The Bad Seed: Rhoda is the Blonde BADShell!!

Why do killers kill? If that's the topic of any day time talk show, you better believe that we are all tuning in! Well if you want a crash course from a cinematic source, check out 1956's "The Bad Seed."This black and white horror/suspense film makes heavy use of Freudian psychosis theory to explain the exploits of a murderous little 8-year-old girl. Not quite Hitchcockian, but still highly watchable and unique, the film delivers a fun, engaging study into the beginnings of a serial killer!

Rhoda, the bad seed of the title, appears as a sweet, pretty and exceedingly feminine young lady who has practically everyone in the small duplex she lives in with her mother at her feet. The mother, Christine, is the perfect 1950s housewife, full with beauty, civility and a moneyed background. The trouble starts when Rhoda loses a penmanship award at school.  A few days later, after a school picnic, a boy in Rhoda's class is found dead in the water next to the lake that the students played beside. It was considered an accident, but an accident doesn't explain the bruises around the boy's face, neck and fingers.

Rhoda, looking crazy evil

It also doesn't explain the absence of the penmanship pen that was seen on the boy's person before the picnic. Once Christine is questioned about Rhoda's connection to the boy's death she begins looking at her darling daughter in an entirely different light.  Christine's father  introduces another piece of information that calls Christine's own origins into question and sends her spiraling into full-blown paranoia and panic. The methods that Christine resorts to to suppress  the homicidal urges of her offspring leads the film down a far darker path than expected and leads to a surprising outcome.

Movies about killer kids are always fun, but this was the original film that set the niche genre off right. Watching Rhoda carry out her devious plans with school girl glee is a guilty pleasure that just won't quit. The film is hardly feminist, but women do occupy the most interesting roles. Eileen Heckart was nominated for an Oscar for her performance as Hortense Daigle, the dead boy's drunken hysterical mother.

Eileen Heckart. TOASTED

 Her every slurring, boozing appearance in the film rightfully demands our utmost attention as she delivers a performance drenched in convincing sentiment and stinking only a little in melancholic melodrama. While Heckart's acting reaches the broad dimensions re
quired of her role, other actors color far outside the lines, creating caricatures where portraits should be.

 The greatest offender would have to be Harry Jones in the role of Leroy, the house's handy man. Lusty, deceitful and lazy, Leroy is a disturbing combination of Lenny from 'Of Mice and Men' and the racist crows from "Dumbo." Jones chooses to play him with an overabundance of slack-jawed charm that pulls his portrayal to cartoonish proportions. The bizarre choice to have Leroy speak to himself as though he's speaking to the audience, no doubt an unfortunate left-over from the play on which the film is based, makes him seem all the more ludicrous and out of plan in this streamlined, high caliber film.


Nancy Kelly as Christine

Patty McCormick as little Rhoda, was also nominated that year and rightfully so. Her understanding of the nuances required of her character was scary for an actress that young (she was nine at the time of filming). Her performance is the earliest example of the actress's natural talent and gift for role immersion. I'd say that actress Nancy Kelly also delivers a spot on performance if it were not for the screechy quality her voice takes on as the film climbs towards its climax. Seeming to equate showing terror with raising your voice to an even higher pitch, Christine seems to be communicating with owls by the end of the picture.

 Director Mervyn Leroy clearly wanted a sophisticated tone for his thriller and he succeeded in creating this with a slow dramatic pace. You'll see none of that drive-in movie gore here. Indeed of the 3 murders that occur within the film, only one of them happen in real time. The other two are described and talked about. The one that does appear on screen is not fully seen by the audience. We only have screams, some high intensity music and a few shots of running to build an image. The lack of graphic is the one choice of Mervyn Leroy's that I don't like. The movie was adapted from a play where I'm sure much of the action happened off stage. When transferring to a visual medium, it makes sense to use, well, visuals. I understand how withholding sight can sometimes be more terrifying, but the film is interested in being too refined and holds back too much to make it a legitimate horror entry. Psychological thriller maybe.

The film itself, excepting a few acting flaws, is a solid Academy quality film, but the 'horror' element seems to have eluded Leroy a little bit. Still, the direction provides a solid base on which to pile the film's many captivating moments and at time comedic miscalculations.