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

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985)
(SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and gleefully distr…

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983)
(SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bonds in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball, but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again, despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…