Editing To Sir, with Love (section)

==Reception==
''[[The Monthly Film Bulletin]]'' wrote: "There is one shot in ''To Sir, With Love'' that shows Sidney Poitier staring into the sun through the window of his empty classroom with his arms spread out along the sill; in silhouette he looks for a second like Christ on the cross. The effect is almost certainly unintentional, but everything about James Clavell's sententious script&nbsp;... suggests that he sees his hero as a Saviour figure, nobly sacrificing his own chance of middle-class respectability in order to redeem younger unfortunates from their hereditary taint of bad grammar and colourful language. Buttoned inside his immaculate white collars, Thackeray bravely shoulders the black man's burden, emitting a sanctimonious wince when confronted with any sign of moral weakness in others&nbsp;.... His comportment is infuriating, but no more so than the way in which the other characters respond to it. For if the film pretends to social realism by its frequent allusions to race prejudice, broken homes, ill-equipped classrooms and so on, its solutions have all the facile optimism of the most utopian folksongs. Thackeray's students all have hearts of gold, all aspire to self-improvement, all want "Sir" to approve of them. With scarcely a pimple or a genuine adolescent problem between them (there are no wallflowers at this school dance) they are all swept along to respectability on a great tidal wave of saccharine sentiment. Even the staff are moved by Thackeray's charismatic spell to a new sense of brotherhood. &nbsp;... Nonetheless, within the limits imposed by the pious script, unimaginative photography and wooden direction, Christian Roberts and Lulu provide two very engaging performances."<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1 January 1967 |title=To Sir, with Love |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1305828912 |journal=[[The Monthly Film Bulletin]] |volume=34 |issue=396 |page=154 |id={{ProQuest|1305828912}} }}</ref>

Upon its U.S. release, [[Bosley Crowther]] began his review by contrasting the film with Poitier's role and performance in the 1955 film ''[[Blackboard Jungle]]''; unlike that earlier film, Crowther says "a nice air of gentility suffuses this pretty color film, and Mr. Poitier gives a quaint example of being proper and turning the other cheek. Although he controls himself with difficulty in some of his confrontations with his class, and even flares up on one occasion, he never acts like a boor, the way one of his fellow teachers (played by [[Geoffrey Bayldon]]) does. Except for a few barbed comments by the latter, there is little intrusion of or discussion about the issue of race: It is as discreetly played down as are many other probable tensions in this school. ''To Sir, with Love'' comes off as a cozy, good-humored and unbelievable little tale."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Crowther |first=Bosley |author-link=Bosley Crowther |date=15 June 1967 |title=Poitier Meets the Cockneys: He Plays Teacher Who Wins Pupils Over |url=https://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E06E3DF103AE63ABC4D52DFB066838C679EDE |access-date=2013-12-19 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

''[[Halliwell's Film and Video Guide]]'' describes it as "sentimental non-realism" and quotes a ''[[Monthly Film Bulletin]]'' review (possibly contemporary with its British release), which claims that "the sententious script sounds as if it has been written by a zealous Sunday school teacher after a particularly exhilarating boycott of South African oranges".<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EMg3-qGrT_EC&q=%22the+sententious+script+sounds+as+if+it+has+been+written%22 |title=Halliwell's Film and Video Guide 2000 |publisher=HarperCollins |year=1999 |isbn=0-00-653165-2 |editor-last=Walker |editor-first=John |location=London |page=845}}</ref>

The ''[[Time Out Film Guide]]'' says that it "bears no resemblance to school life as we know it" and the "hoodlums' miraculous reformation a week before the end of term (thanks to teacher Poitier) is laughable".<ref>David Pirie review in, John Pym (ed), [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22bears+no+resemblance+to+school+life+as+we+know+it%22 ''Time Out Film Guide 2009''], London: Ebury, 2008, p. 1098.</ref> Although agreeing with the claims about the film's sentimentality, and giving it a mediocre rating, the ''Virgin Film Guide'' asserts: "What makes [this] such an enjoyable film is the mythic nature of Poitier's character. He manages to come across as a real person, while simultaneously embodying everything there is to know about morality, respect and integrity."<ref>''The Seventh Virgin Film Guide'', London: Virgin Publishing, 1998, p. 729. Published by [[Cinebooks]] in the US. The "mediocre rating" claim is based on the authors giving the film three out of five stars.</ref>

The novel's author, E.R. Braithwaite, loathed the film, particularly because of its omission of the novel's interracial relationship, although it provided Braithwaite with some financial security from royalties. <ref name="Thomas1">{{Cite web |last=Thomas |first=Susie |date=2013 |title=E.R. Braithwaite: To Sir, with Love |url=http://www.londonfictions.com/er-braithwaite-to-sir-with-love.html |access-date=4 April 2021 |website=London Fictions |language=en}}</ref>

''To Sir, with Love'' holds an 89% "Fresh" rating on the [[Review aggregator|review aggregate]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]] based on 28 reviews.<ref>{{Cite web |title=To Sir, with Love, Movie Reviews |url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/to_sir_with_love/ |access-date=9 January 2012 |publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]}}</ref> The film grossed $42,432,803 at the box office in the [[United States]], yielding $19,100,000 in rentals, on a $640,000 budget,<ref name="the numbers" /> making it the [[1967 in film|sixth highest grossing picture of 1967 in the US]]. Poitier especially benefited from the film's success, for he had agreed to a mere $30,000 fee in exchange for 10% of the gross box office receipts, thus arranging one of the most impressive payoffs in film history. In fact, although Columbia insisted on an annual cap to Poitier of $25,000 to fulfill the percentage term, the studio was forced to revise the deal with Poitier when they calculated that they would be committed to 80 years of payments to him.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Harris |first=Mark |url=https://archive.org/details/picturesatrevolu00harr_0 |title=Pictures at a Revolution: Five Films and the Birth of a New Hollywood |publisher=Penguin Press |year=2008 |isbn=9781594201523 |page=[https://archive.org/details/picturesatrevolu00harr_0/page/328 328] |url-access=registration}}</ref>

Despite the character of Mark Thackeray being a leading role, the film has been criticised in modern times for Poitier's portrayal of the [[Magical Negro]] trope. Specific criticism of the portrayal was directed at the character's service as the sounding board and voice of reason for white antagonists.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2007-03-19 |title=Obama the 'Magic Negro' |url=https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19-story.html |access-date=2022-11-12 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref>