Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TCM is Listing "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" as a comedy?!


Recommended Posts

I seriously wonder how many parents of young white daughters would think it was 'funny' if their white daughter brought home a black man for the weekend? Liberal biased theories work much better when they are NOT reality! Or if it's done by some other parent's daughter. Comedy my a..!

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I seriously wonder how many parents of young white

> daughters would think it was 'funny' if their white

> daughter brought home a black man for the weekend?

> Liberal biased theories work much better when they

> are NOT reality! Or if it's done by some other

> parent's daughter. Comedy my a..!

 

I find your posting very distasteful, and I am a White guy who was married to a Black woman for 33 years until her death in 2002.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't call it a comedy in the general sense it's too lightweight (until Tracy's monologue at the end) to be called a drama. It's one of those films that stradles the comedy and drama genres.

 

At least it was tastefully done unlike the remake from last year "UGH".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

Was it just under 2 weeks ago that I posted in to a different thread to criticize a fellow board member for his prejudicial rant against Irish Catholics??

And now THIS separatist propaganda disguised as an FYI alert!

Usually, I prefer to take a devil's advocate position on hot-button issues, and in absolute candor, 90% of all the interracial relationships I've witnessed have failed tragically due to the very challenges discussed in this very movie . .

But how can any intelligent, fair, compassionate adult not WANT to believe in the potential of True Love being capable, once in a while at least, of beating long odds, and achieving Happiness?

Especially after seeing this cinematic example of fairness, decency, courage, concientiousness and the real nature of Unconditional Love, especially for one's child?!!

I can only choose to believe that HillaryNo has never actually sat through the quiet majesty of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" with both eyes & mind open!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When " Guess Who's Coming to Dinner " was first released Producer - Director Stanley Kramer was making the talk show circuit trying to drum up interest in the film. To me this is another " sledgehammer message film " by the Hollywood liberal Mr. Kramer. I didn't care for it then and while my dislike for it has dropped over the years I still feel that this is essentially a dishonest film. That said I was married to a Black Lady for thirty - three year until her death in 2002, we were both " middle - class " or perhaps " lower middle - class " when we met, and our experiences, or experiences such as yours would have made for a more grounding breaking film than Mr. Kramer's opus. Mr. Kramer, for box - office and other reasons, had to make the situation involve " beautiful people " , Houghton and Poitier, and not everyday folks.

 

The original post to this thread is still very distasteful to me, and the remarks about" PC liberals" is just so much cr*p.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually saw this film in the permissive 60's. NOT entertainment! Just Hollywood trying to inflict their liberal values and opinions on the majority. I also saw "Easy Rider" about the same time. REALLY enjoyed the ending! Good old Southern Boys send a message to any future drug infested intruders!

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I actually saw this film in the permissive 60's. NOT

> entertainment! Just Hollywood trying to inflict their

> liberal values and opinions on the majority. I also

> saw "Easy Rider" about the same time. REALLY enjoyed

> the ending! Good old Southern Boys send a message to

> any future drug infested intruders!

 

These posting are a joke right ! How can Hollywood impose its values on you ? More idiotic rightist junk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me as the most pathetic consequence of this film is the fact it was Spencer Tracy's final film and what a horrible vehicle for him to ride out upon. These talented actors were thrown away here, given dreck to quote in what is basically a poorly conceived soap opera.

 

The viewing audience is supposed to be won over to the idea of interracial relationships, when, in fact, those who would be going to this movie in the first place were probably already quite open to the idea. So the premise is lost, the sledgehammer over the head delivery of the message every bit as much an embarrassment to the viewer as well as to the actor.

 

I will never watch this again, nor would I ever recommend it to anyone - it's painful to behold, heartbreaking and insulting to the audience.

 

I don't know, maybe it was simply the victim of the age and I'm being overly harsh. But it has never been a surprise to me that Hepburn refused to view this film when it was completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Casey;

 

I don't claim to be a first-rate film historian, but I'm reasonably sure that if Kate Hepburn indeed "refused to view" GWCtD, it had far more to do with her processing of grief over the passing of her companion/lover/best friend/confidante/frequent co-star Spencer Tracy, who passed on within days of filming his final scene for Kramer.

I seem to recall that Kate also took an extended leave from acting, finally returning with her triumphant role opposite Peter O'Toole in "The Lion in Winter".

But here's a radical concept for several folks on this thread: even if you're opposed to the film's social message(s), how about judging this movie on its merits AS, simply, just another movie?

You know, like for instance: I doubt many of us can really defend the relentless military pogrom waged against the native tribes of the 19th Century American West by the U.S. Army, but most of us, regardless, can still find a comfortable level on which to appreciate the cinematic artistry & entertainment of a John Ford cavalry epic, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I doubt many of us can

> really defend the relentless military pogrom waged

> against the native tribes of the 19th Century

> American West by the U.S. Army, but most of us,

> regardless, can still find a comfortable level on

> which to appreciate the cinematic artistry &

> entertainment of a John Ford cavalry epic, right?

 

 

Actually.... did you know that the Hopis, Zunis, and most of the other pueblo tribes requested to have ?reservations? assigned to them by the federal government to keep white settlers from settling on their native land? In the East, most of the major tribes gradually disappeared because of inter-marriages between the whites and the Indians.

 

What happened out West was that some tribes were ?wild? and some were not. Some were raiders while others were farmers. Most of the pueblo Indians were farmers and not raiders. The Apaches and some of the Navajos and other tribes were raiders and not farmers. Before Europeans came over, they existed not by farming but by raiding the villages of the farmer Indians, and that is why many of the farmer Indians built their villages on the sides of mountains in the form of cliff dwellings. The Acomas, for example, built their main village on top of a tall mesa 1,200 years ago and they still live there. The Hopis did the same thing and they still live in their ancient villages.

 

What actually happened with the US military being sent out West after the Civil War was to try to contain and calm down the ?wild? Indians, while leaving the peaceful farmer Indians unmolested. Unfortunately, this fact doesn?t show up in most Indian movies, and I don?t know of any Indian movie about the peaceful Acomas, Lagunas, Zunis and other pueblo Indians. What good is a cowboy and Indian movie if everyone gets along? That was Hollywood?s attitude.

 

So, what the cavalry in John Wayne movies was sent out to do was to try to pacify the wild Indians and those who would not calm down and settle down like everyone else, then they were pursued and subdued.

 

Every now and then there was an old Indian movie in which one of the Apache chiefs would say, ?We don?t want to be farmers. We are warriors (or ?raiders?). We take what we want,? and that?s the way it really was. The Apaches just hated the idea of settling down and becoming farmers. For hundreds of years they has supported themselves by attacking and stealing from the peaceful pueblo Indians, and the pueblo Indians were all in favor of the US cavalry trying to calm down or subdue the wild Apaches and other wild tribes.

 

I didn?t learn this stuff until I moved out here into the West. There is still so much empty land out here, nobody needs to steal any land from anyone else. The ?Indian Wars? was mainly a matter of more and more Eastern settlers coming out here (by the dozens, not by the millions), settling on totally empty land, many miles away from any Indian village, yet being attacked eventually by the roving bands of wild Indians, which, for the first couple of hundred years after the Spanish arrived in the early 1600s, were always on foot and didn?t learn how to ride horses until later. They never learned how to use the old muzzle loading rifles, so they didn?t use rifles until after the breech-loaders were invented toward the end of the Civil War. The Western Indian Wars lasted for only about 25 to 30 years, and mainly after the Civil War had ended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see someone told Michelle Malkin her name and blog addy were posted on these boards this past weekend (Mea Culpa. I'll take the blame.) and so she had to come in and stir the pot. Really, Michelle. You couldn't take a little ribbing from JonParker, Ken123 and myself? Don't you have somethig better to do on MLK Day? Shouldn't you be counter-demonstrating at some University or other celebration? But why ruin a good day off from work even if you don't support the idea it represents, right?

 

In all seriousness, I was hesitant to read this thread when I saw the handle that was attached to it. I didn't think it would be quite so ridiculous - on this of all days. I guess the "Free Republic" website was down for a few hours and they all scattered to raise a little ruckus other places online.

 

But the poster is correct - TCM does label the film a "comedy" in the daily listing site. I wonder why?

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

>

> But the poster is correct - TCM does label the film a

> "comedy" in the daily listing site. I wonder why?

>

> Kyle In Hollywood

 

Because I doubt they could call it dramedy and then not do the same for other movies that straddle different genres? :)

 

BTW on the point of liberal minded folks etc etc. Well I still say "Merry Christmas" and stuff like that. We've become far too sensitive in this culture to appeasing everyone. Sometimes the words we use aren't meant for harm just look at the meaning behind what people say to see that we mean good and not ill.

 

Oh well....It just proves we're all going to hell in a handbasket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could NOT believe TCM was showing this (mediocre, in my opinion) movie *yet again*. Then I realized they were combining w/ others featuring African-American themes/actors... This, "Love of Ivy," and "Hannah and her Sisters" were TCM time slots not well filled this weekend, IMO, like many post-1960 films, disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, about the only time I laugh in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner comes with the line "Mr. Matt, All hell done broke loose now.". I think I give a laugh more often in Goodbye, Mr. Chips or Casablanca. I'd never call the film a comedy - not even a "comedy of manners" which may be a closer description of its contents.

 

and benhowell, I applaud your use of the the quote you posted. Perfect.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Kyle...there's usually a quote for every occasion...that was an easy one...

I've seen the movie countless times. I enjoy Hepburn/Tracy as the WASP (leaning slightly to the left) parents of a young woman who falls in love with a black man (who turns out to be quite a catch.) I also like the "hip" '60's vibe.

The scene with Hepburn's racist assistant, Hilary, is memorable because of actress Virginia Christine. I could never quite warm up to her pushing Folgers coffee as "Mrs. Olsen" after that role...

I also enjoy seeing Isabel Sanford and the wonderful Beah Richards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...