Headscratchers / A Little Princess (1995)

• Sara's Dad is a soldier that was declared a war casualty and his fortune has been seized, leaving Sara penniless. On which grounds was his estate seized and why couldn't there be some sort of stipend for Sara until she became an adult and claimed the estate?
  • True—probably a suspension of disbelief thing.
  • Possibly because he seemed to be in the habit of running up horrendous debts. Previously he would always have been able to pay off his bills at the end of the month/financial quarter/whatever, but without him being there to distribute the funds and with his wages as a soldier probably being much less than whatever business dealings he was involved in to get that rich in the first place his creditors would have seized what they could knowing that there would be no more. (Sara herself was the cause of some huge debts, which is why she goes into service at the school and all her things are confiscated: Minchin had spent money (possibly from other student's tuition, possibly from her personal savings) paying for her lavish lifestyle assuming that it would be paid back. When the money was already gone she was left with both the debts and the penniless child to deal with. The sale of Sara's belongings would cover some of that and Minchin would probably be considered Sara's legal guardian in the absence of any family/someone claiming her so it is perfectly fine for her to offset some of the debt by taking the property.
    • Had this been the case, wouldn't it take more than his return to make Sara wealthy again?
    • If his wealth came from a business venture (e.g. owning a diamond mine as in the book), it might have been accruing wealth in the time he was thought dead, which is owed to him by his partners once the mistake was discovered. Or maybe he had access to funds which weren't seen/accessible by the government office distributing his assets, an American or Indian savings account might not be easily traceable especially during wartime. Or perhaps he really is left with nothing, but Mr. Randolph decides to set him up again as he now has no son of his own to sponsor (we don't know much about Captain Crewe's background and it's entirely possible he represents a sound financial investment despite his insolvency. The fallout after his 'death' might have more to do with legal ineptitude (failing to provide in his will for Sara's care and financial support) than a business one.
• While I'm sure the justice system in Victorian Britain wasn't the most just, especially for the lower classes, what's the logic behind the climax in the 1995 film — that is, behind arresting Sara as a thief? Theft is not a victimless crime — who do they think she stole from? Wouldn't there have to be someone who claimed they're missing the items that Minchin found in Sara's room? Would possessing items you logically couldn't afford in this period really be enough to arrest someone for theft when no one's claiming the items were stolen from them? Wouldn't they need to have a place or person the items were stolen from? Had they arrested Sara, what would they have done with the stuff Minchin claimed she stole — they have no idea who it belongs to, and they act like that's not necessary! Their definition of "theft" seems to be "lower-class person possess something not approved for the lower classes to own," not "take something that is the lawful property of another without permission." Is that really how it worked back then? Were luxury items a controlled substance for the lower classes? Could they really arrest someone for theft without a victim of said theft?
  • One assumes they could, simply because of society's extremely classist nature. However, it is extremely illogical. The only explanation might be that Minchin told police Sara stole the items from her, and was already in her debt because of how Sara's father ran up those unpaid bills. In other words, Minchin would claim that she was the victim. She's just callous enough that she wouldn't think of or care about other victims, even if none existed. Either that or she completely snapped and just wanted some way, any way, to get rid of Sara because her own guilt was eating her alive.
  • Unfortunately, Miss Minchin for once made a completely reasonable assumption: a serving girl she knew to be penniless was found in possession of a number of luxury goods she had no way of obtaining. Even Sara herself couldn't explain how they'd gotten there. Under the circumstances, the police would have had probable cause to arrest or at least detain and question Sara. Imagine searching a teen's closet and finding a waist-high stack of iPads—yeah, maybe there is a logical explanation, but it's more likely something shady's afoot.
  • And remember that the reason Minchin comes up to the room in the first place is that the girls have stolen Sara's locket from her office. So Minchin probably told the police that Sara stole the locket and there's a heap of other things in her room that have to be stolen as well.
  • Unless, after Sara was arrested, Ram Dass persuaded Mr Randolph to come forward and say "I gave this girl all these things as a gift", the short answer is: yes, she absolutely would have been found guilty of theft, regardless of whether a victim came forward or not. It would essentially be her word - not Becky's since, well, an African-American orphan in 1915(ish) New York wouldn't be regarded as important enough to have a say - against Minchin's, who has already been established as having a very respectable reputation. Who do you think they'd be more likely to believe, especially since Sara couldn't explain where all the things had come from? The fact is that rigid class structures being a thing of the past is a very very recent phenomenon. A beggar in possession of a few coins? Someone probably just took pity on them. A beggar in possession of an entire wallet? Must have been stolen, even if the victim is long gone or never comes forward. Similarly, all of Sara's property (even her locket) had been confiscated with her only being allowed to keep her doll as a "gift". So for this penniless, utterly destitute child to suddenly have a previously bare room decked out in splendour? It's a perfectly logical assumption to claim it's stolen.
  • Well Ram Dass could probably just say he himself gave them as a gift. Minchin doesn't have to know they just appeared in the attic overnight with no explanation. Or else since Minchin outright tries to pretend that Captain Crewe isn't Sara's father (she appears to recognise him and then covers up saying "this child has no father") she might be accused of lying about the finery as well. Whatever the case was, Minchin ended up sacked from the school in disgrace and reduced to cleaning chimneys for a living.
    • Plus the fact that the theft accusation subplot was concocted for the 1939 Shirley Temple rendition just to create more dramatic tension, and isn't in the original story. In the original, while the first items do appear mysteriously, later ones arrive openly at the school as gifts addressed to "the girl who lives in the attic", so Miss Minchin knows they are not stolen.
    • I'm guessing Wasting Police Time didn't yet qualify as a criminal offence in the mid 1910s.