Les anges aux poings serrés

I have seen this movies at least 50 times since 1967 I know. It's just one of those movies that you see that you never forget. I have always had great admiration for teachers because I think they have the hardest job in the world. Sidney Poitier is such a great actor that he makes you want to cheer his characters and you believe he is who he is portraying. I still love the theme song and I think it defines the whole movie and makes you want to see it again and again. "How do you thank someone, who has taken you from crayons to perfume." Great flick... And of course the dance scene at the end. I still can't do those moves...

I am different than many of the reviewers in that I taught high school...though the kids weren't quite like those in "To Sir, With Love". And, while the miraculous change in the kids through the course of the film is hard to believe, there is a certain decency and sweetness about the movie that I could not resist.

The story is about Mr. Thackery (Sidney Poitier) and his seemingly impossible job. While he's a trained engineer, he cannot find work....so he decides to become a teacher...at least until something better comes along. The problem is that he's working with a lot of rough teens--teens who see no future for themselves and who have pretty much given up on amounting to anything. At first, the kids are uncivil...little jerks just biding their time until graduation. However, through the course of the term, his students learn to respect others and themselves...and prove that they might have bright futures.

As I mentioned above, the change in the students is a bit hard to believe if you think about it. But it's still an excellent film....inspiring even. Well worth seeing and filled with some terrific acting, writing and music. And yes, that IS Lulu not only singing the title song but acting as one of Mr. Thackery's students.

This movie is about many things – teen angst, race relations, and poverty. But what it's *really* about is teased hair, heavy eyeliner and miniskirts. And the title song, of course. Who could ever forget the gushing sentimentality of Lulu warbling about crayons and perfume? It is a charmer of a movie with life breathed into it by a fresh cast of young Brits. Released at a time when the world was captivated by all things British, it was relatively daring at the time it was made. A low-budget film that raked it in at the box office, Poitier, as in *Lilies of the Field*, wisely accepted a low salary in exchange for a share of the profits. But the biggest profit of all is his portrayal of the East End school teacher, Mark Thackery, who quickly learns that his students need a different kind of education than that of a textbook. It has been, unfairly or not, relentlessly compared to *The Blackboard Jungle*, and it is a blood-relation to *Up the Down Staircase* and *Dangerous Minds*. But none of them have the sweetness of Judy Geeson, as Thackery's irrepressible student Pamela Dare. At the end of the movie, when Thackery and Dare dance together, racial, social and philosophical barriers are smashed, and hope springs eternal.

This film stands as one of my all time favorites. What I love about it is its simplicity. I just gets my heart. I can't tell you how great a feeling it is to enjoy a great screenplay, devoid of ridiculous 90's special effects. There's no Bruce Willis with an oversized machine gun improbably hosing down 37 ninjas. It's a story from the heart brought to the screen crisply and cleanly. The cinematography is that fantastic semi-gritty 60's style, coupled with an amazing amount of deep-focus shots a la Citizen Kane (watch for them!). Make no mistake about it, this is not at all shot like a made for TV movie, the shooting is fresh and the editing subtly evocative. In short, it's not canned Hollywood garbage.

Regrettably, there seems to be a shortage of this type of film, and I dare say that kids today are probably unfamiliar and unable to appreciate this type of product. Why do I think this? Maybe those kids are raised with the non-stop accompaniment of digital effects in every commercial and tv shows and would frankly not have the patience or introspection necessary to enjoy the film. Maybe they see it strictly as a 1967 period piece, which it isn't, because they lack a real understanding of how fine stories and emotions can be told in any time period. Anyhow, what a great movie.

Recorded on a budget of just $640,000, To Sir, With Love was drafted, as with Lilies of the Field, to give Sidney a share of the gross profits to account for his diminished fee. Writer-director Clavell also received the same arrangement, a writer who was chosen for his love of the source material. The rights to the source, an identically-named novel by E. R. Braithwaite, had passed from studio to studio, and been offered to numerous stars before finally getting the green light when in the hands of Columbia President Mike Frankovich.

Poitier noted in his autobiography the similarities in terms of racial issues between America and England. Filmed in London, the picture featured a number of minorities, many of whom, he observed, would be unable to find work outside of the confines of the movie. However, for his time spent with the cast, he was delighted with their company. Sidney played Mark Thackeray, one of his most famous characters, an engineer taking a teaching post as a stopgap between jobs. Eventually the relationship he develops with the students causes him to question his loyalty to the profession.

To Sir, With Love is often frowned upon nowadays due to its sentimentality. While not wholly condemned as a film, it is certainly regarded as the poor relation of Poitier's three 1967 works. This is an unfair assessment of a movie that commits the only crime of having its heart on its sleeve. And, though the late sixties would see an increase in the political situation, To Sir, With Love was the only one of the three Poitier vehicles that year that did not rely upon his colour for its subtext. Instead, a few bigoted remarks were inserted, largely from a fellow teacher (Geoffrey Bayldon as Mr. Weston) than the pupils. Compared to his other overshadowing works that year, direction paled, too, the camera-work at times almost static. However, the scope for Poitier as an actor was broader than in the other '67 roles, and certainly broader than in the 1996 TV sequel. Where there the plot would be propelled largely by one pupil, here multiple characters would be guided through numerous situations over an entire term period. Over the course of the lengthy film the viewer can feel as though they have experienced the timescale too. And who would argue that the sheer amount of silly moves Sidney and Judy Geeson perform in the final ball didn't directly influence Travolta and Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction?