Little Rascals and the Devil in Massachusetts
So in the wake of my visit to the Cape Ann area (where the train paused in Salem), my imagination has been reawakened and I Netflixed some videos about the Witch Trials. This happens every few years, I get fascinated all over again by that story and have to read/study everything I can find about it. One time back in the early '90s I was watching a PBS (PBS? Maybe it was another channel. Here is a link to the transcript but I know it aired much earlier than '97, I thought I watched it in '93? ANYWAY) documentary about the Little Rascals day care molestation trial in the late '80s, and what I saw horrified me. In the documentary they talked about little kids testifying--very young, as young as 3 and 4--which is scary enough. Kids that young are completely unreliable witnesses, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is they don't always know the difference between a lie/story and the truth. Furthermore, at that age they generally want to please the adults in their lives, so they'll tell you what they think you want to hear. You can use them for investigative purposes, perhaps, but not to convict someone. And the testimony proved it--these kids were talking about being fed to sharks and aliens and babies being murdered and whatall. Uh, HELLO!--maybe the kid doesn't have a firm grasp on the truth if that's what s/he is saying on the stand?!
The absolute nature of this statement scares me: "I believe the children. I know now that children do not lie about things like this." Now, I am certainly not saying never believe your children or act skeptical when they come to you, not at all. But the idea that "children don't lie" is a dangerous one--children DO lie sometimes, for many reasons--revenge, power, for fun. And they can lie especially when the adult they want to please is asking them leading questions. Heck, there was a case just the other day about some poor father who'd been in prison for 20 years for abusing his children, and the kids (who are now grown up, obviously) recanted their stories. You can't just take kids' words as the gospel truth, you have to apply some kind of reasonable theory of proof to what they say.
There were other things that gave pause as well--one of the jurors admitted that he'd lied during the voir dire process (when the defense and the prosecution interview members of the jury pool to decide who they want on the panel). They try to weed out anyone who might be "out for revenge"--one of the questions they ask is if you've ever been a victim of a crime, especially a crime like the one that's being tried. This particular juror lied and said no, but admitted later he had been molested as a child--and lied so he could get on the jury. In other words, he hijacked the whole judicial process, because he'd decided that the defendants were guilty before they'd even been tried. Absolutely horrifying.
So anyway, when I watched this doc in the '90s my mind flashed on two things--The Children's Hour and the Salem Witch Trials, and once again I read everything I could find on those two. And coincidentally, before going up to Massachusetts a few weeks ago, I rewatched the movie version of The Children's Hour with Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn. Interesting adaptation. Audrey and James Garner are great, and the actress who plays the grandmother KICKS. ASS. MacLaine is less so--she's kind of shrill, although that's a really tough role to play, the epitome of the Tragic Homosexual. And the girl who plays Mary (the horrible child who tells the lie) is, I'm sorry to say, pretty bad. It's really a shame because a young Veronica Cartwright is also in the movie--she plays Rosalie, the one who is bullied by Mary, and she's fantastic. They should've cast her as Mary.
And then after I came back, I got a "History's Mysteries" DVD about Salem, and also a movie, a miniseries that aired in 2003 starring Kirstie Alley and, again, Shirley MacLaine. The former was a'ight--didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know and was a little cheesy. But the miniseries! I was astounded at good it was--and how come I'd never heard of this? I had cable in 2003, I watched TV all the time then, I can't believe this slipped under my radar. It's extremely well-researched--I kept looking up stuff to check their facts and almost everything is right on. For example when Rebecca Nurse is examined before going to trial, she is made to strip naked and be physically--and intimately--examined by two midwives, in full view of a bunch of men. And they go everywhere. If you read the records, one piece of "evidence" that worked against her was that way down in her nether regions (basically her perineum) was some bit of flesh that was deemed "insensitive"--somehow this was supposed to be evidence that she was a witch. Can you believe that?? This elderly woman, of impeccable reputation and a founding member of the church, being fingered in full view of these men who are sitting in judgment on her. Unbelievable!
And the performances! Every single actor in this does an amazing job, especially the girls. They're incredible. The girl who plays Ann Putnam, Jr. (one of the major witnesses--i.e., "afflicted" girls--The Crucible notwithstanding, Abigail Williams wasn't a ringleader so much as some others were, and she was only 11 when this was happening and certainly had never had an affair with John Proctor) is just OUTSTANDING--not one false note in her performance and she has a doozy of a role to pull off. There are a couple of scenes that are especially creepy, one of which is when, well into the whole ordeal when they're sending the girls to other districts to try to "sniff out" witches there, the girls are on their way to Andover. Young Ann sees her mother and smiles shyly and waves--like "aren't you proud of me?" *Shudder* The other girls are all terrific as well, especially the little one playing Betty Parris--very, very strong, self-assured performance, she just submerged herself into the role. Kirstie Alley plays Ann Putnam (Senior) and does a great job, and Shirley MacLaine is just luminous as Rebecca Nurse. I'm so used to seeing her play these fiesty types and this was completely against type--and she nails it. The guy who plays the minister, Reverend Parris, is also terrific.
What I thought was so great about it was how it manages to suggest not just one, but several explanations for what happened. It sets the tone with the Indian attacks and the whole terrifying worldview that the Puritans had--life is incredibly hard, and then you die and possibly go to Hell. Fun is sinful--your only salvation is in suffering and hard work. With all this psychological stress, I can't believe MORE people didn't go crazy. And even with all that, you still have to watch out for your neighbors, who are more than happy to screw you over as well. (You would think in an environment as harsh as a Massachusetts village in 1692, they would see the benefits of getting along and working together.) It certainly seems apparent that in some weird way Ann Putnam Jr. served as some kind of instrument of revenge for her parents--all the "witches" were on the other Salem faction, the one that opposed the Putnam/Parrises. (There's a great scene toward the end when Ann Putnam Sr. warns her brother-in-law--Thomas Putnam's much younger half-brother whose birth had carved out even more land from what Thomas saw as his birthright--and who had further infuriated Thomas by marrying a Porter from the other faction. Ann Sr. warns her brother that he might be next--she's starting to see the pattern--and then you see little Ann staring at the young man, taking in every word. And you see Joseph Putnam and his bride and the mother of his newborn child being arrested in slow-motion. Beautifully shot sequence.) And of course all the "afflicted" girls were on the Putnam/Parris side. But it was much more than a simple power grab--I do think those girls went a little nutso, and I don't necessarily think they were faking it, as such. I think they allowed themselves to be convinced that they were bewitched. They were so little valued, these girls--and what had they to look forward to? Death in childbirth? A joyless marriage and existence? Finally someone was listening to them, finally they felt alive. (Obviously I am not at all condoning what they did--I'm suggesting this is how on some dark, hidden level, it happened.)
They don't introduce the ergot theory though--it's an interesting theory but the Puritans did know about ergot poisoning, and probably would've identified that. Besides why would that only affect a small group of girls?
The scenes where the condemned go to be hanged are the most powerful, of course. When Rebecca Nurse is standing there on the cart, lifting her face to the heavens and praying as the noose is out around her neck, Reverend Parris is furious--he is literally bellowing at her to stop praying. You can see this is where the tide begins to turn, the crowd is visibly upset at her execution (and an interesting note--she was actually found innocent at first, and the judge basically told the jury "go back and try again." They knew what kind of verdict was expected of them. The miniseries leaves that fact out, probably for lack of time, as it is pretty long already but definitely worth it).
The absolute nature of this statement scares me: "I believe the children. I know now that children do not lie about things like this." Now, I am certainly not saying never believe your children or act skeptical when they come to you, not at all. But the idea that "children don't lie" is a dangerous one--children DO lie sometimes, for many reasons--revenge, power, for fun. And they can lie especially when the adult they want to please is asking them leading questions. Heck, there was a case just the other day about some poor father who'd been in prison for 20 years for abusing his children, and the kids (who are now grown up, obviously) recanted their stories. You can't just take kids' words as the gospel truth, you have to apply some kind of reasonable theory of proof to what they say.
There were other things that gave pause as well--one of the jurors admitted that he'd lied during the voir dire process (when the defense and the prosecution interview members of the jury pool to decide who they want on the panel). They try to weed out anyone who might be "out for revenge"--one of the questions they ask is if you've ever been a victim of a crime, especially a crime like the one that's being tried. This particular juror lied and said no, but admitted later he had been molested as a child--and lied so he could get on the jury. In other words, he hijacked the whole judicial process, because he'd decided that the defendants were guilty before they'd even been tried. Absolutely horrifying.
So anyway, when I watched this doc in the '90s my mind flashed on two things--The Children's Hour and the Salem Witch Trials, and once again I read everything I could find on those two. And coincidentally, before going up to Massachusetts a few weeks ago, I rewatched the movie version of The Children's Hour with Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn. Interesting adaptation. Audrey and James Garner are great, and the actress who plays the grandmother KICKS. ASS. MacLaine is less so--she's kind of shrill, although that's a really tough role to play, the epitome of the Tragic Homosexual. And the girl who plays Mary (the horrible child who tells the lie) is, I'm sorry to say, pretty bad. It's really a shame because a young Veronica Cartwright is also in the movie--she plays Rosalie, the one who is bullied by Mary, and she's fantastic. They should've cast her as Mary.
And then after I came back, I got a "History's Mysteries" DVD about Salem, and also a movie, a miniseries that aired in 2003 starring Kirstie Alley and, again, Shirley MacLaine. The former was a'ight--didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know and was a little cheesy. But the miniseries! I was astounded at good it was--and how come I'd never heard of this? I had cable in 2003, I watched TV all the time then, I can't believe this slipped under my radar. It's extremely well-researched--I kept looking up stuff to check their facts and almost everything is right on. For example when Rebecca Nurse is examined before going to trial, she is made to strip naked and be physically--and intimately--examined by two midwives, in full view of a bunch of men. And they go everywhere. If you read the records, one piece of "evidence" that worked against her was that way down in her nether regions (basically her perineum) was some bit of flesh that was deemed "insensitive"--somehow this was supposed to be evidence that she was a witch. Can you believe that?? This elderly woman, of impeccable reputation and a founding member of the church, being fingered in full view of these men who are sitting in judgment on her. Unbelievable!
And the performances! Every single actor in this does an amazing job, especially the girls. They're incredible. The girl who plays Ann Putnam, Jr. (one of the major witnesses--i.e., "afflicted" girls--The Crucible notwithstanding, Abigail Williams wasn't a ringleader so much as some others were, and she was only 11 when this was happening and certainly had never had an affair with John Proctor) is just OUTSTANDING--not one false note in her performance and she has a doozy of a role to pull off. There are a couple of scenes that are especially creepy, one of which is when, well into the whole ordeal when they're sending the girls to other districts to try to "sniff out" witches there, the girls are on their way to Andover. Young Ann sees her mother and smiles shyly and waves--like "aren't you proud of me?" *Shudder* The other girls are all terrific as well, especially the little one playing Betty Parris--very, very strong, self-assured performance, she just submerged herself into the role. Kirstie Alley plays Ann Putnam (Senior) and does a great job, and Shirley MacLaine is just luminous as Rebecca Nurse. I'm so used to seeing her play these fiesty types and this was completely against type--and she nails it. The guy who plays the minister, Reverend Parris, is also terrific.
What I thought was so great about it was how it manages to suggest not just one, but several explanations for what happened. It sets the tone with the Indian attacks and the whole terrifying worldview that the Puritans had--life is incredibly hard, and then you die and possibly go to Hell. Fun is sinful--your only salvation is in suffering and hard work. With all this psychological stress, I can't believe MORE people didn't go crazy. And even with all that, you still have to watch out for your neighbors, who are more than happy to screw you over as well. (You would think in an environment as harsh as a Massachusetts village in 1692, they would see the benefits of getting along and working together.) It certainly seems apparent that in some weird way Ann Putnam Jr. served as some kind of instrument of revenge for her parents--all the "witches" were on the other Salem faction, the one that opposed the Putnam/Parrises. (There's a great scene toward the end when Ann Putnam Sr. warns her brother-in-law--Thomas Putnam's much younger half-brother whose birth had carved out even more land from what Thomas saw as his birthright--and who had further infuriated Thomas by marrying a Porter from the other faction. Ann Sr. warns her brother that he might be next--she's starting to see the pattern--and then you see little Ann staring at the young man, taking in every word. And you see Joseph Putnam and his bride and the mother of his newborn child being arrested in slow-motion. Beautifully shot sequence.) And of course all the "afflicted" girls were on the Putnam/Parris side. But it was much more than a simple power grab--I do think those girls went a little nutso, and I don't necessarily think they were faking it, as such. I think they allowed themselves to be convinced that they were bewitched. They were so little valued, these girls--and what had they to look forward to? Death in childbirth? A joyless marriage and existence? Finally someone was listening to them, finally they felt alive. (Obviously I am not at all condoning what they did--I'm suggesting this is how on some dark, hidden level, it happened.)
They don't introduce the ergot theory though--it's an interesting theory but the Puritans did know about ergot poisoning, and probably would've identified that. Besides why would that only affect a small group of girls?
The scenes where the condemned go to be hanged are the most powerful, of course. When Rebecca Nurse is standing there on the cart, lifting her face to the heavens and praying as the noose is out around her neck, Reverend Parris is furious--he is literally bellowing at her to stop praying. You can see this is where the tide begins to turn, the crowd is visibly upset at her execution (and an interesting note--she was actually found innocent at first, and the judge basically told the jury "go back and try again." They knew what kind of verdict was expected of them. The miniseries leaves that fact out, probably for lack of time, as it is pretty long already but definitely worth it).