Brother John

I stumbled over this film quite by accident. I've always been fascinated by Sidney Poitier for his stony dignified demeanor and Will Geer for his irrepressible amiability (even if playing the villain). When I saw that they'd both appeared together in this production, I was curious.

"Brother John" is an extremely eclectic film. The genre of drama/sci-fi just about says it all, all while saying next to nothing. Sure, that's basically what it is... a strange combination of small-town drama, mixed with a dark and murky undertone. The writing is completely honest to both ends of the spectrum, all while explaining less than it suggests. The screenwriter, Ernest Kinoy, tells a tale that is murky yet surprising straightforward. The qualities of racial tension (a common theme of Poitier films) and the aspect of striking workers (a recurring plot point of Will Geer's life) might explain what drew the two stars to the script, and that's the corporeal backbone of the story.

"Brother John" does not play at being a big film, and in spite of its incredible deftness in acting and direction, I'm not terribly surprised by its obscurity. There is no way whatsoever to pigeonhole the plot, and at times, even particularly understand what's going on. In a strange twist, I realized about halfway through that all of the vaguely fantastic elements could have been excised (even as late as in the editing room) and it still would have been a highly serviceable drama about life in the American south.

But, instead, "Brother John" takes a sharp left turn. The title character (played by Poitier) is painted as a strange harbinger of death, like a raven on a fencepost. His identity is never fully explained. Is he the grim reaper, the angel of death, some sort of globe-trotting serial killer? These questions were answered to my satisfaction by the conclusion, but other viewers may not be so pleased, and some will leave feeling completely unfulfilled.

What moved me most was, unexpectedly, the direction and cinematography. James Goldstone, the director, has a surprisingly comfortable relationship with his surroundings. There is little attempt to force framing, to relocate interfering objects, or to stage shots in an unnatural way. His actors move in-behind lamps, tree branches, and the camera makes no effort to circumvent them, unconcerned at being anything but an observer. Just the same, Goldstone has a brilliant sense of composition in the way he slips into deep, almost uncomfortable close-ups, then back to wide, languidly casual views of the whole room or outdoor space. He seems to be letting his actors do what they please, whatever gets the feeling across most honestly. A lot of this hinges on the dim, comforting cinematography of Gerald Perry Finnerman, who underlights almost everything, getting across a strong sense of warmth.

You might call "Brother John" a mystery, and as I leave my thoughts on a film that few remember, I'm struck by the final questions in the dialogue. What about hope, what about love? Is it enough in the face of everything evil? Do we deserve what we've got? Well, we've got it, so it's up to us to live up to it... and maybe that's the real theme of this.

First of all Vincent Canby was wrong. Poitier's character John Kane is not an angel. He is very much a living breathing earthly being capable of error as evidenced by a scene where he thoughtlessly lets slip a bit of information he should not have mentioned. Do I know exactly who or what John Kane was meant to be taken for by Ernest Kinoy the screenwriter? Definitely not. Does that at all detract from the enjoyment of this film. Absolutely not. Think of Mark Twain's The Mysterous Stranger or the sci-fi film classic "The Day The Earth Stood Still" Both of these works are scathing indictments of the pettiness and baseness of human kind. If you have any knowledge of how wisdom is communicated in the eastern religions such as Budhism you will be mesmerized by the conversation that takes place in the jail cell between the world weary Kane and Dr. Thomas. It is significant that it is a physician who more accurately than any other character understands what Kane is up to. Who else but a physician is actually trained to see man as he really is, with all pretenses and garments removed? Dr.Thomas has in his own way been performing the same task as Kane all his life making dispassionate clinical observations. The fact that none of the social issues and conflicts portrayed in the film are fleshed out or resolved in any satisfying way is not a problem for this film. They are all just symptoms of the underlying disease. In my opinion Kinoy is saying the disease itself is simply the nature of man. Perhaps the beating and humiliation of an officer of the law (even a blatantly racist and evil one)- by an African American that takes place in this film was simply too radical in 1971 for it to be aggressively promoted or to be supported by critics. Don't let this film's obscurity keep you from superb performances by Mr Poitier and Will Geer.

I only saw the movie once, back when it came out, but it left an impression on me. John is an enigma, one we discover more puzzling things about but never anything that is a solid answer. Like Will Geer's character, we can guess things about John and the reasons for his return, but we will never know the answers.... At least not until John chooses to act.

By the way, the film makes an interesting mirror to IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. Consider that film as if it were an X-Files episode....

I first saw this movie when it was released in the UK and although similar politically to most of his movies of that time and with the usual script aimed at making Sidney Poitier appear to be the super human that we all know he is.It was still in my opinion one of his more meaningful but less celebrated rolls with little or no publicity when it was released in the UK.Having said that,when you think of the standard of performance Mr Poitier gives in the movie and the talent the casting agent managed to muster(all fine journeymen actors)as a supporting cast one wonders why I feel I am the only person in the UK who saw this movie.The other major plus is the soundtrack(I would love to have a copy)it is so good.

Sidney Poitier gives an exemplary performance in a film in which the viewer is kept in suspense as to why and who. Right to the very end, the viewer never knows for sure what the visitor to a small town really is. The supporting cast is excellent and Will Geer and Sidney Poitier are outstanding.