HotToastyRag After losing the Academy Award for The Defiant Ones and not even being nominated for A Raisin in the Sun, Sidney Poitier finally took home the gold for Lilies of the Field. When you watch the film, it seems absurd that such a fine actor would win for such a silly performance. And as historic as his win was, it bears consideration why the Academy chose this particular film in which to award their first Best Actor award to a black actor. In the film, he plays a handyman who helps a group of nuns build a chapel. There's no love interest, no scene in which he proves himself amidst rampant racism, and no intense emoting that would even warrant a nomination. He's bossed around by a bunch of old, white biddies, serves God even when he initially doesn't want to, is valued for his back-breaking work rather than his intellect, and spends his free evenings singing "Amen" with the sisters. Does it really sound like the Academy made a racial breakthrough? Some might think the Academy knew it would have to cross the barrier sooner or later and chose to honor a role that would remind other black actors to "keep their place". Hattie McDaniel's win for Gone with the Wind placed her in the history books as a "sassy Mammy"; the Academy could have broken the barrier five years earlier and given an Oscar to Louise Beavers in Imitation of Life, but that was a meaty, emotional role. An African-American woman didn't win another Oscar until 1991, when Whoopi Goldberg was ignored for her serious role in The Color Purple and rewarded for her kooky role in Ghost.If you thought my soap-box rant was a little too paranoid and you like watching Sidney Poitier movies, by all means rent Lilies of the Field. If the above paragraph intrigued you, watch the preview instead. You'll get the gist and you'll save yourself ninety minutes.

Petri Pelkonen Godsent Homer Smith builds a chapel to five nuns from East Germany.There's the plot in short of this movie.Lillies of the Field (1963) is directed by Ralph Nelson.It's based on the 1962 novel by William Edmund Barrett.Sidney Poitier, who turned 85 last month, gives a terrific performance as Homer.He was the first African American man to win an Oscar.Lilia Skala, who earned a nomination, is superb as Mother Maria.Also great job from other nun performers (Lisa Mann, Isa Crino, Francesca Jarvis and Pamela Branch).Stanley Adams is excellent as Juan.Dan Frazer, who passed away last December at the age of 90, is brilliant as Father Murphy.Director Nelson himself plays the part of Mr. Ashton, and he's great.Jerry Goldsmith is behind the music.I liked this movie.Especially I enjoyed when they started singing "Amen".That Poitier fellow can really sing! This movie leaves you with a nice feeling.

wxwax Disney films follow a pretty straightforward formula.Mini conflict --> mini schmaltzy resolution. Rinse and repeat for 90 minutes. By the end, the overarching conflict also ends with a summarizing schmaltzy resolution. Depending upon your point of view this is either wholesomely feelgood or nauseatingly sweet.It's this formula which Ralph Nelson puts to work in Lilies in the Field. Immigrant nuns seeking to build a chapel in impoverished desert country pray for help. It arrives in the form of unemployed itinerant worker Sidney Poitier.What separates this from Disney fare is the story's touchy social themes. In 1963 Disney didn't do films that dealt with themes like racism, faith, poverty and immigration. This was pretty aggressive subject matter for a time when Lyndon Johnson was still a year away from proposing the Great Society.So it's possible that Nelson decided that he needed a generous spoonful of sugar to make his social medicine palatable. Judging by the box office, he was right.In Sidney Poitier he has a star who conveniently combines a palatable personality with social relevance -- the color of his skin. Poitier delivers a friendly and mostly believable Oscar-winning counterpoint to the flinty-with-a-heart-of-gold Mother Superior who leads her little band of nuns on their seemingly impossible quest to build a chapel with no money or resources.Speaking of no money and no resources, perhaps the most remarkable thing about this film isn't the story on the screen. It's the story of the making of the film. Ralph Nelson, who produced as well as directed, was compelled by United Artists to hock his house in order to guarantee the film's paltry $240,000 production budget.Even more amazing -- and I'm still having a hard time believing this -- Nelson et al shot the entire film in precisely two weeks in Tuscon. With no money, Poitier and cast broke union rules to rehearse in secret at Nelson's Los Angeles home before heading to their Tuscon location. And the chapel at the center of the story was actually built as the film was being shot, then destroyed after.Lilies of the Field is a sweet and generally agreeable examination of social issues just coming to the fore in 1963. That Nelson did a good job gauging his audience's tolerance for his sensitive themes is testified to by the movie's strong box office and its star's Best Actor award.But those with a taste for stronger medicine (or those seeking an indication of how much social attitudes changed in just four years) might prefer some of the same themes in 1964's Poitier masterpiece, In the Heat of the Night.

Rodrigo Amaro Sidney Poitier in a Academy Award Winning Performance plays Homer Smith, a man who was the answer for the prayers of a group of German nuns led by Sister Mary (Lila Skala) who wanted someone to built a chapel in a almost forgotten place in the nice "Lillies in the Field". Homer accepts the task, reluctantly and with constant arguments with Sister Mary, who seems to don't have any kind of money and she keeps these subject to the other day (quoting a Bible versicle), almost forcing this man to do the job but he was just passing through the city. With the help of Juan (Stanley Adams) and the local residents Homer's gonna built the chapel and teach some valuable lessons to the nuns and to the town's people."Lillies in the Field" deals with themes of solidarity, comprehension, faith yet it is a funny and moving film that doesn't seem to preach anything more than love and respect among people. However, I found that the story could work more on the nuns in the sense of teaching something good to Homer and not only backwards, because it worked as if these nuns were only exploiting this man, who built a chapel for them, teach them English and some songs, and bought material and different kinds of food for all them, and in return they only gave him a place to stay, thousands of work to do and lot of complaints. The film's intentions are good, plausible, commendable but to some might look as a advantage situation explored by the Church and that denies everything it was trying to present. The small supporting cast is great, but the outstanding performances of Poitier and Skala and all of the scenes between the two are excellent. Surprising as it might be this film haven't portrayed any situation of prejudice themes which was something recurring in Poitier's films during the 1950's and 1960's. The characters here are presented as human beings that help each other without caring about the skin color; it had one or two undertones about this issue (the guy in the construction shop who couldn't believe in Homer being a contractor), but it wasn't nothing so sad or uncomfortable.It goes for 10 stars because it's a small film that achieves great levels, great things and as long as I live and watch films I want to remember of films like this that are simple, has fantastic moments and a positive message. 10/10