, and with the immense power that Kramer held in Hollywood, this spelled the end of Cassavetes' career as a studio director.
This was, of course, for the best, when all was said and done. It seems as if Cassavetes would have preferred to continue working as a studio director, had it been up to him, and I hate to think of all the great films we'd be bereft of today if things had turned out that way. Having been basically blacklisted as a Hollywood director, Cassavetes returned to the independent method of filmmaking that had produced "Shadows", and the result was what I believe to be his greatest masterpiece, "Faces". "Husbands", "A Woman Under the Influence", "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", and "Opening Night" followed, all strong, unique films that established Cassavetes as a true auteur, something he'd have been entirely unable to achieve within the studio system.
Nevertheless, "A Child Is Waiting" is a good film, really. I was surprised. I hadn't expected much, and it's actually quite a quality picture. Lancaster is very good, and although Garland, who was dealing with personal problems at the time, was by far the film's weakest link, she avoided an all together terrible performance. She was mediocre, at best, but she did the bare minimum to support the role.
Like in "Judgment at Nuremberg", Kramer asks all the big questions regarding his subject matter. He tackles the subject comprehensively, asking intelligent questions about important issues, and isn't afraid to leave them essentially unanswered. The film's entertainment value is sufficient, but where it really excels is on a thematic level. Despite being a largely forgotten film, "A Child Is Waiting" has some really good things to say, and it is actually a deeper, more profound work than the vast majority of the films that Hollywood was releasing in the early '60s.
RATING: 7.33 out of 10 stars.
A Groundbreaking Film
bkoganbing15 December 2005
I wouldn't want to bet the rent money on it, but I think A Child Is Waiting is probably the first film to deal with the subject of mental retardation. In any event Stanley Kramer, John Cassavetes, Burt Lancaster and Judy Garland all ought to be commended for the work in this film.
My sister-in-law happens to have a mentally retarded sister and a late mentally retarded brother. They were in fact institutionalized at the time this film would have been made and later on were able to be a part of the workforce. To be sure it's menial labor, but the point is they are living independently. In fact her sister lives in a home for retarded adults now. She's closing in on 50 now.
I also had a neighbor with a mentally retarded child and she was kept locked in at home like some of the failures described by Lancaster in the film. They moved away when I was young, I never knew what became of her.
According to a recent biography of Burt Lancaster, John Cassavetes and Judy Garland did not get along at all during the making of this. Judy was going through some bad emotional problems at this time(when was she not)and working with the retarded kids in the film was pretty difficult for her. It was Lancaster who got her through the film and got her to focus on the role, channeling her own problems in life to what those kids had to deal with. Years later Cassavetes and Lancaster met up and some event and Cassavetes confessed he was green at the directing game and should have been more compassionate.
It's mentioned in the film that the president of the United States has a mentally retarded sister. Since that president was John F. Kennedy at the time, I wonder if the Kennedy family didn't have a behind the scenes role here.
I'm also glad that there was no romantic subplot going between Lancaster and Garland. Would have diverted too much from the film's impact.
And folks even today, it still has an impact.
My sister-in-law happens to have a mentally retarded sister and a late mentally retarded brother. They were in fact institutionalized at the time this film would have been made and later on were able to be a part of the workforce. To be sure it's menial labor, but the point is they are living independently. In fact her sister lives in a home for retarded adults now. She's closing in on 50 now.
I also had a neighbor with a mentally retarded child and she was kept locked in at home like some of the failures described by Lancaster in the film. They moved away when I was young, I never knew what became of her.
According to a recent biography of Burt Lancaster, John Cassavetes and Judy Garland did not get along at all during the making of this. Judy was going through some bad emotional problems at this time(when was she not)and working with the retarded kids in the film was pretty difficult for her. It was Lancaster who got her through the film and got her to focus on the role, channeling her own problems in life to what those kids had to deal with. Years later Cassavetes and Lancaster met up and some event and Cassavetes confessed he was green at the directing game and should have been more compassionate.
It's mentioned in the film that the president of the United States has a mentally retarded sister. Since that president was John F. Kennedy at the time, I wonder if the Kennedy family didn't have a behind the scenes role here.
I'm also glad that there was no romantic subplot going between Lancaster and Garland. Would have diverted too much from the film's impact.
And folks even today, it still has an impact.
Strong Indictment of the State
harry_david110 November 2002
I'm not sure this movie functioned all that well as an entertainment, but as a pseudo-documentary, it was durned good.
Burt Lancaster is evil. His character at least. Only... he's not, he's just another functionary in a malignant institution, in this case, a facility for mentally retarded youth. As such, the rules of the system condition him to a certain kind of rationality, which may be the most humane kind available to a man in his office, but which nonetheless deals terrible blows to a young boy named Reuben.
I confess hereby, to have entered into viewing the movie a half hour in. So I all but missed the rearing of Reuben undertaken by his natural parents.
Reuben stands out in the institution no less than in civil society. I may be projecting, but I found significance in Lancaster's declaration: "We don't care much about IQs here." Whether or not IQs are a valid measure of intelligence, the concrete application seemed to be that Reuben was far from retarded. He suffered from something else.
The something else, it seemed quite clear, was the sort of tendency towards nihilistic fear that can only be expected to be found in boys who face contradictions and meaninglessness, without love.
And the institution's philosophy, under Lancaster, was rather expressly to forbid any love: love of a concrete sort, at least. Any attention which Judy Garland (as a newly hired social worker) directed towards the effectively motherless Reuben, would be, per Lancaster, a deprivation to the others; and, further, a hindrance to Reuben's own growth.
Only the State needs to ration love, or anything else for that matter; freely interacting individuals tend to find that gifts of love complement each other in a positive feedback loop.
And only the State believes that a child (or anything else) can and must be "produced" to the purpose of maximum usefulness to society, and by manner of sporadic lessons in facts rather than holistically working towards understanding. As Garland notes, she could teach Reuben music, sure, but "it's not enough." It's just another hyper-specialized skill when bestowed upon a shattered mind.
Enjoyably, the audience become privy to another element of the State's managerial nature, during the budget meeting. Lancaster argues for reasonable-sounding expenditures by the state government; the state's representatives, in turn, argue for the greater efficiency of distributing the tax levies upon citizen-subjects of greater production potential.
Enjoyable, that scene, because the viewer already knows what a sham the institution is, by nature. At one point, for instance, Reuben's reluctant father, addressing Lancaster, questions what the children even could possibly be conditioned for: "To wash dishes, or maybe tie strings around packages?" The father knows in his heart, and later acts accordingly by withdrawing Reuben, that he would far more nobly serve his child by helping to untangle his mind's knots, than to pursue the doctor's goals.
So, those reasonable budget requests, turn out in the viewer's mind to be ultimately arbitrary, and destructive in fact. The state's representatives, though, come away as the even worse human beings.
Well, heaven blessed Reuben to have a chance to see his parents, at the children's play, and, miraculously, he recites a lengthy monologue, no longer terrified to speak.
Unfortunately, the state resides in this world outside of the movie, and no less arrogates to itself tasks it has no business in.
Burt Lancaster is evil. His character at least. Only... he's not, he's just another functionary in a malignant institution, in this case, a facility for mentally retarded youth. As such, the rules of the system condition him to a certain kind of rationality, which may be the most humane kind available to a man in his office, but which nonetheless deals terrible blows to a young boy named Reuben.
I confess hereby, to have entered into viewing the movie a half hour in. So I all but missed the rearing of Reuben undertaken by his natural parents.
Reuben stands out in the institution no less than in civil society. I may be projecting, but I found significance in Lancaster's declaration: "We don't care much about IQs here." Whether or not IQs are a valid measure of intelligence, the concrete application seemed to be that Reuben was far from retarded. He suffered from something else.
The something else, it seemed quite clear, was the sort of tendency towards nihilistic fear that can only be expected to be found in boys who face contradictions and meaninglessness, without love.
And the institution's philosophy, under Lancaster, was rather expressly to forbid any love: love of a concrete sort, at least. Any attention which Judy Garland (as a newly hired social worker) directed towards the effectively motherless Reuben, would be, per Lancaster, a deprivation to the others; and, further, a hindrance to Reuben's own growth.
Only the State needs to ration love, or anything else for that matter; freely interacting individuals tend to find that gifts of love complement each other in a positive feedback loop.
And only the State believes that a child (or anything else) can and must be "produced" to the purpose of maximum usefulness to society, and by manner of sporadic lessons in facts rather than holistically working towards understanding. As Garland notes, she could teach Reuben music, sure, but "it's not enough." It's just another hyper-specialized skill when bestowed upon a shattered mind.
Enjoyably, the audience become privy to another element of the State's managerial nature, during the budget meeting. Lancaster argues for reasonable-sounding expenditures by the state government; the state's representatives, in turn, argue for the greater efficiency of distributing the tax levies upon citizen-subjects of greater production potential.
Enjoyable, that scene, because the viewer already knows what a sham the institution is, by nature. At one point, for instance, Reuben's reluctant father, addressing Lancaster, questions what the children even could possibly be conditioned for: "To wash dishes, or maybe tie strings around packages?" The father knows in his heart, and later acts accordingly by withdrawing Reuben, that he would far more nobly serve his child by helping to untangle his mind's knots, than to pursue the doctor's goals.
So, those reasonable budget requests, turn out in the viewer's mind to be ultimately arbitrary, and destructive in fact. The state's representatives, though, come away as the even worse human beings.
Well, heaven blessed Reuben to have a chance to see his parents, at the children's play, and, miraculously, he recites a lengthy monologue, no longer terrified to speak.
Unfortunately, the state resides in this world outside of the movie, and no less arrogates to itself tasks it has no business in.
A Profound Conflict of a Movie
jzappa6 February 2008
A Child Is Waiting. What a wonderful title. It alone emits the feelings the film does. There are moments when we feel as if the film is going to take off into a flight of elatedness in its music, but the nature of the film in Cassavetes's eyes, Cassavetes not having been given a great deal of trust during the film's production, joins like a backdrop and we are reminded of the right, and occasional necessity, film has to reality. He certainly drew beautiful work out of Judy Garland. I see so many real people in her performance.
This, however, is not the film that Cassavetes initially made. Cassavetes wanted to make a film about the hidden, twisted beauty of a mentally handicapped child, that adults have less tolerance, patience, and basic wisdom that retarded children can have. Producer Stanley Kramer had other, more cautious, less daring thoughts. In his re-editing, he fashioned from Cassavetes's cut a film about the loneliness and pitiful existence of mentally handicapped people, and that the only place for them is in an institution. It would've been quite fascinating had Cassavetes been granted more trust by Kramer and screenwriter Abby Mann. Nevertheless, with this history behind this movie kept in mind, maybe one can find even more clarity in what is communicated. Perhaps both Cassavetes and Kramer had truth to their perspectives. Perhaps this is a very unique cinematic effect that has come from this very unorthodox film. If they'd been able to reach an agreement, their views could've combined and made a truly profound film.
This, however, is not the film that Cassavetes initially made. Cassavetes wanted to make a film about the hidden, twisted beauty of a mentally handicapped child, that adults have less tolerance, patience, and basic wisdom that retarded children can have. Producer Stanley Kramer had other, more cautious, less daring thoughts. In his re-editing, he fashioned from Cassavetes's cut a film about the loneliness and pitiful existence of mentally handicapped people, and that the only place for them is in an institution. It would've been quite fascinating had Cassavetes been granted more trust by Kramer and screenwriter Abby Mann. Nevertheless, with this history behind this movie kept in mind, maybe one can find even more clarity in what is communicated. Perhaps both Cassavetes and Kramer had truth to their perspectives. Perhaps this is a very unique cinematic effect that has come from this very unorthodox film. If they'd been able to reach an agreement, their views could've combined and made a truly profound film.
We all depend on people's perceptions, but some don't have the privilege of reciprocity...
ElMaruecan8215 March 2017
"What does normal mean, anyway? He might be a bit on the slow side, but my boy Forrest is going to get the same opportunities as everyone else. He's not going to some special school to learn to how to re-tread tires."
Now, who would have thought a movie was made that could enlighten us about the kind of destiny little Forrest escaped from thanks to his mother's iron-clad determination.
"A Child is Waiting" is set in a mental institution for troubled and emotionally disturbed children, and directed by John Cassavetes. It was his third movie following "Shadows" and "Too Late Blues", but didn't have the same impact and was inevitably overshadowed by his more revolutionary "Faces", "Husbands", you know, typical Cassavetes. The film might be a little too 'classic' and structured but the independent movies' pioneer has never been a structured storyteller anyway; his sense of structure was of emotions and instincts.
And I guess I could see why, of all the directors, he was selected for such 'heavy' material. The documentary-like aspect of "A Child is Waiting" calls for an eye that already proved its acuteness to spot the vulnerability of the human soul without the use of cinematic tricks. The film renders with more or less efficiency the harrowing pain and discomfort the spectacle of mental handicap can inspire, with shades of optimism carried by these kids' smiles and attempts to learn. Made in 1963, it is as modern as if it dealt with today's kids. The opening credits show children's drawings and we can see they don't differ much from what kids born in the 2000's would draw.
But all these efforts to hit a universally and timelessly sensitive chord can't distract from the fact that the film was a box-office failure.
This is a movie whose making was unfortunately derailed by a growing antagonism between producer Stanley Kramer and Cassavetes. And by starring Burt Lancaster as the director of the institution, Dr. Clark, Judy Garland as Jean Hansen, the newly hired teacher and the screenplay being written by Abby Mann, the film is torn between the didacticism of "Judgment by Nuremberg" and the emotionality of "Faces". Cassavetes disowned it, Kramer wished they could have transcended that barrier of disagreement for the sake of that profound and haunting issue. As much as a Cassavetes' fan I consider myself, I appreciate the point made by Kramer. This is a film too important to be disregarded because of cinematic considerations.
Cassavetes has a point though. There are some elements that are overly dramatized and seem to be just made in order to extract the "right" emotions from us, Clark's heroic stand-up against the patronizing compassion of doctors and politicians who consider these kids as abnormal, or Hansen' misty-eyed compassion toward little Reuben. The acting is obviously well-intentioned and I can see sincerity in the way Lancaster and Garland approach their roles. Yet the film is never as powerful as when it just lets the camera roll and shows the kids acting normally within their abnormality. I've seen child acting in old movies and this film contains one of the greatest ever. In a film like "The Night of the Hunter", children play a pivotal role but they fail to convince you, here, maybe the mental condition works because the kids are playful or disillusioned, thus naturally indifferent to the camera eye.
To some extent, the film reminded me of the movie "Freaks" in the sense that the protagonists were playing their roles and never really tried to act, to the point that they were deemed as freaks from the perspective of society but never the eye of Todd Browning or the viewers. Cassavetes achieves the same thing, when the kids try to 'play the game', it's less from the awareness that there's a camera, but because most of these kids really want to please the adults and overcome their handicap. But they're still confronted to the severe judgment of adults, parents and society, that's their tragedy, they're dependent on people's perceptions, even positive ones. We all do but at least, we have the privilege of reciprocity. Cassavetes tried to free the kids from that burden but his personal vision was contradicted by Kramer's: that discipline was the only way to shield these kids. And the soul of this conflict is Reuben who refuses to get off the car in the opening sequence.
I don't know if the kid was really troubled or not, but he is in a worse condition because unlike some kids, he "looks" normal, so as the doctor said, he might be more likely to face rejection. Reuben also grows a fondness on Mrs. Hansen which he sees like a second mother and she's caught in a situation where she's tempted to become a loving model but then decides to call his mother played by Gena Rowlands. Rowlands, Cassavetes' wife and muse elevates the film through her five-minute monologue about guilt poisoning a mother's heart when she decides to leave her child. The problem isn't about love, whatever it is, sooner or later, love is compromised and the kid is lost anyway. In a way, she proves Clark's point about the necessity of an institution, the lesser of two evils.
Which takes me back to that shift between Kramer and Cassavetes, it is quite interesting, it's like the film reflected its own polarizing subject, I don't think I would agree that these kids could grow normal without the help of adults and a mental structure, but again, Cassavetes works through emotions, and with his sharp filmmaking, manages to elicit powerful performances from these children. The film is never as good as when it deals with emotional rather than trying to be too preachy for its own good. The point it tries to make is honorable, but the camera of Cassavetes handles the hardest part.
Now, who would have thought a movie was made that could enlighten us about the kind of destiny little Forrest escaped from thanks to his mother's iron-clad determination.
"A Child is Waiting" is set in a mental institution for troubled and emotionally disturbed children, and directed by John Cassavetes. It was his third movie following "Shadows" and "Too Late Blues", but didn't have the same impact and was inevitably overshadowed by his more revolutionary "Faces", "Husbands", you know, typical Cassavetes. The film might be a little too 'classic' and structured but the independent movies' pioneer has never been a structured storyteller anyway; his sense of structure was of emotions and instincts.
And I guess I could see why, of all the directors, he was selected for such 'heavy' material. The documentary-like aspect of "A Child is Waiting" calls for an eye that already proved its acuteness to spot the vulnerability of the human soul without the use of cinematic tricks. The film renders with more or less efficiency the harrowing pain and discomfort the spectacle of mental handicap can inspire, with shades of optimism carried by these kids' smiles and attempts to learn. Made in 1963, it is as modern as if it dealt with today's kids. The opening credits show children's drawings and we can see they don't differ much from what kids born in the 2000's would draw.
But all these efforts to hit a universally and timelessly sensitive chord can't distract from the fact that the film was a box-office failure.
This is a movie whose making was unfortunately derailed by a growing antagonism between producer Stanley Kramer and Cassavetes. And by starring Burt Lancaster as the director of the institution, Dr. Clark, Judy Garland as Jean Hansen, the newly hired teacher and the screenplay being written by Abby Mann, the film is torn between the didacticism of "Judgment by Nuremberg" and the emotionality of "Faces". Cassavetes disowned it, Kramer wished they could have transcended that barrier of disagreement for the sake of that profound and haunting issue. As much as a Cassavetes' fan I consider myself, I appreciate the point made by Kramer. This is a film too important to be disregarded because of cinematic considerations.
Cassavetes has a point though. There are some elements that are overly dramatized and seem to be just made in order to extract the "right" emotions from us, Clark's heroic stand-up against the patronizing compassion of doctors and politicians who consider these kids as abnormal, or Hansen' misty-eyed compassion toward little Reuben. The acting is obviously well-intentioned and I can see sincerity in the way Lancaster and Garland approach their roles. Yet the film is never as powerful as when it just lets the camera roll and shows the kids acting normally within their abnormality. I've seen child acting in old movies and this film contains one of the greatest ever. In a film like "The Night of the Hunter", children play a pivotal role but they fail to convince you, here, maybe the mental condition works because the kids are playful or disillusioned, thus naturally indifferent to the camera eye.
To some extent, the film reminded me of the movie "Freaks" in the sense that the protagonists were playing their roles and never really tried to act, to the point that they were deemed as freaks from the perspective of society but never the eye of Todd Browning or the viewers. Cassavetes achieves the same thing, when the kids try to 'play the game', it's less from the awareness that there's a camera, but because most of these kids really want to please the adults and overcome their handicap. But they're still confronted to the severe judgment of adults, parents and society, that's their tragedy, they're dependent on people's perceptions, even positive ones. We all do but at least, we have the privilege of reciprocity. Cassavetes tried to free the kids from that burden but his personal vision was contradicted by Kramer's: that discipline was the only way to shield these kids. And the soul of this conflict is Reuben who refuses to get off the car in the opening sequence.
I don't know if the kid was really troubled or not, but he is in a worse condition because unlike some kids, he "looks" normal, so as the doctor said, he might be more likely to face rejection. Reuben also grows a fondness on Mrs. Hansen which he sees like a second mother and she's caught in a situation where she's tempted to become a loving model but then decides to call his mother played by Gena Rowlands. Rowlands, Cassavetes' wife and muse elevates the film through her five-minute monologue about guilt poisoning a mother's heart when she decides to leave her child. The problem isn't about love, whatever it is, sooner or later, love is compromised and the kid is lost anyway. In a way, she proves Clark's point about the necessity of an institution, the lesser of two evils.
Which takes me back to that shift between Kramer and Cassavetes, it is quite interesting, it's like the film reflected its own polarizing subject, I don't think I would agree that these kids could grow normal without the help of adults and a mental structure, but again, Cassavetes works through emotions, and with his sharp filmmaking, manages to elicit powerful performances from these children. The film is never as good as when it deals with emotional rather than trying to be too preachy for its own good. The point it tries to make is honorable, but the camera of Cassavetes handles the hardest part.
Not Judy's best film
usersince0321 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I recently watched most of this film on sky TV. Being a fan of Judy Garland I wasn't particularly keen on this film. The thing that bothered me was the parents of the young boy Reuben who was in the home never bothered to visit him, until the end when the Dad watches his play. In the film the doctor tells the father that Reuben is retarded, I'm no doctor but I don't believe he was any way retarded. I think he had autism. Doctors don't always get the diagnosis right, most people with autism don't get diagnosed right away. The one scene that bothered me was the Mother of Reuben played by Gena Rowlands telling Jean (Judy Garland) that she would have to hide Reuben when her friends come.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
