ken_gewertz
Joined Aug 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews4
ken_gewertz's rating
I was a callow youth when I first saw this film and failed to appreciate its brilliance. I saw it as a message movie in which the condemnation of racial prejudice was sugarcoated by presenting it in the form of a whodunit. As an educated Northern liberal, I felt that I didn't need this oblique approach. I could take the truth straight. After all, I knew about the horrible racial situation in the deep South from listening to protest songs by Bob Dylan and Phil Ochs.
What I failed to appreciate is what a superb example of move-making it is. The early scenes in which Sidney Poitier is pulled in for the murder of the rich white entrepreneur proceed with a rhythm and snap that is irresistible. He and Rod Steiger play off one another like opponents in a high stakes tennis game. The advantage keeps shifting from one to the other. The device in which two strong characters learn to respect and ultimately like one another as the result of a sharp struggle of wills is an old one, but rarely has it been used to such effect as here. It is little wonder that the film is so well crafted considering the team that collaborated on it. The cinematographer Haskell Wexler and editor Hal Ashby were soon to become important directors in their own right, but it is clear that at this stage in their careers these two major talents were willing to contribute to the synergy of the project, however eager they may have been to take the directorial reins themselves. This powerful cooperative vision is apparent all through the film but especially in scenes like the one between Poitier and Lee Grant in which the tension between emotion and convention achieves an almost balletic expression. Director Norman Jewison must have played a key role in distilling that vision from the Sterling Siliphant script and bringing it into focus.
The performances are all extraordinary, particularly that of Steiger, who richly deserves the Oscar he received for his efforts. I have to say though that while I found Pointier's performance powerful, I thought it lacked the depth of characterization that made Steiger's police chief so fully realized. Poitier is a man out of his element, but he does not convey much of a sense of the element from which he comes. The Philadelphia police force of which he is a part exists only as an abstraction. Aside from the brief phone conversation in which his boss confirms his identity then asks him to aid Steiger with the investigation, there is little in Poitier's characterization to make us feel that he is part of an organization, that he comes from a particular area of the country, that he has colleagues, family, and friends, that he has worked his way up from somewhere and has ambitions to go somewhere else, in short, that he is a specific human being, rather than an embodiment of intelligence and outraged dignity.
But that one caveat aside, the movie is still marvelous and holds up extremely well after almost 40 years.
What I failed to appreciate is what a superb example of move-making it is. The early scenes in which Sidney Poitier is pulled in for the murder of the rich white entrepreneur proceed with a rhythm and snap that is irresistible. He and Rod Steiger play off one another like opponents in a high stakes tennis game. The advantage keeps shifting from one to the other. The device in which two strong characters learn to respect and ultimately like one another as the result of a sharp struggle of wills is an old one, but rarely has it been used to such effect as here. It is little wonder that the film is so well crafted considering the team that collaborated on it. The cinematographer Haskell Wexler and editor Hal Ashby were soon to become important directors in their own right, but it is clear that at this stage in their careers these two major talents were willing to contribute to the synergy of the project, however eager they may have been to take the directorial reins themselves. This powerful cooperative vision is apparent all through the film but especially in scenes like the one between Poitier and Lee Grant in which the tension between emotion and convention achieves an almost balletic expression. Director Norman Jewison must have played a key role in distilling that vision from the Sterling Siliphant script and bringing it into focus.
The performances are all extraordinary, particularly that of Steiger, who richly deserves the Oscar he received for his efforts. I have to say though that while I found Pointier's performance powerful, I thought it lacked the depth of characterization that made Steiger's police chief so fully realized. Poitier is a man out of his element, but he does not convey much of a sense of the element from which he comes. The Philadelphia police force of which he is a part exists only as an abstraction. Aside from the brief phone conversation in which his boss confirms his identity then asks him to aid Steiger with the investigation, there is little in Poitier's characterization to make us feel that he is part of an organization, that he comes from a particular area of the country, that he has colleagues, family, and friends, that he has worked his way up from somewhere and has ambitions to go somewhere else, in short, that he is a specific human being, rather than an embodiment of intelligence and outraged dignity.
But that one caveat aside, the movie is still marvelous and holds up extremely well after almost 40 years.
