Defiance

As I was reading a review of The Defiant Ones in The New York Times from 1958, I discovered a remarkable error on my part. In my post from yesterday, I made reference to the protagonists from the film, Colored and Joe.  Yet while I was reading the review, I came across the full names of both characters. Joe is really John Jackson, and Colored is Noah Cullen. It suddenly hit me that Joe's bigoted rants against Cullen had led me to the misguided assumption that he was calling him Colored. He uses more profane terms than that on several occasions, and also adopts the patronizing "boy."  But he is not, to my knowledge, using the term "Colored" at all. It is always Cullen. What a realization! I searched for a copy of the screenplay or script and also for any discussion of this puzzling mistake, and while I could not find anything of great significance, I did find a discussion board where a viewer shared that he had made the same mistake.  This circumstance says a great deal about my project. I left my realization to marinade for a while, and proceeded to read an article written about the film's producer and director, Stanley Kramer. Kramer is known for his socially conscious films such as Defiant Ones, as well as others like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? and Judgment at Nuremburg.  The article asks whether or not we should reconsider Kramer's work as contrived and overly-idealistic as opposed to the general consensus that his films were bold and innovative. I have only seen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, so I am not a Kramer expert by any means, but I do feel that after viewing The Defiant Ones that it is a film that works hard to relate a metaphorical message.  So-- is the film simply a vehicle for a socially conscious message? Or does it stand alone as a piece of art that is also ideological? I'm not sure. I turned to Framing the South for some insights on this film, and I was overwhelmed by the critical response to the portrayal of Joe Jackson. Apparently, actor Tony Curtis was made over to appear more rugged and less physically attractive in order to play the part of Jackson. According to Allison Graham, Jackson is a classic case of Hollywood depicting the poor white Southern male as a degenerate and, often, bigoted antihero. But I know the film I saw. It was a masterfully acted exchange in which the silent moments of struggle for freedom were often more powerful than the heated arguments between Cullen* and Jackson. If it is contrived and idealistic, I say good. In 1958, the world needed idealism. Without idealism and optimism and determination, I don't think a film like this could be appreciated today for its innovation at the time of its production.    

Why did I think his name was Colored? I keep coming back to this. Is it an indictment of my own prejudices, based on the acerbic and often spiteful attitude of Jackson towards Cullen? Did Kramer want to tempt the audience into thinking that Poitier's character would only be referred to as Colored, a nameless prisoner? I don't know if he did, but regardless of intent (if any at all) it's another reminder of how easy it is to fall in line with prejudice and stereotype without thinking. I respect the need for critical analysis of film, but if I'm missing out on the disingenuous qualities of this film that make it a contrived attempt at portraying the need for equality-- even at the risk of being a poor student for a day-- then so be it.  I must note that it is Martin Luther King Day, and in at least 3 celebrations in St. Louis and other cities, The Defiant Ones will be shown as part of a film festival. I think this says a great deal about the reception of this film in African-American communities.  I found it very fitting that as I was reading about the Civil Rights Era this morning, specifically that the US Civil Rights Commission swore in its first six members and commenced operations in early 1958, Sidney Poitier became the first African-American nominated for an Academy Award in a Leading Role for The Defiant Ones. I look forward to finding more out about this film. Until then...