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.
Brian Webster said that In the Heat of the Night was still impressive today "...when you consider that it was released in a period when racism was overt in much of the U.S..." After watching this film I could not agree more. I thought that even after these many years, this film means a great deal to American history, film and otherwise. Sidney Poitier is a strong male lead in this film and I have nothing but admiration for him as a man. He transcended the racism of the times he lived in to become one of the most recognizable names in the history of cinema. He was a strong, admirable black character in his films that the viewer cannot help but connect with. He evoked emotion from not just black viewers, but white viewers as well because he proved in his films that blacks were no different than whites and to treat them as such is simply foolish. Because his film performances were so popular and so well received, it helped to bridge the racial gap in film making and opened the door for other black actors in years that followed. I truly believe that many of the black actors today owe a great deal to Poitier for their careers.
ReplyDeleteAs for his role in In the Heat of the Night, I thought it was phenomenal. I truly believe that Poitier is what made that film. His purpose in this film was to show the tensions between blacks and whites. I think that the purpose of this film was not just necessarily to inject white viewers with guilty feelings, but to empower and at the same time humble the black man. The film showed that the racial hostility works in both ways and I believe that Poitier’s character showed this beautifully.
I think Brian Webster hit the nail right on the head with his characterization of Tibbs as "so polite and low-key". To me, the character of Virgil Tibbs symbolizes much of how Sidney Poitier influenced race relations and roles within the world of Hollywood. Tibbs is a man who isn't violent, who doesn't try to cause trouble, yet this approach is in itself revolutionary. Instead of yelling or fighting, he jokes with and cajoles people into cooperating with him and, in many cases, liking him.
ReplyDeleteTibbs, much like Poitier in real life, understands that violence will only make it harder to win respect. Whenever Virgil is addressed with open hostility, you can see a deep sadness in his eyes, but at the same time you see a fire of determination. He is well aware of the uphill battle he is forced to fight, and continues, almost unfazed. He has accepted that not everyone will respect him, but he continues to say what he has to say regardless of what anyone thinks.
The only time Tibbs actually becomes violent is in self defense. While he is cool and calm, he is by no means a pushover. In the scene where he is being pursued by the car full of white men, he picks up a giant metal pipe and prepares for battle. He knows that he probably wont win, but the view knows that he is going to take a couple of those hillbillies down with him.
This serves as an elaborate metaphor for Sidney Poitier's career. He realizes that he can get much more accomplished by compromising with the system rather than destroying it. While he may be considered wishy washy or a sell out by some, the name Sidney Poitier has transcended household status and has become a inspirational icon not just in the Film world, but for race relations in general. It is unlikely that Poitier would have accomplished nearly as much by being militant, and Hollywood would have lost one of its greatest actors.
In reading this quote the one line that stands out me is, “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.” It’s hard for me think that anyone in this country would have to live up to a certain standard just because the color of their skin. The idea that Mr. Poitier, with his amazing theatrical abilities, had to somehow justify himself to anyone is so foreign to me. What if he was too black would he not get the approval? Unfortunately yes, if he was not the right mixture of class and society, he wouldn’t be able to smell a film set. The sad reality of Hollywood is that they latch on to something and beat it till it’s dead. With Sidney Poitier they had a chance to put a black man front and center during a dark time in American history. Fortunately for them Poitier was able to cement himself in cinematic history.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at the films of Sydney Poitier one can see that is a man that look advantage of his obstacles and found to way to make them his strengths. I will never forget the line the film In the Heat of the Night, “…they call me Mr. Tibbs.” A powerful actor, that gives a powerful and commanding performance. To me one can argue his validity as an “uncle tom” or a “sell out” but one can not argue the his cinematic relevance.
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.(Brian Webster, Apollo magazine). It is true that Poitier's character gets into a tight spot. He plays it great when he is under pressure, and in film, I believe that he took great strided for african americans. Though the extreme groups considered him to be oppressed, you have to start somewhere, and though it was not where many would have liked him to be, as far as his characters and/or Poitier himself, he had made ground in Hollywood for African Americans. The role of him in the movie is to be the passive black man who stays in the town out of the good of his heart. He also has to prove the white man wrong. This contradicts what the extreme groups think. They believe that he was taken advantage of, but by having Tibbs sticking it to the man, it shows that he is not always going to give into the power of the white man. Poitier's role in the movie, though some think it is to be a white man in a black persons body, is very different. He shows that he is just as equal and just as good as the white man. He decided to stay in the town and help the sheriff even though the town was racist. This shows that he overcame racism, and by doing so made the african american culture seem, to me, very humble. By giving Poitier's character a very humble attitude, the movie, as well as Poitier seemed to break the stereotypical views of many, and thus helped with the eradication of prejudice. Poitier did a great job of getting african americans a better standing amongst people who may have had prejudice before, and did not seem to give into the white man, rather than working along side of him, just as Tibbs had worked along side of the sheriff.
ReplyDeleteI believed that Poitier's character in THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT was remarkable and he was "a hero for moderates on both sides of America’s great racial divide" (Webster). He stood on the sides of both the white man and black man. The white audience wasn't threatened by him since he was such a passive, kind character. He helped the white man in several cases, for example helping a wrongly convicted man be free. He was a help in solving the homicide case and posed no threat to the white audience. For the back audience I do not believe that he was a "sell out". He did follow and help the white man, but took lead. He took control of the case and held authority over the chief of police at times. He also stayed in the town to solve the case, just to stick it to the man and show that he was smarter than the white man. This in no way shows that he is a "sell out" to the black community. He was a character on both sides, who unified and united the two different races.
ReplyDelete"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."
ReplyDeleteBrian Webster mentioned this in his review. I see it as less of a passive willingness as it is an extreme professionalism and desire to find the truth. There is a scene in the film where the sheriff "calls out" Tibbs' for his intellecual need to solve the case. He even questions whether he can let a white man "outsmart" him. I think this is a great example of how it is not about color or submission, but of "one of the best homicide detectives in Philadelphia" making sure he gets his man. Tibbs was never trying to impress the sheriff or anyone else in the town. He was simply doing his job. When he wanted to leave town, his desire to solve the case kept him there.
To me this does not make him passive at all, but strong and motivated in the face of adversity.
When Webster says that Poitier is the perfect star to "bridge the gap", it supports how Poiter and the chief react to one another in the film. It feels as if he was the one to begin the shift to more black actors and actresses on screen. He proves that blacks can do everything that whites can do, even police work and being a medical examiner. I see him as a breakthough in the racism of his time and a leader in the movement toward a racism-free society.
ReplyDeleteWhen Webster said, "...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."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more, because in the movie Poiter's character and the sheriff had to learn how to trust each other. The sheriff had authority in the town, but Tibbs had the better approach on the murder case. Tibbs saw small details (like the accused suspect being left handed) that the sheriff did not see, until later. Tibbs earned the sheriffs respect, and both started to get along towards the end.
I think that one part on Webster article that stands out to me is when he says “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.”
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Webster on what he said about Sidney Poitier. Throughout the whole movie In the Heat of the Night, Poitier played a serious and calm character that searches for the truth on a murder, while the other characters just wanted to some and out the murder on that person. that why I think that part of Webster’s article about Sidney Poitier stinks out.
I do agree that this film has done an excellent job in bridging a vast racial divide at the time of it's release. Webster quote on "being a hero for moderates on both side" could not be any more true.
ReplyDeleteThis probably plays best in the scene where Tibbs, and Gillespie, question Endicott about his whereabouts and the blood stain in his car. This question leads to Endicott slapping Tibbs followed by Tibbs slapping Endicott back. This shows Poitier character that although he is patient and sincere throughout the entire film, he will stand steadfast against the racial abuses: Showing that his character is strong will.
In conclusion, I see Poitier place in cinema history as a staging point to African American not only making a mark in cinema through the industry point of view, but a mark in civil right history discrediting all racial stereotypes and paving the way to a more equal-world.
I would have to agree with everything Brian Webster says about Sidney Poitier. When he was being referred to a "hero" from Webster, he couldn't be more right. Sidney Poitier was at that time a rare talent that could be respected on both sides of the color barrier. Being the first African-American to win Best Actor at the Academy Awards is an outstanding achievement. Where I see Poitier in history is at the top of the actors, especially in his day. In the movie IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, Virgil Tibbs is a African-American in a rural Mississippi town. A town with not many African-Americans. He just wants to mind his business and get out of there as soon as he can, but he doesn't take crap from anybody. He stands his own ground against the town of Sparta, who doesn't want him. His character is very polite and is very presistant. Won't quit until he solves this murder.
ReplyDelete"Able to portray a strong black character in a way that white audiences could appreciate" is a line that seemingly evokes good feelings from Brian Webster's review of Sydney Poitier. But it also seems to imply some the racist undertones of the time. It seems the Poitier was a champion for unity in such a harsh racial tension. And though one could argue that he was "selling out" African Americans and Whites that would see as infiltrating culture, Poitier seems like he was the best one could hope for in Africans in cinema. This is because the "extremists" will never had have cahnged their views, so one can rule out their thoughts. But Poitier did sway many people and was able to portray a strong but dignified black man in one's objective style of viewing him.
ReplyDeleteThis then leads that both his role and his place in the HEAT OF THE NIGHT were important stepping stones for afrcian americans actors in general and important bridging points for black actors to be apprieciated to by white masses. This was exactly his purpose, whether intentional or not, and he this is what his legacy will show him to be seen as. This point also seems unarguable, becasue as previously stated the extremeists will always keep there position, but he was able to sway the moderate majority, proved by his films success and thus making him that unifer of blacks and whites in the film. This then probably did help carry over into civil rights, but Poitier was able to show eqaulity in cinema.
"Able to portray a strong black character in a way that white audiences could appreciate..." This is the line about Poitier that sticks out in my mind from Webster's review of IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. The film was no doubt released in a time when racism was a very big problem, and Poitier's character is perhaps propaganda to instill the fact that color makes no difference. I think that the film was very well written to show this fact: whites and blacks work together to solve a murder; aggressive racists are shown in a negative light; and racists are seen changing their thoughts on racism (the sheriff).
ReplyDeleteI think that films like this are very important films (especially for their time period) because they glamorize the truth and can help racists perhaps change their views. I think, however, for that to happen, there must be some sort of personal intervention.
I do think that this film is soft, it is very real, but I prefer films which show aggressive racism from all races such as in Jacopetti & Prosperi's GOODBYE UNCLE TOM or Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING. I find it to be a better examination on the subject of racism. Films like IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT however, are different; while they are examining racism, they are also trying to change the views of people.
“Tibbs is so polite and low-key that only the most colour-sensitive white audience members would feel threatened.” Based on the movie a lot of people would feel threatened. Yes he was polite, but the entire town of Sparta, with the exception of the widow, seemed threatened at one point or another. This movie was supposed to be located in the south and perhaps the movie did this to show how non-threatening he was and how behind the times the people of Sparta are. Audiences around the country could now see that all Mr. Tibbs wanted to do was solve the murder and that all the racism was getting in the way. The movie could be showing that the north is more tolerant and believes in equality because Mr. Tibbs was a well respected police officer up north and their best man. He was to bridge the gap between the north and south.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, Sydney Poitier has an important place in cinema history. When Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won their Oscars, they both thanked Sydney. I had never seen a Poitier movie before, but when I was watching him, he reminded me of both Denzel and Morgan Freeman in acting styles. He bridged the gap between the races and perhaps he had to do it the way he did. He opened the door for others to do what he did and then once that happened, then black activists can begin to preach their message and be heard rather than ignored and not given a chance.
Many people who criticize Sidney Poitier as "submissive" and a "sell-out", especially in IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT are not completely considering the other characters in the film, or even the context of what they are saying. In the film, Poitier's character is the only completely intelligent one, as he's the only one who is actually investigating and thinking about the murder case; it's the other characters who appear bad and unintelligent. Since when does being portrayed as intelligent merit one as a "sell-out"? Also, wouldn't the fact that he is appreciated by white audiences as well as black be considered a positive thing? Considering the time period in which this film came out, that is a major achievement. However, it seems that whenever anyone is appreciated by a large amount of people, they are considered a "sell-out" so I don't find it surprising that some would consider Poitier a "sell-out". Not too long before his films, blacks were portrayed in a racist way through stereotypes, yet when Poitier breaks the stereotypes and is portrayed with positive characteristics, he is considered a "sell-out"? This doesn't make sense. His purpose in IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT is to expose the thoughtlessness and stupidity of a racist mindset, and I feel he achieves this through a style and persona that was hard for many people, especially white, to have a problem with.
ReplyDeleteIn Brian Websters review on Sidney Poitier this was said...."this guaranteed him the disdain of extremist - blacks who viewed him as a sell-out and whites who viewed him as a thin edge of a black wedge that threatened to pop open a once-stable social hierarchy."
ReplyDeletePoitier is definitely an icon for blacks in films, especially since his films were made during a difficult time in america....the war on racism. I feel he is a great actor who put alot of himself into his characters, this i also feel was NOT done to get the acceptance of white audiences but to make his characters more believable for EVERYONE who viewed his films. Blacks who called him a sell-out were too into the black power movement (eg. the black panthers)and failed to realize that he WAS making a strong movement in films showing that u don't have to speak in slang and u can have appropriate manners if your black. If they truly viewed the film, then the slap that was heard around the world should have silenced all the crap about him being a sell-out (i saw a documentary on Sidney yrs. ago and how the "slap" was very groundbreaking in films...the first time it was shown that a black man slaps the dog sH#T out of a white man on film, now how can he be called a sell-out after that!). The whites who viewed him as "a thin edge of a black wedge" had a good right to feel threatened....times were begining to change for the better for black america and that means that their views of african americans were about to be shot down because more whites were liking the strong black character. The whites that looked at Poitier as a character they could appreciate are people i feel that were still borderline racist because i feel that they felt that blacks were accepted in film only if they had a similiar acting style as Sidney. Not saying that he broke the racial barrier all by himself, but he did make an impact that started the change in films, and a lot of actors/actresses (mainly black) should give much credit to him for.... basically their careers. I feel that his purpose in the film "In the Heat of the Night" was to display a change in america (for the better), and i also feel that the director was trying to display that change was coming to america and how we are towards eachother. All in all, great film, great actor (who stays true to himself regardless of the garbage talk from whites and blacks)and a strong political eye opener!
I believe Webster when he says "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." We can now see that Poitier's career was a success because of what he as a part of society has accomplished. He wasn't afraid to take historical and ground breaking roles throughout a crucial era in America. This role as an intelligent black man that was powerful but not malicious probably made white people realize that African American's were not what they had believed for over a hundred years. Blacks like Poitier were beginning to get educated at institutes but white people previously did not believe that African American's could function in society as well as whites. Even when Virgil Tibbs smacks the man in the greenhouse white people at the time could still be in approval of Potier's character because it was clear that it was in retaliation. Also because Tibbs was liked by many characters throughout the film viewers could also see that it was not wrong to accept African Americans. All in all, Sidney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs was a well liked and respected character and showed blacks a useful way to be heard and whites that it was not un-American to accept blacks.
ReplyDelete“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”. Sidney Poitier is the turning point in the cinema world as well as the public’s perspective on racial divide. Brian Webster is absolutely right about Sidney Poitier success in becoming a hero for both the white and black audiences. Detective Virgil Tibbs visits Eric Endicott on his cotton plantation to investigate the homicide. When Virgil Tibbs becomes suspicious of Eric Endicott and is forward with him, Endicott slaps Tibbs in the face. Unfortunately for Endicott, Tibbs slaps him right back. This action must have caused a large response from the audience because of how uncommon this type of retaliation there was when the IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967) came out. The black audience would appreciate how detective Virgil Tibbs stands up for his own rights. This movement of defending people’s rights for equality is exactly what civil rights is all about. This example is a more aggressive reaction Virgil Tibbs has toward white people, which is not consistent with every upset he approaches. When he is at the train station ready to leave town, Chief Bill Gillespie comes to stop him. They start to argue, which is strange, because Gillespie wants Tibbs to stay in town and help. Tibbs eventually comes back and solves the mystery. This gives a submissive side to Poitier’s character, which is more agreeable to the white audience. Detective Virgil Tibbs is the perfect balance between both audiences, which I believe helped soften the large racial divide in 1967.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement " Poitier was a hero for moderates on both sides of America’s great racial divide." I think that all Americans could/should look up to Sidney Poitier. The man was a success. He didn't wear his culture on his sleeve, but that doesn't mean that he was not the first highly successful black actor. He was the hero in films, and the audience simply roots for an excellent hero. I agree that this was a time that there was much racism and the films helped fight some of it, but Sidney Poitier was simply a successful black actor and role model. His performance as Mr. Tibbs was excellent and I can see why so many black celebrities look up to him. If I were striving to be a good actor I would look up to him. I don't think he acted like a stereotypical white, or black man. I think he acted the part he was given and did one hell of a job.
ReplyDelete