Sign of the times?


Mr. Dadier, (Glenn Ford), saves teacher Lois Hammond, (Margaret Hays), from a sexual attack in the library. He goes home and is relating the incident to his wife, (Anne Francis). Her reaction to the incident is interesting, as she nonchalantly remarks, as she brushes her hair, "Well, did she provoke the boy?", "Teachers ought not dress so sexy." When Mr. Dadier remarks that she was not dressed sexy, that Lois had this and that on, the wife then asks him if he noticed what she, his wife, was wearing when he came home, and goes on jealously questioning him how he knew exactly what Ms. Hammond was wearing. The attack at school did not disturb the wife one bit, her only concern was how he knew so much of Ms Hammond's dress habits and how that compared to his knowledge of her dress habits.

reply

i feel the film falls in the same trap as 'Fonda's' wife, cuz later on in the movie teacher Lois is, you know, flirting with Fonda even though she knows she's married.

reply

In my opinion it was just because she was jealous that she couldn't look sexy anymore being fat and pregnant and nobody would be interested in her, so if a woman was attacked like that, it HAD to be her fault because she could still look good.

reply

You are in error. The actor is Glenn Ford, not Henry Fonda.

reply


Think about it. Look at how close the two names are to being each other. The letters from their first names are beside each other in the alphabet and the first letter in their last names are the same.

If you start with Glenn Ford's first name and replace the G, with an H, remove the L and one N and replace those with one more N, then move onto his last name and simply remove the R, while adding an N and an A it's clear he is Henry Fonda.

+++ Jason

reply

Sadly, she DID provoke the boy without even knowing it. And before the PC police rape ME, I don't want to hear, "That's no excuse," and all that crap. I'm just stating a point in the context of the movie, not attempting to spark some off-topic rape debate.

Sadder still, she looks around to make sure no one is watching. The directions she looks -- upstairs behind her and out the window! She doesn't even look through the railing of the stairs where the poor provoked boy is walking.

And Saddest of all, the rapist tries to stop Dadier by throwing a handful of books at him. He then tries to jump through a closed window to escape. No wonder he was in a trade school. I think his IQ may have been lower than Santini's.

reply

The movie would've been too long with a romantic subplot involving her, so they made her look like she brought it all onto herself - that would've been beside the point and in no way would've helped showing us how to reach these kids. They still didn't show exactly what to do, unless it was to pit the goons against each other. It was just so very convenient that Sidney Poitier turned out to be a smart and righteous kid that everyone looked up to.

reply

No, she did not, "provoke" the boy. There is never an excuse for rape. Heck, how she was dressed was pretty modest compared to what some of us women dress like today. And yet most men manage to control themselves just fine.

reply

Exactly. You know, people say if you show off your money you are asking to be robbed, some people are dumb enough to think you ask to be raped if you dress a certain way or do something, alright, I'm waiting for someone to explain then since crimes are obviously asked for by the victims, how does someone go about asking to be murdered? If they can explain that one, then the rape one might have some merit, if somebody's behavior alone can truly set somebody off to murder them and it's the victim's fault because they asked to be killed.

reply

We know now that rape isn't just about getting sex. Rapists truly want to victimize their targets, make them feel degraded. Normal men don't have these desires so they're not likely to attack a woman just because she dresses sexy. So it's really stupid to blame the victim.

reply

Rapists truly want to victimize their targets, make them feel degraded.
Not just rapists but abusive men in general, though the line between the two is a very thin one and all too often overlaps, still there are those abusive pieces of crap that are abusive physically, mentally and emotionally but not sexually.

reply

To get back to the original thought in this thread, it is an interesting sign of the times that even Mrs. Dadier's first reaction was to ask whether the teacher "provoked" the boy, and to say that a teacher oughtn't to dress "sexy". (Incidentally, for an English teacher's wife, Mrs. D's grammar certainly needs some redressing.)

This shows just how ingrained the notion was that a victim of rape (or assault) was somehow "asking" for it. It was many more years before such attitudes at last began to change. Unfortunately, some people cling to this stuff even today.

Still, there is a difference between saying someone was "asking" for it, vs. saying the attacker may have been "provoked". The shot of Miss Hammond raising her skirt and showing off a lot of leg -- pretty racy for the mid-50s -- might indeed have been enough to provoke the boy below, in the sense that it was an act that pushed him over the edge into attacking her. (How did he ever think he could get away with that, even had Dadier not been around to stop it?)

No, this is not an excuse for the attack, nor is it suggesting she was "asking" for it. But the sight of an attractive woman, dressed or acting in a provocative manner, could be enough to drive an already unbalanced or predatory man into committing such a heinous act. It's a partial explanation, certainly not an excuse, for his actions. Of course, such a man would almost certainly have a predisposition to rape or violence against women, so it's not as though the woman is doing anything "wrong", or that she's in any way to blame for what some animal does to her. I'm saying only that provocation is a different thing from this nonsense that a woman is somehow "asking" to be attacked. It's never an excuse for any act of violence. There's nothing wrong with a woman acting or dressing provocatively, and it doesn't mean she's secretly inviting some psycho to rape her.

reply

Sadly, she DID provoke the boy without even knowing it. And before the PC police rape ME, I don't want to hear, "That's no excuse," and all that crap. I'm just stating a point in the context of the movie, not attempting to spark some off-topic rape debate.
I think you've just failed Reading Comprehension 101

reply

Sadly, she DID provoke the boy without even knowing it. And before the PC police rape ME, I don't want to hear, "That's no excuse," and all that crap. I'm just stating a point in the context of the movie, not attempting to spark some off-topic rape debate.

Sadder still, she looks around to make sure no one is watching. The directions she looks -- upstairs behind her and out the window! She doesn't even look through the railing of the stairs where the poor provoked boy is walking.

And Saddest of all, the rapist tries to stop Dadier by throwing a handful of books at him. He then tries to jump through a closed window to escape. No wonder he was in a trade school. I think his IQ may have been lower than Santini's.


The fact that you equate any potental verbal chastisement to your ignorant remarks are "rape" shows how truly pathetic you are. I realize this is an old post and really hope you've matured and become more educated in how you present yourself. Otherwise, before commenting on anyone's "IQ," take a good look at your own.

reply

You bet that was a sign of the times. Back then women got raped probably because she was 'asking for it'. This was the defense in court frequently. No one realized or wanted to talk about the real reason for rape: rage not sexual aggression. Now we know sex has nothing to do with rape.

That Dadier's wife said that just indicates the screenplay was written by a man. That the actress said it just indicates how much power she had to object and have it matter.

When I first saw this film as a teenager on TV in the '60's I thought it was really lame. It's told from the adults' point of view like all films until Rebel without a Cause. They looked at the delinquents as animals. (Notice the opening scenes as the camera pans along the school fence, don't the kids look monkeys at the zoo?)

It's still a good film in retrospect, but it is sexist and racist and anti youth.

reply


If you think this was bad, check out THE BEAT GENERATION (1959), where both the LAPD detective and the serial rapist both hate women!
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

reply

What bothers me most about Anne Dadier are not her comments but how feeble and fragile she’s made out to be. This is quite a common portrayal of women especially in the earlier days of cinema. I blame it on male writers because this is how some see all women. Yes, there are actually some women like this in the world (and men); I get it. They fall apart and can make themselves physically ill over nonsense but I doubt, and sincerely hope, there aren’t nearly as many out there as we’re led to believe based on how frequently this type appears in films. She’s jealous, petty, overly emotional, prone to hysterics, and lacks self-esteem, self-worth, and self-control. SHIVERS

In regards to provoking an attack and how teachers dress, I actually agree to an extent with what she says. In the movie, Lois Hammond wears clothes that are completely inappropriate for the environment in which she works. That may be the style of the day but she didn’t seem to put any thought into the practicality and suitability of her clothing. Even in those days I know it was possible to dress professionally without being overly sexualized.

I’m not saying wear a burka; that might not help either, but to say she was buttoned up misses the point. The clothes were like a second skin. Let’s be real. Save that for a date or a cocktail party but not school. Perhaps she was more concerned about trying to attract and hook one of the teachers, namely Dadier. If that was her motivation, it makes sense but she must realize she can’t pick and choose who will be attracted to her and how others will behave.

The male teachers had commented on her outfit before the attack. Someone should have told her that her clothes were way too tight and form-fitting. At one point, she’s unable to bend down to pick up something that’s fallen because the pencil skirt is so tight it would either reveal too much (since she's up on a platform) or burst at the seams.

She’s working in a mostly male setting and most of the males are hormonal pubescent teen boys and young men. People should be able to wear whatever they want but they should also take responsibility not to set the wrong tone. Even if she wore a big sack, it’s likely some of the boys and men might ‘read’ something into it that’s not there.

No, it’s not 'fair' – if one uses such stupid phrases. We should all be able to dress however we'd like but we can’t; not if it sends the wrong message. I am NOT saying her clothing gives anyone the right to touch, attack, and/or rape her. That would be nonsense but, (as a women), even I am sick of the women who wear very revealing clothing then get upset and complain that they attract the wrong kind of attention; that men don't take them seriously; or that men focus on their boobs. Shocking, when the boobs are practically spilling out begging to be noticed. Come on.

All I’m saying here is we have certain responsibilities. We should not make it easy for others to treat us badly or take what is ours. In this movie, Ms. Hammond has no excuse. She's working with troubled youth who have already shown they tend to have impulse-control problems and may be prone to criminal activity. If the teacher also can't control her impulses that spells trouble; she's required to. This is why there have been so many teacher-student affairs. The student is at a vulnerable age and may be willing to do all sorts of things but the teacher, being an adult, should know better and be able to keep a bad situation from spiraling out of control.

Again, I’m not blaming the victim but there are things we can do to avoid being victimized. There are never any guarantees, of course, but this is along the lines of driving defensively; locking our doors; not leaving our wallets, keys, purses, cell phones and other valuables where others, especially those prone to theft, can easily walk away with our belongings.

By the way, I thought the same thing when it came to Josh and his records. Once he said he was going to bring in his collection, I knew it would be a mistake. No, the students should not have done what they did to his property but what the heck was he thinking? He's not to blame for what they did but he knew how valuable the records were to him and how long it had taken to compile the collection. Had he not brought them into that setting, it all could have been avoided.

reply

You keep saying you're not victim-blaming, yet this is precisely what you are doing over and over again. As irritating as your ridiculous victim-blaming post is, your constant denial is that as bad, if not worse.

reply

Not much has changed....

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply