As xanadu_dan comments: "The idea about the kid not existing doesn't work at all-- when you have one person insisting something with no evidence, like the book, it's potentially nutty; when you have two (like the film) they are either telling the truth or one is trying to pull something on the other."
I couldn't agree more completely. Consequently the "mystery" of this film is never whether Bunny exists, but what the motive is behind her kidnapping. The film offers the AWOL cook at Bunny's new school and the sicko, alcoholic landlord as reasonable suspects - except they seem to have no motive. Then there's Bunny's uncle (Keir Dullea). Pretty quickly his involvement becomes clear. Now, only a couple of questions remain: How did he pull it off; are the cook and the landlord accomplices? What was his motive? These are sufficient to maintain your interest through about the first hour.
All suspicions are confirmed when Dullea sets fire to the doll in the repair shop. The succeeding scene enlightens the audience about his motive (jealousy), and the rest of the denouement is way overblown and overlong - and yet totally unexplained. The cops' coming to the rescue at the end is so predictable it is a cliché.
That Dullea, a cunning, scheming adult, reverts on occasion to a child is totally inexplicable. We never learn HOW or WHEN or WHY this total personality metamorphosis occurs. That his sister, and Bunny's mom (Carol Lynley), through childhood games, IS ABLE TO CONTROL Dullea not only shows that she has been aware of his serious problems since childhood, but it is the icing on this dumb cake. We learn WHAT motivates Dullea, but WHAT motivates this dumb blonde????
Once it becomes clear that Dullea is a wacko, and that Lynley HAS BEEN AWARE of his lunacy all along, we are left wondering why in the world she ever moved into his flat, and why she hasn't seemed the least bit suspicious of her brother - much less expressed any suspicions to the police! We are left to wonder whether she enjoys the incestuous relationship with Dullea as much as he does with her - so much so, in fact, that either she is willing to shield him or she is blind to his possible involvement with Bunny's disappearance (until the hospital scene). These loose ends are never wrapped up.
Carol Lynley is always easy to look at, and here, her acting is credible enough in a one-note performance. Dullea is simply a one-note, expressionless performer - "robotic," as one commentator notes. His character here is simply not believable - perfectly functioning, articulate, responsible journalist by day, and 10-year old by night! Nor is the character of Bunny credible. After being kidnapped and kept in the trunk of a car by her uncle, she is all wide-eyed innocence while playing children's games in the climactic scenes - never once seeming traumatized or desperate to get away from her wacko abductor! I am surprised at how divided opinions are over Olivier. In a role he might have performed in his sleep, he seems like an efficient, dispassionate police inspector - typically British. Noel Coward is terrific in an incredibly smarmy role, that is pretty bloated for its purposes as a red herring. The eccentric school mistress in the attic is probably the best of the lot. Most of the other school personnel are mere functionaries. None of them seem overly concerned with Bunny's whereabouts, but then again, none of them ever laid eyes on her.
I agree with the commentators who said that Preminger is very spotty. Most of his films are hugely disappointing - this one, especially.
I couldn't agree more completely. Consequently the "mystery" of this film is never whether Bunny exists, but what the motive is behind her kidnapping. The film offers the AWOL cook at Bunny's new school and the sicko, alcoholic landlord as reasonable suspects - except they seem to have no motive. Then there's Bunny's uncle (Keir Dullea). Pretty quickly his involvement becomes clear. Now, only a couple of questions remain: How did he pull it off; are the cook and the landlord accomplices? What was his motive? These are sufficient to maintain your interest through about the first hour.
All suspicions are confirmed when Dullea sets fire to the doll in the repair shop. The succeeding scene enlightens the audience about his motive (jealousy), and the rest of the denouement is way overblown and overlong - and yet totally unexplained. The cops' coming to the rescue at the end is so predictable it is a cliché.
That Dullea, a cunning, scheming adult, reverts on occasion to a child is totally inexplicable. We never learn HOW or WHEN or WHY this total personality metamorphosis occurs. That his sister, and Bunny's mom (Carol Lynley), through childhood games, IS ABLE TO CONTROL Dullea not only shows that she has been aware of his serious problems since childhood, but it is the icing on this dumb cake. We learn WHAT motivates Dullea, but WHAT motivates this dumb blonde????
Once it becomes clear that Dullea is a wacko, and that Lynley HAS BEEN AWARE of his lunacy all along, we are left wondering why in the world she ever moved into his flat, and why she hasn't seemed the least bit suspicious of her brother - much less expressed any suspicions to the police! We are left to wonder whether she enjoys the incestuous relationship with Dullea as much as he does with her - so much so, in fact, that either she is willing to shield him or she is blind to his possible involvement with Bunny's disappearance (until the hospital scene). These loose ends are never wrapped up.
Carol Lynley is always easy to look at, and here, her acting is credible enough in a one-note performance. Dullea is simply a one-note, expressionless performer - "robotic," as one commentator notes. His character here is simply not believable - perfectly functioning, articulate, responsible journalist by day, and 10-year old by night! Nor is the character of Bunny credible. After being kidnapped and kept in the trunk of a car by her uncle, she is all wide-eyed innocence while playing children's games in the climactic scenes - never once seeming traumatized or desperate to get away from her wacko abductor! I am surprised at how divided opinions are over Olivier. In a role he might have performed in his sleep, he seems like an efficient, dispassionate police inspector - typically British. Noel Coward is terrific in an incredibly smarmy role, that is pretty bloated for its purposes as a red herring. The eccentric school mistress in the attic is probably the best of the lot. Most of the other school personnel are mere functionaries. None of them seem overly concerned with Bunny's whereabouts, but then again, none of them ever laid eyes on her.
I agree with the commentators who said that Preminger is very spotty. Most of his films are hugely disappointing - this one, especially.