炎热的夜晚

本片黑人警察维吉尔和白人警长都有人物弧光设计。

黑人警察因为被冤枉、被侮辱所以认定种植园园主是凶手，但被警长“原来你和我们剩下的人都一样”一语点破，知道自己犯了主观认定先行的错误，后来根据新的证据查出真相。

白人警长一开始只将维吉尔作为黑人看待时也歧视侮辱维吉尔，但随着当得知他的警察身份，并了解到他很有刑侦能力，维吉尔指出自己对小偷的判断失误，给出尸检信息的过程中，逐渐将他作为一个警察同行来看待，所以当维吉尔得罪种植园园主时，警长并没有惩治维吉尔，而是为他的安全考虑让他离开，并前去救他。最后，当维吉尔找到真凶送他离开时，一句再次强调的“保重”对他流露出赞赏和关心之情。

本片将受害人的身份设置得比较重要，将这件案子显得比较重要。并设置了维吉尔、小偷、种植园园主、巡警山姆等四次误导，最终才找到真凶。过程波澜起伏，并通过破案的过程展现出小镇的种族歧视、警察办公状态等社会状况。

主线是破案的过程，副线是黑人警察与白人警长的关系变化。

本片的音乐很有特色，例如在开头警察巡视时慵懒的爵士乐反映了小镇的宁静和警察的慵懒。在维吉尔被追杀时采用了非常紧迫感和节奏感的音乐，对于带动观众紧张感很有帮助。本片节奏张弛有度，将案件调查与人物情感交流与变化恰到好处地交织在一起。

另外，本片在表现追逃场面时，使用了大量斯坦尼康主观镜头与跟随镜头，剪辑节奏和景别的变化也表现出了形势的紧迫程度。如，警察们在抓捕小偷时，先使用了快速剪辑的主观镜头和近景跟随镜头，当警长开着车慢悠悠等待小偷体力耗尽时，镜头长度变长，并且景别变成了远景。

但是最终的真相过于幼稚简单。

In the Heat of the Night is a film about racial discrimination. This film begins with a blame of a black male and this male helped many people to uphold justice after the effort. It also commences in a dark night, the environment cause a stressful and mysterious atmosphere. In order to highlight the topic of this film, it used many characters to express its opinion. There are some funny and rhythmical music run through the whole movie. Police use gum to enrich this character. The big red "EAT" advertising board looked stick out, in my opinion, it reveals the darkness of the society and the attitude of people. why the detective did not explain anything and keep silence when that police blame him? Will this story be different if the detective is a black?

影片着力塑造了黑人警官维吉的英雄形象。维吉正直,善良,坚持真理,支持公道，又具有高超的凶杀案破案能力。当他身处种族歧视严重的密西西比州时，对那无知警察的无理拘捕只能忍让；面对警官比尔的傲慢轻视，表示宽容，必要时亮出身份，不卑不亢。他对比尔明确指出：他抓错了人，尽到一个警官应尽的职责。在死者妻子的要求与比尔的激励下，答应参与破案；面对四个歹徒欲将他置于死地，毫无惧色，一身豪气，奋勇搏斗。他对有钱白人先是给予礼仪，对他恶意影射的语言置之不理，挨了一下后立即还以更响亮的一记耳光。即便是对本无好感的白人，也决不冤枉。他的这些行为，充分表现出他的优秀品质；而这些品质,无论对哪个种族,对哪个阶层的人来说，都是难能可贵的。 影片描述的故事，是发生在1962年，即马丁.路德.金率二十万人向华盛顿"自由进军"的前一年，地点在密西西比州。影片如实地反映了当时当地种族歧视情况严重的社会现实：那些无知愚昧的白人对黑人极为仇视，有的敢当面骂维吉“黑鬼”，有的轻易就做歹徒去追杀维吉；那白人有钱人居然敢给黑人警官一记耳光，还说如在几十年前会一枪毙了他。但也有那死者的妻子，坚持要维吉来办她丈夫的案子，可说是个明白人。而警长比尔更是从开始对维吉傲慢无礼到肯定他的才干；从激励他留下参与办案到又诚心希望他离去以免遭不测；带他去到一个黑人汽修工家住宿；及时帮维吉解除十分危急的境况，还给了一白人歹徒狠狠一拳；对那有钱白人对维吉的无礼很表反感，而对维吉还他的一记耳光，在心里深表称许；最后，亲送维吉上火车，微笑着真诚地要他“保重”。可见，比尔的所作所为，代表了有良知的美国人，是当时美国时代精神的一个方面的反映。从而，到1964年，约翰逊总统签署了“人权法案”。 影片中还有两处细节描写了黑人：一是黑人汽修工对维吉来他家表示高兴；再是有钱白人的仆人对他的主人瞪了眼睛，微微摇头。这些，影片都有其用心。 时代前进了。类似影片中那种严重的种族歧视的事，现今虽不能说完全没有，毕竟不会重现，而种族偏见的情况随处可见。影片是有它的永久的警世意义。

Oscar’s BEST PICTURE obtainer, Canadian filmmaker Norman Jewison’s IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT pluckily wrestles with the racial tension through a black-skinned homicidal detective Virgil Tibbs (Poiter), hailed from Philadelphia but stands up like a sore thumb in a southern town Sparta in Mississippi, where a wealthy industrialist is murdered.

Virgil is wantonly brought to the local police station as the chief suspect in the first place, by a vacuously cocksure officer Sam Wood (Oates, conspicuously poses with an air of casual small-mindedness), a decision precociously conducted simply owing to Virgil’s skin color, albeit he is garbed in suit-and-tie, Sam instinctively deems this black guy is the murderer without even questioning him, assumes that he awaits fleeing in the train station at 3 a.m. Virgil remains cooperative under duress, only to manifest his ace in the hole with his police badge, in front of the sheriff Gillespie (Steiger), the first slap in the face.

While it seems arbitrary that Virgil's superior would patly ask him to assist the investigation by phone, but the sticking point soon boils down to Virgil's decision of leaving or staying (due to the rampant hostility from local peckerwoods), a seesaw game well played between Virgil and Gillespie, each turnabout marks a shifting progress in their respective cognition towards each other, in tandem with the ongoing police procedural. But admittedly the unfolding crime-solving routine doesn’t crop up completely creditable as the film’s renown attests. Virgil is way head and shoulders above his peers born with lighter-complexion, in certifying facts and sifting out clues (and might even be endowed with some psychic ability, otherwise how could he be so sure about Sam’s veered routine? A snag the film never cares to elucidate). The only foible is his preconceived bias, which is accountably shaped up by hardened racism he has to come in for on a daily base, and near the climax, he admits it frankly and timely swerves to the right track in teasing out the hidden perpetrator.

Tellingly, what makes the film"culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”, cited as its induction in the United States National Film Registry in 2002, is the palpably construction of the foe-to-friend transition between these two men, but not in the modality of indoctrination or spoon-feeding, today’s audience might find it beggar-belief to some egregiously blinkered presentation of racism (which could very much be the case as we twig half a century later, the canker has never ceased to incubate), however, not for one minute, we have to stretch our suspended disbelief in view of the two men’s mutual conflict-and-reconciliation, a sensibly crafted understanding-vanquishing-prejudice which can be related to every spectator, it is the very basic technique in storytelling: be relatable without resorting to simple preaching, but to round it out in all its integrity and empathy, it is another matter, in this sense, the film merits all the accolades it garners.

Rod Steiger won Oscar’s BEST ACTOR trophy for his bellowing imposition and everyday toiling amplified in high voltage, but in hindsight, it is hard not to attribute his triumph (at least to a degree) to the inexorable gesture of urgent political correctness. Sidney Poitier, by contrast, takes on a subtler but no less dramatic seething-and-smouldering performance to the fore in his trailblazing embodiment for his own race, a crusade he pulls his back into with unalloyed dignity and honesty. Lee Grant, in a small but pivotal role as the newly widowed rich wife from north, choreographs a most revealing pas-de-deux with Poitier in their first scene together, gives a chilling vibe of the congenital racism even from those who are ostensibly liberal-minded, the poison is like old habits, roundly die hard.

An opportune tirade spiked with oomph (tantalizing nudity is included), oompah (courtesy to Quincy Jones’ throbbing score and Ray Charles’ theme song) and moxie (robustly edited byHal Ashby who was received his first-and-only Oscar statuette, which might facilitate his transition to the director chair), like Stanley Kramer’s INHERIT THE WIND (1960), IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT needs to be mandatorily watched by every single human being if we were living in a perfect world, simply because there is cardinal verity in its story that no other belief can twist or garble.

referential points: Jewison’s FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (1971, 6.4/10), MOONSTRUCK (1987, 7.6/10);Stanley Kramer’s INHERIT THE WIND (1960, 7.7/10)