I Was In This Movie

My 2 cents (very late to the party): These days its not unusual to see a kid (or adult for that matter) giving 'the finger' to the camera. Back in the day only the 'worst of the worst' would dare to do such a thing.Even the class clown would have known better than to cut up on camera during the filming of a movie. Peer pressure sometimes worked out for the better and if a kid had done anything to 'muck up the works' a simple 'Now we will have to re take the whole scene..' with a stern look from any authority figure on the set would have brought instant chastisement from class mates. There were kids with chemical imbalances back then too but they were the exception to the rule.The thought of causing such a scene and what the repercussions from school mates would be would have been enough to keep the kids in line. Kids knew they were watched by family,neighbors, store owners, the police - virtually any adult could make a kids life a living hell because the majority of adults would get 'involved', the appropriate authority - be it the parents,school principle,pastor/priest, (police if warranted) etc., would be advised of juniors transgression. A different world today in which we have mothers trying to look like their trashy daughters who, in turn, try to look like and ape their favorite pop star. When I was a kid it wasn't uncommon to see on in a local news broadcast - live from the street - kids trying to get their mug in the camera. A quick walk behind the person being interviewed, maybe a quick smile or grin but nothing more than that.Crowding into the shot wasn't un-common either if a friend/classmate/neighbor was being interviewed ala 'man in the street' reporting but this was about the furthest any kid would dare go.
A whole different world these days.
This, IMHO, applies to this scene between the 'teach' and the young man also. He was mature for his age and had an aggresive demeanor no doubt, but it would have been a rare incident in which the kid would have crossed the line by putting his hands on a female teacher.Arrested, charged and looking at expulsion, reform school or prison for such a thing. There were some rough characters in my school who committed various crimes - break ins, burglaries, vandalism etc. Not unheard of for sure but there were certain things one just didn't do. Only the truly crazy/criminally insane would have done such a thing (as suggested above by...can't see the nic from this page) . Sexual assault on a teacher....hmmm, I have to say the only time I heard of such a thing was when I watched 'Black Board Jungle'. YMMV of course but I'd still bet it was a rarity.
As far as the Laternau (sp ?) thing though - I did find out, several years after graduation, there were at least two teacher/student affairs going on during my HS years. "Consensual' in that it would have been statutory rape by a female teacher with a ready and willing teen boy in once case and teen girl with male teacher in the other.So,these things did happen in the 60's but never reported/prosecuted - maybe not known by the authorities ? I may have been close to similar myself in that 2 young female teachers invited myself and 2 of my male friends to 'drop by' their apartment in the early evenings during the fall of my my sophomore year of HS. We were never sure of their intentions and nothing ever happened but thinking back now these 2 were playing Russian Roulette with their careers no matter what their intentions were. They casually enjoyed a glass of wine as they had us make our selves comfortable around the kitchen table. The 2 asked a lot of questions about our interests and what we thought about various current event/topics.Maybe they just wanted to gain a better understanding of the world of late 60s teens.Even a difference of a few years in age - between say the class of '65 and the class of '70, created a huge gap in teen 'culture'.'Elvis vs 'The Beatles'.Anyway,we never stayed more than an hour but we were told we were always welcomed back. Now, I was no stud at 16 and neither was one of the other 2 but the third ? Well, no doubt he was more of a mature/full grown man at the time and considered a very good looking young man at that. A young 'Burt Reynolds' type - at 17. Thinking back now from the perspective of an adult, I'd vote them 'guilty' for having lecherous intnentions even if only played at.The 'look' of 'inappropriate'. No doubt they held to a line they promised each other not to cross and probably made did a 'pinky swear' not to let the other go to far.The questions were 'controlled' with a thought of 'what if we (the 3 of us boys) were ever questioned about our conversations ?' in mind at all times. In later years I wondered what would have happened if any of us had 'made a move'? And, if my studly friend was the true object of their affections/attentions, how would they have handled the remaining 2 of us ? Or 1 of us ? LOL ! Was it ever discussed ? 'Twos company, threes a...".Inappropriate/illegal love never had a chance to blossom anyhow as boy #3, who no doubt had conflicting thoughts of lust and guilt along with a heaping helping of raging hormones, responded to their hospitality by snapping the antenna off their car and cracking the windshield with the ball tipped end of the shaft one night as we walked home from their place ! It turned out to be the last time we ever walked home from their place. We were questioned by one of the two and the guilty party admitted to what he had done. We were never invited back. I wonder if they gave stud a private invitation though to return alone (and promise to never reveal/share the secret with us). Ugh ! The thought of the two of them ravaging him, alone, on those crisp, cold fall nights while we sat at home, alone, sneaking peeks at Playboy magazines LOL !
I guess the point of all this is to say that not everything was completely squeaky clean back in the 60's but 'self control' was expected and applied much more than in todays world. Violent acts consisted of fist fights - guns in schools ? School shootings ? Not so much... raping teachers ? I don't think this is even common these days (other than statutory) so I don't think that the makers of this movie were implying 'rape'. A tense few seconds to make the thought cross your mind maybe - hey, titillation was everything back then.
Don't forget, the Stones/Mick Jagger was not even permitted to sing the lyrics 'Lets spend the NIGHT together' as well as Jim Morrison was told not to sing '...we can't get much HIGHER' on the Ed Sullivan Show. Morrison did anyhow and the Doors were told they'd never be invited to appear on the show again. Just to put it all in perspective for those under 40 (if ya made it this far).They were different times - nuanced differences maybe but different all the same.

ps- Unfortunately though, child molestation was not at all uncommon back then - just under reported.I feel this is important to mention as those who were the victim of such atrocities,along with those who suffered from racial prejudice,
do not share the same rosy view of the 60's/ childhood (and the years prior) understandably, as those who never experienced such acts. I have to keep in mind that not every kid had a ball being raised in the 50'/60's like I did.

As I mentioned on another thread, I tried to find it at the former location John Jay College, but what I saw there was clearly a rebuild. Anyway, here's the other thread on this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062425/board/nest/16416180