La scuola della violenza

Sidney Poitier's exceptional lead performance anchors this touching film about that special person who changes your life. As the first time teacher to a group of undisciplined British youth, Poitier is in virtually every frame of this picture. It is a role that calls for a high degree of character development, and Poitier meets and expands the challenge by totally inhabiting the character he is playing. I honestly cannot think of any way his performance could be better, and this is a huge compliment for any actor - even one of Mr. Poitier's immense talents.

While not in the same league, the young cast of then-unknowns also perform quite well. Particularly effective of the young cast members is fresh-faced Judy Geeson, who brings unexpected depth to the stereotypical role of the young schoolgirl love-struck over Mr. Poitier (who could blame her). Director/writer/producer James Clavell avoids over-sentimentalization by inject his well-written script with a healthy dose of realism. The film may not be particularly striking, in the visual sense, but Clavell is a perfectly competent film maker, and his love of the material is evident throughout the entire picture.

The school movie against which all other school movies are measured. Sidney Poitier was on a roll in 1966-67(A PATCH OF BLUE, GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT)and TO SIR, WITH LOVE crowned that succession of great films. Poitier's Thackery is meticulous and elegant, something of a revelation to the unwashed juvenile deliquents and teen sluts who populate his class. Yet this unemployed engineer has his work cut out for him, as his motley crew will try just about anything(including burning tampons in the classroom stove!)to run him off. Instead of exploding like the kids wish, Thackery takes a different tack; treating them like adults and talking about things they have questions about. The ploy works, and along the way Thackery learns to deal with indifferent fellow teachers, racism, lovestruck female students, and a hard decision that will determine his future . . . A great inspirational movie, TO SIR, WITH LOVE also boasts British songstress Lulu in her first film role, as well as prominent soundtrack artist(The Mindbenders are the others). The process by which Thackery molds these wild, rebellious teens into mature and thoughtful adults--and the teens' resulting respect for Thackery, quite possibly the first respect they've ever felt for an adult--is touching. Definitely a classic film worth seeing.

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?

I loved this film from start to finish. From the very first scenes of Mark Thackeray (Sidney Poitier) catching the LLU 829 bus, which passes through London on his first day as a teacher in a mostly white, working class school in the East End, to its very last scene, which I won't describe, it captured my interest unlike many other movies that I have seen lately. For me, this was one of Poitier's best films, and I am disappointed that he has never been appropriately acknowledged for his outstanding performance in it. Many of his more popular roles did not bring out the full range of his acting ability as this one did. A lively and thoughtful script by director James Clavell certainly helped Poitier in this achievement.

I first viewed this film when it was released in 1967, fifty long years ago and the year that I graduated from high school, an institution that was only a notch above the environment of North Quay. For me, this motion picture has actually improved in time, perhaps because I finally understand the words of the East Enders.

The use of the theme song "To Sir With Love" with all of its variations to match the mood of the moment was very successful. The montage sequence of still shots at the museum was also very effective, especially when one considers that the museum management refused to allow the crew from rolling their cameras inside. Talk about turning lemons into lemonade.

Two major instances of irony left a strong impact on me. The first was that of a highly educated black man teaching a predominantly white, underprivileged group of working class students in the inner city. The second was the sight of Sidney Poitier, who played one of those underprivileged students in a New York City high school twelve years earlier during "Blackboard Jungle", standing in front of a similar class as the teacher. In both movies, the teachers were faced with the same, difficult choice of leaving their troubled schools for careers elsewhere.

Although the subject of race arose with great restraint on several occasions during the movie, it did not bluntly expose itself until the moment when the mostly white students were asked to deliver flowers to the home of a bereaved non-white classmate. This was a moment of truth that was handled very well with a very moving and gratifying result.

Although several other reviewers don't agree with me, this is a film which has withstood the test of time. Thanks to the outstanding performance of "Sir" Sidney Poitier, an excellent script, a very capable, British supporting cast, and overall direction by James Clavell that kept me involved in the action from start to finish, this is a very appealing movie that must be seen.

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.