Kyle Smith of NRO makes the case that the Motion Picture Academy of Arts & Sciences decision to bestow Best Picture honors in 1967 to In The Heat of The Night instead of either The Graduate or Bonnie & Clyde "an undeniable example of proto-virtue-signaling."
If this was the intent of the Motion Picture Academy then couldn't the Best Picture statue have just as easily been bestowed upon Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Also starring Sidney Poitier, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is the story of a white couple (played by Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy in what proved to be their final collaboration before Tracy's death)who find themselves in the awkward position of confronting their latent prejudices when their daughter (Katharine Houghton) brings home her future husband (Poitier). It is well worth noting Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was released less than six months after the U.S. Supreme Court declared miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. Curiously, Smith makes no mention of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner in his piece.
Smith dismisses In The Heat of The Night as "cinematically undistinguished" with "fewer twists and turns than average episode of Law & Order." He concludes, "The only remotely noteworthy aspect of the film is that it has a message to declare: It's against racial prejudice." By this reasoning, Smith could also argue that the Motion Picture Academy was "proto-virtue signaling" two decades earlier when it bestowed the Best Picture honor upon Gentlemen's Agreement, a film against anti-Semitism starring Gregory Peck and John Garfield.
I would remind Smith that being against racial prejudice was still a pretty radical concept in 1967 as was as the concept of a black man and a white man working together as equals even if not always easily as demonstrated by Detective Tibbs and Chief Gillespie. Let's keep in mind that In The Heat of The Night was released just over three years after Andrew Goodman, Mickey Schwerner and James Chaney were murdered in cold blood by the KKK with the cooperation of local authorities in Mississippi. Despite Poitier's international acclaim, he did not want to travel south of the Mason-Dixon for fear of his life. While a majority of the film was shot in Sparta, Illinois, Director Norman Jewison convinced Poitier to do one exterior scene near Dyersburg, Tennessee. Notwithstanding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was only one hotel in the area which would allow Poitier to stay on its premises. Even then Poitier felt the need to carry a gun for his own protection.
Let us also remember that neighboring Alabama was governed by Democrat George Wallace who was in the midst of launching a presidential campaign which the following year would net him five states in reaction to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. One of those states was Georgia which in 1966 had elected a Democrat named Lester Maddox as Governor. Maddox was the owner of Pickrick restaurant and refused to serve African-Americans. Those who attempted to patronize his establishment were met with guns and pick axes. He eventually chose to close Pickrick instead of integrating it. Maddox called integration "un-Godly, un-Christian and un-American." It must also be remembered In The Heat of The Night received its Best Picture Oscar only six days after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. In fact, the ceremony itself was pushed back two days out of respect for King.
Now one can certainly make the case that Bonnie & Clyde or The Graduate (and perhaps even Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) were greater cinematic works and more deserving of the honor. (Personally, I am partial to The Graduate while I find Bonnie & Clyde violent for the sake of being violent.) But for Smith to suggest the Motion Picture Academy was engaging in "proto-virtue signaling" in honoring In The Heat of the Night demonstrates a lack of historical perspective while minimizing and trivializing the racism that was so prevalent in America half a century ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment