When I read some reviews on here, I think to myself, did we actually see the same movie?

Perhaps this is "Politically Incorrect by Today's Standards", and to that I reply, well the setting is 1954 and this is a fresh Brown v. Board of Education instillation what else is it supposed to be? Are we supposed to scrub it up to a sanitized effort so the newer generation can feel safe?

If one is needing to make it more clear how else do you show the obvious backlash that can and did occur in that time with racial desegregation in schools?

While I won't go into a rehash of what has been said here on plot points, all I can say is watch the film and ask yourself, where did the character start and where did she end?

I found the story to be uplifting and despite the harsh reality of those times and her poor judgment (in continuing the "relationship" at least in that setting!),the facts are that she is a more confident person and has looked possible death in the eye and spit it out in all its glory. If you checked out before the last few moments of the film, shame on you. They even gave a warning at the beginning of the film!

I wish more films were like this: unapologetic and raw and most of all honest in their delivery. Anne Heywood no doubt got some hell for her excellent performance and that is a shame indeed.

To call her looking for love or to even pass it off as some simplistic sex is to miss the point. Shouldn't great character have dimension and not be explained away in some cookie cutter Hollywood formula?

This is a great film, and while it has been correctly labeled as a melodrama, it is in many ways an understatement to pass it off as one of many of its kind. The emotional core is what made this film impact me the way it did, and I felt a duty to defend it as being not just any old melodrama, but the best of its kind.

This movie makes uneasy viewing for some streteches. The audienced is exposed to long scenes of really unpleasant sexual intercourse. They are camp but typical for the era (I was reminded of "Coming Home", released a year earlier which features a very long sex scene, showing that a tetraplegic can also supply orgasms). OK, the intention is to make a point there but this is an instant in which graphic detail is used in a wrong and misleading way.

The title character is a teacher of good social standing, a woman with an opinion, moral principles and with guts. But she is sexualy repressed. Following a recommendation she sees a shrink and responds well to the "treatment". Then she is the victim of a brutal rape. Just a she is "opening up", the door is forced. Unfortunately this dramatic event does not tie in well with the earlier story. Rather surprisingly, the title character loses all sense of reason and duty and does not report the incident but lets herself be bullied around and humiliated by the perpetrator. The inevitable consequences ensue and lead to a decent ending.

It ist not a bad melodrama - as a matter of fact the story would have been perfect for a director like Douglas Sirk. I wonder what he would have done with the material and the same actors. (Incidentally, Dolores Malone has a small part - she was always great in every performance)

A 40ish, repressed school teacher is raped by a young, black janitor in the 1950s. It truly disturbs her, but she realizes she enjoyed it and begins a secret sexual relationship with him. But how long will this remain a secret?

Very well acted by everybody...but why was this done? The story has been done many times before and this adds nothing new. As I said, the acting keeps you watching but it adds up to very little.

Try to avoid the cable TV version--all the male nudity (there isn't much) is cut out and a crucial sex scene is badly edited. Try to see it on video.