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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.