As we discussed in class, Sidney Poitier--whose film career peaked during a period when racism was rampant in the United States--is often interpreted in polarizing terms: a sell-out and a strong black lead, threatening and submissive, dangerous and harmless. For instance, take into consideration this excerpt from Brian Webster's review of In the Heat of the Night:"[The film] seems impressive more than 30 years later, but is far more so when you consider that it was released in a period when racism was overt in much of the U.S. and was at the centre of a whole lot of conflict. During this tense time, Sidney Poitier was the perfect movie star to bridge the gap, at least theatrically. Able to portray a strong black character in a way that white audiences could appreciate, Poitier was a hero for moderates on both sides of America’s great racial divide. Of course, this guaranteed him the disdain of extremists – blacks who viewed him as a sell-out and whites who viewed him as the thin edge of a black wedge that threatened to pop open a once-stable social hierarchy. Of course, Tibbs is so polite and low-key that only the most colour-sensitive white audience members would feel threatened. It’s easier to understand why black activists might find Tibbs’ almost passive willingness to work within this corrupt system to be much more dangerous. Whether you view In the Heat of the Night as powerfully effective social commentary or just a morsel of liberal guilt relief, it certainly provides lots to think and talk about" (Brian Webster, Apollo magazine).
What are your thoughts on Poitier's place in cinema history? Where and how do you see him? What do you think of his role, his purpose in In the Heat of the Night?Begin your response by citing a line that sticks out to you from Webster's review. As always, use examples from the film to support your response.
