I watch a lot of old movies. In fact, I watch too many old movies to write Retro-Reviews on every old movie I see, but whenever an old movie inspires me to write a review, you will see it in the Retro-Review section. Unfortunately though, most people don't watch a lot of old movies. For many people, if a movie (like history) happened before they were born, it doesn't matter, and this is a shame, because some of the greatest movies of all-time are very old films.
In today's world of Facebook and Twitter (I'm starting to sound like I am 80), movies with antiquated ideas, no explosions or sex, or shots without cuts every five seconds may be a little too much to ask of an audience, but that's sort of the point. I have always felt that movies, whether they are about some historical event or are simply a window to another place and time, are the best way to learn about history. The thing that many people fail to realize is that as much as things have changed, people have really stayed the same.
There is no doubt that our culture has changed drastically over the years. People don't say things like, "the bee's knees", or "the cat's meow" (actually I'm not sure many people ever said that), or even "groovy" and "radical" anymore. And yes, people in the past were much more censored in what they could say and the things they could show and talk about, but the emotional motivations of people were the same. The reason they seem so different, is people conformed to the norms of society in their day, just like most people today conform to the norms of today's society.
At this point, I'm sure many of you are thinking, "We get that you like old movies. Now shut the hell up and get to the review." I actually do sympathize with you, so I will get off my soapbox and get to the review.
1967's "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is one of the many Stanley Kramer films that comes with a social message in its fortune cookie. From movies like "On the Beach" (nuclear weapons will destroy us all), to "The Defiant Ones" (racism is wrong), to "Inherit the Wind" (evolution is the only logical explanation), to "Judgment at Nuremberg" (all Germans are inhuman monsters that deserve to be executed), Kramer's films are just as much (if not more so) about the message than the story. In this case, the social choice-du-jour for "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is inter-racial marriage, which was illegal in many states at the time.
With my own existentialist leanings, I am not very big on movies that are mostly about the message, even if it is a message that I agree with. My own personal preferences aside though, I do think that there are some objective problems that "message movies" tend to run into. Mostly, the script in these movies tends to manipulate characters in unrealistic ways and relies on convoluted situations to make its point. Unfortunately, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" does not stay clear of these problems.
The script tells the story of an inter-racial couple, played by Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton (Katherine Hepburn's niece), who, after few wistful days in Hawaii that we never see, decide to get married. The only problem with this happily ever after scenario is that it takes place in racist 1960's America where inter-racial is not looked to kindly on. Despite this (or unaware of this in Houghton's case), the couple are determined to get married, so they fly to San Francisco to get the approval of Houghton's parents (Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy). The film then deals with the initial shock and reaction of Hepburn's and Tracy's liberal characters (there is a very deliberate picture of FDR on Tracy's desk just in case you miss the twenty or so times we here how open-minded the characters are) and how both characters, and then eventually Poitier's parents, try to come to terms with the couple's engagement.
The problem with the script is that it unnecessarily relies on contrivances to increase the drama. Houghton's character does not even consider telling her parents that her new boyfriend is black for the express purpose of the audience seeing the shock on the faces of Hepburn and Tracy the first time they meet Poitier. The film also concocts some ridiculous reason why Poitier must leave that night, leaving Hepburn and Tracy only a few hours to digest the news of their daughters sudden engagement, and decide whether they should give their approval to the marriage (a tough task regardless of the boyfriends race). There are also some scenes that just don't belong in the film. In particular, there is a short scene where Poitier mentally undresses a young black women who helps around the house. For a film whose sole purpose is to break down the walls of racial bigotry, it seems strange to have a scene that seemingly reinforces the 'black-man womanizer" stereo-type. The only other explanation I can think of is that the filmmakers wanted to show that Poitier's character is not solely attracted to white women, but if that was the purpose of this scene, it is still a pretty racist explanation for a film fighting for racial tolerance.
Luckily for the film though, it has an ace up its sleeve: the acting. The acting by the three leads (Hepburn, Poitier, and especially Tracy) is so impressive, that even with the weaknesses in the script, they are able to create a compelling drama. As hard as the screenplay tries to dehumanize the characters into tools of social commentary, the actors rise above it to find real human emotions. The characters they create in the film are much more than simple stereotypes, and this gives you the chance to sympathize with them. I don't think I have ever seen a film that owed so much to its actors.
The one chink in the acting ensemble's armor is the performance by Houghton. It is true that the part is terribly written, but her performance creates a character who is so peppy and naive as to be totally unrecognizable as a living human being. Considering that she is Katherine Hepburn's niece, and Katherine Hepburn put up some of her own money to finance the film, I don't think she won this part on sheer ability.
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" was a popular film with the Academy at time, nominated for ten Oscars (including Best Picture) and winning Katherine Hepburn her second Academy Award. While I have some pretty big reservations with the movie, and don't think it earned the level of praise it received from the Academy, the performances from the three leads turn what would be a clunky social moral tale into a genuinely interesting drama. I sure hope Hepburn, Poitier, and Tracy made a lot of cash for this film, because they earned every cent of it.
Rating: 8/10
Christopher Lominac
No comments:
Post a Comment