Wednesday, January 18, 2012

We Call him MISTER Poitier


On January 15, the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s birth, it was good to turn on the Golden Globes and see Morgan Freeman receive the Cecil B. DeMille award from none other than Sidney Poitier. Poitier, now 84, has been reclusive in recent years. But back in the Sixties, Poitier was far more than merely an actor. By appearing in the sort of leading-man roles previously reserved for whites, Poitier became the Holllywood face of the American civil rights movement. As a bona fide star, he taught Americans (as well as people around the globe) that a man can have dark skin and still be a hero. Morgan Freeman would never have had the chance to play both the President of the United States (in Deep Impact) and God (in Bruce Almighty) if Sidney Poitier had not paved the way.

Poitier’s career began in 1950 with No Way Out, which cast him as a doctor confronting racism in an urban hospital. This was the first of many times he’d play a well-educated black man (a doctor, a social worker, a cop) facing off against white bigots less upstanding and intelligent than he. But he really captured the public’s attention in The Defiant Ones, Stanley Kramer’s earnest drama about two escaped convicts, chained together, who learn mutual respect while making their way through the segregated South. Both Poitier and Tony Curtis, who played his ethnic opposite, were nominated for Best Actor Oscars. But Poitier didn’t win an Oscar until 1963, for his role as a drifter who helps some nuns build a chapel. The film was Lilies of the Field, and Poitier’s victory as the first African-American Best Actor recipient made headlines around the world. (Some blacks to whom I’ve spoken, though, were slightly miffed, feeling this modest, light-hearted film was “the least of his body of work that should have been recognized.”)

Cut to 1967, when Poitier was America’s biggest box-office draw. In To Sir, With Love he played a conscientious teacher who tames some bad-ass high school students. In the Heat of the Night, which went on to win the Oscar for Best Picture, cast him as a shrewd Philadelphia police detective who reluctantly joins forces with a small-town Southern sheriff (Rod Steiger) to catch a killer. His final film of 1967, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, raised hackles because he played a brilliant and philanthropic surgeon who dared to fall in love with the daughter of a white newspaper publisher. Though the film, which also starred screen legends Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy (in the last role of his life), inspired controversy, it turned out to be a box-office bonanza. Soon Columbia Pictures was offering Poitier a major production deal.

Poitier’s unique status in Hollywood had its downside. Rod Steiger later revealed how his friend chafed against it: “They put this image on him, for chrissake. He couldn’t yell, couldn’t swear, couldn’t do anything, ‘cause he was the Prince of the Black Race.” This awkward label made Poitier jealously guard his private hours, and contributed to his hypersensitivity about his reputation with the moviegoing public.

I’m embarrassed to admit that when I was a lunch guest at Hillcrest Country Club, a posh venue once frequented by the likes of George Burns and Groucho Marx, I spotted across the large room a dark-skinned man standing at the buffet table. He was wearing black pants and a white shirt, and I casually assumed he was a waiter tidying up. That, it turns out, was my one glimpse of Sidney Poitier in the flesh. Ooops.

11 comments:

  1. Love the story about assuming he was a waiter! Though at least you didn't call him over to ask for some lemon slices or anything ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank goodness I didn't make a total fool of myself!

      Delete
  2. Beverly, great post. A love insight you share on the incredible Poitier. In the Heat of Night is a great old movie that turned me into a fan of his. I sometimes wish I were around in the 60s to have got the great aspect of the changing of the American landscape at that time in our history.
    I am most interested in the image Hollywood made of him because in my opinion greed kills all in its way, no matter how beautiful they are. Hollywoods greed and the publics sheer love and adoration of high profile celebrities is an often ugly marriage.
    Thank you for sharing and making my mind ponder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your enthusiasm, Paul. The Sixties were incredible years for movies, and I believe some of them truly changed history. It's interesting that you imply that Poitier was victimized by Hollywood greed. Actually, what was hardest on him was his delicate position with white Americans, at the same time that the more radical black Americans were starting to accuse him of being an Uncle Tom. It's too bad he couldn't just be an actor, rather than a Symbol. Maybe one of these days I'll do a follow-up post on his later career.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for clarifying his actor to Symbol status, being an outsider observer from born in the late 70s can cloud imagery sometimes. I agree that actors should just be that, but when other hands want to take control, and $$$ gets involvevd, that status may get changed and damaged. It is part of what destroyed the career of the incredible Marlon Brando.
    One of my least favorite things in our present society is the tabloid magazines, they make me sick. If the people who bought them and cared about this nonsense would just stop buying them, I truly believe they would go away. Basic economics there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point -- In Hollywood, basic economics is (always) what it's all about. Thanks for your input, Paul.

      Delete
  4. Oh Beverly, I forgot to tell you that this is one of your old students writing under my pen name of Paul Satingala. It just occurred to me!! Great chatting with you, I may hit up your email to discuss further some of my thoughts I've been rattling around if that's ok??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, do write, although I'm a bit distracted these days. But of course now you've got me curious-- who are you in real life, Paul?

      Delete
  5. I first became a fan of his when he came out of semi-retirement as an actor in the 80's and made a few middling thrillers (Shoot to Kill, Little Nikita) that he carried with his effortless talent and charisma. I knew he'd been directing for a few years prior to these films, and in addition to seeing these films, I went back to his classics - with The Defiant Ones and the three Virgil Tibbs movies my favorites. I think I understand why some were miffed about that Best Actor win for Lilies of the Field, but it make sense to me that the first would have to be a pretty middle of the road movie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Somehow I didn't know that there were THREE Tibbs movies. But I am fascinated by how Poitier, starting with The Lost Man in 1969, seems to have felt the need to treat radical activists with respect, while at the same time trying to keep his middle-class fans within their comfort zone by being very careful to promote non-violence. Someday I'll have to talk about this at greater length.

    ReplyDelete