Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn (who won the Academy Award® for Best Actress for her performance) are unforgettable as perplexed parents in this landmark 1967 movie about mixed marriage. Joanna (Katharine Houghton), the beautiful daughter of crusading publisher Matthew Drayton (Tracy) and his patrician wife Christina (Hepburn), returns home with her new fiance John Prentice (Sidney Poitier), a distinguished black doctor. Christina accepts her daughter's decision to marry John, but Matthew is shocked by this interracial union; the doctor's parents are equally dismayed. Both families must sit down face to face and examine each other's level of intolerance. In Guess Who's Coming to Dinner,director Stanley Kramer has created a masterful study of society's prejudices. Product Description

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. October 31, 2008

Brilliant and ageless!

I watched years ago when it first came out and keep on watching it each time I see it on TV. Now I own the video. A pure classic, with brilliant actors, some that we will miss forever. Deep and wonderful movie. Sidney Poitier is a class act! A four-star movie. October 3, 2008

Thematic still applicable today; great movie

"Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" is nothing short of fantastic. It is funny, smart, brilliant, thoughtful, and altogether great. The performances by Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier and Katherine Hepburn were phenomenal. I especially liked the performances by Hepburn and Tracy as their characters were confronted by their own unconscious racism and discrimination when they though they were extremely liberal.

This couple raised a daughter, Joanna, to be extremely liberal and to believe in the equality of the races. But, it is still a shock to them when their daughter brings home a black man, Dr. Prentiss, as the man she wants to marry. This family must then confront the schemes and ideas they had of themselves and of their views. The couple, played by Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton, must also face the criticism of his parent, who is also against this biracial engagement, and also the housekeeper, a black woman, who also is against them. The movie is brilliant in that it challenges not only the characters, but ourselves, about our so-called liberalism, and it does it in a very funny way. In retrospect, I can only imagine what this movie meant for its time; but, let us not forget what it still does and how the thematic of this film is still applicable to this day. September 5, 2008

A Dated Film But Still Worth Watching

In this 1967 film directed by Stanley Kramer at one point Spencer Tracy (Matthew Drayton) asks Sidney Poitier (John Prentice, M.D.) what will become of their children if he marries their daughter Katharine Drayton (Joanna). He responds that Joanna believes they will become president but he would settle for secretary of state. Her prophecy has already come true in part since the United States has now had two secretarys of state who are African American and a black man now all but has the Democratic nomination for president sewn up. The film is dated and wouldn't make much sense if set in the present. In 1967, however, a movie about an interracial marriage was certainly one that raised eyebrows.

The rather thin plot is saved by the acting of three Academy Award winners, Tracey, Poitier and Hepburn-- she received a best actress award for her performance here-- all of whom give brilliant performances. Although I saw the film in 1967 I still remembered after all these years Tracy's speech near the end of the movie when he informs Poitier that, yes, he does remember what it was like to be madly in love at a young age. Of course the speech is even more poignant in retrospect since this was the last film Hepburn and Tracy ever made together for he died a few days after the film was completed. So when Hepburn's eyes teared up during his comments, we suspect that she wasn't acting at all.

It was not unusual in the 1960's-- or even today for that matter-- for liberals not to always practice what they preached. Tracy plays a newspaper editor in San Francisco known and respected for his liberal views about race. It's the old "not my daughter" or "not in my back yard" syndrome.

Occasionally the film relies on stereotypes-- Tillie, the cook and housekeeper-- for instance; and while it is not Mr. Kramer's best movie, it is certainly worth seeing again. I'd give it an A minus. August 7, 2008

Pretty Good

Well, I finally sat down and watched this movie. For it's time, I'm sure this was really pushing the envelope. I think it's kind of funny that an interracial couple meet in Hawaii and the white woman believes their children will grow up to be President. (Obama's parent's maybe?) Anyway, the performances were good...except for Katherine Houghton (Hepburn's niece.) I thought that she was too naive by half and listening to her made me cringe.. She was supposed to be 23 but she really acts 16. It didn't come across as mature love at all. Plus, I'd like it if Poitier wasn't a doctor. Why couldn't he have been the mailman or the manual laborer? There we would really be turning up the heat. The timeline seemed contrieved. There really wasn't a reason the couldn't wait 6 months. Truly, for the subject matter, the movie played it safe...and to that end I was a little disappointed, but this is still a movie worth seeing.


July 31, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...