Remembering Sidney Poitier

There was likely something inspiring to Black people across the nation about seeing a charismatic African American movie star rise through the ranks of the industry before winning an Academy Award. The sensations must have been apocalyptic (in the most genuine sense) as the one and only Sidney Poitier, who died last week at age 94, stepped up on stage, giving his acceptance speech. It was undoubtedly an iconic and unforgettable moment in cinematic history. The utter vigor in seeing a significant figure of a race so ostracized at the time getting national recognition still comes with its share of more subtle bigotry, however. Looking under the undeniably moving, yet shallow surface of Poitier on stage holding the golden trophy, there is still an evident amount of reprehensible privilege exuded from white people. As long as we allow one Black actor to win an Oscar, we’re progressive enough, right? Wrong, Hollywood. Poitier was unfortunately used as a marker of celebration for the United States to boast to other countries around the world that the industry had somehow “moved past” their past racist ideals due to this singular prize. In addition, the general majority of roles that Poitier portrayed in his filmography seemed restrictive, lacking those “leading qualities” audiences were used to seeing in conventionally attractive white men. Sexually repressed and just a hint more robotic in characterizations, even in celebration of one of Hollywood’s heroes, there are still despicable hints of discrimination.

Thus far, our class has viewed three films featuring Poitier. These include, in order of release, The Defiant Ones, A Raisin in the Sun and Lilies of the Field, all admittedly considered notable installments to his filmography. Beginning with The Defiant Ones, the plot is fairly simple, catering more to fans of adrenaline rushes, albeit with less technical prowess as most movies made today. It tells the story of two chain gang members: John “Joker” Jackson (portrayed by Tony Curtis) and Noah Cullen (Poitier), forced to work together after escaping prison transport. The transcendence in the plot of this film is noticing that both a white man and a Black man co-star. At the time, such an idea almost felt forbidden, and director Stanley Kramer’s choice is admirable, to say the least. Although I would not argue that Poitier’s Cullen is a noble figure, I think he shows considerable restraint and detachment in his performance, at least compared to Curtis. This undoubtedly alludes to this “code of conduct,” as one may say, for Black actors at the time. Poitier needed to show white audiences that he could act civilized, without wild sexual desires or the raging impulses Curtis was allowed to portray. It’s essentially this concept that people of color needed to unfairly “impress” white people to succeed, still birthed from the treacherous roots of racist ideology. In this case, the face of progressiveness barely covers up a far more menacing appearance underneath.

The film that gives huge and refreshing contrast to The Defiant Ones is the 1961 adaptation of Lorraine Hansberry’s critically lauded play A Raisin in the Sun. In what is his best performance I’ve viewed, Poitier plays Walter Younger, a man full of ambition in an era when Black people weren’t allowed to have, or at least pursue, emotions of that kind. Walter is a character that is allowed to radiate a sincere and commanding presence. Poitier gives such a convincing depiction of a man desperate to break out of the constricting confines of societal norms, his sprawling dreams claustrophobic in a world so ridden with discrimination against anything different. The genuine and domineering passion that was lacking in The Defiant Ones (and especially Lilies of the Field) was here in all of its glorious fashion. To all those standing in Walter’s way, or who he thinks is blocking him from manifesting destiny (namely his wife and mother), he shows little to no remorse, but in the most humanistic sense. His pure hunger for a greater life reminded me of Ryan Gosling’s Sebastian in Damien Chazelle’s La La Land. Still, with a mostly Black cast, it brings questions to the table about whether he was only allowed to show this caliber of emotion with others of his race. Nonetheless, the film marks fewer restrictions in the allowance of humanity in Walter, and the performance I would have wished had got him that Oscar.

The golden trophy instead went to young Poitier for his outing in 1963 dramedy Lilies of the Field. Deemed a reasonable success at the time of its release, this certainly wasn’t a bad watch. Feel-good and modest in this very wholesome spirit, nothing here impressed me much, but there wasn’t a specific aspect that angered me in any sense of the word. Poitier’s performance, in particular, easily paled in comparison to something as impressive as A Raisin in the Sun, but the effort was clear in consideration of middling characterization. His character, a handyman named Homer Smith, wasn’t unpleasant to watch, but his general demeanor felt far more forgettable and almost token put up against Walter. His entire purpose in the film is helping a group of (white) nuns build a chapel in a small, almost Podunk town essentially in the middle of nowhere. He shows up, does his job, and leaves. It’s an incredibly simple arc without much meaningful development, albeit with a few scattered, charming moments of chemistry between the two parties. Ultimately, it falls once more into this unfortunate trope described previously with The Defiant Ones. His mannerisms were of a more calm and collected manner, and disappointingly so. The humanity that needed to be unleashed more consistently felt choked out here, perhaps even stripped in places. 

Mark Harris’ Pictures at a Revolution also comments on this trend in Poitier’s work (with more examples in his career), while additionally reinforcing this concept that his Oscar win was more of a progress point for Hollywood to pat themselves on the backs for. Harris writes, “He wouldn’t let himself-couldn’t let himself-play villains. Hollywood would never allow him to play a character with real sexual passion. And the possibility that he might one day be able to compete with white actors in which race could be factored out wasn’t even worth discussing.” Ponder this just for a moment. Poitier himself was so pressured into only playing protagonists, or men of generally morally upstanding nature, that he had to play into this narrow-minded atmosphere Hollywood had created for Black actors. Not only this but the privileges that white actors had of playing roles without significant mentions of their race was lost to Poitier. Even with a solidly popular position in the industry, the balancing beam of equality was never fully intact. Harris continues,”Poitier’s Best Actor win was widely taken as a breakthrough moment that was laden with symbolism. But what it symbolized was not a fundamental alteration in Hollywood’s use of Black actors, only an affirmation of what Poitier’s career had always represented-his own status as the exception to the rule.” What is this rule that Harris is referring to? It’s the fact that he was the first of his race to win, and although a change, it felt more like a rare occurrence than something truly groundbreaking. His own victory was more progress for white people than Black. He was Hollywood’s new prized pony, not dissimilar to an excited kid showing a good grade to their parents.

I feel as if we as a society like to feel comfortable in believing that Hollywood has fully moved past its problematic past, and to an extent, I feel that’s a valid statement. Taking a look at Best Picture winners in the last decade, three notable movies stand out in terms of changing the very caucasian-based norms in the Academy Awards. First off, 12 Years a Slave, directed by Steve McQueen, is considered a total modern masterpiece. McQueen, one of the most notable filmmakers in the industry and someone of color (it is interesting to note his British descent), definitely marked a neat moment in Oscar history taking home Best Picture. Secondly, in 2016 (despite a minor mishap), Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight, one of my all-time favorite movies, won the prestigious award as well. The film features a chiefly black cast (Mahershala Ali was the first Muslim to win an Oscar) and is once again directed by a black man. It also refreshingly doesn’t focus on racism that the main characters probably faced elsewhere. It simply lets them be human, living life without fear of hatred in this nature, more touching on the complications of sexuality. Thirdly, and finally, Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite, one of the most acclaimed films of our time, marked the first international film ever to win Best Picture. Joon-ho, who’s Korean, took home Best Director himself (another groundbreaking achievement). So, what is my point essentially? I believe it is ignorant to say that the industry has made zero progress, with several examples of improvements in the treatment of minorities. Even with such a mediocre movie like Green Book winning (a film that lazily plays into white savior tropes, losing all potential in its interesting real-life premise), I truly stand by thinking that we are off to a better future in this sense, even if it’s through wearying baby steps.