AFI 100 Review: #99 Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

1967

Directed by: Stanley Kramer

Written by: William Rose

Starring: Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Sydney Poitier, Katherine Houghton, Cecil Kellaway, Beah Richards, Roy E. Glenn

The Acting: I've never liked Katherine Hepburn. Her voice to me is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Here, she was as close to me liking her as I've ever been. Her performance was almost understated and most of what I didn't like here could be blamed on the character of the story.

But Spencer Tracy is the real revelation for me here. I've seen him in many of his older films, but none of his later films. As this was the case, I recognized his portrayal as Karl from "Up." Even so, he really is marvelous. I like that he's surly and pragmatic. His character is sincerely concerned with the physical abuse that the couple faces. (Incidentally, this was his last as he died seventeen days after filming was completed. His health was failing and he knew he was going to die soon. So his acting here, coupled with the fact that he so clearly agrees with the film's message, takes on a heightened sense of poignancy.)

Sidney Poitier does a great job as well. I must admit my only other real exposure to him in film is in Shoot To Kill. But here, he is reserved and very in control. He plays this perfectly giving the audience and the other characters of the story no reason to object to the union other than race.

Cultural Impact: Well, this movie is designed to be culturally significant. It's the whole reason for its being. All parties set out to make a point. This movie was released in 1967 and there couldn't have been a more ripened time for it to hit the population. This film ends with a speech (a good one at that) that explains why Spencer Tracy was wrong to think as he did. And it's delivered to convince the audience as well. But I don't believe anyone went to see this film that didn't agree with it before they entered the theatre. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not giving film the power it deserves, but I've always considered film to be a medium that best nudges society in directions. There really isn't anything subtle about this film in the end.

Does It Belong On My List: I want to say "yes," based on the importance of the subject matter. But as I stated before, I don't think this movie convinced anyone that wasn't already in agreement. So how culturally significant was it? Maybe there is significance in the fact that the film was made by a major movie studio with major players. Maybe that's an accomplishment in itself. But in the end I have to say, "no."