Stanley Kramer's 1967 classic “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner” is one of the important american films dealing with racism. It left a lasting impact on the popular and political culture of its time much of which can still be felt today. A contemporary analysis of this movie may yield some interesting and useful insights into our current race politics. I contend that the film represented an important and deliberate step in the right direction for its time, but that it also can serve now to coddle and congratulate the new liberal racism of the so-called “post-civil rights” era. The news for contemporary viewers isn't all bad though, as the film uses the its cross-section of characters to explore the intersectional power dynamics of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, and Capitalism in a way that's subtle, but surprisingly clear if you look for it.
“Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?” is first and foremost about the character of Matt Drayton (a white 60-something liberal newspaper editor). It's secondary protagonist is his daughter's intended husband Dr. John Prentice (an accomplished black man whose story is one of professional ascent). The basic story is that Joanna Drayton and John Prentice (who've just fallen in love) go to the Drayton family home to break the news of their engagement and to ask for her parents' approval. Of course Matt and his wife Christina are each shocked at first. As the scenes progress Christina gets over it and Matt remains unsure. The Prentice family also arrive later, are shocked, and John's mother quickly gets over it. It boils down to mothers for it, fathers against it, and John unwilling to get married without Matt's approval. At the last minute, Matt has a change of heart and gives a rousing speech in which he approves of their love, and they all have dinner together, etc, etc.
Liberalism
The fact that the story is set up to focus on these two kinds of men (white liberals and middle class blacks) can be seen as meaning a few things: a presentation of the “best” kind of black man allows for the deconstruction of the strict racial barriers that existed at that time; if it's ok for a white woman to marry an impressive middle class black man, then it means you can't be categorically against interracial marriage. This seems like a decent way to get the proverbial foot in the door to white consciousness in the short-term. But the flip side of this middle-class cherry-picking is that it doesn't disallow, in fact it fosters, the liberal racism of individual exceptions we see today. It allows whites to still hold people of color as a whole in contempt while considering some individuals exceptions if they play hard enough by the white rulebook.
The most striking illustration of the difference in effect of this movie then from now is the John Prentice's references to difference and colorblindness. About half an hour in, John is explaining to Matt and Christina how he feels about Joanna. He talks about how unlike others she is and cites “It's not just that our color difference doesn't matter to her, it's that she doesn't seem to think there is any difference.” Now it's easy to imagine how useful this kind of thinking would be in an argument against de jure racial discrimination, and all credible science does bear out that there is negligible biological difference. But this simple attitude of praising erasure of difference obscures for liberals today that not only are there socio-cultural differences to be acknowledged like any others, but there are also differences of power and oppression that are the result of historical and continued white supremacy.
Much later on, there is a scene which John says to his father, “...you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man.” Now I'm not in a position to judge the commentary on black racial identity and consciousness here. But I do know that this statement, just like the first, serves to obscure real social differences. It further implies that black oppression is a function of how black people think of themselves, another lie of white supremacy.
Whatever the unintended consequences, Kramer's film was undoubtedly a deliberate use of cinema as an instrument of social change. There are many elements of the movie that clearly address themselves to liberal white audiences of the time. A scene in which Christina asks Joanna if she and John have slept together reveals that they haven't because he wouldn't yet. Given the hyper-sexualization of black bodies, this an important counter measure. The very next scene directly addresses a rather more innocuous stereotype remarkably well:
“You say they don't have any special sense of rhythm?” Matt asks.
“Hahahaha that's right.” John replies good-naturedly.
“But hell you can see it. You can't turn on a television set anywhere without seeing those kids dancing, and I say the colored kids are better than the white kids.”
“But there's an explanation for that: it's our dancing, and it's our music. We brought it here. I mean you can do the Watusi but we are the Watusi, if you know what I mean.”
Later that same scene, in what is almost a direct appeal to the conscience of liberal viewers, john says of Joanna, “She said 'my dad, my dad is a lifelong fighting liberal who loathes race prejudice and has spent his whole fighting against discrimination.' She said 'my parents, well they'll welcome you with open arms.' And I said 'oh I sure wanna meet them.'”
The funniest character in the movie is Monsignor Ryan who serves both as mild comic relief and as the joyful conscience of the story. He is the only white character not to stammer and gawk uncomfortably upon finding out about the engagement and in fact quite enjoys the whole thing. Talking about interracial marriages he remarks that “strangely enough, they usually work out quite well – I don't know why. Maybe because it requires some special quality of effort, more consideration and compassion than most marriages seem to generate these days.” He tells Matt that the situation is “rather amusing, too, to see a broken down old phony liberal come face to face with his principles. Of course, I always have believed that in that fighting liberal facade there must be some sort of reactionary bigot trying to get out.” The content of what he says throughout is combined with an easygoing near-comical manner that would make it difficult not to receive what was said.
Another very subtle tactic of the film is that it is made clear almost right away that the substance of both fathers' concerns are for the safety and future hardships for their children and potential grandchildren, not for the purity of their race or whatever. By making the reason so non-bigoted and sympathetic, the viewer who might actually feel uncomfortable with interracial relationships is allowed to feel that way within a comfortable and understandable rationale – leaving them open to hearing the Monsignor or Christina or Mrs. Prentice and being genuinely moved to a change of heart. It's a brilliant little cinematic bait-and-switch.
The argument that finally convinces Matt to approve the marriage is made by Mrs. Prentice: “I believe those two young people need each other like they need the air to breathe in. Anybody can see that by just looking at them.... If you ever felt what my son feels for your daughter you've forgotten everything about it, my husband too. You knew once, but that was a long time ago. Now the two of you don't know. And the strange thing for your wife and me is that you don't even remember. If you did, how could you do what you are doing?” This is similar to things Christina, John, and the Monsignor say throughout having to do with John and Joanna's love being so powerful as to transcend racial barriers. This, like some of the other elements discussed, makes the interracial marriage pill potentially easier for white audiences to swallow. But it is also beside the point: social or legal barriers to interracial relationships would be wrong even if they just kinda liked each other a little.
Intersectionality
My favorite moment in the whole movie is a scene in Matt's study where John is placing a phone call. He's glancing around the room and while dialing sees a framed picture of Franklin Roosevelt. A few seconds later he looks back at it with a look of much less than the worship one might expect. But for anyone looking it was a clear communication of the often forgotten fact that FDR wasn't nearly so good for black people as for white.
A surprisingly accurate depiction of racial dynamics you encounter is the portrayal of the initial shock and discomfort of various whites to John. The first is Christina, who stammers conspicuously, is advised to sit down lest she faint, and asks “I suppose it would be alright if I said 'my goodness' wouldn't it?” Matt is a bit less dramatic but clearly becomes quite unsettled. It's difficult to describe, but the acting is superb all around.
A major element of the film that's always just subdued is the politics of gender. On the one hand, the character of Joanna is shown as an object of the plot and is often kept out of the loop on things by everyone else. This is presumably for the protection of her character's Bambi-esque naivete. There is a moment during the final scene where Matt says, “This may be the last chance I'll ever have to tell you to do anything, so I'm telling you: shut up.” The implication here, given that she's 23, is that a father's right as parental dictator ends not when a daughter is of age, but when she is transferred by marriage to the possession of another man. There is also scene in which Mr. Prentice remarks on the age difference between John and Joanna that “women age faster than men.” What “age faster” really means of course is become supposedly undesirable to men sexually. And of course for a man in a patriarchal society to make the claim that men outlast women in sex appeal is a self-serving social illusion. Now it does take the two mothers significantly less time and effort than the fathers to accept the idea of their children marrying. It's tough to tell whether this is some comment on women's essential sentimentality. More likely it was just an interesting plot choice.
Perhaps the most interesting and subversive aspect of “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner” is the character of Tilly, a black woman domestic worker in the Draytons' house. Though the viewer is not sure why, Tilly immediately reacts to John with tension and hostility. In their first encounter, Joanna asks Tilly to bring them some sandwiches on the terrace. Shortly after, Tilly states, “I don't care to see a member of my own race gettin' above hisself!” The most obvious meaning of this is that being involved with Joanna is John getting above himself, but I think there's also a division here between John and Tilly that has to do with that he's an upwardly mobile professional who she's asked to wait on the same way she does for the Draytons. In a scene on the terrace, Tilly serves coffee to Joanna, Christina, and John. When she gets to John she practically throws his cup across the table at him. Now this could just be an expression of any kind of anger, but I think it's not coincidental that the hostile act manifested itself as a resistance to the act of serving him in the same way as whites. This is a convergence of race and class politics. Tilly (in my interpretation) resents having to treat another black person in the same way she has to treat whites. She might view it as uppity or as a betrayal. Tilly's character is sadly underdeveloped and so we'll never know, but there's plenty of interesting speculation and interpretation to be had.
There is a scene where Tilly confronts John, accusing him of being a smooth-talker and warning him not to harm Joanna etc. However this line comes right after unrelated dialogue and is followed by “and furthermore to that, you ain't even all that good lookin'!” This outburst of unrelated anger makes me think that she may not actually be angry for the reasons she articulates. There are of course a variety of pretty ridiculous class interactions between Tilly and the Draytons. Not a moment after they've finished arguing about John, Joanna asks Tilly, “What are we having for dinner tonight? Gotta make it something special.” The contrast between the tone of the two topics is strikingly offensive in a way that I'm not sure I know how to articulate. And near the end of the film, Matt calls Tilly into the room to hear his speech. He introduces her to Mr. and Mrs. Prentice “This is Miss Matilda Binks who's been a member of this family for 22 years.” I'm not sure if this is supposed to show how loving and inclusive they Draytons are, but it certainly doesn't.
This brings us to the main event of the film: Spencer Tracy's (Matt's) climactic final speech:
“I admit that I hadn't considered it, hadn't even thought about it, but I know exactly how he feels about her and there is nothing, absolutely nothing that your son feels for my daughter that I didn't feel for Christina.... Where John made his mistake I think was in attaching so much importance to what her mother and I might think because in the final analysis it doesn't matter a damn what we think. The only thing that matters is what they feel, and how much they feel, for each other. And if it's half of what we felt, that's everything. As for you two and the problems you're going to have, they seem almost unimaginable, but you'll have no problem with me.... But you do know, I'm sure you know, what you're up against. There'll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives. You could try to ignore those people, or you could feel sorry for them and for their prejudice and their bigotry and their blind hatred and stupid fears, but where necessary you'll just have to cling tight to each other and say "screw all those people"!... But you're two wonderful people who happened to fall in love and happened to have a pigmentation problem, and I think that now, no matter what kind of a case some bastard could make against your getting married, there would be only one thing worse, and that would be if – knowing what you two are and knowing what you two have and knowing what you two feel – you didn't get married.... Well, Tilly, when the hell are we gonna get some dinner?”
No comments:
Post a Comment