|Page 1 of 35:||          |
|Index||349 reviews in total|
It's so easy to criticize this film. The soundtrack from DeVol is *awful*.
The film is incredibly dated and there are some scenes, (the scene with the
delivery boy and the ice cream shop), that are unbearable, like something
out of a Gidget film.
Of course the other problem with this film, 33 years after its production, is who in the year 2000, would be upset about their daughter marrying a Yale educated Doctor?
However, despite all this, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a great film. The film is wonderful because it was the last film made by one of Hollywood's greatest duos, Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy.
This film was made while Spencer Tracy was dying. Spencer had to put his entire salary in escrow in order for the film company to allow him to do the film.
So why did Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy agree to do this film, without immediate payment? Because it's a film about forbidden love, it's a film about loving someone no matter what society thinks, or what the rules are. This is something Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn knew a great deal about.
What makes this film outstanding is, by the end of the film you realize, Kate and Spencer are not even acting they are relaying their feelings about each other, through the film. Once you catch that, the drama of the final few scenes is just unparalleled and Spencer's final speech, about his love for Kate (Christina), can drive even the most twisted soul to tears.
A few things to catch in this film, watch Kate's face when Spencer recites the line, 'screw what the rest of the world thinks about your love'...those are real tears. Watch Spencer Tracey as he paces back and forth on the terrace near the end of the film. He realizes he is about to begin one of the last scenes he will ever film. He's line 'well I'll be a son of a bitch'...is more a realization he's about to make his last grandstand on the big screen, in his entire career.
Spencer Tracy is one of America's greatest actors. This is his last triumph. For that reason alone, it's a true cinematic treasure.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner takes place during the course of one day
as two families struggle to overcome their concerns about the
interracial marriage of their children. This film is a treat for the
eyes with lovely sets and beautiful people. It also has a nice 1960's
feel that is reinforced by sophisticated wardrobing and an "easy
listening" soundtrack--featuring The Glory of Love as the signature
tune. The film relies very heavily on the use of dialog and reflects
the elegance of a time when people were entertained by stimulating
conversation. The San Francisco backdrop also is the perfect setting
for a movie that challenged racial convention.
But there are a few serious flaws. This is an introductory role for Katharine Houghton (Hepburn's niece) who plays Sidney Portier's fiancé--Johanna Drayton. Her inexperience is apparent, particularly in comparison to heavyweights Portier, Tracy and Hepburn and as a result, she is unconvincing in the part. Moreover, her character is not well-written or well-developed which makes it difficult to understand why Sidney Portier's character--John Prentice-would fall in love with a woman who appears to have so little to offer intellectually --given his significant professional achievements as a doctor. One also must ask why it was necessary for his character to be cast as a doctor in order to be seen as an acceptable partner for a young white woman who had not really accomplished anything accept being born into a privileged family. The answer is simple. Making Prentice a doctor-and not just any doctor-but a world renowned expert in tropical medicine, made the interracial relationship more acceptable to white audiences during the 1960s.
The other cast members are outstanding and the on-screen chemistry phenomenal. Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton) and Spencer Tracy (Newspaper Publisher Matt Drayton) deliver brilliant performances as Johanna's parents. John Prentice's modest working class parents are played with great dignity by Beah Richards and Roy E. Glen. Mrs. Prentice and Mrs. Drayton favor the marriage and both characters provide passionate, articulate arguments as to why their husbands should agree. But their husbands voice serious objections and the families spend the evening in intense discussions over the issue, accurately reflecting the racial fears that existed 40 years ago. Prentice's father reminds him that in many states interracial marriage is illegal and that he is "getting out of line." There are also a number of very memorable and funny lines. In the scene in which Matt Drayton wonders why "the colored kids dance better than the white kids", Portier's response is classic--"you dance the Watusi, but we are the Watusi!"(For readers under 40, the Watusi was a popular dance in the 1960s and also an African tribe). Cecil Kelloway, who plays friend of the family, Monsignor Ryan, deftly brings a sense of humor and moral guidance that is effective because it is not "preachy". He challenges Matt Drayton's liberal credentials and suggests that Drayton's misgivings about his daughter marrying a black man reveal his hypocrisy. Isabel Sanford ("Weezy from The Jeffersons TV program) plays the feisty maid of the Draytons.
It's been said that in the final scene Tracy--who was very ill at the time and who died shortly after the movie was completed--delivered one of the longest soliloquies in American film history, in only one take. Katherine Helpurn was clearly so moved by the scene that it's hard to believe that she is just acting as her eyes brim with tears.
Although the some of the sentiments are dated, this film is highly entertaining, and provides a rare opportunity to experience outstanding performances from six gifted actors who bring compassion and depth to Stanley Kramer's film. Its' angst relative to interracial marriage also reminds us of how far we have not come.
Seeing this film for the first time more than thirty years after it was
made, I was struck by the theme's endurance in time. It remains relevant
today, even if not to the same degree. And even though I'm almost thirty
years old, I can say with mixed emotions of embarrassment and vindication,
that Spencer Tracy taught me a better way to tie a tie. Who's says movies
don't teach you anything?
The film is dated, to be sure, by many things, from clothing to music, cars and expressions. At times the dialogue seemed a bit hokey, and others, simply brilliant. I swear, I half expected an entourage of go-go dancers to spontaneously burst through the streets of San Francisco. And if I never hear the "Story Of Love" ever again in my life, it would be too soon.
But I can't help but think that the more things change in thirty years, sometimes they remain the same. Certainly there's more examples of interracial couples today than thirty years ago, and therefore a greater degree of tolerance, but for a lot of narrow-minded individuals, it's still as controversial or "appalling" as it was thirty years ago.
Some of the lines actually had me laughing out loud, enjoying the moment as it follows into another well complimented scene. I'm speaking in particular of the scene where Katharine Hepburn fires her employee for her prejudicial views, and basically everything that follows that scene for the next five minutes.
I try my best to imagine what it would be like to be in the shoes of any character in the film, to appreciate what it might've been like for them, in that time, and while I think I can muster an inkling, I don't think my creativity is up to a challenge of that nature. And I think that ultimately, that's a good thing, and I'm grateful to those who came before.
Here's a great way to spend an afternoon: watching some of the greatest
actors of all time in a film that still has relevance today. Such a
cast! Hepburn is wonderful as always, very energetic, with no trace of
the shakiness of her later years.
Tracy, gruff, the way most probably remember him - sort of a ratcheted up version of the roles he played with Hepburn in earlier years. His ill health is obvious though to the careful observer: voice a little weak at times, and Tracy's step missing the "spring" of his earlier films. The fact that this his last film was so memorable, and of such quality just adds to his legend.
Potier of course turns in a great performance, impeccable as always.
Watch for Isabel Sanford, ("The Jefferson's") particularly the one memorable scene where she explains to Potier's character just what "black power" really is.
Cecil Kellaway sparkles as Monsignor Ryan, and Beah Richards and Roy Glenn, as the parents to Potier's character, mirror Hepburn and Tracy.
Indeed, there is so much real honest-to-god acting talent concentrated in this movie, it seems almost unfair, what I'm about to say: Katharine Houghton, as 'Joey' is the only character with only 2 dimensions. She's the ever-smiling, but clueless daughter and object of Dr. Prentice' affection. She's such a Pollyanna, and remains oblivious to the drama going on all around her, and everyone else conspires to keep her in the dark throughout the entire film. (No wonder her father is concerned.) I think it's fair to say that Houghton's character is the one weak spot in this otherwise excellent film.
That said, this is a wonderful film that I will always watch when it comes on. It's such a treat to watch these legendary actors at work. I highly recommend it.
By the way, there's no glass in Spencer's eyeglasses during the ending monologue, is there he's wearing only frames, right?
I went to see it for the first time with my grandmother when I was 17. I loved it but it felt strange to me because my grandmother after 22 years of widowhood, had remarried to an African American man. He had become a blessing in my grandmother's life and in ours. How could Spencer Tracy of all people be against the union? After the movie we went to dinner and my grandmother answered all my questions with a single answer that's been with me always and that sometimes explains absurdities like Charlottesville 2017 - "Society, humanity doesn't evolve all at the same time" Of course Grandma', you were right. Watching Guess Who's Coming To Dinner in 2017 was an experience. Is not that Spencer Tracy is against their union, - Tracy was only worried to what his daughter was going to face 1967 - He was thinking like a father and not like a thinking, evolved liberal. On the other hand, Roy Glenn, Sidney Poitier's father objects to his son marrying a white girl. Sidney Poitier stops him by saying "Dad, you see yourself as a colored man, I see myself as a man" Was it as didactic as it sounds in 1967? Who cares? The message was delivered - I also was so moved to see Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy together for the last time and they knew it was for the last time. Sidney Poitier is superb as the messenger who points at the absurdity of racism. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is a delicious document of its day.
Hmmm. I'm torn about this movie but I guess overall I find it too out
of balance to work as other than as an historical piece.
The things I like about it? The sound-stage version of an outrageous San Francisco home. (A bridge to bridge view from the patio, which is not to be confused with the separate garden. Filled with expensive art. If such a place existed what would it cost today? $10 million? $15 million - but when the parents go out for ice cream they drive what would be a sort of old looking small to mid-sized car. Ah, Hollywood!) Seeing Isobel Sanford in something that doesn't involve Sherman Helmsley. Katharine Hepburn going through four slightly-oddball costumes over about 9 hours of movie time. (And what is with her and her choice of hats?!?) The bizarro, off-kilter scene with the dancing delivery boy.
The things I don't like? Well first and foremost the fact that this movie is set up so as to eliminate any sense of the REAL complexities of life. Poitier's character is not just a great guy, he is a physician. Wait, no ... not just a physician but one who has been on the faculty of some of the best medical schools...AND who has devoted his career to public health AND who is internationally well-known. Gosh, you think, is there ANY white man that Joanna might ever meet who could be as well-credentialled as him? And Joanna, we are told, has always been HAPPY!!! as a baby, as a child, as a teen, in college. Why, she's just the most perfect thing. Her parents? Unabashed liberals. Generous and kind to the help (even giving a $5000 bonus to an employee being fired.) His parents? Sober and hard-working. Sacrificing for their son. Kind and loving.
Wouldn't it be nice to see at least one of the parents being SOMEWHAT unpleasant?
Kramer just sets things up in a way where there is no real tension in the movie. We know Tracy and Hepburn's characters are too good to turn into bigots and that they are such great parents that their daughter's happiness is all that will matter. They may be friends with a Catholic monseigneur (though a point is made to say at least twice that they aren't Roman Catholics, what's that about?) but he is the most liberal happy-go-lucky priest that existed in the 1960's and raises not a single objection to interracial marriage (uncharacteristic of the Irish priests I knew of from the 60s --- but maybe it's because he's so busy drinking Scotch -- if you'll excuse THAT offensive Irish stereotype in a movie about prejudice.)
The look and feel of the movie is a little odd, because of the juxtaposition of real locations (SFO, the ice cream store) with the very "faux" stage set style used in scenes like the driveway in front of the house. For a movie that is supposed to be exploring the gritty reality of racism in America, seeing someone drive a phony delivery truck past the fake plants outside the fake house seems particularly jarring and inappropriate.
And of course, everyone is rich or well-to-do. Even the retired postal worker and his wife can afford to fly up to SF on a last minute airfare (which were even less cheap back in the 1960s than they are today) and, we are assured, can afford to fly to Geneva for the wedding? So ultimately their "problems" about love and marriage seem less important, because we don't really worry that John or Joanna's lives will be seriously crippled if they don't marry --- they are both so VERY charming, successful, self-directed and fulfilled that we know that they would find someone else if it came to that.
(For that matter, no one seems too bothered by the more substantial problem, which is that people who fall in love "in 20 minutes" and plan to marry only weeks after meeting, are quite likely to find themselves unhappily stuck with a person they knew nothing about -- regardless of their color.)
And poor Sydney Poitier, who I think was probably a good actor but seemed to have to sacrifice his talent on the cross of being the first great cross-over black movie actor --- always playing someone who is whiter than the white folks around him, usually better spoken, always smarter, always having to deliver the over-written, didactic speech about how times are changing for the black man, and never allowed to use a contraction in a sentence, lest he sound too ethnic. I find his acting to be terribly mannered most of the time, but I think that is mostly because of the straight-jacket forced on him by the types of roles he played in the 1960s.
So the movie just feels very manufactured --- structured so that every point of view or objection will be raised but rationally batted aside and that -- less than 12 hours after they show up, the couple will head off to Switzerland with a family united behind them and the audience can all leave the theater feeling that love conquers all and dealing with racism is just a matter of having a good conversation over drinks.
I feel sorry for John Seal, the reviewer above, for his views on this movie, as well as his views on interracial marriage. I think this movie is excellent, I enjoyed the performances of all the actors and the message is important. Racial prejudice was common in 1967, and the very first interracial kiss on TV was still to come (it happened in 1969 on Star Trek). People needed to hear the message this movie contains, that color and race are not something that should prevent two people who love each other from marrying. I am a white American married to a Japanese female and I am proud that our children will grow up to live in a world where people have tolerance for different cultures and beliefs. It is sad to watch Spencer Tracy in this movie, knowing he died weeks after it was made. But it was nice that he could act with Katherine Hepburn, the love of his life, so close to his death. That must have made him happy.
I'm going to speak frankly.
As a person who is by no means a leftist or a liberal, I found this film to be very moving. Most people who review the film I assume are liberals, so I guess I offer a different perspective.
For me, this is a sad film. It is sad because the vision of America that the liberals Tracy and Hepburn's characters have here just did not pan out. The moment when Poitier's character says "you see yourself as a colored man, but I see myself as a man" shows just what sort of society these people imagined we would have, and it's tragic that history did not turn out that way.
From the vantage point of 2017, race relations are worse than ever before. With SJWs, Affirmative Action, crime in the inner cities, anti-white racism, immigration problems etc, the vision that race would no longer matter just simply did not pan out. As whites today this film can only make us sad. It's tragic.
I almost wish things did turn out that way, that race in America could have become a nonfactor and that none of the crazy problems we face today exist, but they do. And so viewing this film in retrospect, it seems so innocent and naive in a tragic way.
Beautifully filmed with a San Francisco location and a lovely soundtrack, this is by all means a tremendous film, and I probably like it a little more than snotty liberals who probably can find this or that reason to view this film which to me seems progressive as "reactionary."
Marriage is all about the one you love, it does not matter the race. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, according to Stanley Kramer, he portray the interracial marriage and show the idealism of two couple difference racial. Therefore, the movie itself does not give a chance for the couple to know their love, for-example there is only one shot that shows lips of Dr. Prentice and Joanna meet together. However, in 1960s it was a period political movements of racial segregation, though it was lawful for interracial marriage. Eventually, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, came on the prep time and when the couple plan to meet there future in-laws they believe it might be difficult for the family to accept there relationship. Nevertheless, Acting was very amazing accompany by Katherine Hepburn, Tracy Spencer, Katherine Houghton and Sidney Poitier. Moreover, the movie was very successful on cultural influence and as a results of today's interracial marriage.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
People have, over the years, accused this film of making Sidney Poitier's character so flawless beyond a reasonable doubt that there would be no other way to accept his impending marriage (in the movie) to Katharine Houghton without making it a racial issue. The thing is, most people forget -- had Poitier been just a regular guy who had a less than stellar job, and been less than beautiful, this story would have ended up in the recycling bin. Just as gay people or Hispanics today, in order to create positive stories about themselves, have to idealize their characters to a god-like level, the same thing had to be done back then. And it was also appropriate to have not one, but two confrontation scenes: one with Poitier and Roy Glenn -- father and son -- and one with Beah Richards and Spencer, more subtle but equally poignant. GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER is a film that resonated back then despite its deadline plot and tidy ending because it came at the right time and needed a positive resolution. I doubt audiences back then would respond to any other. Although it would not shock me if people then would be thinking Hollywood had finally lost its edge with this one. It was a keen decision to have Kate and Spencer be the leads because in doing so they were assuring not only box-office draw -- people would be returning to watch their favorite unmarried couple bicker, lovingly, yet again -- but a strong statement. After all, these two have the biggest subtext in the entire film: they had had their own iconoclastic relationship, it was coming to a close, and one only had to see Kate's expression just to a side of Spence's shoulder as he gave his closing speech. She was sitting at the right of the screen, her eyes glistening with tears, feeling the time was close, knowing just how much they loved each other even to the end. On this element only -- the final, lingering shot of Kate and Spence embracing each other, getting ready for dinner and an uneasy future, GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER is perfect.
|Page 1 of 35:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|