I haven't read the book but I must admit when I saw the film, something didn't quite ring true. I don't think it dealt with racism that realistically or honestly; there was something sugary about it...but I couldn't put my finger on it. Perhaps I could if I read the book. One thing is, although the kids' reaction was, I felt, credible, I wondered just how accepting the school and the market would have been of this black teacher. Although times began to change in the '60s I don't believe they did on this level, and so quickly, in east London. I grew up in east London and even in the 70's our Asian and black neighbours, of which there were many, being such a multi-cultural area, suffered a great deal more than they would now.
It's funny you should say that about Pamela Dare, because I found her character very believable and I connected with her, but the minute she reacted as you said, childishly and out-of-character in a way that didn't seem to fit, I felt something was wrong, as though it shouldn't have been written in.
I don't normally prefer the film over its book, in any case I'm curious to read this one.
reply
share
Trimac20
18 years ago
I also expected people to treat Poiter's character slightly more xenophobic, but in the end I don't think the point of this film (at least not to the extent to the 'Heat of the Night') was racism, as much as breaking down barriers and revealing universal truths.
reply
share
solaribalu
18 years ago
I agree with you, Trimac. It's not about racism per se, but I wonder how true a picture it gave as a reflection of the times.
reply
share
zygimantas
18 years ago
It really isn't "about" racism, or race, or even society - but the narrator is a man who's come to Britain after serving in her armed forces, and he's black, and a good deal of the conflict in the opening chapters of the book revolves around the difficulties he had getting a job & making a living in the society, presumably because of his race, and ironically/hypocritically despite the fact that he was good enough to put his life on the line for the society's military strength.
He settled for the job as a teacher, because he couldn't secure a position as an engineer - later, when one is finally offered to him, he realizes he has found a niche in education, that he's good at it & there's an element of hope there, that maybe the way to combat racism is not to fight society but educate it constructively.
It's the mark of great literature, that it isn't necessarily "about" one specific thing, but offers observations and criticism of that thing nonetheless, and well enough that an unflinching spotlight is shone on the thing, putting the novel squarely into the collection of novels that are about the thing.
reply
share
solaribalu
18 years ago
and well enough that an unflinching spotlight is shone on the thing
You are talking about the book, whereas I am talking about the film. I haven't read the book (I'd like to) and if the points above are true of the book, I didn't feel they could be said so dramatically for the film. Though I did enjoy the film. If you'll read my previous posts more carefully, I am not saying it is about racism or should be. In literature points may be subtle but that doesn't necessarily mean they are merely something in the background and, whether or not this story can be said to be about society (at the time) is debatable.
I just question how honest a picture of his surroundings were in order to illustrate his points - in other words, I didn't see the "unflinching spotlight" that is surely in the book, and the book is probably closer to the truth isn't it.
reply
share
zygimantas
17 years ago
Well, I think the book was "about" Racism in society and how a guy learns that by being a good teacher he can hel,p make a difference... I think the movie is just about a guy learning that by being a good teacher he can make a difference, but it didn't really say what in society he wanted to change... unless it was juvenile delinquency or something like that.
Anyway, trying to speak to your point, my opinion is that the book was about society, and told a good story, but the movie just told the story and left society pretty much out of it... which is why I thought the movie copped out.
But maybe it wouldn't have been so popular if it hadn't?
reply
share
solaribalu
17 years ago
This thread goes back! I forgot about it. I do see where your assertion that the film leaving out society makes it a failure next to the book. Afterall, when you consider that what goes on in school is a kind of microcosm for situations in the adult world, how could they leave society out of it?
Very often the "difficult" areas of a book are watered down when it's made into a film, resulting in a less passionate piece of work which won't easily offend. As your question suggests, it's as though the film will reach a wider audience and they don't want to risk losing any numbers.
reply
share
zygimantas
15 years ago
It's funny, I'm reading Pam Grier's autobiography right now and when she was a kid she spent two years in England, would have been early 60's sometime.. even as a child she was humiliated by racism in USA, but clearly notices the difference in societies during the time she was in England, it was totally refreshing to her to be there & the lack of racism helped make her stronger. I know she was a kid, female, in a different place (not London), was there for only a couple years, and other factors were different. Just stuff to think about, two points of view about the place.. and makes me wonder if focusing on the book's race issues would have been .. problematic? I mean, a scene in a book is one among many.. a scene in a film sometimes carries much more weight and might have caused an undeserved overweight of concern for that particular social problem?
reply
share