Film: "Never Take Sweets From A Stranger"

The Witch Trial:
Is it a controversial flick or is it required viewing for all parents as a warning about 'stranger danger'?

Who:
Director: Cyril Frankel
Starring: Patrick Allen, Gwen Watford, Felix Aylmer
What:
Thriller
Why:
Adaptation of a play called The Pony Trap
When:
Released 1960
Where:
Set in Canada in a small rural town

The Case For:
I had been aware of this movie for some time and had heard only good reports about how it handled its subject matter and that it was a suspenseful thriller.  Having finally had the chance to watch it I can only concur with those views.
Tackling something as taboo as paedophilia is never an easy thing to do in movies.  Most recently Spotlight did a wonderful job of covering the exposure of Catholic priests in the Boston area who were guilty of sexual abuse of children.  It is an exceptional film and was well deserving of the best picture Oscar.
There is also Little Children starring Kate Winslet which tells the story of two unhappily married people who start an affair.  One of the subplots here involves Jackie Earle Haley's character who is a recently released paedophile.  Whilst it isn't the main theme, it does have a major impact on what happens throughout the film.
Those are both engaging movies but are from our modern age.  Little Children was not a success at the cinema whereas Spotlight (possibly boosted by its Oscar win) has been well received by the public.  What is interesting is that in Little Children we get to see the perpetrator as a person with emotions; unlike Spotlight which focuses on the exposure of the crime.
It is far more confronting for the viewer when you have to perceive someone as a human being when in actual fact you know they have committed monstrous acts.  When you are looking at evidence of a crime you are generally disturbed by what you see; but not so much as when you get to know the felon who carried out the crime.
Never Take Sweets From A Stranger (retitled Never Take Candy From A Stranger in America) does have its villain as the focus of the story.  Played by Felix Aylmer; the senior  Clarence Olderberry is accused of forcing two little girls to dance naked for his pleasure in exchange for sweets.  One of the children, rather innocently, relates this event to her parents when discussing what happened while she was out spending time with her friend.
Her parents are of course most disturbed to hear about this and question their daughter further as to exactly what occurred.  This scene is so well played; you have the daughter Jean Carter just casually relating events whilst her parents listen in horror not knowing whether to believe what they are being told or not.  The way they try and coax more information out of Jean without alerting her to the danger she was in is handled very realistically; for any parent who has tried to wean more information out of their child can attest too.
Gwen Watford in particular is very believable as the distraught mother.  You can tell that Gwen's character, Sally Carter, is trying to hold her emotions together and not upset Jean at all.  It is then left to Sally to relate the rest of the tale to her husband Peter and Jean's grandmother Martha.  It is only at this stage that Sally begins to break down and the full effects of what she has just found out sink in for all concerned.  It is powerful stuff and what would be among the worst nightmare's a parent could face.
We then follow the Carters as they decide to press charges against Olderberry and see how the town's residents begin to shun the family for bringing the reputation of someone who appears to be one of the town founders into question.  It isn't so much a case of them not believing them; more a case that they can't believe they would air the dirty secrets of someone whose family are so well respected.
The ways the townsfolk are depicted as basically turning a blind eye to the actions of Olderberry are quite shocking though not totally unbelievable.  There is a lot of indifference shown from the community and the attitude that seems to have been adopted is that Olderberry is a bit eccentric but is really a harmless old man.

We are then presented with a really uncomfortable scene where the police captain Hammond tries to coerce Sally Carter into changing Peter's testimony to avoid pressing charges.  You can really feel the stress that is casually being place on Sally by Hammond; while he isn't outright threatening her; his behaviour implies that their lifestyle would not be as carefree if they go ahead with criminal proceedings.  It is a great exchange and one where Sally comes out with a lot of credit by sticking to her guns.
There is so much pressure being applied to the Carter family from the police department, the community and also Clarence Olderberry Jr who pays a visit to the Carter household to confront them and straight out threaten them.  On top of this we see Martha overhear two ladies gossiping about the accusations at the local hairdressers.
The filmmakers do an excellent job of getting across this pervading sense of uneasiness about the whole affair.  You truly get the message that people consider this a taboo subject that is best left ignored and that the Carter's should just sweep it under the carpet and move on.
Once we get to the court case we are presented with what turns out to be the words of a child against the high esteem that Olderberry Snr. is held in.  I have to say I really appreciated the handling of these scenes; particularly the portrayal of the judge as he is correctly shown to be completely impartial.  The Judge is very understanding when it comes to dealing with Jean once she takes the witness stand.
I was surprised by the outcome of the trial and it provided a nice twist to proceedings.  What was worrying is that it would be all too real a scenario where a parent would not want to put their child through the trauma of a trial.  A lot of parents would therefore decide to follow the steps taken by Peter to protect their child.
From here the movie picks up the pace as we rush towards the conclusion.  This third act creates a very suspenseful atmosphere that really gets you on the edge of your seat.  The tension that has been felt throughout the film builds to a great crescendo.  There is a fantastically shot scene of Olderberry reeling the girls towards him which has you hoping the authorities can get there in time before something drastic happens.
Without wanting to give too much away the decision to go for the ending we have here is a brave one indeed.  It is a devastating finale and one that I did not expect from a film released in 1960.  This bleakness possibly was a contributing factor to the film's original poor reception.
It was a brave move from Felix Aylmer to take on the role of a person who preys on children.  He is excellent in the role which he performs without uttering a single word.  He lets his face and mannerisms do all the acting for him and he is superb in the process.
The other person whose performance stands out is Gwen Watford as the frantic mother.  She at times displays courage, fear, horror and may other emotions but does so with the upmost dignity.  You really get a sense from her of what she is going through during this ordeal.
Hammer is famous for their Gothic horror and this is one example of the many other genres they dabbled with.  It may not have been a huge success but it is still an important film from the Hammer canon and deserves to be recognised as such.  Sometimes movies get labelled as being ahead of their time and this is one film with that very tag.  In this case however I totally agree that it is worthy of this status.

The Case Against:
This would be a hard sell for any studio.  The fact that they made a film dealing with such a sensitive issue back in 1960 is to be commended.  It doesn't come as much of a surprise though to hear how little attention it received upon release.
Poor promotional material did not help as the poster and tagline had audiences confused by what type of movie they were paying to see.  It was also released the year after Hammer had big hits with The Mummy and The Hound of the Baskervilles as well as a couple of war pictures too; so this is a considerable change of pace.
The main problems I had with this production were to do with the performances and motives of some of the characters.  Now acting has improved as time has gone by and so we have to be forgiving to a certain extent when viewing older films.  However some of the acting here was a bit flat.
Patrick Allen I found to be particularly wooden at times.  His reaction when Jean is first relating her story was not one I would expect from a concerned father.  Sure he might make a threat against the antagonist but it doesn't come across with any conviction.
Allen does redeem himself somewhat during the trial but later on he is called upon to show some emotion and fails again.  When Jean's bike is discovered his reaction once more is a bit stiff.  I understand he was trying to stay composed and not want to alert his wife to the possibility something is wrong; but I felt he needed to be more frantic as any parent would be considering the previous circumstances.
When it comes to him discussing Lucille he shows very little compassion and comes across as rather cold.  I don't know if it is his delivery or his actions but in this scene I would have expected some sort of comfort being shown from him towards others.  All up I am afraid that Allen puts in a bit of a one note performance.
The other character I had a hard time reading was Martha the grandmother.  The way Martha reacts when first hearing the child's story and then how she tries to convince Sally not to pursue the matter further really did nothing to endear her to the viewer.
From creating a negative first impression though she does start to gain your sympathy as the film progresses.  Her whole character though was a bit up and down and it took me probably the whole picture before I started to fully understand her.  I think if they had started with a different take on her perspective of what Jean had experienced; it would have helped to soften her character and create a clearer opinion of her from the viewer.  As it was I had a hard time relating to her throughout the movie.
Olderberry Jr. is a despicable person.  I can fully appreciate his motives for feeling protective of his father but his whole attitude of feeling superior to everyone else and coming across as being above the law really made me hate him.  Now I know this is the intention of the film makers but did they have to do such a good job of it?  Right up until he comes face to face with exactly what his father is; he is manipulating everyone and everything to suit his own agenda.
The issue for me was that he gets to a stage where you are supposed to feel sorry for him.  You don't feel any empathy at all however because they have created such a vile character that it is hard to show any sorrow for the reality he now has to face up to.  I am not sure if this is intentional or not but I could not get on board with him at all.
Story wise there were a couple of small details which irked me.  I found it hard to believe that Sally wouldn't have found Peter's behaviour in the slightest bit suspicious when he runs out after receiving that phone call from Lucille's mother.  With everything that had been going on surely she would have known something was amiss.
I also felt that the manhunt was organised a little too easily considering the lack of support the Carter's have received up until this point; I can't understand why the townspeople would all of a sudden rally round them to hunt for the missing girls.  It all felt a little too convenient for me, although it did add to the suspense as it builds towards the films shocking climax.

Verdict:
Considering the film covers a most heinous crime; it does so in a manner as a warning to be careful of such evil predators.  We have to allow it to continue to perform this good deed and hopefully be seen by many other viewers.

Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Take_Sweets_from_a_Stranger
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054116/