I know this was discussed briefly here, but the intimation of an incestuous love for Susie by JJ leapt off the screen, especially by calling her "dear" all the time (which Steve calls him on) and the Judas kiss when he knows he's destroyed her chance of happiness - her chance of leaving him.
Maybe that's why Susie was going to kill herself - she knows JJ is so powerful he'll never let her go AND she knows why he won't let her go.
Wow, i never thought of it this way. Now that you mentioned it makes much sense. Especially since JJ wasnt mentioned to have a woman or anything...
shareI have to say I disagree with you. I really saw their relationship as more of a father daughter than brother- sister. On several occasions, he mentions not wanting her to grow up. He seemed very paternal in the way he dealt with her, which is part of why he can't respect her decisions as an adult.
shareI'm sorry but that was NOT a paternal, or brother/sister type relationship. If there was no incest involved, it sure seemed like he wanted it to be. He was CREEPY to her, I mean, really creepy. I agree w/ the first post.
shareForget for a minute that you know he is her brother and imagine all the dialogue being that of a father ... it works perfectly and not overly creepy.
In some families, the circumstances of life and the age difference between siblings often place the older in the position of surrogate parent. From the 20s, the Great Depression, the war years etc., it was not unheard of for an older sibling heading the household from the time they were in their teens.
He may have cared for her since she was a toddler.
Anyone thrust into that situation unexpectedly at such a young age, with all the responsibility thrust on them, the rules of parenting would be learned from mimicking other older adult parents and by using their own imagination - no doubt some poor parenting skills learned and lots of dysfunction.
If they grew up impoverished, it wouldn't be unheard of for them to have shared the same bed at some point - not implying 'incest' here, just that they could have been thrown into some very non traditional situations just to keep warm, a roof over their heads etc. One kid trying to control their younger sibling(s), left to their own devices, would use whatever means their own immature mind could come up with to intimidate the younger one(s) into behaving - controlling them for their own good.
Adult audiences in the 50s would have been familiar with all of this.
*I know the movie was based on Walter Winchell who didn't live this kind of life. Just sayin' that the idea that their was an incestious relationship in this movie seems more likely these days because most viewers aren't familiar with the abject poverty that existed all around the country during the depression which made the above not an uncommon sight.
** Now I feel like I have to explain that yes, I know there are people who still live in abject poverty ... geeeze
:-)
I agree with everything you wrote. The relationship didn't strike me as particularly creepy, just painful. Hunsecker was a controlling older brother, and he had a nasty streak in the bargain. I don't think there was anything more to the relationship than that,--and that's enough!
shareIn some ways the relationship between JJ and his sister parallels that of Elizabeth Barrett and her father in "The Barretts of Wimpole Street". There may be unspoken desire but the real point is that the father and JJ hate everyone else and pin all their hopes for love on their relation with their daughter or sister.
They don't seem to notice or care that the object of their love has to bear witness to their cruelty to everyone else and therefore Elizabeth and Susie learn to hate the father and brother, the last thing they want or expect.
The incestuous elements of this film are so brazen and bold throughout, the only way to make them more clear would be to have J.J. whack off over his sleeping sister's body (pardon the imagery). The initial shot of the framed photo he has of Susie, which sits ever so prominently on his desk, is so wildly suggestive that it's almost darkly comical. The passion flowing through his body as he kisses her cheek... the way she nearly recoils, eyes tinged with horror. The insane beatdown that JJ unleashes upon Falco stems not from his wanting to protect his sister... Lancaster is clearly playing "jealous rage." Another poster called to attention the complete absence of romantic or sexual interest for other women in J.J. We never see him date/hit on/bed anyone, nor even show an interest in dating/hitting on/bedding anyone (save for you know who). And this is a powerful, well off man. A powerful, well off man who is NOT riding a moral high horse. He's not "waiting for marriage," he's lowdown and sleazy and if he desired women, he would go after them. He's the type of person who gets what he wants. But he doesn't desire women. Not in the traditional sense.
You can argue all day and night that there's no creepy/incestuous subtext (I would argue that it's so blatant, it's shouldn't even be labelled as subtext) because times were different and J.J. practically raised her (which is mere speculation to begin with), but if you move past your discomfort with the horrid subject matter and analyze the film more closely, you'd be silly to draw any other conclusion. If one is in the business of speculating, a more accurate speculation might be that Susie's entire demeanor... the stuttering, the timidness, the mental frailty... may stem from some early childhood trauma she suffered at the hands of her older brother and has since then repressed.
Ask yourself this... how paternal is J.J.'s behavior really? When a father steps in and forbids his daughter from seeing her boyfriend, why does he do so? Because he might feel the fellow isn't good enough for her. It's not only made very clear that Steve Dallas is a stand up, decent, kind man with integrity... but that J.J. realizes that Steve Dallas is a stand up, decent, kind man with integrity. He realizes that Steve loves his sister, and that she loves him. He STILL doesn't want Susie seeing him and sabotages their relationship at every turn. That's not a paternal instinct. It's normal for a father to want his daughter to wait and find a man who is worthy of them... but not normal for a father to want his daughter to stay with him forever and ever and ever and ever.
Most movies from '57 wouldn't touch the topic. The Sweet Smell of Success is upfront, fearless and lives in the gutter. There's a scene of sexual coercion that borders on prostitution... there's a scene where a fella plants marijuana on another fella... this isn't Old Yeller or Pal Joey. There are no taboos. Every major film critic realizes and highlights the incestuous undertones in the film... the film doesn't condone incest, and being aware of the undertones doesn't mean YOU condone incest. It just means that you're catching on to something that is staring you directly in the face.
Having just seen the movie again after a numbers of years, these were my feelings on the matter of this brother/sister relationship. I believe it was definitely emotionally incestuous, but not physically.
The relationship was all about power and control. The Lancaster character was so intensely domineering,and Susie was so weaken, that a sexual component wasn't even needed.
Many men are like this, granted to a lesser degree, when it comes to their daughters. And, more often than not, it is not sexual.
I find it ironic that back in the 50's, we would never think of the Lancaster/Susie relationship as being sexual. And, now 50 years later, we immediately find it to be.
-AnaElisa
I think all that ninjafish says can certainly be found in the film.
But I also believe that the Hunsaker character can be seen simply as a control freak drunk on his own power. He objects to his sister's relationship with Steve Dallas not because Dallas is not a stand up guy or not good enough for Susie, but because it would take her attention away from Hunsaker. He clearly states that she is all he has, all he cares about, (except his power, which is obviously important to him) and he wants to keep her with him, under his control. He's a typical narcissist, supremely selfish, and doesn't care at all about her feelings; everything and everyone exists to serve his needs, not anyone else's. While his feeling for her can be seen as incestuous it can also simply be the age old story of one family member fixing on another and not wanting to share. There are mother/daughter, mother/son, father/son, father/daughter relationships like this, that are not at all incestuous. It's more about control and power and, frankly, a narcissistic personality, holding on to someone in their own self interest.
I have not seen this movie yet but based upon the caption on this poster (lower right-hand corner), it definitely seems to be saying that this is what the movie is trying to convey. Here's the link to the movie poster:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1083280384/nm0000044?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_sf_9 3
I must admit, I thought there was something a little incestuous about his feelings for Susie... But thinking back on it now I wonder if it's more that she represents the last bit of good in JJ's life. He doesn't want to loose the only link he has to a time before he became so twisted.
It has been mentioned somewhere on this site, that this movie was based on Walter Winchell and his own daughter. The movie exactly mirrors that relationship, with the exception that Winchell, unable to control her, has her committed to an insane asylum where she underwent an actual lobotomy. Then he had the boyfriend run out of the U.S.
shareIn my opinion the film strongly implies either an incestuous relationship between Hunsecker and his sister or that such a relationship is desired by him. I think the filmmakers clearly had this in mind. At the same time, this being 1957 they had no choice but to avoid being explicit. I'm also surmising that many viewers at the time picked up on this aspect, especially those that saw the film more than once. The post by ninjafish007 provides the salient details.
To me this is a very important element of the Hunsecker character. He has gone well beyond simply being a controlling, vicious and bullying brute to something truly reprehensible.
Agree w/ OP, ninjafish007 & mme3924-1's mention of narcissism.
I had seen SSoS before and wondered if I had misinterpreted the implied incest, so watched again courtesy of TCM. I also re-watched because I recalled that Hunsaker appeared to be a psychopath.
Just finished viewing it & yes, IMO, it's definitely incest, but done in a 1957 manner, so that a viewer who didn't want acknowledge the incest could explain Hunsecker as a controlling big brother. But, IMO, Hunsecker is a psychopath, so the incest & narcissism totally fits. Lancaster did an amazing acting job.
The TCM host commented that 1957 audiences were "disappointed" with the film because the title "SSoS" made them expect a light hearted movie; they were not expecting an incestuous psychopath!!
Also interesting & horrifying re: Walter Winchell & his daughter's lobotomy. Isn't that kinda what happened to Rosemary Kennedy?
Horrible subject matter, but great scenes of 1957 NYC.
A great film.
Just butting in (admittedly very late) to put this to rest. According to the commentary track on the film, the studio was sent production notes from the office of the Hays Code enforcers, one of which stated that any indication of incestuous desire from JJ towards his sister needed to be erased. The commentator then goes on to say that the studio effectively read the note, crumpled it up and threw it in the trash, complying only to the barest minimum amount that they had to. That, at the very least, does prove that the incest subtext was definitely intended to be there (because to be quite blunt, the Hays Code - restrictive as it was - did let an awful lot of stuff they ostensibly wanted to censor through, even at the height of its power, simply because the screenwriters kept things subtle and left to suggestion enough to invoke plausible deniability; so if they did pick up on the incest subtext in this film, it clearly wasn't just in there because it was Burt Lancaster's mistake in not playing "overprotective brother" properly).
share