BODILY RESISTING AND REFUSING TO OBEY AN AUTHORITY
The 1958 film, The Defiant Ones, follows two escaped cons: one white and one black. They are chained together, on the run from the authorities who are tirelessly chasing them. Throughout their journey, the film explores racism, social injustice, and the impact an act of defiance can have.
Noah Cullen (Sydney Poitier) and Joe "Joker" Jackson (Tony Curtis) are chain-gang prisoners in the south. After a prison truck flips over in an accident, the two convicts escape but are unfortunately still handcuffed together. They are forced to work together in order to claim their freedom. The two men however have a mutual disdain for each other. Jackson, as a white racist bigot, hates Cullen because he's black; and Cullen hates Joker for being a white, racist bigot. Throughout their journey to outrun their pursuers, they slowly begin to overcome their prejudices, and an unexpected friendship emerges.
I was surprised when I found out this film was made in 1958. I was sure, based on its brutally honest portrayal of racism, that it had been made at least 10 years later than that. The director, Stanley Kramer, did not shy away from the harsh realities of discrimination: offensive language, unjust punishments, and cruel treatment. But Kramer doesn't include these disturbing examples of racism just for show. Throughout the entire film, he's using these examples to demonstrate the never-ending cycle of racism. He shows us the it takes bold and brave individuals- defiant ones - to put a stop to the cycle.
"What's eatin' you? Just because I called you a n? ... Don't crowd me. I didn't make up no names!... I didn't make any rules!"- Jackson
"No, but you breathe it in when you're born and you spit it out from then on!"- Cullens
I love the quote above. It encapsulates the whole point of the film. No, Tony Curtis' Jackson didn't create racism, but he also does nothing to stop it. He picked it up the day he was born and he continues the sick cycle of racism just because it's the status quo. The Defiant Ones shows us we have to be brave enough to not only recognize when social constructs are wrong, but also be brave enough to stand up and say "No, this is wrong."
One of the most disturbing parts of the movie is this young boy's reaction to Noah (Poitier).
Another example of discrimination starting "when you're born."
Cullen and Jackson are not the only defiant characters in The Defiant Ones. The film presents several different characters who are defiant in their own ways. One example is Big Sam, a resident of the small town Cullen and Jackson pass through in their travels. When the town discovers Cullen and Jackson, they organize an "old fashion prayer meeting;" it turns out, "prayer meeting" is a euphemism for lynch mob. Big Sam stands up to his friends and neighbors for two complete strangers. In a way, I think his act of defiance is even more commendable; it's easy (okay, easier) to stand up to our enemies, but standing up to loved adds another layer of consequences- losing those loved ones. Sam admirably stands up against what he knows is wrong, despite any possible repercussion for himself.
One of my personal favorite scenes in the movies. Big Sam's monologue gets me every time.
Another admirably defiant character is the county sheriff, Max Muller who is heading the manhunt for Cullen and Jackson. While his State supervisors want him to sic the blood hounds on the escapees and shoot them on sight, Sheriff Muller stands by his moral beliefs. He reminds them that it's a manhunt- not a manslaughter; that theses men were sentences to prison-time, not to death. Muller stands up to his superiors and colleagues, and jeopardizes his entire career, to maintain the pillars of justice he believes in.
Defiance played a role behind the scenes of The Defiant Ones as well. At the time of the movie's release, screenwriter credit was attributed to Harold Jacob Smith and Nathan E. Douglas. It wasn't until the 1958 award season rolled around, that it was discovered Nathan Douglas didn't exist. Douglas was a pseudonymous for blacklisted screenwriter, Ned Young.
Anti-Communist propaganda. Their argument was that Communist screenwriters were trying to brainwash the American public through film and television. Via.
Young was blacklisted after refusing to testify during 1953 House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) trials: a nonsensical effort to purge Hollywood of communists and communist-supporters. Because of his defiance, Young was prohibited from writing or acting in Hollywood. Despite his ban, Young continued to write in Hollywood using his pseudonymous. "Nathan E. Douglas" (N.E.D.) actually won an Oscar for his work on The Defiant Ones, even though by then it was common knowledge that Ned Young was the true writer. It wasn't until 1993, however, that the Academy changed the credited to writer's real name- Young had already been dead for 25 years.
Another behind the scenes player who showed his own defiance, was actor Tony Curtis. When Curtis first heard about the part of "Joker" Jackson, he immediately he wanted the role. He begged Kramer to consider him for the part. To Curtis, this was his chance to cast aside his pretty-boy imagine, and show his true acting skills in a gritty, unlikable role. He believed so deeply in the The Defiant Ones, he even helped raise the film's $1 million budget through him and his wife's production company, Curtleigh.
Curtis was finally awarded the role, after several first-choices turned the part down (including Kirk Douglas). He went on to give a spectacular performance as the racist and offensive Jackson. Upon the release of the film, Curtis showed Poitier great respect; according to his contract, Poitier was only to receive supporting billing. Curtis went to director, Kramer, and demanded Poitier share top billing with him. In his own account, Poitier said it was because of Curtis and his act of defiance, that he was able to receive "top billing for the first time in [his] life."
Poitier, Curtis, and Kramer on the set of The Defiant Ones. Via.
Throughout his prestigious career in Hollywood, Sidney Poitier collaborated with writer/directer/producer, Stanley Kramer three times. Kramer was known for using his films as a medium to address social issues of his day including racial discrimination, antisemitism, and nuclear warfare. Poitier also had a social cause driving his career; he was determined to only accept admirable and distinguished roles. He hoped that he could help break the stereotyping that affected so many African American actors in Hollywood. Between Kramer's social cause and Poitier's personal conviction, the pair was destined to make some great movies. And they did, starting with The Defiant Ones.
The Defiant Ones is well worth the watch. It features fantastic acting, directing, and great movie-making overall. It is also, unfortunately, a timeless film- unfortunate because it's timelessness only proves that the film's context is still more than relevant today. Racism, prejudice, and social injustices are still issues our society struggles to overcome. Fortunately, we have filmmakers, like Kramer, Poitier, and Curtis, to make us face our faults and help us define a brighter future with their defiance.
i love, love the defiant ones. the only movie that i think showcases poitier's chemistry even better with another man is edge of the city with john cassavettes. for as much as i adore the defiant ones, it disturbs me to read about the other high profile actors who were adamant about not doing a movie with poitier including kirk douglas, burt lancaster, gregory peck, frank sinatra, and robert mitchum. i find it laughable that mitchum claims that he turned down curtis' role because the whole premise of the movie was phony. it's been attributed to mitchum perhaps correctly that he instead refused to work with a man of color. what is even more sad is that even though their reasons were never made public, maybe the other actors who refused the curtis role did not want to work with poitier either. their loss.
i am tantalized by the idea of the defiant ones originally being a vehicle for elvis and sammy davis, jr. i find their casting intriguing. of course, similar to mitchum, colonel parker had no problem with elvis using the n-word against a man of color, but he did not want white audiences to think that elvis would befriend a man of color at the end of the movie. i think elvis could have given curtis a run for his money, but if elvis had done the movie, there is no way col parker would have allowed sidney poitier to share top billing. col parker groused at ann margaret sharing top billing with elvis in viva las vegas and she's white.
i love, love the defiant ones. the only movie that i think showcases poitier's chemistry even better with another man is edge of the city with john cassavettes. for as much as i adore the defiant ones, it disturbs me to read about the other high profile actors who were adamant about not doing a movie with poitier including kirk douglas, burt lancaster, gregory peck, frank sinatra, and robert mitchum. i find it laughable that mitchum claims that he turned down curtis' role because the whole premise of the movie was phony. it's been attributed to mitchum perhaps correctly that he instead refused to work with a man of color. what is even more sad is that even though their reasons were never made public, maybe the other actors who refused the curtis role did not want to work with poitier either. their loss.
ReplyDeletei am tantalized by the idea of the defiant ones originally being a vehicle for elvis and sammy davis, jr. i find their casting intriguing. of course, similar to mitchum, colonel parker had no problem with elvis using the n-word against a man of color, but he did not want white audiences to think that elvis would befriend a man of color at the end of the movie. i think elvis could have given curtis a run for his money, but if elvis had done the movie, there is no way col parker would have allowed sidney poitier to share top billing. col parker groused at ann margaret sharing top billing with elvis in viva las vegas and she's white.