Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-25 15:37:49

Guess Whose Coming To Dinner

This review is from: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (40th Anniversary Edition) (DVD) The first time I saw this movie,I was in the USAF,based in Vietnam(1967-68),viewing it in a mixed audience. To this day,each & every time I watch this movie,it has not lost its importance & true meaning,that LOVE is color blind & knows no bounds!Very inspirational to me,& always will be...Dan BlockGainesville,FL

ddagg2 2012-05-24 18:06:31

Great Ensemble Acting

Though the material is somewhat dated, as indicated by other reviewers,it is surprising how relevant this film still is today. While themanifestation of disapproval may be more guarded I think that theissues raised still resonate.But for me, the main enjoyment of this movie is not the social messagebut the acting. Every time I pass this film while channel surfing Ihave to stop in anticipation of the wonderful interplay between theactors. All of the performances are fine and they really work togetheras an ensemble. The two highlights for me are Beah Richards' scene inwhich she scolds Spencer Tracy for being a "burnt out shell of a man".Her forceful delivery and his indignant then contemplative reaction aremarvelous. Second is Tracy's final speech to the ensemble which manyothers have mentioned. It truly is wonderful screen acting; and I defyanyone not to be moved by Katharine Hepburn's reaction to this speech.Though in the scene's background, her profound response is incrediblymoving and makes her Oscar win deserving; although this was in no way aterribly demanding role.For the acting and as a snapshot of a time not so far in the past,highly recommended.

2012-05-20 04:10:52

guess who's coming to dinner

This review is from: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (40th Anniversary Edition) (DVD) The movie arrived ahead of time. the dvd was not fasten in the case and had been moving around in the case and would not play on my dvd player. but i had a second dvd player that it would play own.

2012-05-19 17:44:10

Race Relations Treatment Not So Dated and Still Entertaining in Tracy Farewell

Somehow this 1967 film classic still works perhaps because it's not as dated as one would hope it would be. I was motivated to see this film for the umpteenth time since I recently saw the rather toothless partial remake, "Guess Who" with Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher. The plot is fairly low-key taking place mostly in the upscale San Francisco home of Matt and Christina Drayton, a crusading liberal newspaper publisher and his art gallery-owning wife. That's the set-up for their daughter Joey's surprise return from her vacation in Hawaii with an unexpected fiancee in tow.The fact that the Draytons are white and the fiancee, John Wade Prentice, is black provides the focus of the plot, but make no mistake that the casting of screen legends Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn as the Draytons and Sidney Poitier - then one of the most popular stars - as Prentice alters the reality of the situation considerably. There are also several plot contrivances that seem suitable for this story but not in real-life, for instance, the increasingly imminent departure of the young couple to Geneva, Prentice's statement to the Draytons that a marriage will not happen without their approval, Joey's constant impulsiveness and her seemingly cavalier attitude toward the sensitivities of others.Yet what continues to be surprising is that the film's glamorization of interracial romance among the wealthy does not detract from its sheer entertainment value. Despite the seriousness of the subject, especially at the height of the civil rights movement, director Stanley Kramer - in his typically socially conscious mode - and screenwriter William Rose have fashioned mostly a drawing room comedy that turns heavier and more significant with the last dramatic scenes. Because this is more an ensemble piece, it barely feels like a Tracy-Hepburn film, especially since they look very settled as a long-ago married couple. They do have a few scenes together where you can strongly feel the natural onscreen rapport that had lasted for 25 years - the Oregon boysenberry scene, the walk through their patio as she cuts the flowers, the lasting stare between them at the end. In his last film finished a little over two weeks before his death, Tracy looks far older than his 67 years but still does masterful work as Drayton, a man who unexpectedly finds himself at odds with his values with his daughter's sudden announcement. His famous climactic monologue is the film's understandable high point, but he also does wonders listening to everyone else's thoughts and opinions.Hepburn imbues her trademark independent spirit in what seems to be an observational role. Considering she was in-between her morphine-addicted Mary Tyrone in "Long Day's Journey Into Night" and her vengeful Eleanor of Aquitaine in "The Lion in Winter", her seemingly passive role here hardly seems worthy of her time except for the way she looks at Tracy or Katharine Houghton (her real-life niece) or in a couple of meaty confrontation scenes - the first with her bigoted gallery manager whom she tells with contained fury to "get permanently lost" and the second an ultimatum in the bathroom to Matt should he not condone the marriage.Poitier seems comfortable portraying an incredibly accomplished man but really does not catch dramatic fire until the last half-hour when he confronts his own father about his feelings. Houghton, relentlessly perky to the point of strangulation, has a relatively thankless role as Joey as she is the catalyst for the plot machinations but has no scene which allows her character to respond verbally to the groundswell of problems the situation has caused for those around her. This may have been intentional, but it creates an odd, somewhat selfish imbalance to her character.Beah Richards has a few quietly powerful moments as Prentice's mother, who accuses Drayton rather vicariously of forgetting what it's like to be in love. As her retired postal carrier husband, Roy S. Glenn provides bluster to his role, but his character is given short shrift especially in his non-response to Poitier's memorable tirade near the end. Not all the roles are noteworthy though - Cecil Kellaway seems to have walked in from a Bing Crosby movie as the wise, twinkly Monsignor Ryan, and Isabel Sanford from a sitcom set as the Draytons' sassy maid Tillie. The DVD has a clean print of the film but only a trailer as an extra.

TheLittleSongbird 2012-05-14 04:40:58

Smart, intelligent and touching

It has been said that Spencer Tracy treated Katherine Hepburn harshly.If that was the case, it certainly doesn't show. The pair are perfecttogether in their last film, their acting is so good and convincing asis everybody else's(especially Sidney Poitier as John Prentice) thatthe whole film is well worth watching for the acting alone. The endingmay hold no surprises as such, but overall, Guess Who's Coming toDinner is a smart, intelligent and touching film. It has awell-constructed story about a married rich couple whose liberalprinciples are tested by the proposed marriage of their daughter to ablack doctor, and the writing is intelligent and smart. Some touchingmoments don't go amiss either, while the cinematography is crisp, thescore is nicely done and the direction from Stanley Krammer isefficient. Overall, if you love Tracy and Hepburn, I think you'll be infor a treat! 9/10 Bethany Cox

2012-05-13 20:06:41

Excellent thought-provoking film

I watched this film last night and was blown away by it. Evidently there are many caricatures that seem superfluous to the plot - the 'obviously Black cook/nanny,' the sexualised Black help, the PC speech by Mrs Drayton to her collegue and the drunken Irish Monseigneur.BUT all that aside, this film provides many avenues for critical thought that are still relevant today. This film not only explored race relations(the most obvious visible challenge) but also issues about age, about marriage and about the aesthetic ideal. Would you be happy to let your (very optimistic and somewhat naive) 23 year-old marry a man 15 years her senior after an 11 day holiday? Does Joey merit becoming his wife when she is not as accomplished as John so clearly is? There is also the tension between what was the liberal progressive tune in that film with the conservative line when Joey says 'When I marry him, I will be important too.' That's hardly a progressive feminist stance is it? She clearly feels that her personality can be and should be subsumed in his achievements. Neither is the position that the two mothers take. They defer to their husbands' disapproval of the marriage.What I found most interesting was how relevant the issue of race still is for many people in the audience. While we would all like to hail 2004 as a different era in terms of race (and in someways it is) are inter-racial marriages so easily accepted? I think people too easily forget the difficulties many couples face TODAY and the hurdles have to negotiate among their own communities and across their spouses'.I think this is a film worth watching, if only to see far away we are now, today, from the idealised picture of liberalism that was painted then in the 1960's.

2012-05-11 22:29:46

Fine Acting by Spencer and Hepburn

This is a period film of the late 1960's and it was pretty radical when it was released. If has a few goofy scenes, but the fine acting by Hepburn, Tracy, and Potier is worth the watch. It's a great story of a social "liberal" who comes face-to-face with a problem in his own backyard and is challenged to practice what he preaches. The last scene with Spencer Tracy giving his "speech" is one high points of the film and the reason it's still one of my favorite movies.

2012-05-11 19:13:01

Respect for others is something we all need to learn

This review is from: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (DVD) While things have progressed in the area of race relations in the U.S., there are unfortunately still far too many problems with people refusing to see worth in those they decide are too different from themselves. I wanted my 14-year-old to see this movie because I thought she would enjoy the characters. She did. I also hoped she would learn something. She did. We talked about human rights and human dignity. She made connections between how blacks were thought of then and how other groups are thought of now. This is a classic film that's well worth sharing.

dissidenz 2012-05-04 19:24:43

flawed but worthy

This well-made, all-star movie seems to serve as a template for howthis type of situation SHOULD turn out, but probably rarely does, thenor now. As a result, the movie is little more than long PSA or preachyafter-school special with better actors. Since its intentions are good,it deserves some credit. The script almost undermines the message withits almost excruciating tip-toey-ness. The movie's politeness makes itdry and lifeless. Poitier, Tracy, Hepburn, and Sanford do their best tobring depth to their characters. The only sore thumb in the cast isHoughton, exuding an odd brand of ignorance that has never beeninvestigated, on screen or off. This type of ignorance, excuse mycynicism, is often referred to as liberalism. Plus, Houghton andPoitier have zero chemistry. Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" offers a morerealistic and far more urban view of the subject. Like "Dinner" it hasits flaws too, but both films should provide interesting perspectiveswhen seen together.

Rose-35 2012-05-04 10:01:00

Hepburn and Tracy.. need I say more?

Another wonderful movie from Hepburn and Tracy. They are just great in thisfilm. Tracy's speech at the end just says it all. (esp. since he died nottoo long after) Also Poitier gives a strong, wonderful performance. One ofthe best scenes is when Poitier is talking to his father and he says "Youthink of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man." My eyesfilled up with tears when I heard that. This is a great movie and if youhavent seen it, you should really give it a chance, it's aclassic.

2012-05-02 05:45:06

Guess who's not really that impressed...

Understand that I understand that this movie probably had a much deeper impact upon its release, and that my review may actually be harsher that it would be had I actually seen it in 1967 and not 2008, but also please understand that regardless of when a film was released, it is open to judgment based on its `aging' factor. That said; I don't think `Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' holds up.The film tells the story of John Wade and Joey Drayton, an interracial couple who met in Hawaii. Joey belongs to an upper-class White family; her parents being liberalists. John came from simpler means, but he built a good profession for himself as a doctor and is well respected and admired. The only problem is he's Black. The couple has only known each other for a few days but they are in love and want to be married. They travel to meet Joey's parents and tell them the good news. Joey is naïve and convinced that their racial difference will not be an issue, but John knows the reality of these things. It's not that her parents would be apposed because of his skin color, but more or less because of the issues that their marriage would cause them in the long run. They are more concerned for their daughter's reputation and well-being. Like John suspected, there are some issues and concerns and John makes it clear to the parents that if there are any problems he would not marry their daughter. The only stipulation is that they make up their minds practically on the spot for he is only staying for dinner and then must catch a flight.And then his parents, who are equally apposed, join the party.The plot is rather ridiculous when you think about it. No, not the fact that there are racial tensions and concerns because that can happen even today; but the way that the issue is presented is particularly ridiculous for the time in which it was released. In the 60's interracial marriages were still taboo and so no daughter in her right mind would be stupid enough to expect her parents be okay with it so quickly. She may be convinced that with time her parents would come around to the idea and even support her but she would never expect them to come to that conclusion immediately. That is, unless she really was very stupid, and if that were the case then someone as smart as John would not be interested in marrying her. I also found the reaction of John's mother, and even Joey's mother, to be rather over-the-top. When Mrs. Prentice goes into this long speech about how Joey's father Matthew must not remember what it's like to love someone as deeply as John and Joey love one another, well, I wanted to laugh. She was missing the point and came off as stupid as Joey.The fact remains that this movie is less about racism (because no one in this film is racist) and more about social conditioning. The concerns raised by the parents (fathers mostly) is not anything out of racial spite but out of concern for the acceptance of others. They want what is best for their children and would not want to see them suffer in any way. I think that the way the script was written, well, it pulled away from the importance of the real issue. No one should tell you who to love and who to marry; that is true.The performances for the most part help to elevate this film. I say `for the most part' because some of the performances, even the praised ones, come off rather ridiculous to me. First off; the good.Spencer Tracy (in his last screen performance) actually delivers a very well thought out and fleshed out performance as Matthew Drayton. He captures the mans real concerns and expresses them rather well, especially in his overwritten ending monologue (the script was messy, but he worked with it). Isabel Sanford (from `The Jeffersons') is also delightful here as the feisty maid Tillie. I loved the fire she brought to her performance, and that attack on John is one of those scenes that just takes you by surprise. Katherine Hepburn won the Oscar for this performance, and while I would never have given it to her (I don't think I would have even nominated her) I can say that she doesn't disappoint. She is a tad scary here (I don't know what it is) but she manages to evoke some pure emotions. Cecil Kellaway gives my favorite performance in the bunch though, and probably the only one I would have nominated. As Monsignor Ryan he is charming and witty and entertaining and he also grasps his characters real motives and feelings on the matter.But then there is the bad.I enjoyed the first half of Poitier's performance for he had this natural charm I hadn't seen from him before (I am one of the few who finds him rather stiff) but as the film progressed and he went on the ridiculous rant about being oppressed by his fathers generation I began to be annoyed by his performance. It may have more to do with the script, but then again, Tracy rose above the scrip; Poitier could not. Katharine Houghton is also quite terrible, but then again, her character is an idiot so maybe that had to do with it. Beah Richards received an Oscar nomination for her performance; why I'll never know. Her only speaking lines came with that ridiculous speech to Matthew and I found that to be one of my least favorite scenes in the whole film. I don't have much to say about Roy Glenn. He wasn't very memorable.In the end I give the film a C-. I know that everyone loves this movie, but I just don't see what all the hype is about. The script borders on comical it is so off and the acting is spotty. The overall impact I know was heavy when it was released, but it has not aged well at all. Kellaway and Tracy elevate this movie a lot for me, for they really got it. I know that it tackles some major issues, but it could have went about it a better way.

cemab4y 2012-05-01 17:14:17

Great Film, and one of my favorites

(Possible spoiler) If you have not seen this film from 1967, stopreading here.I cherish this film. I am in an interracial marriage (I am caucasian,wife is Chinese). This film always strikes an emotional chord in me.The final film of Tracy and Hepburn, is a classic of cinema. The storyis about a Black (Negro) doctor, who wishes to marry a caucasian woman.The parents of both of these, have to deal with their feelings.It is true, that Tracy was dying when he made the film, he died sixweeks, after shooting stopped. Hepburn had to put up her salary as aguarantee, because it was impossible to get casting insurance.Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn had a decades-long love affair, butnever married, because Tracy was a Roman Catholic, and would not get adivorce. As is often the case in Hepburn/Tracy films, their off-screenromance infused the cinema story.In the story, we are shown that love is color-blind, and that loveconquers all. Great film.

IrishGoodfella 2012-04-29 05:31:03

A Prelude to Blaxploitation

What a nice movie to watch. Not only are the performances excellent(particularly those of Tracy and Hepburn), but also the social issuesare addressed with enough emotion to make the topics still relevantmore than 30 years later. For all it's preaching and awkward dancing(somebody please shoot that delivery boy), the film comes off as anably directed film that is both a crowd-pleaser and a work of art.But everyone knows that. I won't talk more about the easy praise forthe movie. Instead I think there exists some interesting underlyingracism typical of Hollywood at this time: First off, John Prenticefreely gives all of his power up to Joanna's parents when he lets themdecide on accepting him or not. Providing them with an ultimatum, Johnbecomes another powerless black man whose life is in the hands of awhite man. Later when the decision rests entirely on Joanna's father,Matt, we wonder why the same importance isn't placed on John's father.His parents are, in fact, pushed to the periphery so that they barelymatter in the decisions at hand. John's father is even more impotentthan his son; and John's mother is the only real member of the familyto stick up for her son's love, however weakened her argument might be.This angle shows how terrified Hollywood (and most of America) was ofgranting black people power in the late 60s; when blacks have powerthey reach closer into society, exert their sexual identity, and (somewould say) "corrupt" the white race. This film does an excellent job offighting this absurd viewpoint and goes to great lengths to bridge thatgap and bring two races closer together. Despite this, we still see inthe film how African Americans are subtly reduced to weakened roles,oppressed by strong white images. Not only does John nearly sacrificehappiness to appease a white couple, but he refrains from having sexualintercourse with his girlfriend…that would be too risqué. One candefinitely see how this film fits in a long line of Poiter-starringvehicles where African Americans existed in white America as weak,sexless beings. Who can blame the Blaxploitation boom for rearing itshead in the face of such a climate? On one last note I just wanted tosay how beautiful it was to watch the classic couple of Hepburn andTracy perform together for the last time; you can see the love inHepburn's adoring gaze - so sad that Tracy died soon after. Still, evenif this were their only film, they would have left behind a stronglegacy worth re-watching many years into the future.

Adam Bernstein 2012-04-28 12:00:53

AFI Top 100? Lets take a closer look:

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is the 1967 Sidney Poitier film aboutinterracial marriage that made the AFI Top 100 list. So why the mediocrerating by this reviewer and many others? I mean we have the great SidneyPoitier, as well as Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. We have the decentdirector Stanley Kramer (who did On the Beach), we have the great era of the1960s and we have a controversial theme. Well the key to the mediocrity liesin a very weak script by William Rose that doesn't ring true in manyways.John Prentice (Poitier) wants to marry Joey Drayton (Katharine Houghton) andall hell breaks loose between the parents (Tracy, Hepburn, Beah Richards,and Roy Glenn). Problem is the script tries to be politically correct whileignoring any semblance of reality or non-nerdness (to coin aword).For example: a 2-faced employee wishes the couple well with whisperingasides to Hepburn (in a WAY over the top cartoonish manner for both the wellwishes and the asides). Joey says "Mom, she was well, RUDE!" actually shewasn't rude at all, she was 2-faced...big difference lost on the writer. Andto get the lady out of their collective hair Hepburn gives her $5000.00. Notmuch of a punishment for being 2-faced.Then we get this wacky priest who drinks, sings "We can Work it Out" in themost pretentiously hip unhip touch of the film, and thinks its funny thatMr. Liberal (Tracy) has such a problem with the marriage. As far asPoitier's speech to his father, "You think of yourself as a black man, Ithink of myself as a man", I have this to say: I'm sure men have thoughtthat, but I doubt they ever said it, i.e. it came out of the writer, not outof reality. And I have no idea why they left that scene in where Tracy ramsa black guy's car and the guy yells "There oughta be a law!" It didn't makesense, it didn't fit into the film, and I suppose it was just anill-concieved joke by the writer.And Tracy's speech at the end is supposed to be so touching, and it reducesHepburn to tears...but really it's big on schmaltz and low on substance.This film is TV movie quality and made it into the AFI Top 100; hey AFI,ever hear of this other Poitier film from 1967...a little film called In theHeat of the Night? Such is my BIG GRIPE. How does this film make it whileone of the best films of the decade doesn't? Answer: Politics. This one wasabout subtle middle class racism, that one was about blatant Southernracism. Well all I can say is see both films and YOU decide.

2012-04-26 03:26:27

A Movie Worthy of Showing to my Students

I teach English in a university in China and show them English movies every Friday night to help improve their vocabulary and listening skills. It has been a problem finding good movies without bad language that will portray good values to them. This movie teaches love of our fellowman and an example of loving family support without the terrible language so many of today's movies have.

mnpollio 2012-04-25 10:37:58

A quaint pleasant film about racism...and that is the problem

It must have seemed like an incredibly daring and controversial conceptat the time. Take Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, two of the mostvenerable Hollywood stars, pair them with exciting youngAfrican-American actor Sidney Poitier, and place them in a quality filmthat tackles the serious subject of racism. Tracy and Hepburn portray aliberal older couple whose house is turned upside-down when theirdaughter Katharine Houghton shows up with her handsome physician fiancéPoitier – who she just happens to neglect to mention isAfrican-American. Naturally, there is a lot of pontificating,hand-wringing, and misunderstandings, which only get worse whenPoitier's parents arrive to discover their son's white fianceé. Withall of this talent and the subject matter, it is truly sad that thefirst adjective one can think to describe it is quaint. For a film thatconsistently makes Top 10 Lists, either Guess Who's Coming to Dinner isnot aging well or has always coasted on the talents on its cast andsubject matter alone. There are a number of things glaringly wrong withthe film, chief among them the film's insistence to play everythingsafe. Any time there is a risky moment, the film pulls its punches andglosses over everything with a wink and a smile, and then pats itselfon the back and asks for a warm fuzzy for its effort. Racism is a veryugly subject, but no one would know that watching this film as everyoneis just so darn rational and good at heart. Barring a very minorcharacter – a co-worker at Hepburn's art gallery who tries to be snarkyabout the relationship while disguising it as concern – everyone iseminently reasonable. And even that woman is relatively tame, so thatHepburn's knee-jerk reaction to fire her rather than give her a simpletongue-lashing seems a bit over-the-top. How interesting it would be ifof the respective parents that one of the women were dead set againstthe union. Yet the film plays it safe with both women (Hepburn and adignified Beah Richards) almost immediately falling into support, whilethose stubborn dads just have all the issues. It seems strange that anOscar was wasted on Hepburn for this performance in this year, whichbasically just requires her to smile and look beneficently on thecouple with dewiness. Tracy fares much better although even he haslimited notes to play with this role. Poitier has a powerful scenewhere he stands his ground against the antagonism, but naturally it isnot to a white person (with whom he shows chronic respect) but to hisfather – depicted as the most unreasonable of the bunch. Speaking ofPoitier, one really must credit him that he is saddled with a characterso ludicrously perfect and noble, and yet still manages to deliver afirst-rate performance. In the year that he also gave us career highsin this, In the Heat of the Night and To Sir With Love, exactly why didhe not warrant an Oscar nomination for any of them? Cecil Kellawayshows up as a friend/priest, and how interesting it would have been tosee a representative of the Church preaching against the union (as manySouthern pastors did), but naturally and predictably he is the spiritof support. Watching this film one would think that racism was an issueof great rarity. Even more damning towards the film is that the"brilliant" daughter played by Houghton comes off as a total dolt. Itseems inconceivable that supposedly intelligent young people in thelate 1960s in a relationship would never mention to their respectiveparents that their intended is of another race and would fail toanticipate the reaction of an older, less enlightened generation – yetthat is what the film would have us believe. Tracy does make a strongpoint in that his concerns rise from whether his daughter has trulygiven thought to the obstacles an inter-racial couple would be facing –an issue with some merit since Houghton often comes across as mentallychallenged. Any successful interracial marriages of the periodcertainly started with couples who knew the many obstacles facing them,but Houghton does not seem to acknowledge ANY obstacles, seemsoblivious to the environment surrounding her and appears to have sprungthat morning from a hermetically sealed bubble. It is incredible toimagine that she has engaged in any kind of serious discussion…onanything. So what we end up with is a quaint, pleasant film aboutracism with a tone so light and frothy that it about floats awayfeaturing idealized people whose inherent prejudices can easily beovercome by the sight of two youngsters in love. Even in the 1960s itseems that only on another planet could this be characterized asdaring.

2012-04-22 19:46:11

Don't miss this one

Simply put,this is the best movie ever made. Sidney Poitier has no equal when it comes to acting in general, and is at his best in this classic. This movie was very forward thinking in content, as it deals with an interacial relationship and the families that are asked to come to terms with it. There is no political agenda here, just a well told story. It is very light hearted and funny, which is not hard to believe with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn playing one set of parents. Isabel Sanford (remember Louise Jefferson from the Jeffersons?) is also a member of the cast. Her biting sarcasm is hysterical. The acting provided by the entire cast is wonderful, as is this gem of a movie.

gcd70 2012-04-22 13:47:59

Well-constructed controversy piece

Well constructed controversy piece from director Stanley Kramer owesits success to some sterling performances.Strength comes from Sidney Poitier as the extraordinary doctor of whomany in-laws ought to be proud. Only problem he has is his intended iswhite, and he is an African-American. Spencer Tracy is marvellous asthe prospective father-in-law who fears for her daughter's future insuch a marriage. Katherine Hepburn goes one better as the mother whosees almost immediately the powerful love the young couple have foreach other. She is a true jewel of the screen. Also a delight is CecilKellaway as the jovial Monsignor Ryan, while Hepburn's true-life nieceKatherine Houghton holds her own among this stellar cast as theexcitable bride-to-be. Support from Beah Richards, Roy E. Glenn Sr. andVirginia Christine.The topic, inter-racial relationships, probably wouldn't raise as manyeyebrows today, however Kramer's film is an interesting and enjoyablelook at this situation in the U.S.A., around 1967. Katherine Hepburnwon an Oscar, while this was to be Spencer Tracy's last film.Saturday, October 31, 1998 - Video

redflamingolingo 2012-04-22 15:51:28

Great film with impeccable performances!

Stanley Kramer's "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is an exceptional filmthat highlights the racial tensions of its era by delving into a verycontroversial issue—interracial marriage. The film is well-written,competently directed, and boasts incredible performances from its cast.Katharine Hepburn steals the show as a worried mother named CristinaDrayton who becomes quite concerned when her daughter, Joanna, bringshome an African American fiancé. Sidney Poiter stars as Dr. JohnPrentice, Joanna's fiancé, and Spencer Tracy stars as Peter Drayton,Joanna's father.One very interesting thing about "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is itsability to show the controversial issue of interracial marriage fromthe perspectives of both African Americans and Caucasians. The conflictin the film is tightened when Joanna invites John's parents over to herhouse for dinner. The audience can tell a clash between the two racesis imminent and that the collision of wills is going to occur duringdinner at Joanna's. John's parents also express concern once they findout that their son's fiancée is white. As with Joanna's father, John'sfather is the one with the most intense concern. John's mother feels asthough her son should be able to marry whoever he so chooses.It is also interesting that the main issue in the film doesn't concernwhether or not the parents are supportive of their children's happinessbut that they are concerned about what other people will think and/ordo to their children if the wedding occurs. Mr. Drayton doesn't makeany comments about Joanna and John looking odd together. In fact, hehas the highest regard for John and all of John's remarkableachievements in the medical field. Mr. Drayton's issue reflects theracial tension that was present in the 1960s. He feels as though bothhis daughter and John are at risk and that they could easily be killedas a result of their different pigmentations. Mr. Prentice feels thesame way, as his concerns are voiced to John in a very intense scenenear the end of the film.At the end of the film, though, Mr. Drayton comes to the conclusionthat Joanna should marry John on the grounds that a love worth fightingfor is a love worth starting. In a moving and beautiful speech, hetells everyone, including John's parents, that marriage is a constantfight and that without the bad times the good times are unable to beappreciated. He reflects on his own life and his marriage with Mrs.Drayton. This scene beings a certain life to the film's conclusion thatsums up the racial tensions in the film. It seems as though love isable to exist between two races regardless of the color of one's skin.If one cannot fight for that which he or she most longs, then exactlywhat is the purpose of life? Life is a struggle, a constant battle thatone wages against one's self and the world. Mr. Drayton accepts thefact that his daughter will be placed in harm's way and that she willbe subjected to ridicule and harassment, but he realizes that love isworth such impediments.In summary: thought-provoking and well-acted film that is quitefantastic.

bandw 2012-04-22 08:50:01

Manipulative and preachy, but not without interest

It was not until the year this film was released that the U.S. SupremeCourt struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in the Loving vs.Virginia case. At that time there were sixteen states with such laws onthe books, so interracial marriage was controversial in 1967, perhapsnot unlike the topic of gay marriage in 2006. The story is of Joanna and John (Katharine Houghton and Sidney Poitier)showing up unexpectedly at Joanna's parents' house to announce thatthey are to get married. Joanna's dad Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) is awealthy, liberal newspaper man and Christina (Katharine Hepburn) is hisintellectual, progressive wife. John's parents enter the picture aswell as a priest and the Drayton's black maid. There are concerns allround about this proposed interracial marriage and, in an interestingtwist, it's the maid who is initially the most vocal about it. Butultimately it's the fathers who are the final hold-outs. Things mayhave changed a lot in the last fifty years but I think that, withoutmuch modification, the situation in this movie could happen today. Infact I found the most dated thing in this movie to be the score. We getsome generic 60s happy-music-for-film and the sappy "The Glory ofLove."This movie has the feel of the filming of a stage play with most of theaction taking place in the Drayton's house. The characters convenientlymove in and out of the action leaving two or three people in a scene ata time for pivotal dialog.I can understand someone's ripping into this, but I stopped tallyingthe plot holes and being put-off by the stereotypical roles and justsat back and enjoyed it. Poitier is not called on to do much more thanbe a model citizen, but, as usual, Tracy and Hepburn are delightfultogether (Tracy was dead by the time this was released).The theme of occasionally having to actually live up to your principlesin challenging situations is an interesting one and Mr. Drayton isforced to face that dilemma here, though his anguish is a bit sugarcoated. No big surprises with this, but it's entertaining and not withoutcontent.