MovieChat Forums > Blackboard Jungle (1955) Discussion > drunk or drugged?

drunk or drugged?

posted 8 years ago by MsELLERYqueen2
15 replies | jump to latest

Before those two teachers are attacked by the students, they stop off at the bar for a drink or two. However, very soon after, they are quite woozy. Did they stop off for several drinks, or did someone put something into their drinks?

I need to see this film again, but there was a girl who talked to Vic Morrow's character and then I'm assuming it was her who slipped into the bar briefly and said something to the bartender. I thought that maybe the bartender was bribed into tampering with the drinks so that the men wouldn't be able to properly defend themselves later when attacked.

Or did they just get drunk?

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

You're just reading too much into this and looking for non-existent complications. The guys were in the bar for a while and were pleasantly drunk -- clearly more than a drink or two, just enough to make them more vulnerable to the kids who attacked them. Obviously Vic Morrow and his gang were following them but their stopover in the bar had nothing to do with their being attacked. They were just a little more susceptible to being beaten up, which is probably why Morrow and company took advantage of the situation.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

I've only seen the film once and I probably need to watch that scene more carefully, but my thoughts on them being drugged wouldn't exactly be that outlandish. Not in that neighborhood.

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Well, in order for them to have been drugged you would have been shown someone putting the drug in their drinks. You can't just assume things or invent details that aren't in a movie. The teachers went to the bar, had a little too much to drink, and were assaulted and beaten up in the alley. That's all there was to it.

Actually drugging someone's drink (other than some predator slipping a "date rape" drug into a woman's drink) is extremely rare. If you wanted to assault someone you wouldn't need to slip them a mickey, as they used to say. Anyway, in 1955 such substances would have been tough to get hold of for high school kids, even kids with criminal connections. But they wouldn't have needed a drug to do what they wanted. This was a crime of opportunity more than planning.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Fair enough. I guess I'm just surprised that they would have been stupid enough to get drunk in a neighborhood like that....and then to walk home from there....absolutely stupid.

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Yeah, those teachers were unbelievably clueless. Walking drunk in an alley filled with thuggish kids; bringing rare records to school, practically begging for them to be broken and refusing to understand beforehand why they'd break them; being unable to see who's threatening his wife; pleading with Miller right in front of the other students, thereby undermining his credibility with the rest and forcing him to move away from Dadier...I don't know how these guys can make it to school on the bus every morning.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

That female teacher didn't seem to have much sense at all. Honestly, she showed up to school in that tight sweater, and later she was adjusting her nylons while standing on the staircase....

In THAT school? Really? And this was during a time when few people had sympathy for rape victims. Geez!

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Yes, she was amazingly clueless about the effect her appearance would have on the students, that's for sure...though she got the message at the teachers' meeting the day before school started and showed up looking more prim.

I saw some discussion about her adjusting her stockings while that kid looked on on another thread. In movie-ese the stocking shot was a signal that she was making herself look attractive for Dadier (he'd just agreed to let her give him a lift home) but in fairness she didn't see the kid or anybody else lurking around...although here too how she missed him, given where he was from the audience's viewpoint, marks her as pretty obtuse. At least incautious.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

I was just thinking about why I started this thread in the first place. I guess I couldn't believe that these two teachers would have been stupid enough to get drunk in this neighborhood, so I began to look for another possible explanation - that they were drugged.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that this film has a lot of problems with it. This theme could have been handled much better. I doubt that I'll be giving it a second chance.

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Well, you can't look for explanations in a movie based on things that you aren't shown. As I said before, if they'd been drugged we'd have been shown it.

The film is a good one and I've watched it off and on for fifty years. It has problems like any other movie but from experience I can tell you you'd be making a mistake if you never saw it again. There's always more to learn about it, and of course it has to be taken in its context. Besides, you said you wanted to get a good look at Jamie Farr!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Okay, I'll probably give it another chance eventually....just to see Jamie Farr, if nothing else. I didn't recognize him at all in this film.

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Good! With an open mind, now....

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Ha...hopefully I can get past the fact that the teachers in this film really were clueless.

Is this one of your all-time favourite films, hobnob? 

By the way, someone on the CFB (on the weekly "what did you see last week" thread) replied to my comments about this movie. Feel free to join in, if you keep wanting to discuss the movie (with someone other than myself).

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

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

No, BJ isn't an all-time favorite, but I do like it, despite its flaws.

Actually the one thing in it that for some reason bugs me more than anything else is a tiny, insignificant detail of no bearing on the plot. It's the so-called radio broadcast of New Year's Eve in the hospital room when the Dadiers are reconciling their lives while awaiting word on whether their baby will live. If you see the film again listen to this contrived broadcast. All you hear is the announcer saying "We now take you to Times Square", followed by some tinny, acted cheering in the background until the announcer suddenly says, "Happy New Year!", after which they turn the radio off...until the doctor comes in to tell them their son's out of danger, then turns the radio back on, and we hear a tinny, acted chorus of "Auld Lang Syne". This is the worst fake broadcast I've ever heard in a movie, just totally lame and unrealistic. Too much MGM gloss.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Ha ha, okay, I'll be on the lookout for it next time I watch that film. 

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

[–] ncdwbmk6 (79) 2 years ago

In the novel it's made clear that they only consumed alcohol, and were drunk when they left the bar. They were drinking martinis (which are strong drinks), and had a number of them.