A Child Is Waiting (1963)

Perfect cast and a good story

hyped garbage

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

"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.

What is the message of this film? It is hard to watch all these kids who have been dealt a bad hand. One expects Burt Lancaster to pull out his automatic and start blasting bad guys. Eventually it becomes obvious this is not possible. But those of us raised by Hollywood expect miracle cures of at least some of these kids. The great ending involves a skit put on by the children for their parents. The kids are so brilliant, Judy Garland tries so hard to bring out their best. What is the message? You must play the hand you are dealt. A re-deal is not possible; life has no Mulligans. The kids do their very best and the parents enjoy their accomplishment with limited abilities. One of the actors has a striking resemblance to the girl who plays his daughter in the film; I bet she is his real daughter.

This is film I could never think to forget. Every moment, every interaction is saturated with meaning and force, and the whole is a beautiful tribute to people living with mental retardation and those dedicated people who work with them. Judy Garland's performance is candid, human, and wonderfully real, and it is one of the pillars on which the movie stands. Burt Lancaster is a great actor, who, of course, does a great job, too. Abby Mann's dialog is, as always, gloriously real and bares all emotion, however painful. This is certainly a movie to watch with tissue-box in hand. I wish I had had a tissue, and my poor, wet sleeve must wish it, too!

I came in about half way through the movie, but was still deeply moved by it. Judy Garland has never been a favorite, but she was excellent in this. Burt Lancaster plays it quiet and cool and is also great. The boy's mother, Gena Rowlands I think, portrays the family tragedy in every look and expression. Movies from this era are often overplayed and melodramatic, but this one is realistic and heartbreaking. I would like to learn more about the making of the movie. A visit to a home for retarded adults had a documentary feel. I think it was a real location. A heart wrenching predicament for families is presented with truth, compassion and understanding. I hope caring places like the home/school for little Reuben, as depicted in the movie, exist. This movie is definitely worth seeing.