Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was a film that was meant to inform the public about the social issue of race in a serious way. Though there were some elements of humour used in the film to lighten the mood, the intent was to not joke or make a comedy of the idea of interracial marriage. In the 1960s, racial marriage was illegal in seventeen of the states. This film was made in the height of the civil right movement where people wanted to see racial change in society. Though racial marriage and race was the primary focus of the film, there were also other two key sociological related elements that I saw and took interest in while watching the film. The first being gender inequality. In the film, it was seen that the white male’s decision was the most important to the rest of the characters. The white mother’s opinion did not matter. Back then, men were the head of the household and women were seen as difficult or unfit if they spoke out against the man. One can also see this same pattern between John’s mother and father. The mother had a different opinion from the father, but the father’s opinion in the end is the one that mattered to John. Another pattern in the film that I noticed that dealt with gender inequality was that the reverend went to speak to the white father. The wife did not speak to Mr. Drayton about changing his final decision. It took another older white man to alter Mr. Dayton’s opinion. The second sociological element that I saw and took interest in while watching the film was social stratification. In the film, the Dayton family is a part of the upper class or upper-middle class. They live in San Francisco and are able to send their daughter to Hawaii. To me, this indicates that the Dayton family has wealth. I think the writers for the film chose a more wealthier family because they didn't want to risk potential backlash by choosing a middle or lower-middle class white family. When someone has money, society says that societal rules may not necessarily apply to them. For example, in class, we discussed Martha Stewart having the ability to erase the title of being a criminal, while an average “joe” on the street does not have the ability to do so for committing the same crime. The film writers probably had in mind of using a family that had more money than the average family in America. People are more likely to not speak out about the societal wrong doings of a very wealthy family with a high status. Check123
It is interesting to see such a prevalent example of patriarchy in the movie. The mothers' opinions did not matter until they were backed by their husbands, which still happens today. Like you said, the men were the head of the households, and society let the breadwinner equate to dictator in the American culture. In the movie, the women brought about the thoughts that were more fair to their children, but the only way the men changed their minds was when the older white man had similar beliefs as the women and could change the men's minds. It is neat to see that now, the script is flipped in some households, mostly because some mama bears are quite scary. aardvark123
I agree with a lot of you thoughts and views. One thing that was obvious that I did not think to mention and you did was the issue of the two families social status. It was obvious that the Drayton family came from money. The house they lived in, they had servants, and when the number of guests for dinner increased the daughter said just have the butcher send the food over in a taxi if need to. While the Prentice family on the other hand seemed to be more of a middle-class family. The father was retired from the post office, and he also makes a statement about his wife doing without a coat in winter so his son can get an education. Diver123
The movie, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” was chocked full of sociological themes, the most prevalent being race. The whole movie was centered on race, specifically racial deviance, and how the culture of the ‘60s reacted to that racial deviance. It took the mentality of ‘separate but equal’ that was often pushed under the rug and brought it to the forefront. The conflict in the movie was between the biracial couple and their parents, but the real conflict was between “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” and society. Biracial couples were very much frowned upon and illegal in many states when the movie first came out, and Hollywood, being as liberal as it is, wanted to show how contrary to the American belief system that mentality really was. Society got a rude awakening to the injustice that was happening with the laws against biracial couples, and the movie resolved the conflict in such a way that rationalized the situation and made the audience understand the logic going on behind the deviance from societal norms. The main point of it was love. If two people love each other enough, they can overcome any cultural folkways and, in some cases, mores. The families finally reached an agreement that, even though life will be difficult and a union of the two races in such a manner is against all of their beliefs, the happiness those two would receive outweighed all of the negatives. Doing so, an awareness of new marriages between different races would break down racial barriers in society. If Hollywood can sell it and rationalize it, it must be alright, and Hollywood was allowed to do so because a new cultural mindset was beginning to come out of the woodwork in the ‘60s. If everyone is equal, why is the union of two races taboo? aardvark123
Aardvark123, I agree with you when you say that the most prevalent sociological theme was race. I forgot to think about love after watching the movie. You said that the movie portrays love as the most important thing to have when marrying another person, no matter what their color. If one’s love is strong enough, color should not matter. Even the parents agreed that if John and Joanna’s happiness together (aka love) outweighed the potential difficulties that would arise from other people, then the approval of their marriage was given. I also thought it was interesting how you said that Hollywood used its liberal ways to convey its message to the rest of America. This shows how powerful a film can be when politics are being intertwined with a certain viewpoint. Hollywood, to some extent, has the power to change societal norms. We see it everyday in the television today. When I was younger, I never remember seeing gay people on the tv. Now, I see it almost in every different television show I watch. In addition, we are also seeing a lot of gay right and gender identity movements taking place today or in recent times as well. Check123
I like how you pointed out Hollywood's transition into a more liberal minded entity with this film. It seemed that the late 1960s into the early 1970s were a big time for Hollywood in the sense that they began to implement films that would challenge the traditional American way of thinking. Being a film major myself this is where I will implement my own personal knowledge on the topic. In 1968, a year after this film was released, director Roman Polanski released his magnum opus "Rosemary's Baby" which would contribute a new way of thinking towards religion and sexual relations in high class society.-MrG123
You bring up a good point that the ‘separate but equal’ mentality was often not questioned and just assumed to be right. ‘Separate but equal’ can not be ethical however if the two races have not both agreed upon it and they are not both actually equal. This movie makes it evident that white and black people are not considered equal by society. I can imagine that it would be easy for the white people to think they were equal, but the black people obviously knew better. The fact that the families were worried about the future of Joanna and John’s biracial children supports this. -Chameleon123
The three major points that I found were of the most interest and importance from Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner are gender stratification, age, and race. Gender stratification is evident in this movie. In their home in San Francisco the structure of the way that Spencer Tracy (Matt Drayton) and Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton) interact reveals the difference in roles men and women had in the 1960s. Compared to nowadays, the roles were much different although they are still not equal today. In the video it related Matt to a bear that Christina tip-toed around, irritated, and had to be careful of because he could squash her easily. One instance is when Christina had to stop to tie her she and she got “growled” at by her husband. The husbands held the power of the house and the women were the accessory to them. This is evident in the fact that the men were the ones that were making the decision of whether Katharine Houghton (Joanna Drayton) and Sidney Poitier (John Prentice) got to marry and the women did not really have any power to make the decision even though they were of equal number. Age is also a topic that caused problems shown in the movie. For example, the poor treatment of older people is evident in the scene of Matt and Christina getting ice cream. The waitress that served them was short and impatient with all of Matt’s requests and questions. Also, when Matt accidently hit the car while he was backing out the man yelled at him and was saying extremely rude things against old people. Racism is also depicted in this movie. It is clear from all of the racial undertones and looks people gave down to the fact that it was considered an issue for a black man to marry a white woman. -Chameleon123
I also noticed that there was so themes concerning age going on in this movie. John Prentice yells at his father saying "You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!" kind of representing that there was a lot tension between the older generation and the younger generation because times where changing and the younger people had to use some force to be able to create change. I think that ice cream scene is another symbol of the barrier between the young and the old that continues to occur throughout the remainder of the movie. -Glass123
I agree with a lot of your points that you wrote about. I even wrote about some myself. However I did not really notice the age issue until you pointed it out. Which now when I think about it I can really see that in the movie. How the older generation their morals and what they believed in were wrong and different from the generation that was now growing up. I think that is really prevalent in our society now. I think we as a generation are more accepting than our grandparents and many of our own parents as well. It's really sad that this film was made in the 1960's and some of the issues in the film are still issues today. They have not fully gone away or disappeared. Litv123
I think you put this very well. I also noticed how the men were kind of in control of everything and the women were just expected to go along with it. I also liked the end when Katherine Hepburn told her husband that if he were to begin a war with their daughter, she would side with her. It was kind of showing that times were changing and it provided a sense of growth in the role of a woman. I did not notice the age issues until you pointed them out. The ice cream place was a great example of that. Not only because the waitress was short with him and the man whose car he hit was yelling at him but because when he drove off the entire parking lot clapped and cheered for the young man. They applauded the man that yelled at an old man. I found that odd because that is not what I am used to in our society today. SAS123
I feel as if this movie it extremely powerful on its own, but when you are aware of all the real life connections between the characters it makes the connections on the screen more intense. The last scene radiates the real love felt between Katherine and Spencer which makes the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Drayton that much deeper .The context behind the character of Mr. Drayton makes him a stronger character because you know that Spencer Tracy was fighting to make this performance so amazing because he was aware that it very well may be the last performance he ever does. Sidney Poitier being the first leading black man in a movie is so fitting because the character he is playing represents his black doctor that transcends all of the stereotypes and becomes wildly successful. This video also kind of solidifies my feelings about the patriarchal tones in the movie. I am not one hundred percent sure if they deliberately put all of the patriarchal themes in the movie but I enjoy how these gender issues are beginning to be addressed.I have seen this movie twice now and Joe Morgenstern brings up one my favorite things about this movie that I only noticed by watching the movie for the second time. That is the love story that happens in the midst of all this conflict and tension. The viewer is watching Joana fall deeper in love with John and vice versa while there is some sort of conflict or confrontation between characters in every scene. My other favorite things about this movie is the internal struggle that Mr. Drayton feels so intensely. I love that struggle the struggle that occurs when what he thought he stood is placed right in front of his face and he must work out whether or not he is being a hypocrite. The stubbornness he feels is so incredibly human. - Glass123
While there are patriarchal themes in this film, I think we should give it props for the strong lead that the mother, Christina, played. She obviously had some authority in her job because she fired Hilary. She was never afraid to express herself to her husband, and she even took a stand to fight for her daughter's happiness. Her role was inspiring to watch because she was very good at having more than one status. She played a kind and loving mother, and a supportive and empowering wife. When there was a role conflict between being a mother and a wife she made it work. She stayed true to her values. The love that you talked about Mr. Drayton is completely understandable, because she is an incredible woman. -M&M123
There are three sociological terms that sociology 110 covers that I found can specifically apply to “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” These terms include age, prejudice, and dramaturgy. Age plays a large role in this movie because ultimately two people of one generation want to get married, but first they want a blessing from another generation of people. Joanna’s parents seem to have been very old fashioned. They grew up in a time where it was a ridiculous idea for a black man to marry a woman, and in the time of this movie it was still a taboo. John faced the struggle of being in love with a woman of another race. Because he loved her, he could not live with the idea of her parents resenting her for marrying him. So, he decided to commit to marrying Joanna only if her parents committed too. Throughout the movie Joanna is referred to happy and optimistic. I would say that she embraced her age, not numerically but that she was living in an age where people were fighting the status quo of marrying people of their own race. Joanna fell in love and that is what she saw. She didn’t have this second term, which is prejudice. Several characters throughout the film displayed prejudice. Hilary, an employee of Joanna’s mother, was very prejudice. When she realized that Joanna was with a black man she claimed she was, “intensely curious.” She then forced her prejudice onto Joanna’s mother, ultimately leading to the loss of her job. The father, Matt, even carried prejudice with him. One would not expect that of him considering he was a very liberal man. This brings me into the third term, dramaturgy. Many people in this film displayed this concept that we put on a mask. Matt put on this liberal mask to the world for much of his life and he didn’t even realize he was doing so until his daughter wanted to marry John. His eyes were open and the mask was eventually removed. Hilary masked her prejudice when she was in front of Joanna and John, but she took the mask off and let loose to the mother. -M&M123
The movie we saw in class today was one that told an actual story line that was very common in the 1960's between couples of different races. Throughout the entire movie it is about a white woman wanting to marry a black man. It shows how the different generations view racial equality. You notice that between the parents they are appalled and stunned at the fact that they are not of the same color. They get even more against it when they decide to wed each other after only two weeks of knowing one another. However the both the white mother and the black mother both come around to the idea of them being together, purely out of the happiness between their children. That is something we talked about in the class the other day, that women will tend to go more towards feelings and play situations out through emotions. It is both fathers that are against what their children want to do. That also shows how men are the head of households and their decisions is the final say in the matter. In the very end of the movie it is the white father that makes the final call on if they are allowed to get married or not. Race was a very large issue in our history and is something that is still around today. Interracial couples are more common today, however I still think they world is still shocked by it. The film was very powering to watch and then once watching the video on the blog it really shows the real life ties that all the characters had together. I think it makes the film much better when you can understand the characters and listen to what they have to say. Litv123
Cultural is not static here. It's fluid - the differences in opinion between the young and older here personifies this chasm or change in culture....WellSaid345
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is a film that was produced in 1967 which was during the time of the Civil Rights movement. While this movie touched on the most obvious topic, inter racial marriage, there were also several other underlying sociological topics it brought up as well. The first being sexual inequality. It was apparent in the way they dressed, the men wore pants and the women wore skirts or dresses. It was also apparent in the roles they took on. One scene in particular where Mr. Drayton was yelling at Christina Drayton because she was taking too long to tie her shoe. I also thought it was interesting that when they were in the car he made the decision to go get ice cream even though she didn’t want any, which is just another way to show that the man is in control. At one point in the movie, both Joanna and Christina were called “Joey” and “Chris” I’m not sure if it was the directors intent to have some type of sexual equality by changing the lead female names to nicknames that are used by males, but I think it was. Deviance was another apparent issue that was going on in this film. Not only was it the younger generation, but the wives were also being deviant by not going along with what their husbands were suggesting they do, which was to not support the interracial relationship and potential marriage. I guess you could say the ending was a happy one, but for some reason it didn’t feel that way to me. At the end when Mr. Drayton is giving the famous speech and granting his blessing he takes full authority of the situation. Again, it’s a situation where the white male is dominating. So while the film was intended to bring up topics that were considered extremely taboo in that time, they essentially had the white male as the leader in the end. Not to mention that he was also the older generation as well. sunflower123
There are several topics that you bring up that I did not notice until you brought them up. I did not think about the last seen as being an example of patriarchal society but you are right. The males are definitely dominating and are in control. That would definitely make the women deviant for not listening to their husbands which could of been a much bigger problem then it would be in our society today. I also thought it was just kind of rude and weird that Mr. Dayton went and got ice cream when Christina did not want any but I guess that just another norm for a patriarchal society. Scuba123
In the film, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, we see the sociological perspective of every kind of person for the time period. There was such a difference in the perspective of the man and woman during this time and it is very prevalent in the film. The mother sees this issue as a liberal. She feels that her daughter is grown enough to make the right decision and she trusts her. She also knows that nothing is more important than love. If her daughter, Joanna, is in love than there is nothing that can stop her. All she wants is for her daughter to be happy. She was very shocked at first because she had no idea something like this was even an option but after she processed it a little bit she realized that Joanna was the happiest she had ever been. This more important than the color of the boys skin and this made her happy. John's mother felt the same way. Now, the fathers saw this from a different perspective. They were not going to have a son that was different than the norms of society. They had grown up looking down at couples who were biracial and had always wanted the same color for their children. This was considered deviant in the eyes of the fathers. They did not see the love that they shared until the very end, they only saw what society had told them was wrong. There is also a lot of culture shock in this film. Every single person that is introduced to Joanna and John is shocked beyond belief. I love seeing the look on the peoples faces when they hear that they are a couple. The society that they live in is not quite used to biracial marriages. Most people are worried about their children and how they will be looked at and made fun of as they grow up. Scuba123
I agree with what you said about the mother caring about her daughters feelings more so than the father did in the beginning of the film. At first the mother was a little shocked as well, like everyone else who saw them out in public. After observing her daughter closely she realized that even though she was always a happy child, she has never been more happy than when she was with John. That is something that the father did not pick as quick. Like you said, they had another perspective of the relationship. Both fathers were more worried about what people were going to say, and what people would do to them than their strong love. In the end though, it was Mrs. Prentices comment that made him remember his love for his wife Cristina. He finally realized that no matter what he would tell them, Joanna and John will always love each other and nothing was going to change that. They didn't care about their skin color, they care about each other and the love each other. When John and his father were arguing in the study, John said something that I liked. He said, "But you see yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man." panda123
Mothers always have a special bond with their kids i mean they did birth them. Women tend to see situations differently from men i do agree with you on that. Like we discussed in class women are more the type to try and accommodate and fix the problem so everyone needs and wants are satisfied. But when it comes to your son or daughter wanting to marry outside of their race in the 60’s it becomes a little challenging like do you take your children's side or do you stick to your significant other's side. So i guess it really depends on your thought process when kit comes to thinking about problems from the past and present. Dancer 123
Guess who's coming to dinner is a perfect example on how people felt and acted towards interracial relationships in the 1960's. There are a lot of sociological perspectives in this movie, just like we discussed in class today. One of the things that I noticed was the importance of nonverbal communication. Throughout the movie there were many scene where the actors didn't have to say anything. I could already know how they were feeling because of the nonverbal communication. The facial expressions, the posture, and the hand/body gestures. I could see shock, surprise, joy, love, sadness, and anger. I didn't have to hear dialogue to see what any of the actors were feeling in that moment. I think it an important factor in this movie. Another thing I noticed was the gender stratification. When Dr. John Prentice asked approval from both parents to marry their daughter, there was equality. It wasn't up to just the father or just the mother, he wanted both. In the beginning, it was made clear that the mother was skeptical about the whole thing, but then as the movie progressed she accepted the relationship. In the fathers position, he was accepting of it and then he changed his mind. Now, it was up to the man to give the blessing. Everyone was trying to change his mind, his wife, his reverend friend, and at the end Mrs. Prentice. You could feel that whatever the father was going to decide that is how it was going to be. Finally, it was Mrs. Prentice that made him see reason. Her comment made him think, eventually making the right decision in letting his daughter, Joanna Drayton marry Dr. John Prentice. The last and the most important sociological perspective of this movie, was the race issue. The whole movie revolved around the issue of them being different skin tones. I loved how the director did this film, because it showed how people felt, and reacted to a biracial couple. Even though Dr. Prentice was an extremely intelligent and successful man, he was still wasn't being treated correctly, because he was black. One of the beautiful parts about this movie, is that Joanna still wanted to be with him and she loved him deeply. In my opinion, her character is such a role model to the rest of society in that you need to love people no matter what race they are and no matter what skin color they are. panda123
I very much enjoyed “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner”. I thought it was insightful and pretty funny. One of the most noticeable things in the movie was how the girl’s dad had the most authority, the old white man. He is the one who calls the shots and the only one who can say whether the two can be married. His wife has zero say in the matter, she tries to give her input but it really doesn’t matter. This also makes me think of how it can create today. Now, some families do still think that mixed race couples are an issue, but the biggest dating issue today seems to be gay relationships. If this movie was made today but with a gay couple, I can still see a similar response, both parents being shocked. Everyone who meets them is in complete awe and shock and are in a bit of panic to the parents saying things like “I’m so sorry for you” “how did this happen” ect. A lot of times throughout the movie I kept thinking, what if he was white? The parents loved him, or what he did more like, but the only thing stopping the approval was his skin tone. If the movie was a girl bringing her white boyfriend over to meet her parents, it would be a ten minute movie. I think that this movie probably opened a lot of eyes during its time. It did come out right before the law was passed for anyone to marry any race. I can imagine the shock people probably had when this movie hit the cinemas. I mean, I can imagine what my grandparents probably thought if they ever saw the movie. They honestly probably turned it off as soon as it came on. rosethorns123
You know I found it kind of strange that Joanna fathers was the only one who had the say so in whether her and John was able to get married. Why didn’t John father have a part of this decision as well? This showed not only racial deviance, but racial bias as well because not only was it man that had the final so say but it was a man as well. This movie was a great movie that came out during the 1960's. It showed many racial issues that we as Americans were facing. I’m glad that Joanna and John could get married regardless of their ethnicity. Rendezvous123
I noticed the gender stratification too and found it rather bizarre. The mother had no say, and the dominant white male made the final decision. I agree with you. Biracial problems are not an issue anymore, but homosexual relationships are. Some biases change has time goes on which is interesting to me. The movie would have been powerful for people in that time period definitely. I thought it was really cool that it is still powerful today, though. My grandparents on my father's side would have been absolutely disgusted, so I understand where you're coming from there, sadly. When the movie came out, there was probably a lot of shocked people. -softball_savvy123
If it weren't for Sidney Poitier's poised performance in the 1967 cinematic masterpiece "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" I'm not entirely convinced that the film would be the same film, if any film it all. In a time in America when racial tensions were at an all time high, Poitier's character demonstrated there was civility and intelligence to be had when reason was often overshadowed by hate. Probably the most interesting aspect to me in the film however, is how race isn't just a one sided issue, and one viewed from the perspective of the film's two fathers can often be portrayed as coexistent. On the one hand you have the rich, white father who is speculative of his daughter marrying a black man not because he fears he his a bad person, but rather he fears for their own personal safety as a couple in the outside world. Then there is the black father who is rampant with rage over his son marrying a white woman because his generation only knows to accept the black on black relationship when bi-racial love isn't even a question. Communication as it seemed to me, played a tremendously big part in this film, both verbally and non-verbally, as it was easy to tell how a character was feeling as they expressed themselves with body language and cultural values through verbal cues. Then to me probably the most important and memorable part of the film is the white father's speech as it pertains to his approval of the two's marriage. Throughout the film it is clear that he doesn't exactly approve of the tremendous situation and won't allow it to go on. However, after having some important conversations with some people very close to him, he finally comes to terms with himself and with the marriage. To me that is why this film holds up so well; it is hard not to enjoy the transition of the father as he rides an emotional roller coaster deciding what is ultimately best for his child. It is something that can still be seen in modern relationships today, especially modern bi-racial relationships.-MrG123
In the movie “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” there are a lot of topics we have learned about in our sociology class that are brought up in the film. One of the topics dealt with is an issue dealing with gender. In the film the male role in society seemed to be the dominant role which is also called a patriarch role. When it came to making the decision of the Prentice’s and Drayton’s households it seemed the father had the final say as to whether or not they would grant their children their blessing on their marriage. The wives seemed to view the relationship differently than their husbands, but it was the husband's thoughts that was the final say. There is also a scene where Chris Drayton wanted a priest to talk to her husband about her thoughts, as if to say the husband will not listen to his wife so another man has to be used to intervene. This is also seen when going for a ride with Matt and Chris Drayton. Matt the father makes the decision to get ice cream, without caring whether Chris wants to stop or not. As we have discussed in a previous blog on the movie there is deviance shown also. There is the scene where John Prentice is arguing with his father. There is deviance on both parties. The father is showing deviance by trying to make decisions for his grown sons life. The son was showing deviance by standing up to his father and arguing back at him. Finally the biggest topic brought up is what the main part of the film is about. That is the racial problem of a black man and a white woman wanting to marry. This was a big issue in the early sixties. When the film was made it was still against the law in some states for a bi-racial couple to marry. There are more topics that can be brought up too, like age discrimination, racial prejudice, and many other items. Diver123
I agree with you on some of your topics, it definitely shows a patriarchal society for both cultures. During the movie, I was thinking about the monsignor and how he displayed dramaturgical analysis by obviously feeling comfortable enough to drink scotch in the presence of close friends (while being on backstage) and on the other hand not really being concerned with what the black family would think while holding such a prestigious position unless of course that was socially accepted in the 60’s. As far as the deviance from John, you didn’t specify if you felt that it was bad or good deviance in my opinion it was good deviance because he was showing the mindset of blacks during that time and how they obviously felt that they were owed something for doing what they’re supposed to do as parents and how times have changed. Benoodles123
The young couple in the movie had so many variables against them that most people might say they were doomed from the start. But the movie exposed so much that I was literally feeling a bit of cultural shock just by the way many of the cast members acted and especially the apparent minority group within the movie simply because how can one go through oppression and have ill words to say to someone else experiencing the same thing? It was interesting how Joey was so sure that her parents would be accepting of her new beau but once reality was thrown in their faces they were taken aback. It was quite uncomfortable for me looking at their body language, it was as if they were screaming at the couple without saying two words. Even her mother, Christina, explained how they had never raised her to think that white people are superior to any race regardless of their skin color ect but that they had never told her not fall in love with a colored man. Christina and Mack both displayed implicit bias because they appeared not have an issue with “colored” folks until the issue was staring them in the face. It was also a great depicter of how sexism was highly prevalent within each culture and how it was the same in each racial group that the man was superior to the women; that until Mack had realized for himself that love conquers all, the men really gave no regard to what the nurturing mothers thought or even had to say for that matter. I was glad to see that Dr. Prentice was able to obtain an achieved status which is credited to his parents one of which was a mailman and even here you can see barriers being broken because he wanted more for his son that what he was able to give him growing up. This is a great story and shows how our culture is collectively changing and moving in an upward fashion. Benoodles123
I think it's very interesting that you mentioned Johanna's parents body language. Johanna comes from a liberal household, and was always taught that the color of your skin does not make you any more or less of a person. She was so sure that they would be accepting of their interracial relationship, and honestly believed they were accepting throughout the majority of the film. The use of body language showed the audience that her father was battling himself internally, and did not approve of this relationship because society does not approve of this relationship. He did have to deal with implicit bias because he had never been handed a racial issue this closely integrated in his life. It was really cool how he was able to overcome this, and in the end be accepting of Johanna and John's relationship. Daisy123
This film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” it was a biracial couple that met in another country. It was around the 1960’s when black and white was and still is today not acceptable. The man was black and the female was white. The man and the women regarding society’s beliefs about biracial couples decided to get married. In this movie, it exposed a lot of racial bias amongst two families while exposing a lot of biases. The characters used their roles they played to exposed racial deviance. In the 1960’s, some states in the 1960’s biracial couples and/or marriages were frowned upon. The fathers were the ones that was against the marriage. This showed how the men back during that time era made the decisions within the household. The women did not have any rights during this time. This couple was determined to marry each other. Joanna father was the one who made the call on whether she could marry John. John was dealing with the racial biases of being in love with a woman from a different race, a white woman at that. Some characters within the film showed. Joanna was from a wealthy family who had a maid name Hilary. Hilary felt as if John was supposed to not try to succeed in life because he was an African American, but Hilary was an African American as well. I didn’t see what the issue was but I’m looking at how society view the world in today’s era. During this time, there were a lot of issues that were going in within society. This film touched on a few issues that were overcome due to a biracial couple being in love. I think that people should be able to be in a relationship with whomever regardless of their ethnicity. Rendezvous123
The film "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" showed many sociological perspectives throughout the film, but the most prevalent one seen was racial stratification. Johanna believes that her liberal father, who is a journalist taking a stance on civil rights, will be shocked at first, but overall will be accepting of their interracial marriage. Even though he is more liberal than most, he is still a rich white man living in the 1960s, when relationships such as theirs was seen as deviant. We can see that there are certain norms followed, not just by the white population but also the black population as well. You can see this through Tilly's reactions through the whole movie. When John first arrives, she tells Johanna's father that "all hell has broke loose now." To me, it was such a culture shock to see a black woman not supportive of interracial but claims that she's for civil rights. She makes ongoing comments such as these throughout the film, and her stance is solidified when John's parents come to dinner and his father does not approve either. One would think that those of the same race would be supportive of John and Johanna breaking the norm for black men. Racial Stratification is rife because it is not only acknowledged by white folks, but also the black folks. The older generation of this time period is stuck on the culture from the early 1900s when there was segregation through the nation. Culture is fluid, and you can see times already changing within John's accomplishments in his professional field. We have become more accepting of interracial relationships since the 60s, but there are still so many people stuck in their ways who think that this is still unacceptable. Racial stratification still exists in today's society, but if this movie took a stand on racial inequality back in the 60s, society should've been able to narrow the gap between blacks and whites more. I hope that one day cultural norms shift, and all races are seen as truly equal. Daisy123
The film, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” was meant to shed light on racial stratification. While it exposed this very well, it also showed different gender roles and social class. In this film, a young, white, affluent lady meets a black man in Hawaii. After knowing each other only for a short time, the couple is convinced they are in love and will be married. This leads them to heading home to San Francisco so he can meet her parents. Her parents along with his parents are not fans of the marriage, in fact they are shocked and try to persuade their kids to call it off. This is the evidence of the racial stratification. Also shown are the different roles of men and women. The mothers were much more compassionate towards their children and cried in the movie more than once. The mothers ended up getting excited about the wedding and trying to figure out a way to tell their husband they back it. At first, the white mother says nothing. She goes where her husband says, she does as he says and is expected to think as he says. It is not until towards the end of the film when she finally stands up for what she believes and tells him that if he does not give the blessing to the marriage he will start a war with their daughter. In turn, she will side with her daughter over him. The fathers in the film were much more stern and did not show emotion. You can see the black father holding in his emotion while his son ripped him a new one. The final sociological issue shown is the difference in social classes. The head of the white household was a big time newspaper publisher, while the head of the black family was a retired mailman. The black man brings up the difference in their occupations in an argument with the white man. Overall, the film was done excellently and the emotions and acting portrayed were what sold the film and the whole ideas that went along with it. SAS123
I think it's interesting that both women, as mothers, were all for the marriage towards the end but the men, as fathers, were not. This shows the gender roles in action because the characteristics of the men and women came out when making the decisions. The women were more sensitive to the choice and felt more deeply for their children's feelings of love right away. Where as the fathers though more conservatively and strongly about the risks that come with being in an illegal interacial marriage in that society. I also found it interesting that the white family owned a newspaper company and the black family were in the postal service. This showed the social stratification of race and careers of the time. -Kiwi123
The 1967 film "Guess Who's coming to Dinner" did an excellent job portraying racial stratification. It also portrayed gender stratification, but that is not as noticeable as the racism. A young, white, rich woman met an African American man in Hawaii. They quickly fell in love with each other. At first, the the woman's parents were shocked and did not want them to get married. Even the African American's parents did not want them to marry. The white and African American fathers talk about their differences in occupation. The white male is a newspaper publisher, which is a decently high end job. The African American male, who is retired, worked as a mailman. This showed racial biases and stratification. Eventually, both sets of parents gave their blessing but it was evident that it was not common for marriages between different races in that time period. It was a bit taboo at that time and even their children may have problems when they grow up. With the gender stratification, it is evident that the white male had the most amount of say when the African American boy asked for his blessing. He was clearly dominant within the family. The woman's father would not even let his wife tie his shoe before leaving to get ice cream. It was clear that women had very little say when it came to decisions within the household. Gender and racial stratification is very evident in this film. This movie is very powerful and can easily relate to sociology. Some things in this movie is still occurring today. In my opinion, while it is a powerful film portraying racial and gender stratification, the main concept is still love. People should be able to love whoever they want without being ridiculed for it. Like the African American boy said to his dad, he is his own person and can make his own decisions. You cannot choose who you are going to fall in love with, but when you do, you should be able to marry and carry on no matter what. -softball_savvy123
I think it was interesting that Katherine was passionate about the topic and considered herself a lost generation. It’s important that the actors of the film understand the meaning behind it and play the roles well enough to get the meaning across in a genuine way. I think it’s funny that she took advantage of her niece and tried to get her to play her part better. They talk about how the dad was listening all the time. I think this is eye-opening because I didn’t consider the character to be shown as a good listener until he pointed out that that is what he was spending most of his time doing. I think he is representing an example for a society that doesn’t listen very well. Both of Joey’s parents represent the typical man and woman throughout the whole film. The gender roles are obvious when they react in situations. It’s interesting watching the final scene when the dad says his speech knowing that they are all watching him so intensely not only because of his final say in the matter, but because in reality, he was very sick and they wanted him to be able to finish it okay. As unfortunate as it was that he had to be so sick, I think it helped add meaning to the film and the emotion carried through it for future generations to see as inspiring. I think that the film was a celebration of humanism behind the scenes and on screen. It’s interesting to hear the perspective of making a movie back then and seeing the movie today. Back then, the movie was risky and the concept was illegal in many states. Today, the movie is inspiring and reflects on a piece of history. It can also be looked at as a positive look on issues of today. So, rather than interracial marriage change, maybe it could influence sexuality change and same-sex marriage. -Kiwi123
While the movie “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” mostly focuses on racial stratification in the sixties, it also does an incredible job of touching on many other sociological subject matters, such as gender inequality, the general patriarchy involved in marriage, and the difference between social class. All of this aside, the most astounding thing about this movie (at least to me) is the fact that it was so incredibly progressive for its time! I cannot even imagine what went through the minds of many people who were still set in their old ways when the observed this masterpiece of a movie. These actors and actresses put their their careers on the line when they made this movie; but thank God that they did seeing as how this movie has opened up people’s mind in the past, present, and will continue to do so in the future. I think that one reason why this movie was so successful is because all of those involved in the production of it sincerely believed in the message they were sending. Although it was definitely a more liberal view at the time, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” tackled various social issues extremely well while also incorporating humour throughout the dialogue to better convey the character's motives. Tracy’s character develops the most and shows the audience how one’s views can become malleable to become more accepting. While he still has his flaws, the father ultimately is able to break the typical male stereotype and share his true feelings about his family in the final scene of the movie. -ThreeTwo123
“ Guess who's coming to dinner” is a great movie to show how racial stratification works it easier to watch something happen instead of someone telling you a story but that just depends on your learning preference. This movie shows a how an interacial couples goes out out of the norm and decides to get married. Keep in mind this movie was made in the 60’s so interacial couples were seen as a shock or not common. This movie had a lot of deviance going one. When the doctor told his father that he wasn't going to let him run his life and when Joey told her parents that her and the doctor were going to get married regardless of their decisions. They are both violating social norms by defying their parents and deciding to be together without the the concerns of how people would view them. There was also a social class aspect in this movie, see in my eyes if the doctor was not a doctor and was poor they wouldn't of ever met let alone ran into the problems they did when trying to ask or blessings for the marriage. So the fact that h wa in a higher social class and how everyone kept saying he was and important man did not justify how he felt about joey he loved her no matter what the circumstances were. Another sociological matter in “ Guess who's coming to dinner” was gender inequality. Joeys father was a mean one he rushed his wife and made her feel like she had no say in whether or not joey should marry. She was more or less like by stander waiting to be told what to do and as far as the doctor's mother she was didn't say much unless her husband was not not around, the women were seen as superior to men. Dancer 123
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was a film that was meant to inform the public about the social issue of race in a serious way. Though there were some elements of humour used in the film to lighten the mood, the intent was to not joke or make a comedy of the idea of interracial marriage. In the 1960s, racial marriage was illegal in seventeen of the states. This film was made in the height of the civil right movement where people wanted to see racial change in society. Though racial marriage and race was the primary focus of the film, there were also other two key sociological related elements that I saw and took interest in while watching the film. The first being gender inequality. In the film, it was seen that the white male’s decision was the most important to the rest of the characters. The white mother’s opinion did not matter. Back then, men were the head of the household and women were seen as difficult or unfit if they spoke out against the man. One can also see this same pattern between John’s mother and father. The mother had a different opinion from the father, but the father’s opinion in the end is the one that mattered to John. Another pattern in the film that I noticed that dealt with gender inequality was that the reverend went to speak to the white father. The wife did not speak to Mr. Drayton about changing his final decision. It took another older white man to alter Mr. Dayton’s opinion. The second sociological element that I saw and took interest in while watching the film was social stratification. In the film, the Dayton family is a part of the upper class or upper-middle class. They live in San Francisco and are able to send their daughter to Hawaii. To me, this indicates that the Dayton family has wealth. I think the writers for the film chose a more wealthier family because they didn't want to risk potential backlash by choosing a middle or lower-middle class white family. When someone has money, society says that societal rules may not necessarily apply to them. For example, in class, we discussed Martha Stewart having the ability to erase the title of being a criminal, while an average “joe” on the street does not have the ability to do so for committing the same crime. The film writers probably had in mind of using a family that had more money than the average family in America. People are more likely to not speak out about the societal wrong doings of a very wealthy family with a high status. Check123
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see such a prevalent example of patriarchy in the movie. The mothers' opinions did not matter until they were backed by their husbands, which still happens today. Like you said, the men were the head of the households, and society let the breadwinner equate to dictator in the American culture. In the movie, the women brought about the thoughts that were more fair to their children, but the only way the men changed their minds was when the older white man had similar beliefs as the women and could change the men's minds. It is neat to see that now, the script is flipped in some households, mostly because some mama bears are quite scary. aardvark123
DeleteI agree with a lot of you thoughts and views. One thing that was obvious that I did not think to mention and you did was the issue of the two families social status. It was obvious that the Drayton family came from money. The house they lived in, they had servants, and when the number of guests for dinner increased the daughter said just have the butcher send the food over in a taxi if need to. While the Prentice family on the other hand seemed to be more of a middle-class family. The father was retired from the post office, and he also makes a statement about his wife doing without a coat in winter so his son can get an education. Diver123
DeleteThe movie, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” was chocked full of sociological themes, the most prevalent being race. The whole movie was centered on race, specifically racial deviance, and how the culture of the ‘60s reacted to that racial deviance. It took the mentality of ‘separate but equal’ that was often pushed under the rug and brought it to the forefront. The conflict in the movie was between the biracial couple and their parents, but the real conflict was between “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” and society. Biracial couples were very much frowned upon and illegal in many states when the movie first came out, and Hollywood, being as liberal as it is, wanted to show how contrary to the American belief system that mentality really was. Society got a rude awakening to the injustice that was happening with the laws against biracial couples, and the movie resolved the conflict in such a way that rationalized the situation and made the audience understand the logic going on behind the deviance from societal norms. The main point of it was love. If two people love each other enough, they can overcome any cultural folkways and, in some cases, mores. The families finally reached an agreement that, even though life will be difficult and a union of the two races in such a manner is against all of their beliefs, the happiness those two would receive outweighed all of the negatives. Doing so, an awareness of new marriages between different races would break down racial barriers in society. If Hollywood can sell it and rationalize it, it must be alright, and Hollywood was allowed to do so because a new cultural mindset was beginning to come out of the woodwork in the ‘60s. If everyone is equal, why is the union of two races taboo? aardvark123
ReplyDeleteAardvark123, I agree with you when you say that the most prevalent sociological theme was race. I forgot to think about love after watching the movie. You said that the movie portrays love as the most important thing to have when marrying another person, no matter what their color. If one’s love is strong enough, color should not matter. Even the parents agreed that if John and Joanna’s happiness together (aka love) outweighed the potential difficulties that would arise from other people, then the approval of their marriage was given. I also thought it was interesting how you said that Hollywood used its liberal ways to convey its message to the rest of America. This shows how powerful a film can be when politics are being intertwined with a certain viewpoint. Hollywood, to some extent, has the power to change societal norms. We see it everyday in the television today. When I was younger, I never remember seeing gay people on the tv. Now, I see it almost in every different television show I watch. In addition, we are also seeing a lot of gay right and gender identity movements taking place today or in recent times as well. Check123
DeleteCheck123 - Spot on! The media is a socializing agent as well! Helps to construct, deconstruct, and amend cultural aspects, etc. WellSaid345
DeleteI like how you pointed out Hollywood's transition into a more liberal minded entity with this film. It seemed that the late 1960s into the early 1970s were a big time for Hollywood in the sense that they began to implement films that would challenge the traditional American way of thinking. Being a film major myself this is where I will implement my own personal knowledge on the topic. In 1968, a year after this film was released, director Roman Polanski released his magnum opus "Rosemary's Baby" which would contribute a new way of thinking towards religion and sexual relations in high class society.-MrG123
DeleteYou bring up a good point that the ‘separate but equal’ mentality was often not questioned and just assumed to be right. ‘Separate but equal’ can not be ethical however if the two races have not both agreed upon it and they are not both actually equal. This movie makes it evident that white and black people are not considered equal by society. I can imagine that it would be easy for the white people to think they were equal, but the black people obviously knew better. The fact that the families were worried about the future of Joanna and John’s biracial children supports this. -Chameleon123
DeleteThe three major points that I found were of the most interest and importance from Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner are gender stratification, age, and race. Gender stratification is evident in this movie. In their home in San Francisco the structure of the way that Spencer Tracy (Matt Drayton) and Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton) interact reveals the difference in roles men and women had in the 1960s. Compared to nowadays, the roles were much different although they are still not equal today. In the video it related Matt to a bear that Christina tip-toed around, irritated, and had to be careful of because he could squash her easily. One instance is when Christina had to stop to tie her she and she got “growled” at by her husband. The husbands held the power of the house and the women were the accessory to them. This is evident in the fact that the men were the ones that were making the decision of whether Katharine Houghton (Joanna Drayton) and Sidney Poitier (John Prentice) got to marry and the women did not really have any power to make the decision even though they were of equal number. Age is also a topic that caused problems shown in the movie. For example, the poor treatment of older people is evident in the scene of Matt and Christina getting ice cream. The waitress that served them was short and impatient with all of Matt’s requests and questions. Also, when Matt accidently hit the car while he was backing out the man yelled at him and was saying extremely rude things against old people. Racism is also depicted in this movie. It is clear from all of the racial undertones and looks people gave down to the fact that it was considered an issue for a black man to marry a white woman. -Chameleon123
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that there was so themes concerning age going on in this movie. John Prentice yells at his father saying "You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!" kind of representing that there was a lot tension between the older generation and the younger generation because times where changing and the younger people had to use some force to be able to create change. I think that ice cream scene is another symbol of the barrier between the young and the old that continues to occur throughout the remainder of the movie. -Glass123
DeleteI agree with a lot of your points that you wrote about. I even wrote about some myself. However I did not really notice the age issue until you pointed it out. Which now when I think about it I can really see that in the movie. How the older generation their morals and what they believed in were wrong and different from the generation that was now growing up. I think that is really prevalent in our society now. I think we as a generation are more accepting than our grandparents and many of our own parents as well. It's really sad that this film was made in the 1960's and some of the issues in the film are still issues today. They have not fully gone away or disappeared. Litv123
DeleteI think you put this very well. I also noticed how the men were kind of in control of everything and the women were just expected to go along with it. I also liked the end when Katherine Hepburn told her husband that if he were to begin a war with their daughter, she would side with her. It was kind of showing that times were changing and it provided a sense of growth in the role of a woman. I did not notice the age issues until you pointed them out. The ice cream place was a great example of that. Not only because the waitress was short with him and the man whose car he hit was yelling at him but because when he drove off the entire parking lot clapped and cheered for the young man. They applauded the man that yelled at an old man. I found that odd because that is not what I am used to in our society today. SAS123
DeleteI feel as if this movie it extremely powerful on its own, but when you are aware of all the real life connections between the characters it makes the connections on the screen more intense. The last scene radiates the real love felt between Katherine and Spencer which makes the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Drayton that much deeper .The context behind the character of Mr. Drayton makes him a stronger character because you know that Spencer Tracy was fighting to make this performance so amazing because he was aware that it very well may be the last performance he ever does. Sidney Poitier being the first leading black man in a movie is so fitting because the character he is playing represents his black doctor that transcends all of the stereotypes and becomes wildly successful. This video also kind of solidifies my feelings about the patriarchal tones in the movie. I am not one hundred percent sure if they deliberately put all of the patriarchal themes in the movie but I enjoy how these gender issues are beginning to be addressed.I have seen this movie twice now and Joe Morgenstern brings up one my favorite things about this movie that I only noticed by watching the movie for the second time. That is the love story that happens in the midst of all this conflict and tension. The viewer is watching Joana fall deeper in love with John and vice versa while there is some sort of conflict or confrontation between characters in every scene. My other favorite things about this movie is the internal struggle that Mr. Drayton feels so intensely. I love that struggle the struggle that occurs when what he thought he stood is placed right in front of his face and he must work out whether or not he is being a hypocrite. The stubbornness he feels is so incredibly human. - Glass123
ReplyDeleteWhile there are patriarchal themes in this film, I think we should give it props for the strong lead that the mother, Christina, played. She obviously had some authority in her job because she fired Hilary. She was never afraid to express herself to her husband, and she even took a stand to fight for her daughter's happiness. Her role was inspiring to watch because she was very good at having more than one status. She played a kind and loving mother, and a supportive and empowering wife. When there was a role conflict between being a mother and a wife she made it work. She stayed true to her values. The love that you talked about Mr. Drayton is completely understandable, because she is an incredible woman. -M&M123
DeleteThere are three sociological terms that sociology 110 covers that I found can specifically apply to “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” These terms include age, prejudice, and dramaturgy. Age plays a large role in this movie because ultimately two people of one generation want to get married, but first they want a blessing from another generation of people. Joanna’s parents seem to have been very old fashioned. They grew up in a time where it was a ridiculous idea for a black man to marry a woman, and in the time of this movie it was still a taboo. John faced the struggle of being in love with a woman of another race. Because he loved her, he could not live with the idea of her parents resenting her for marrying him. So, he decided to commit to marrying Joanna only if her parents committed too. Throughout the movie Joanna is referred to happy and optimistic. I would say that she embraced her age, not numerically but that she was living in an age where people were fighting the status quo of marrying people of their own race. Joanna fell in love and that is what she saw. She didn’t have this second term, which is prejudice. Several characters throughout the film displayed prejudice. Hilary, an employee of Joanna’s mother, was very prejudice. When she realized that Joanna was with a black man she claimed she was, “intensely curious.” She then forced her prejudice onto Joanna’s mother, ultimately leading to the loss of her job. The father, Matt, even carried prejudice with him. One would not expect that of him considering he was a very liberal man. This brings me into the third term, dramaturgy. Many people in this film displayed this concept that we put on a mask. Matt put on this liberal mask to the world for much of his life and he didn’t even realize he was doing so until his daughter wanted to marry John. His eyes were open and the mask was eventually removed. Hilary masked her prejudice when she was in front of Joanna and John, but she took the mask off and let loose to the mother. -M&M123
ReplyDeleteThe movie we saw in class today was one that told an actual story line that was very common in the 1960's between couples of different races. Throughout the entire movie it is about a white woman wanting to marry a black man. It shows how the different generations view racial equality. You notice that between the parents they are appalled and stunned at the fact that they are not of the same color. They get even more against it when they decide to wed each other after only two weeks of knowing one another. However the both the white mother and the black mother both come around to the idea of them being together, purely out of the happiness between their children. That is something we talked about in the class the other day, that women will tend to go more towards feelings and play situations out through emotions. It is both fathers that are against what their children want to do. That also shows how men are the head of households and their decisions is the final say in the matter. In the very end of the movie it is the white father that makes the final call on if they are allowed to get married or not. Race was a very large issue in our history and is something that is still around today. Interracial couples are more common today, however I still think they world is still shocked by it. The film was very powering to watch and then once watching the video on the blog it really shows the real life ties that all the characters had together. I think it makes the film much better when you can understand the characters and listen to what they have to say. Litv123
ReplyDeleteCultural is not static here. It's fluid - the differences in opinion between the young and older here personifies this chasm or change in culture....WellSaid345
DeleteGuess Who’s Coming to Dinner is a film that was produced in 1967 which was during the time of the Civil Rights movement. While this movie touched on the most obvious topic, inter racial marriage, there were also several other underlying sociological topics it brought up as well. The first being sexual inequality. It was apparent in the way they dressed, the men wore pants and the women wore skirts or dresses. It was also apparent in the roles they took on. One scene in particular where Mr. Drayton was yelling at Christina Drayton because she was taking too long to tie her shoe. I also thought it was interesting that when they were in the car he made the decision to go get ice cream even though she didn’t want any, which is just another way to show that the man is in control. At one point in the movie, both Joanna and Christina were called “Joey” and “Chris” I’m not sure if it was the directors intent to have some type of sexual equality by changing the lead female names to nicknames that are used by males, but I think it was. Deviance was another apparent issue that was going on in this film. Not only was it the younger generation, but the wives were also being deviant by not going along with what their husbands were suggesting they do, which was to not support the interracial relationship and potential marriage. I guess you could say the ending was a happy one, but for some reason it didn’t feel that way to me. At the end when Mr. Drayton is giving the famous speech and granting his blessing he takes full authority of the situation. Again, it’s a situation where the white male is dominating. So while the film was intended to bring up topics that were considered extremely taboo in that time, they essentially had the white male as the leader in the end. Not to mention that he was also the older generation as well.
ReplyDeletesunflower123
There are several topics that you bring up that I did not notice until you brought them up. I did not think about the last seen as being an example of patriarchal society but you are right. The males are definitely dominating and are in control. That would definitely make the women deviant for not listening to their husbands which could of been a much bigger problem then it would be in our society today. I also thought it was just kind of rude and weird that Mr. Dayton went and got ice cream when Christina did not want any but I guess that just another norm for a patriarchal society. Scuba123
DeleteIn the film, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, we see the sociological perspective of every kind of person for the time period. There was such a difference in the perspective of the man and woman during this time and it is very prevalent in the film. The mother sees this issue as a liberal. She feels that her daughter is grown enough to make the right decision and she trusts her. She also knows that nothing is more important than love. If her daughter, Joanna, is in love than there is nothing that can stop her. All she wants is for her daughter to be happy. She was very shocked at first because she had no idea something like this was even an option but after she processed it a little bit she realized that Joanna was the happiest she had ever been. This more important than the color of the boys skin and this made her happy. John's mother felt the same way. Now, the fathers saw this from a different perspective. They were not going to have a son that was different than the norms of society. They had grown up looking down at couples who were biracial and had always wanted the same color for their children. This was considered deviant in the eyes of the fathers. They did not see the love that they shared until the very end, they only saw what society had told them was wrong. There is also a lot of culture shock in this film. Every single person that is introduced to Joanna and John is shocked beyond belief. I love seeing the look on the peoples faces when they hear that they are a couple. The society that they live in is not quite used to biracial marriages. Most people are worried about their children and how they will be looked at and made fun of as they grow up. Scuba123
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the mother caring about her daughters feelings more so than the father did in the beginning of the film. At first the mother was a little shocked as well, like everyone else who saw them out in public. After observing her daughter closely she realized that even though she was always a happy child, she has never been more happy than when she was with John. That is something that the father did not pick as quick. Like you said, they had another perspective of the relationship. Both fathers were more worried about what people were going to say, and what people would do to them than their strong love. In the end though, it was Mrs. Prentices comment that made him remember his love for his wife Cristina. He finally realized that no matter what he would tell them, Joanna and John will always love each other and nothing was going to change that. They didn't care about their skin color, they care about each other and the love each other. When John and his father were arguing in the study, John said something that I liked. He said, "But you see yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man."
Deletepanda123
Mothers always have a special bond with their kids i mean they did birth them. Women tend to see situations differently from men i do agree with you on that. Like we discussed in class women are more the type to try and accommodate and fix the problem so everyone needs and wants are satisfied. But when it comes to your son or daughter wanting to marry outside of their race in the 60’s it becomes a little challenging like do you take your children's side or do you stick to your significant other's side. So i guess it really depends on your thought process when kit comes to thinking about problems from the past and present. Dancer 123
DeleteGuess who's coming to dinner is a perfect example on how people felt and acted towards interracial relationships in the 1960's. There are a lot of sociological perspectives in this movie, just like we discussed in class today. One of the things that I noticed was the importance of nonverbal communication. Throughout the movie there were many scene where the actors didn't have to say anything. I could already know how they were feeling because of the nonverbal communication. The facial expressions, the posture, and the hand/body gestures. I could see shock, surprise, joy, love, sadness, and anger. I didn't have to hear dialogue to see what any of the actors were feeling in that moment. I think it an important factor in this movie. Another thing I noticed was the gender stratification. When Dr. John Prentice asked approval from both parents to marry their daughter, there was equality. It wasn't up to just the father or just the mother, he wanted both. In the beginning, it was made clear that the mother was skeptical about the whole thing, but then as the movie progressed she accepted the relationship. In the fathers position, he was accepting of it and then he changed his mind. Now, it was up to the man to give the blessing. Everyone was trying to change his mind, his wife, his reverend friend, and at the end Mrs. Prentice. You could feel that whatever the father was going to decide that is how it was going to be. Finally, it was Mrs. Prentice that made him see reason. Her comment made him think, eventually making the right decision in letting his daughter, Joanna Drayton marry Dr. John Prentice. The last and the most important sociological perspective of this movie, was the race issue. The whole movie revolved around the issue of them being different skin tones. I loved how the director did this film, because it showed how people felt, and reacted to a biracial couple. Even though Dr. Prentice was an extremely intelligent and successful man, he was still wasn't being treated correctly, because he was black. One of the beautiful parts about this movie, is that Joanna still wanted to be with him and she loved him deeply. In my opinion, her character is such a role model to the rest of society in that you need to love people no matter what race they are and no matter what skin color they are.
ReplyDeletepanda123
I very much enjoyed “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner”. I thought it was insightful and pretty funny. One of the most noticeable things in the movie was how the girl’s dad had the most authority, the old white man. He is the one who calls the shots and the only one who can say whether the two can be married. His wife has zero say in the matter, she tries to give her input but it really doesn’t matter. This also makes me think of how it can create today. Now, some families do still think that mixed race couples are an issue, but the biggest dating issue today seems to be gay relationships. If this movie was made today but with a gay couple, I can still see a similar response, both parents being shocked. Everyone who meets them is in complete awe and shock and are in a bit of panic to the parents saying things like “I’m so sorry for you” “how did this happen” ect. A lot of times throughout the movie I kept thinking, what if he was white? The parents loved him, or what he did more like, but the only thing stopping the approval was his skin tone. If the movie was a girl bringing her white boyfriend over to meet her parents, it would be a ten minute movie. I think that this movie probably opened a lot of eyes during its time. It did come out right before the law was passed for anyone to marry any race. I can imagine the shock people probably had when this movie hit the cinemas. I mean, I can imagine what my grandparents probably thought if they ever saw the movie. They honestly probably turned it off as soon as it came on. rosethorns123
ReplyDeleteYou know I found it kind of strange that Joanna fathers was the only one who had the say so in whether her and John was able to get married. Why didn’t John father have a part of this decision as well? This showed not only racial deviance, but racial bias as well because not only was it man that had the final so say but it was a man as well. This movie was a great movie that came out during the 1960's. It showed many racial issues that we as Americans were facing. I’m glad that Joanna and John could get married regardless of their ethnicity. Rendezvous123
DeleteI noticed the gender stratification too and found it rather bizarre. The mother had no say, and the dominant white male made the final decision. I agree with you. Biracial problems are not an issue anymore, but homosexual relationships are. Some biases change has time goes on which is interesting to me. The movie would have been powerful for people in that time period definitely. I thought it was really cool that it is still powerful today, though. My grandparents on my father's side would have been absolutely disgusted, so I understand where you're coming from there, sadly. When the movie came out, there was probably a lot of shocked people. -softball_savvy123
DeleteIf it weren't for Sidney Poitier's poised performance in the 1967 cinematic masterpiece "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" I'm not entirely convinced that the film would be the same film, if any film it all. In a time in America when racial tensions were at an all time high, Poitier's character demonstrated there was civility and intelligence to be had when reason was often overshadowed by hate. Probably the most interesting aspect to me in the film however, is how race isn't just a one sided issue, and one viewed from the perspective of the film's two fathers can often be portrayed as coexistent. On the one hand you have the rich, white father who is speculative of his daughter marrying a black man not because he fears he his a bad person, but rather he fears for their own personal safety as a couple in the outside world. Then there is the black father who is rampant with rage over his son marrying a white woman because his generation only knows to accept the black on black relationship when bi-racial love isn't even a question. Communication as it seemed to me, played a tremendously big part in this film, both verbally and non-verbally, as it was easy to tell how a character was feeling as they expressed themselves with body language and cultural values through verbal cues. Then to me probably the most important and memorable part of the film is the white father's speech as it pertains to his approval of the two's marriage. Throughout the film it is clear that he doesn't exactly approve of the tremendous situation and won't allow it to go on. However, after having some important conversations with some people very close to him, he finally comes to terms with himself and with the marriage. To me that is why this film holds up so well; it is hard not to enjoy the transition of the father as he rides an emotional roller coaster deciding what is ultimately best for his child. It is something that can still be seen in modern relationships today, especially modern bi-racial relationships.-MrG123
ReplyDeleteIn the movie “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” there are a lot of topics we have learned about in our sociology class that are brought up in the film. One of the topics dealt with is an issue dealing with gender. In the film the male role in society seemed to be the dominant role which is also called a patriarch role. When it came to making the decision of the Prentice’s and Drayton’s households it seemed the father had the final say as to whether or not they would grant their children their blessing on their marriage. The wives seemed to view the relationship differently than their husbands, but it was the husband's thoughts that was the final say. There is also a scene where Chris Drayton wanted a priest to talk to her husband about her thoughts, as if to say the husband will not listen to his wife so another man has to be used to intervene. This is also seen when going for a ride with Matt and Chris Drayton. Matt the father makes the decision to get ice cream, without caring whether Chris wants to stop or not. As we have discussed in a previous blog on the movie there is deviance shown also. There is the scene where John Prentice is arguing with his father. There is deviance on both parties. The father is showing deviance by trying to make decisions for his grown sons life. The son was showing deviance by standing up to his father and arguing back at him. Finally the biggest topic brought up is what the main part of the film is about. That is the racial problem of a black man and a white woman wanting to marry. This was a big issue in the early sixties. When the film was made it was still against the law in some states for a bi-racial couple to marry. There are more topics that can be brought up too, like age discrimination, racial prejudice, and many other items. Diver123
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on some of your topics, it definitely shows a patriarchal society for both cultures. During the movie, I was thinking about the monsignor and how he displayed dramaturgical analysis by obviously feeling comfortable enough to drink scotch in the presence of close friends (while being on backstage) and on the other hand not really being concerned with what the black family would think while holding such a prestigious position unless of course that was socially accepted in the 60’s. As far as the deviance from John, you didn’t specify if you felt that it was bad or good deviance in my opinion it was good deviance because he was showing the mindset of blacks during that time and how they obviously felt that they were owed something for doing what they’re supposed to do as parents and how times have changed. Benoodles123
DeleteThe young couple in the movie had so many variables against them that most people might say they were doomed from the start. But the movie exposed so much that I was literally feeling a bit of cultural shock just by the way many of the cast members acted and especially the apparent minority group within the movie simply because how can one go through oppression and have ill words to say to someone else experiencing the same thing? It was interesting how Joey was so sure that her parents would be accepting of her new beau but once reality was thrown in their faces they were taken aback. It was quite uncomfortable for me looking at their body language, it was as if they were screaming at the couple without saying two words. Even her mother, Christina, explained how they had never raised her to think that white people are superior to any race regardless of their skin color ect but that they had never told her not fall in love with a colored man. Christina and Mack both displayed implicit bias because they appeared not have an issue with “colored” folks until the issue was staring them in the face. It was also a great depicter of how sexism was highly prevalent within each culture and how it was the same in each racial group that the man was superior to the women; that until Mack had realized for himself that love conquers all, the men really gave no regard to what the nurturing mothers thought or even had to say for that matter. I was glad to see that Dr. Prentice was able to obtain an achieved status which is credited to his parents one of which was a mailman and even here you can see barriers being broken because he wanted more for his son that what he was able to give him growing up. This is a great story and shows how our culture is collectively changing and moving in an upward fashion. Benoodles123
ReplyDeleteI think it's very interesting that you mentioned Johanna's parents body language. Johanna comes from a liberal household, and was always taught that the color of your skin does not make you any more or less of a person. She was so sure that they would be accepting of their interracial relationship, and honestly believed they were accepting throughout the majority of the film. The use of body language showed the audience that her father was battling himself internally, and did not approve of this relationship because society does not approve of this relationship. He did have to deal with implicit bias because he had never been handed a racial issue this closely integrated in his life. It was really cool how he was able to overcome this, and in the end be accepting of Johanna and John's relationship. Daisy123
DeleteThis film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” it was a biracial couple that met in another country. It was around the 1960’s when black and white was and still is today not acceptable. The man was black and the female was white. The man and the women regarding society’s beliefs about biracial couples decided to get married. In this movie, it exposed a lot of racial bias amongst two families while exposing a lot of biases. The characters used their roles they played to exposed racial deviance. In the 1960’s, some states in the 1960’s biracial couples and/or marriages were frowned upon. The fathers were the ones that was against the marriage. This showed how the men back during that time era made the decisions within the household. The women did not have any rights during this time. This couple was determined to marry each other. Joanna father was the one who made the call on whether she could marry John. John was dealing with the racial biases of being in love with a woman from a different race, a white woman at that. Some characters within the film showed. Joanna was from a wealthy family who had a maid name Hilary. Hilary felt as if John was supposed to not try to succeed in life because he was an African American, but Hilary was an African American as well. I didn’t see what the issue was but I’m looking at how society view the world in today’s era. During this time, there were a lot of issues that were going in within society. This film touched on a few issues that were overcome due to a biracial couple being in love. I think that people should be able to be in a relationship with whomever regardless of their ethnicity. Rendezvous123
ReplyDeleteThe film "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" showed many sociological perspectives throughout the film, but the most prevalent one seen was racial stratification. Johanna believes that her liberal father, who is a journalist taking a stance on civil rights, will be shocked at first, but overall will be accepting of their interracial marriage. Even though he is more liberal than most, he is still a rich white man living in the 1960s, when relationships such as theirs was seen as deviant. We can see that there are certain norms followed, not just by the white population but also the black population as well. You can see this through Tilly's reactions through the whole movie. When John first arrives, she tells Johanna's father that "all hell has broke loose now." To me, it was such a culture shock to see a black woman not supportive of interracial but claims that she's for civil rights. She makes ongoing comments such as these throughout the film, and her stance is solidified when John's parents come to dinner and his father does not approve either. One would think that those of the same race would be supportive of John and Johanna breaking the norm for black men. Racial Stratification is rife because it is not only acknowledged by white folks, but also the black folks. The older generation of this time period is stuck on the culture from the early 1900s when there was segregation through the nation. Culture is fluid, and you can see times already changing within John's accomplishments in his professional field. We have become more accepting of interracial relationships since the 60s, but there are still so many people stuck in their ways who think that this is still unacceptable. Racial stratification still exists in today's society, but if this movie took a stand on racial inequality back in the 60s, society should've been able to narrow the gap between blacks and whites more. I hope that one day cultural norms shift, and all races are seen as truly equal. Daisy123
ReplyDeleteThe film, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” was meant to shed light on racial stratification. While it exposed this very well, it also showed different gender roles and social class. In this film, a young, white, affluent lady meets a black man in Hawaii. After knowing each other only for a short time, the couple is convinced they are in love and will be married. This leads them to heading home to San Francisco so he can meet her parents. Her parents along with his parents are not fans of the marriage, in fact they are shocked and try to persuade their kids to call it off. This is the evidence of the racial stratification. Also shown are the different roles of men and women. The mothers were much more compassionate towards their children and cried in the movie more than once. The mothers ended up getting excited about the wedding and trying to figure out a way to tell their husband they back it. At first, the white mother says nothing. She goes where her husband says, she does as he says and is expected to think as he says. It is not until towards the end of the film when she finally stands up for what she believes and tells him that if he does not give the blessing to the marriage he will start a war with their daughter. In turn, she will side with her daughter over him. The fathers in the film were much more stern and did not show emotion. You can see the black father holding in his emotion while his son ripped him a new one. The final sociological issue shown is the difference in social classes. The head of the white household was a big time newspaper publisher, while the head of the black family was a retired mailman. The black man brings up the difference in their occupations in an argument with the white man. Overall, the film was done excellently and the emotions and acting portrayed were what sold the film and the whole ideas that went along with it. SAS123
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that both women, as mothers, were all for the marriage towards the end but the men, as fathers, were not. This shows the gender roles in action because the characteristics of the men and women came out when making the decisions. The women were more sensitive to the choice and felt more deeply for their children's feelings of love right away. Where as the fathers though more conservatively and strongly about the risks that come with being in an illegal interacial marriage in that society. I also found it interesting that the white family owned a newspaper company and the black family were in the postal service. This showed the social stratification of race and careers of the time. -Kiwi123
DeleteThe 1967 film "Guess Who's coming to Dinner" did an excellent job portraying racial stratification. It also portrayed gender stratification, but that is not as noticeable as the racism. A young, white, rich woman met an African American man in Hawaii. They quickly fell in love with each other. At first, the the woman's parents were shocked and did not want them to get married. Even the African American's parents did not want them to marry. The white and African American fathers talk about their differences in occupation. The white male is a newspaper publisher, which is a decently high end job. The African American male, who is retired, worked as a mailman. This showed racial biases and stratification. Eventually, both sets of parents gave their blessing but it was evident that it was not common for marriages between different races in that time period. It was a bit taboo at that time and even their children may have problems when they grow up. With the gender stratification, it is evident that the white male had the most amount of say when the African American boy asked for his blessing. He was clearly dominant within the family. The woman's father would not even let his wife tie his shoe before leaving to get ice cream. It was clear that women had very little say when it came to decisions within the household. Gender and racial stratification is very evident in this film. This movie is very powerful and can easily relate to sociology. Some things in this movie is still occurring today. In my opinion, while it is a powerful film portraying racial and gender stratification, the main concept is still love. People should be able to love whoever they want without being ridiculed for it. Like the African American boy said to his dad, he is his own person and can make his own decisions. You cannot choose who you are going to fall in love with, but when you do, you should be able to marry and carry on no matter what. -softball_savvy123
ReplyDeleteI think it was interesting that Katherine was passionate about the topic and considered herself a lost generation. It’s important that the actors of the film understand the meaning behind it and play the roles well enough to get the meaning across in a genuine way. I think it’s funny that she took advantage of her niece and tried to get her to play her part better. They talk about how the dad was listening all the time. I think this is eye-opening because I didn’t consider the character to be shown as a good listener until he pointed out that that is what he was spending most of his time doing. I think he is representing an example for a society that doesn’t listen very well. Both of Joey’s parents represent the typical man and woman throughout the whole film. The gender roles are obvious when they react in situations. It’s interesting watching the final scene when the dad says his speech knowing that they are all watching him so intensely not only because of his final say in the matter, but because in reality, he was very sick and they wanted him to be able to finish it okay. As unfortunate as it was that he had to be so sick, I think it helped add meaning to the film and the emotion carried through it for future generations to see as inspiring. I think that the film was a celebration of humanism behind the scenes and on screen. It’s interesting to hear the perspective of making a movie back then and seeing the movie today. Back then, the movie was risky and the concept was illegal in many states. Today, the movie is inspiring and reflects on a piece of history. It can also be looked at as a positive look on issues of today. So, rather than interracial marriage change, maybe it could influence sexuality change and same-sex marriage. -Kiwi123
ReplyDeleteWhile the movie “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” mostly focuses on racial stratification in the sixties, it also does an incredible job of touching on many other sociological subject matters, such as gender inequality, the general patriarchy involved in marriage, and the difference between social class. All of this aside, the most astounding thing about this movie (at least to me) is the fact that it was so incredibly progressive for its time! I cannot even imagine what went through the minds of many people who were still set in their old ways when the observed this masterpiece of a movie. These actors and actresses put their their careers on the line when they made this movie; but thank God that they did seeing as how this movie has opened up people’s mind in the past, present, and will continue to do so in the future. I think that one reason why this movie was so successful is because all of those involved in the production of it sincerely believed in the message they were sending. Although it was definitely a more liberal view at the time, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” tackled various social issues extremely well while also incorporating humour throughout the dialogue to better convey the character's motives. Tracy’s character develops the most and shows the audience how one’s views can become malleable to become more accepting. While he still has his flaws, the father ultimately is able to break the typical male stereotype and share his true feelings about his family in the final scene of the movie.
ReplyDelete-ThreeTwo123
“ Guess who's coming to dinner” is a great movie to show how racial stratification works it easier to watch something happen instead of someone telling you a story but that just depends on your learning preference. This movie shows a how an interacial couples goes out out of the norm and decides to get married. Keep in mind this movie was made in the 60’s so interacial couples were seen as a shock or not common. This movie had a lot of deviance going one. When the doctor told his father that he wasn't going to let him run his life and when Joey told her parents that her and the doctor were going to get married regardless of their decisions. They are both violating social norms by defying their parents and deciding to be together without the the concerns of how people would view them. There was also a social class aspect in this movie, see in my eyes if the doctor was not a doctor and was poor they wouldn't of ever met let alone ran into the problems they did when trying to ask or blessings for the marriage. So the fact that h wa in a higher social class and how everyone kept saying he was and important man did not justify how he felt about joey he loved her no matter what the circumstances were. Another sociological matter in “ Guess who's coming to dinner” was gender inequality. Joeys father was a mean one he rushed his wife and made her feel like she had no say in whether or not joey should marry. She was more or less like by stander waiting to be told what to do and as far as the doctor's mother she was didn't say much unless her husband was not not around, the women were seen as superior to men. Dancer 123
ReplyDelete