EXTRAORDINARY SCENE - Up the Down Staircase (1967) Discussion

[–] ObstinateAnnette 15 years ago

I didn't see the scene as an attempt at seduction, but more as an attempted sexual assault. He was extremely menacing in his approach to her, and her obvious fear only seemed to make him more aggressive. I was so relieved when he finally backed down, but I thought the scene was much more frightening than sexy. It was an extremely well done nonetheless.

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

reply

[–] huckfunn 15 years ago

OA, with a name like that, I guess I won't try to change your mind. Appreciate your response. (Kinda surprised that it's taken 7 months for any reply.) I will say that you might be looking at this scene through 21st-century glasses, i.e., violence/rape is inevitable.

I believe Joe's character had been established as a tough kid, but not a ruthless one. With a probable dearth of kindness/care in his life, Joe misinterprets Sylvia's interest in him (which, admittedly, may not have been 100% nonsexual) as more than friendship. He's aggressive enough to make a move, but I believe it's with the logic that Sylvia is waiting to be seduced. Obviously, neither one is communicating very well.

"Extremely well done" INDEED! I must have watched that scene a dozen times. What's sexy about it to me is that, for a few trembling seconds, as Joe's face nears hers, we don't know for sure which way they will go. There's such a build-up and release of tension that, when Joe dashes off, and Sylvia resumes breathing, it's almost as if a sex act has been perpetrated.

"Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man."

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

Well, now it's just taken a month for another reply.

I think even back in the 20th century, particularly with what Sylvia endured from her students initially, the threat of violence and rape was very realistic. By saying that Sylvia's interest in Joe "may not have been 100% nonsexual," are you saying she desired him? I didn't see that at all. These of course were the days before Mary Kay Letourneau, when such relationships were unheard of (though they are still taboo).

But getting back to your initial point, I agree that is an incredible scene acted with expert timing. I really didn't find anything "sexy" about it, but I did sense Sylvia's very real feeling of helplessness – and after she talks Joe away, she looks like she has been violated. And if were filmed today, there would have been none of the nuance and a huge dose of exploitation.

Sandy Dennis was a fine stage and screen actress who left us too soon, and Jeff Howard had a handful of roles after this film but seems to have vanished from the radar.

reply

[–] joedogboy68 11 years ago

I agree that it was much more menacing than seductive, and that the sexual aspect was simply a means of asserting power.

It was creepy, and I'm a guy.

But UI also agree that it was very well done.

reply

[–] huckfunn 15 years ago

It could be that one's gender heavily influences how one interprets this scene. (Would like to read more comments.) Aside from its aesthetic perfection, the scene plays out quite logically.

I don't see Joe as a rapist. And I don't see Sylvia as the victim type; e.g., she was quite determined when she turned in Joe for possessing a knife. So, I would have been surprised by any violence, and almost equally surprised if Sylvia had responded sexually to Joe's advances. (I mean, it IS a '60s film.)

Is Sylvia attracted to Joe? The film doesn't make that clear, yet she DOES single him out for personal attention. Given that human beings often act from impulses that may not be clear even to them, it is not a big stretch of imagination to think that Sylvia has had sexual thoughts (if not fantasies) about Joe. Ridiculous? Well, then, answer this: If Sylvia's only thoughts about Joe were, This guy is going to rape me, why did she let Joe get that close without screaming, running, or at least pushing him away? Paralyzed with fear? I don't think so. She had a cool head, sized up the situation, and talked her way out.

I'm sure I have analyzed this to death, but I just admire how sensibly and sensitively these two characters behaved, delivering a quite realistic -- and interesting -- outcome.

"Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man."

reply

[–] holborne 14 years ago

The scene is in the novel, and in the novel, it's clear that Joe intends to rape Miss Barrett. It's certainly no seduction scene.

reply

[–] huckfunn 14 years ago

The scene is in the novel, and in the novel, it's clear that Joe intends to rape Miss Barrett. It's certainly no seduction scene.

Thanks for the revelation, but I'd like to read the book to see for myself. If he intended to rape her, then what stops him? In the film, it sure looks to me like he realizes he's read her wrong, and, based on that, has a change of, uh, heart (yeah, let's call it that).

"Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man."

reply

[–] holborne 14 years ago

Um...is someone or something keeping you from reading the book to see for yourself? You asked a question and I was answering it.

reply

[–] huckfunn 14 years ago

Thanks again for your reply, Holborne. I seem to have you on the defensive. Not intended. My analysis has been of the scene in the film, which, to me, comes off somewhere in-between a sexual assault and seduction (from Joe's POV).

If may be "clear"ly an intended rape in the book, but it is NOT clear in the film. I will take your word the book presents it that way until I can find the novel (local library doesn't have it; can't find the passage online), read the scene, and draw my own conclusion.

I doubt you care to go to the trouble; however, if you would quote something from the book presenting the "clear"ness of Joe's intent, that would be more convincing than your just saying so. Or, perhaps in lieu of that, at least explain what reason the book gives for Joe backing off.

"Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man."

reply

[–] anneinParis 14 years ago

hello huckfunn

Agreed! That final scene is amazing! (music, pace, faces, shots, lighting...)

To resume your questions if it's not too late, I find Joe harsher in the book than in the film. The reason may be because in the book, he is strictly described from Sylvia's single point of view, while on the screen, he is also filmed from Mulligan's sympathetic (and aesthetic!) eye.
I agree with you on Joe. He may be a pain in the neck, but certainly not a rapist. Neither in the book nor in the film. Yet, it is clearly let to believe that he could be "dangerous". Just how dangerous, is the whole suspense. Surely not as badly as we would think.
The scene with the flick knife clearly showed that Joe is all about provoking just to be noticed, keep an illusionary control of the situation between them two, and create a bound with Sylvia by testing her limits. Teenage stuff. Tough but not ruthless. Notice how naturally and swiftly his face switches from man to child, from confidence to fragility and sadness. Jeff Howard is really astounding. Even his voice surprisingly sounds alternately manly or boyish, depending on the scenes. The authentic mix of a teenager. But with an extraordinarily mature face for his age.

I disagree with you on Sylvia though. She got particularly interested in him because she sensed something truly valuable in him despite the rough edges. In the book she says he's her mirror: a rebel, just like her. In the film, she physically goes up the down staircase. In the book, it is Joe who says he's "tired of going up the down staircase."
As Joe raises raw sexual tension in that last scene, it's perfectly clear that Sylvia tries to deflate it. It's not Sylvia who's attracted to Joe I think. It's just that, every single time in the movie when Joe springs up threateningly, teasing cheeky Mulligan deliberately films him as a truely outrageous sex magnet for the audience! (Well, I definitely can't be moderate about Jeff Howard!!!)

The real ambiguity is Sylvia's hand on his face. She stops him without rejecting him. At such a very tense moment, I think she's very careful not to hurt his highly fragile self-esteem. THAT could make him turn violent or brutal any second. (still certainly not as far as raping her.)
What takes us by surprise is that she does receive his sexual move intruding in her classroom. But only to deflate it, with a gentle hand and a genuine caring look. When he finally understands, he 's taken abashed once more and gives in (as on the street and in the staircase), but can't take it and disappears.
At the end of the book she says: "I wanted to reach out to him and I failed. In fact, it's him who reached out to me." She explains that thanks to Joe, she has passed only being interested distantly in her students, to actually loving them.

To me it's more visible in the book that Sylvia COULD have fallen in love with Joe, and Joe MAY have been in love with her. If so, poor Joe wouldn't give himself the time nor a chance to reach out to that love anyway.

reply

[–] ceebeegee 11 years ago

Interesting. I first read the book as a kid (like, 12 or so) and was *very* confused about that scene--I literally had no idea what was supposed to be happening. It's so underwritten (in a good way), very, very ambiguous. I reread the book many times and never quite grasped that scene, even as an adult.

Seeing the scene in the movie made me think of the novel of Blackboard Jungle--there's a scene early on in the novel where a student attempts to rape a young, pretty, innocent teacher. I'm certain this scene was meant to hearken back to the one in BJ.

reply

[–] KindredSouls 14 years ago

I never thought her attention was romantic or that she desired him. I think she cared about him and wanted to help him, and had compassion for him.
Those qualities would make him think she was interested. I think she knew screaming or running would only make it worse. She wanted to help him-kind of that old theme of the girl wanting to save the bad boy?
But I never thought of it as romantic.

reply

[–] Danusha_Goska 13 years ago

Bel Kaufman is writing of a love that is really not romantic or sexual.

I know that nowadays many people will reject that concept.

But it's real. It even has a word: agape.

There is something of a flirtation between Sylvia and Paul Berringer, but he's a heartless dirtbag (scene with Alice Blake).

Joe is a talented boy -- BOY -- who lacks parenting.

He has a substitute father -- the janitor in the basement.

Sylvia wants to be something like a mother/teacher to him, to bring out his best side.

The scene in the class is so tense, both on the page and on the screen, exactly NOT because she feels sexual desire for Joe. It's tense for exactly the opposite reason -- she loves him very much, but as a lost boy, not as a sexy man.

When he realizes that, that her interest in him is agape, not eros, he is humiliated. He feels unmanned. And he damns her to hell and leaves in a huff and she never sees him again.

Tragic. Tragic because he doesn't know about agape yet, and feels humiliated to realize she "just" wanted to help the best of him, the side of him he hasn't invested in yet.

reply

[–] anneinParis 13 years ago

@danushka Gosha

Don't quite agree.
Joe has not been unmanned nor humiliated by Sylvia. Sylvia is not castrative. She just managed to deter him from wanting to dominate and cheapen her. And she cooled him off!

Being unmanned would imply being put down. It's all the contrary. Instead of one putting down the other as the viewer/reader would expect, there turns out to be real reciprocity, "person to person" "reaching out to each other" for one moment. In the book, Joe has also changed her for the better after that encounter.

Joe has been emotionally softened as never before. I don't believe he's humiliated. He's just furious and upset. Not because she turned down his sexual advances, but because she cracked the varnish of his toughness. Not his virility. She was very careful about that, stopping him without rejecting him. His virility is intact. While his consciousness on agape is definitely awake from now on.

His pride and the fear to face her again keep him away since he has exposed himself to her. Joe has not lost his manhood, he has just lost his macho pretentions.(what Calvin Coolidges's bureaucracy comically named his "libidinal aggressive behaviour"!). If Sylvia had indeed struck his virility in the midst of his wooing her, he would have tried to force or humiliate her. She knows it's a fine thread that precisely keeps the scene very tense. How she can bend him without putting him down and reduce him to a little boy, is all the tension.

Not only is Sylvia not castrative, but she's constructive. She may have failed as a teacher to a student, but she probably saved him as a person, from depression or suicide.

reply

[–] KindredSouls 14 years ago

It is in the book (I have not seen the movie yet), and even though it's been years since I read it, that is one scene in the book that still stands out to me even today.

reply

[–] beetiesmom 10 years ago

I have read the book and seen the movie many times---I never thought Joe had any rapist intentions towards her; he felt that she "got" him, and was as willing as he was, even eager. He did what he felt was warranted, after much observation of her (in the classroom, he never took his eyes off her). Sylvia's turn-down of his advances was stellar! The acting on both sides was so, so good. Love this movie!

reply

[–] jellyree 10 years ago

Someone enamured of upper case would perhaps not be sensitive to aggression toward women.

Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.

reply

[–] huckfunn 10 years ago

And someone who wants their posts taken seriously at least checks spelling (if not precision of content).

But you're probably just someone trolling for a fight. Pathetic.

The OP

Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

reply