Post by Doghouse6 on May 28, 2019 21:31:26 GMT

About that Sunday Times review of Guess Who's Coming To Dinner: I don't know who wrote it, but it reflects a fundamental and wrong-headed misunderstanding - or deliberate mis-statement - of so called "liberal sensibilities." A dope pusher? A criminal. A pimp? Another criminal. Why would that reviewer think those would challenge "liberal sensibilities?" We can forget about the homosexual angle entirely as a silly inclusion; what would the point be of the girl bringing home a gay man as a prospective husband?
That wrong-headedness is also illustrative of many conservative mindsets that equate crimes like drug dealing or pimping with innate human characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation, and tips their bigoted hands.
Hi
the Review was by Angela & Elkan Allen and dates from 1974 or so - their MOVIES ON TV guide - for what its worth they rated the film as "if you've nothing better to do" ie watchable. It was my first film guide and still one of my favourites - and I think one of the best written, even if the scope is not as wide as Halliwell or TIME OUT or Maltin, and it ignores foreign language and made for TV fayre. Did you ever see the Stanley Baxter TV spoof GUESS WHOS STAYING FOR AFTERS ? - where she brings home a white guy to the shock and consternation of her parents-- sadly not on youtube.
In the intervening years, GWCTD has provoked many reactions, good and not-so-good, and many of the criticisms are valid. I understand Kramer's approach and what he was trying to do, and if taken at face value, it's solid and ultimately sentimental entertainment, for reasons not the least of which is the final screen appearance of a legendary acting pair.
The Loving v Virginia U.S. Supreme Court case was very much in the news during the film's production, and the landmark ruling decriminalizing interracial marriages in all 50 states was issued just two days after Spencer Tracy's death only weeks after completing his role.

