Skip to main content

I don’t think I could list all my objections in four hours. I think I'd need more like eight hours.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?
(1967)

(SPOILERS) The Best Picture Oscar nominee of 1967 dealing with racial tensions and starring Sidney Poitier that didn’t win, but had enough impact on the cultural lexicon that its title has taken on meaning beyond the film itself (and indeed, informed the recent Get Out). Most conversations regarding Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? are compelled to address that it hasn’t aged all that well, which in many respects it hasn’t, but it’s debatable that it appeared especially boundary pushing at the time; compared to fellow nominees Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate, it seems like the product of a different era.

The same era that gave us The Defiant Ones, even. Which would be no coincidence, as both were directed by Stanley Kramer, renowned for his message films (even It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, beneath all that variably comic bloat, is about unfettered greed). That “old” style, the scrupulously palatable and audience-friendly approach, might be why Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? reputedly went down well even in Southern states. Still, it’s also notable that this was Kramer’s last big hit; the “New Hollywood” era ushering itself in didn’t need to lead its audience by the nose; one might even suggest Kramer’s was the antithesis of its approach. But in this crossover year, The Graduate, made by a director two decades younger, was the zeitgeist-capturing picture and the biggest hit of 1967. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? was squarely – in character especially so – for those having difficulty with that zeitgeist and came third. The Jungle Book, in between, was arguably disinterested in either yet now seems hipper than both.

Besides capping a banner year for Poitier (following In the Heat of the Night and To Sir, With Love), Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? is also celebrated as Spencer Tracy’s final role (he died two weeks after completing work) and for beginning something of a career renaissance for his wife and co-star Katherine Hepburn. She won the Best Actress Oscar, “the first person to win because her co-star died” as one reporter cynically read it; Hepburn sent the Academy a message of thanks that “It is gratifying to find someone else voted for me apart from myself”. Certainly, her watery-eyed performance is awash with sincerity, but you’d hardly compare to it to (say) Anne Bancroft’s nomination for Mrs Robinson.

Tracy and Hepburn’s Matt and Christina Drayton personify a brand of benign intolerance, liberals through and through but still shocked by the racial line their daughter (Katharine Houghton’s Joanna) is crossing in becoming engaged to a black man (Poitier’s John Prentice), an esteemed doctor with the World Health Organisation. Once the shock has worn off, Christina is defined by her sentimental attachment to the couple’s bond of true love (which Beah Richards, as John’s mother, naturally shares). Matt, in contrast, gets to vocalise fear for their safety and welfare as a reasoned objection to their being together, an attitude with which Mr Prentice (Roy E Glenn, Sr) concurs. It’s a shrewd move on Kramer’s part to have both families offering objections to the relationship, taking the glare off the spot beam unflatteringly illuminating Matt, but it adds to the smothering sensation of being so damn nice, well-mannered and inoffensive in tackling racism that is Kramer’s conceit and confection. The Los Angeles Times commented that “The nagging uneasiness is that the [racial] problem has not really been confronted or solved, but only patronized”.

Kramer was entirely unrepentant in making John unimpeachable – a stick commonly used to beat the film with, and one that leaves Poitier, despite being the focus of the film, with very little to gnaw on – but leaving that aside, a glaring consequence of focussing so singularly on his race is that nothing is made of the legitimate reasons for objecting to the union; that they’ve only just met each other, and even more that John is fourteen years older (the one that would ring alarm bells today; slightly off tangent but on the subject of age differences, Richards was only seven years older than Poitier and Glenn Sr thirteen). Mr Prentice is vocally approving with regard to the latter, on the grounds that men age better than women (about the most shocking moment in the movie actually comes at a later point, when John casually says “Shut up, man” to his dad).

And since Matt’s objection is characterised as a caveat of concern rather than deep prejudice, the barrier he’s ultimately required to overcome is a very cosmetic one. And, once he has done so, he’s imbued with the white man’s authority to deliver the moral lesson, instructing that there are “one hundred million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives”. The picture ends with Matt demonstrably on the side of right, promising to bring the reluctant Mr Prentice round to his point of view, which rather underlines the criticism Houghton made of the film that “It was a movie for white people” (as most Oscar-nominated fare addressing race has been). Oh, and Isabel Sanford’s maid Tilly isn’t on side either.

Mention of Houghton raises perhaps the picture’s most damning failing of in terms of characterisation. Again, this is, as Houghton reports it, an intentional one on Kramer’s part, but you can only make excuses so many times before it just ends up looking like bad, undernourished writing. Joanna is no more than a cypher, sweet and inclusive and unspoiled, “some vague symbol of “youth and loveliness and so on””. When Houghton objected, Kramer’s position was that she “didn’t understand the American public”, that it would be too threatening to have Joanna politicised. Whether or not Kramer was right to take such a cautious approach (from a commercial point of view), it undoubtedly leaves an empty, yawning space where Joanna’s personality should be. It doesn’t help that there’s zero chemistry between Poitier and Houghton, no inkling of why they’re attracted to each other. Add to the mix the traditional accompanying values involved – doubtless also mediated by Kramer – of the patriarch making the decisions – not just Matt and Mr Prentice, but also John in defining the terms of whether the marriage will go ahead – and you have a film looking nervously backwards as it moves tentatively forwards, the rest of the American New Wave poised to leave it in the dust.

In some respects, such qualities make Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? all the more interesting as a document of its era, but you can’t help wish it could have broken a sweat. The picture is laced with mostly feeble – but gentle – comedy quirkiness that persistently feels like the fumbling of an out-of-touch old guy on script duties (the ice cream excursion, the endearingly enraged maid) and toe-curling ideas of cool (although, at least Cecil Kellaway’s comedy Catholic clergyman, who is very inclusive, relaxed and tolerant and so entirely at variance with one’s expectation of a Monsignor, mentioning The Beatles is supposed to be out of touch). It’s your parents’ – if your parents were bringing you up in the '60s – idea of a progressive movie. But as Scott Holleran points out, it’s also a film where John optimistically defines himself simply as a man, in contrast to his father: “But you think of yourself as a coloured man”. Contrast this idealism in turn to an era where identity politics favour fragmentation.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? received ten Oscar nominations – along with Bonnie and Clyde, the most of any film that year – including a posthumous nod for Tracy. It won two, for Hepburn and William Rose’s original screenplay. It probably didn’t merit either, but let’s not forget this was a year when Doctor Dolittle managed to secure itself nine nominations. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? is not unlikeable, but it’s very slender, and Kramer’s kid gloves don’t lend it the most flattering of retrospective lustres. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.