Reflections
on “In the Heat of the Night” (1967)
Directed
by Norman Jewison
Screenplay
by Stirling Silliphant
Based
on a novel by John Ball
Starring
Sidney Poitier, Rod Steiger, Lee Grant and Warren Oates
Industrialist Phillip
Colbert was due to invest a small fortune in the construction of a factory in
the small town of Sparta in the southern American state of Mississippi, but his
dead body is discovered in the street late one night by police officer Sam Wood
as he is doing his rounds. While seeking the person responsible for this crime,
Wood checks the local train station and comes across a black man waiting for a
connecting train. The colour of his skin appears to be reason enough to arouse
Wood’s suspicions and Wood arrests the man who, answering a few simple
questions from police chief Gillespie, reveals he is Virgil Tibbs, a homicide
detective in Philadelphia. Gillespie verifies this, considers him above
suspicion and, angry and frustrated, declares he is free to go.
These opening scenes,
embellished by a wealth of visual detail and strong characterisation, are
sufficient in themselves to underline the consequence of misguided and hasty
conclusions based on prejudice and racism. However, this is only the beginning
of a tale whose murder plot may be viewed as little more than a device to
explore underlying themes of racism, justice, principle, social justice and
friendship, achieved in good part through a study of the characters of Tibbs
and Gillespie and their burgeoning if somewhat forced relationship.
Police chief Bill
Gillespie has many characteristics in keeping with his upbringing and his
social environment, but he is a fundamentally good man who is perhaps out of
his depth. He cares about his position and seeks to protect the inhabitants of
Sparta. He takes responsibility seriously and appears to be aware of the
shortcomings of his department and staff. Gillespie tries to set standards but
seems to be fighting something of a losing battle as several officers are complacent
and idle, though they do not appear to be corrupt or malicious, leading to
frustration for Gillespie and displays of short temper and anxiety or
nervousness as he tries to exercise control but finds no real solution to his
problems.
Gillespie is not
complacent and is aware of his own limitations and perhaps even his prejudices
which he is willing to try to rise above.
He is unaccustomed to
being tested professionally and he recognises a murder investigation is
probably beyond his scope – he is used to minor infringements of the law and
has a relatively simple or blinkered view of procedure. He lacks sophistication,
instruction and experience but he is honest, direct and firm but fair. He is
certainly able to recognise the valuable contribution Virgil Tibbs can bring to
the investigation even if it hurts his pride and he is uncomfortable with what
he regards as Tibbs’s haughty involvement.
Gillespie’s intensity and
his determination to question and gently challenge traditional environmental
and social outlooks and attitudes, until now focused on the complacency and
attitude of his staff and already the cause of frustration and loneliness, is
brought to a head by the arrival of black detective Virgil Tibbs. This event
will put Gillespie’s underlying and perhaps even subconscious sense of principle
to the test and will bring about something of an evolution in his character.
Virgil Tibbs works in
Philadelphia and his big city background suggests he is accustomed to a broader,
more liberal and tolerant outlook than that displayed by his fellow police
officers in Sparta. Tibbs is reasonable, intelligent and educated, and he is
invited by his superior to share his skills and prowess with those colleagues
in Sparta who are willing to dismiss him based merely on the colour of his
skin.
He investigates using evidence,
facts and scientific knowledge, jumping to no hasty or unsubstantiated
conclusions, unlike his fellow police officers in Sparta, but he is treated
with scant regard and respect due purely to his ethnicity. Unaccustomed and
tired of this misplaced professional and personal antipathy, Tibbs decides to
leave Gillespie and his officers to their own bumbling conclusions, though he
insists on passing on essential evidence to higher authorities to ensure
justice is done.
It is at this point that
Gillespie is first put to the test. He knows he needs Tibbs and his expertise
and he is willing to put principle above self-regard, position and the local
mindset to solve Colbert’s murder. He also applies intelligence and a keen
understanding of human nature in his attempt to persuade Tibbs to stay. He
appeals to or challenges Tibbs’s vanity and a natural desire for retribution by
pointing out the satisfaction Tibbs will derive from proving himself superior
to those who have treated him and his conclusions as unworthy of consideration,
a challenge Tibbs reluctantly recognises and accepts.
At one point, Tibbs
extends this frame of mind and displays personal prejudice and a blinkered view
not entirely dissimilar to that shown by the local police as he is determined
to find evidence to support his desire to depose a local businessman whose
wealth has been built on the backs of black employees and who displays
condescension toward African-Americans while also displaying immense pride,
arrogance and a sense of superiority. Gillespie is quick to point out this
chink in Tibbs’s armour of apparent infallibility and reason and his human
desire for retribution, summed up by Tibbs’s historic retaliation when he is
struck by the businessman, and he reminds Tibbs, almost ironically, of the need
for a solid case built on evidence and fact.
Tibbs may be feeling somewhat
overwhelmed and is left a little out of his depth as he comes face to face with
blatant, vicious and unreasonable racism which has evoked resentment and
diverted him from the path of reason and truth, while Gillespie’s historically
prejudiced and biased mind has been focused on evidence, fact and deduction by
the reasonable and intelligent Tibbs. It seems that in these circumstances each
man finds direction and benefit from the other’s presence and input.
Tibbs solves the murder
case after further focused investigation and he and Gillespie end up sharing a
drink and a revealing conversation in Gillespie’s apartment. It transpires
these apparently very different men have much in common from a personal and
social perspective, though Gillespie reacts badly when Tibbs offers a well-intentioned
sympathetic comment which perhaps trespasses into the realms of familiarity and
friendship. Gillespie interprets this as pity rather than friendship and closes
down the conversation.
It appears that each has
focused on career and professionalism to the detriment of building a network of
friends and relationships and while each is willing to take steps toward
friendship, neither is socially skilled enough or comfortable enough to know
how to readily develop their budding friendship. They are drawn together by
common experience and vaguely similar character traits such as professionalism
and belief in principle, yet they are divided by other vaguely similar traits
such as independence and pride.
In the end, after a perfunctory
and polite exchange of good-byes, Gillespie, upon reflection, appears to offer
not just respect but a sense of gratitude and even warmth as he smiles and
tells Tibbs to take care, a gesture Tibbs is happy to reciprocate.
Each man has been
challenged by the situation and each has derived strength and encouragement
from the presence and actions of the other. Tibbs’s calm reason and deduction were
tested by emotion, prejudice and racism while Gillespie learned to appreciate
the advantages of principle, reason and deduction and to place them above personal
or professional expediency and prejudice. Reason and principle are seen, then,
as superior to rash and emotional judgment and are a means of professional and
social advancement.
There were two sequels,
both significantly less successful than “In the heat of the night”, perhaps
because they focused on plot and crime rather than character development and
conflict focused on social and cultural themes.
In terms of performance, Sidney
Poitier and Rod Steiger are simply superb as the dignified and reasonable Tibbs
and the distressed and even tormented Gillespie. Each endows his character with
humanity and interest and each ensures total audience engagement.
The script and direction
bubble along at considerable pace with wonderful characterisation and tremendous
atmosphere, using the murder plot as a context for sometimes explosive conflict
and character development.
Special credit should go
to Quincy Jones for his music, especially the catchy and oh-so memorable theme
song.
At times deliberately
uncomfortable to watch, this is a gripping, entertaining and thought-provoking
film that delivers with every viewing.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
