MovieChat Forums > Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) Discussion > Rings False

Rings False

posted 11 years ago by shannonsspirit
24 replies | jump to latest

There is something smug, pretentious about this movie. Maybe it tries too hard. There is not a scene or moment of dialogue that doesn't scream to be understood, that doesn't demand tolerance or defy racism.

Joey, the bride-to-be, seems the worst of all. She flaunts a proposed marriage to her parents after a ten day relationship. What parent wouldn't express concern after so brief a courtship. She walks around obnoxiously satisfied that there will be no raised eyebrows. I don't believe that it is the innocence of pure love or that she is oblivious to the additional component of racial differences. She comes off as manipulative and spoiled. And I feel sorry for the groom.

Then there is the absurdity of the priest's immediate acceptance. Once again, forget the racial issue. The Catholic Church has a very serious stance on marriage. Counseling is required before any marriage can take place. (I know they are not Catholic, but the priest wouldn't put aside his beliefs and the doctrine of the church so readily)

Then the mothers focusing on the love of their children who have known one another for ten days, as though it were some deeply spiritual communion between two souls. And they want this marriage between basically two strangers and call it love.

It would have been better if not every scene was so contrived to force the issue of racism when, the only glaring issue is the length of time the bride and groom have known one another.

[–] Siriry 11 years ago

Joey comes off as totally clueless, it's impossible to be that dense.

Siri

Don't Make Me Have to Release the Flying Monkeys!

[–] shannonsspirit 10 years ago

Yep, which is why I think she is manipulative and spoiled.

[–] mark-1589 10 years ago

Shannonsspirit, your comment is spot on. While I agree with the values Kramer was espousing, this film is more advocacy than cinema, the plot is horribly contrived, and the dialogue is not used to introduce us better to the characters, rather to pontificate.

I wrote a longer post sometime back about the final speech, but nobody has seen fit to comment (maybe they were just all too big Tracy fans). Perhaps you would be interested to give your reaction:

"Spencer Tracy was great in anything, but I have some qualms about the praise heaped on this his final speech in film. I did not like this speech as written: I considered it condescending in the extreme. The film was meant to be somehow "progressive", in that it endorsed love over social convention (and wrongheaded social convention at that, but an extremely long-standing and powerful one). However, if you listen to Tracy's speech, it takes an extremely white-male perspective on matters (and I am saying this as a white male), essentially saying, inter-racial marriage is okay because the white "massuh" approved it. To be honest, I have problems with the entire script and story-line: the plot is incredibly artificial (we have one day to decide about our lives, for no particular reason other than a plane schedule and the need to create the dramatic tension that allow for "meaningful" speechifying, which is not genuine drama). So the characters go about chattering back and forth all day long, with no real advancement of the plot or their positions. The only person that seems to have a genuine and reasonable position is Sydney Poitier's mother. Finally, out of the blue and for no particular reason, Spencer Tracy adopts her position as his own (insulting her in the process, but suggesting she could not be more wrong for criticizing the position he had held until that moment and then suddenly and inexplicably changed - oh, that means she had been RIGHT). So the upshot seems to be that they all talk back and forth toward no purpose, but the key turn in the plot is when Big Daddy makes his decision, announces it to the rest, and decides the issue. I'm sorry, but that was hardly a clarion call for racial and gender equality."

[–] shannonsspirit 10 years ago

I agree completely with your well-stated opinion. Don't know how it was received in it's day; but, I felt, awkward and embarrassed with the "white" condescending attitude and "progressive" propaganda from the daughter, as well.

[–] bossat2822 10 years ago

Mark 1589

You're spot on Spencer Tracy's condemsating tone. BUT that was commonplace in movies/shows in the 60s-70s and to a degree the 80s. Everything's ok after the white man's seal of approval. I was a whopping one year old when this was released, but I believe this would have been the only way to have this speech for the time frame.

[–] shannonsspirit 10 years ago

"Massuh" exactly, and simultaneously liberal and sel-righteous

[–] eolloe 10 years ago

Mark-1589, I hear where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain extent.

On the other hand, it could be argued that John had set the terms in such a way that Drayton's approval had to be secured for there to be any hope for a happy ending, from the perspective of John and Joey. It was implied that John would be willing to take a stand against his own parents, if they were opposed, but he wouldn't commit to the marriage if Joey's parents were opposed, because, as he explained, he couldn't bear to see a rift develop between Joey and her parents over the marriage. And since Joey's mother was open to the idea of the marriage, that left Joey's father's opposition being the deciding factor.

(And incidentally, the monsignor was also a white male, and he was on-board from the beginning.)

[–] mark-1589 10 years ago

To eolleo: I pointed out in my comment that I found the plot and script entirely artificial and contrived, so the fact that John Prentis added that extra pressure onto the Drayton's is part of that criticism.

Your last comment mystifies me: I was not suggesting that the white male position generically was to be against interracial marriage. What I was suggesting about the white male perspective was the assumption that his views would be decisive and settle the matter.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mark-1589 10 years ago

freedomtrain71 wrote: "As a white male in the film, whose perspective would you suggest he take?"

I don't think you quite understood my point. Of course, as a white male, he will have the perspective of a white male, but my point was that he was taking the perspective of a white male in the traditional, domineering sense: he denigrated other peoples' views and positions and basically took the attitude that, "Now that I have decided, the issue is settled." It struck me as a strange way to conclude a groundbreaking film on the issue of equality between the races.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

...Tracy's speech...essentially saying, inter-racial marriage is okay because the white "massuh" approved it.

That's why HE thinks it's okay? I don't know where you're getting that from, Mark-1589. Where are you finding it in his final speech? To me he's saying, it's okay because human decency approves it.

I agree that the movie itself might be sending the message you're describing, in a symbolic way, by making his speech the final word: Look, folks, Spencer Tracy approves of interracial marriage, so, for heaven's sake, all of you out there in 1967 America should accept it, too! Yes, there is a deference to what the white male authority figure finally decides... but that's typical of mainstream American movies (a reflection of society itself) back then! And part of Tracy's character's gravitas is due to his social and career stature, his long experience as a newspaper editor who's known to have a strong social conscience. The others are not merely thinking, "Oh, because he's the old white guy, we automatically defer to his view, regardless of what kind of person he is." That reading of it is just too easy, too simplistic.

This movie came out when deference to White Male Authority was already starting to be undermined in the next generation of American movies, though there were many exceptions and today there still are-- hardly a surprise, especially when you see who's running the movie biz. (The weight given to Tracy's final speech reminded me of how his police-captain character was treated with similar deference by his subordinates in "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World"... until he pulled out his 'joker in the deck'. This may be a case where the movie industry, and the public, have so much sentimental affection for a highly esteemed veteran actor/star that they grant a bit too much unquestioned authority to the characters the actor is playing. Stanley Kramer, well aware that Tracy's health was fading fast, may have been guilty of that here.)

In any case, the flaws in the story and script as discussed in this thread are certainly there, but the difference with me is, I don't think any of them are fatal.

[–] movieghoul 9 years ago

Doesn't he say at one point that it doesn't really matter what the hell he thinks about it?

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

Doesn't he say at one point that it doesn't really matter what the hell he thinks about it?

I believe so, yes.

[–] shannonsspirit 10 years ago

Yes, maybe Hepburn could have pulled off what Tracy, in his excessively tolerant and wise tone, could not. But, I don't know

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 10 years ago

The whole movie was absurd and trite. I saw it when originally released. Even stood in a line to see it with my sister. Okay, it was the 60's. It was supposed to be some BFD that they made a film about an interracial couple. I can't think of one really good film that has ever dealt with the topic. 2015 and movies about "race" have all been stupid, corny, or insulting. The especially bad ones have been the ones about "tragic mulattoes".

_______________________________________
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!

Maximus Decimus Meridius

[–] shannonsspirit 10 years ago

I think you are right. Maybe because racism is such an embarrassment; it's tricky to exploit in film.

[–] bradford-1 9 years ago

For a more realistic 1960s film on interracial romance, I suggest you seek out the little-known ONE POTATO, TWO POTATO, released in 1964. Directed by Larry Peerce and starring Barbara Barrie & Bernie Hamilton.
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] fanaticita 9 years ago

Sydney says "It's not that our color difference doesn't matter to her, she (joey)doesn't seem to think there is any difference." I had to question this line because if it was true I think Joey was missing something very important. The difference should be acknowledged, respected, and loved. To say there is no difference is disrespectful, ignorant, and foolish. It's like saying, Oh, it doesn't matter to me if he's black. It should matter!!! The race, culture, history of another person matters!

[–] shannonsspirit 9 years ago

I agree that a person's cultural heritage is valuable and should be acknowledged. However, I think the color of skin (though linked to climate and regions throughout the world) is a superficial characteristic and would have no meaning between people who knew one another. So, Joey would,presumably, not notice or care about the color of his skin in much the same way she might not notice the color of his shirt. Culture and skin color are no more related than color and taste or touch or anything with substance. Culture is about values. Color is about sun and temperature.

[–] fanaticita 9 years ago

One would hope that is the case. But race, people of color, etc. have become quite viral in the news, the press, social media. . .. . I wish it were not the case. It's getting worse, not better. . . .

I'm watching the film called The Help which was made recently, but takes place in approx. the same era as GWCTD. It's horrifying. . . .

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movies789 9 years ago

Very well said, shannonsspirit.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

absolutely agree. the absurdly short length of time they have known each other is the big issue. also, i think the huge intellectual disparity between them. Why does this brainy doctor want to marry this naive young girl?