Stars: Spencer Tracy (Matt Drayton), Sidney Poitier (Dr. John Prentice), Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton), Katharine Houghton (Joanna "Joey" Drayton), Cecil Kellaway (Monsignor Ryan), Beah Richards (Mrs. Prentice), Roy Glenn (Mr. Prentice)
Director: Stanley Kramer
Awards / Honors
- 2 Oscar Wins – Best Actress (Katharine Hepburn), Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
- 8 Additional Oscar Nominations – Best Picture, Best Director (Stanley Kramer), Best Actor (Spencer Tracy), Best Supporting Actor (Cecil Kellaway), Best Supporting Actress (Beah Richards), Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score
- #99 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies list (1997)
- #58 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions list (2002)
- #35 on AFI’s 100 Years... 100 Cheers lists (2006)
Genre: Drama
Running Time: 1 Hour, 48 minutes
Format: DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating: 4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)
John's Take
John's Take
One of the things people may not appreciate is that it is surprisingly hard to write movie reviews. It seems easy because it is easy to talk about movies. Conversations with friends can jump around from point to point because, well, it is just conversation with friends. Trying to organize all those little talking points into coherent paragraphs that people would be interested in reading is much harder than it sounds. Rodger Ebert, I tip my hat to you sir.
The reason I mention this is that I am having a real hard time organizing my thoughts concerning this movie. It is certainly a good movie. It is also a movie I had seen a few times before – although it had been about 15 years or so since I had last seen it. I like this movie very much. However, as I write this all down I keep finding myself picking this movie apart. Then, I find myself deleting much of that criticism and focusing solely on the positive aspects instead. I then delete all of that and I end up just staring at a blank page. Did I mention that reviewing / blogging about movies is harder than it sounds?
I believe that the reason I am having so much trouble organizing my thoughts is that despite the fact that I like the movie very much, I am one of those people that believe that a truly good movie will still be a good movie 50 or more years from now. While statements like “Well, you have to remember the when the movie was made…” or “the movie is starting to show its age…” are kind of cop-outs. It is fine to use those statements when discussing the costumes or special effects in the movie, but if the plot, themes, or acting in a movie are not holding up, I think that it is important to point such things out. If you do not think the movie A Night at the Opera is funny, then traveling back through time to the 1930's when the movie was released wouldn't make it any funnier to you...
This movie was groundbreaking and important in 1967 (it was in 1967 that it finally became legal for interracial couple to marry in all 50 states), but is still important today? Let’s break down the elements of the movie...
Acting – The Good
Spencer Tracey (Matt Drayton, The Dad): I am sorry but the Academy just got it wrong that year. Yes, Rod Steiger was great in the other Sidney Poitier classic that came out that year, In the Heat of the Night (#100 on the list by the way), but I just don’t see how you don’t give the Best Actor award to Tracey. Tracey was reportedly in so much pain during his final monologue where he gives his blessing to the wedding that he could barely stand. Yet none of that is evident on screen. He channels all of that into the performance so that all you see is a man who not only has to come to grips with the how difficult to live up to one’s convictions, but is also having a hard time letting go of his daughter. Was it Spencer Tracey’s best performance ever? No, it wasn’t. But come on folks, the man was literally dying on-screen! What exactly does a guy got to do to win one of those little trophies?!?!
Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton, The Mother): Again, the Academy got it wrong. Oh, don’t misunderstand. I think Hepburn’s performance is wonderful, just not necessarily Oscar worthy. As good as she is in this film, she had much better performances in which she didn’t win – The Philadelphia Story and The African Queen (#47 and #39 on the list, respectfully) to name just two. In the case of this performance, the award was one of those “sorry-we-ignored-all-those past-performances” gifts that the Academy is famous for – along with some “sorry-Spencer-is-dead” sentiment thrown in for good measure (for those of you younger than 40 who might be reading this, Tracey and Hepburn had a very long and very private love affair).
All of that being said, Katharine does an excellent job of channeling just the right amount of her real life feelings for Tracey so that the interaction between the two of them feels authentic an genuine – exactly how you expect a long-time married couple to interact.
Beah Richards (Mrs. Prentice, John Prentice’s mother): Nominated for Best Supporting Actress and deservedly so. She plays the voice of reason that transforms into the voice of hope with a reserved dignity that deserves to be recognized. I would like to say that the Academy got it wrong here as well when it didn’t award her the Oscar, but 1967 was a really strong year for that category.
Isabel Sanford (Tillie, the Drayton’s cook): Yes, Weezie Jefferson is in this movie. :) While, her part isn’t large – she is great at it. Her interaction with Poitier as her character takes John to task for his perceived “presumption” is done deftly.
Acting – The Bad
Katharine Houghton (Joey Drayton, The Daughter and soon-to-be bride): Agh, the pain, make it stop – it hurrrtss usss, it hurrtsss us…
No seriously, she makes me want to dig my eyes out of their sockets with a rusty spoon. She is horrible! It is nepotism run amuck (she is the niece of Katharine Hepburn) on a level that won’t be seen again until Sophia Coppola in The Godfather, Part III. I mean, she was easy on the eyes and everything, but, I mean … oh geez, she is terrible.
I would like to believe that this isn’t entirely her fault. One of the problems with the execution of the plot / theme is that both Joey Drayton and John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) have to be perfect people for this story to work out the way it does (we will get to more on that in a moment). So the character itself is written as to be so “open-hearted” and “good natured” as to be dangerously naïve. So much so it is probably a bad idea for her to leave the house by herself. So much so that I would not have any problem believing this character – in some bizarre alternative movie universe – could easily have brought home the entire Manson Family immediately after they had left the Tate household and still be shocked by the her family’s reaction. “But, Mother, Charlie says we are to love each other – just like you and Daddy always taught me….” In the real world, the forces of Natural Selection would have eliminated such a person from the gene pool long before she could start thinking about reproducing. While a terribly written character isn’t an actress’ fault, the fact that I need an insulin shot every time she opens her mouth is. Houghton stinks in this movie; there is just no two ways about this.
Acting – The In-between
Sidney Poitier (Dr. John Prentice, the soon-to-be-groom): Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Poitier. I just kept waiting for him to do “something” with this character. He is trying, you can tell he is trying his best to put some life into this character, but God love him, how do you play someone who is just that perfect? I mean, Mother Theresa wasn’t as good a person as John Prentice is. How exactly is he supposed to make this person interesting?
Like with Houghton, Poitier is forced to play a certain kind of character to make the movie work. So, he is kind of trapped within this framework that is hard for him to move around in. The difference between Houghton and Poitier, however, is that Poitier makes me believe that such a person could exist. It just turns out that such a person isn’t all that interesting to watch, unfortunately.
The Theme / Plot / Overall Presentation – The Bad
OK, here are some problems with this movie when seen through “modern” lenses.
First, every minor character that appears in this film is ridiculously stereotypical. From the Christina Drayton’s assistant at the art gallery (i.e., the shocked, conservative socialite) to the various “young people” that the main characters interact with (all of whom seem to have escaped from various Frankie and Annette beach party movies), not one of them acts in anything resembling a realistic manner. That would be fine, except the movie is constantly trying to use these characters to reinforce its theme of how racial attitudes are changing (especially among young people) and these characters are so ridiculous that you can’t help but laugh as the film beats you over the head with a “things are changing, whether you like it or not” sentiment over, and over again. The scene where the Drayton’s young maid goes bobbing off with a delivery guy as they listen to their transistor radios is just ridiculously bad.
Yes, that is just how the “younger generation” was portrayed in films back in the day, but what comes across as humorously nostalgic in a film where Elvis could break out into song at any moment, is quite distracting in a “message movie”.
Second, does anybody believe for a second that Dr. John Prentice could in any way actually be in love with Joey Drayton? Really? Knock boots with Joey? Yes, I can see that. Want her as a trophy wife? Yes, I can see that. Actually have fallen in love with her? Not a chance. John Prentice is a highly educated man and a dedicated physician and humanitarian. Joey Drayton is a vapid bag filled with stupid. These two people should not be getting married. As the their relationship is portrayed in the movie, it doesn’t require a very long trip down the “close-minded road” to start to interoperate the reason why John Prentice is interested in Joey is BECAUSE she is white. Such a racist outlook is certainly not what the filmmakers intended, but they don’t exactly make the relationship believable either.
Thirdly, and in conjunction with some earlier points in this post, I realize that making the John Prentice character so perfect so as to remove any reason other than the age difference, and the length of time they had know each other (i.e., the same concerns they would have if he was white) to object to the marriage was done purposefully, but I also think that it makes the movie overly simplistic (and makes Sidney Poitier’s character kind of boring). Was that necessary back in 1967? Most assuredly. However, it is 2010 now, and the idea of an interracial couple being the sole issue of a story isn’t much to hang a movie on anymore.
The Theme / Plot / Overall Presentation – The Good
There are some elements of this film that I believe have actually improved with the passage of time. First and foremost, is the reaction of both sets of parents. While it is unfortunate that even some 40 years after this film was made that the idea of interracial couples is still not without its controversy, I suspect that modern audiences find the scenes with Tracey, Hepburn, Richards, and Glenn to still feel believable (although the men going off to Tracey’s study for “men talk” feels a bit quaint). In fact, their reactions, and how quickly they work through their own personal issues with the wedding, may come across as more believe now than it did back in 1967.
Second, the fact that movie addresses, albeit in a small way, the idea of black-on-black prejudice and the preconceptions that African-Americans have of Caucasians helps to prevent the movie from being simply a moralistic fairy-tale. Tillie has no problems telling John that he has no business messing around with a white girl. John’s father thinks that he is making a horrible mistake and isn’t afraid to let him know about it. It is a shame that the film didn’t take the time to examine these things further.
Final Thoughts
There is no question that this is a good movie. There is no question that this is an important movie (historically, if for no other reason). However, I don’t find it surprising that this movie was removed from the 2007 version of the 100 greatest movie list. I think that as time passes, however, this film is starting to lose its ability to convey its message in a meaningful manner. That is unfortunate since it is a message that still needs to be sent.
I give this movie 4 Stars – but it is a weak 4 Stars.
John
The reason I mention this is that I am having a real hard time organizing my thoughts concerning this movie. It is certainly a good movie. It is also a movie I had seen a few times before – although it had been about 15 years or so since I had last seen it. I like this movie very much. However, as I write this all down I keep finding myself picking this movie apart. Then, I find myself deleting much of that criticism and focusing solely on the positive aspects instead. I then delete all of that and I end up just staring at a blank page. Did I mention that reviewing / blogging about movies is harder than it sounds?
I believe that the reason I am having so much trouble organizing my thoughts is that despite the fact that I like the movie very much, I am one of those people that believe that a truly good movie will still be a good movie 50 or more years from now. While statements like “Well, you have to remember the when the movie was made…” or “the movie is starting to show its age…” are kind of cop-outs. It is fine to use those statements when discussing the costumes or special effects in the movie, but if the plot, themes, or acting in a movie are not holding up, I think that it is important to point such things out. If you do not think the movie A Night at the Opera is funny, then traveling back through time to the 1930's when the movie was released wouldn't make it any funnier to you...
This movie was groundbreaking and important in 1967 (it was in 1967 that it finally became legal for interracial couple to marry in all 50 states), but is still important today? Let’s break down the elements of the movie...
Acting – The Good
Spencer Tracey (Matt Drayton, The Dad): I am sorry but the Academy just got it wrong that year. Yes, Rod Steiger was great in the other Sidney Poitier classic that came out that year, In the Heat of the Night (#100 on the list by the way), but I just don’t see how you don’t give the Best Actor award to Tracey. Tracey was reportedly in so much pain during his final monologue where he gives his blessing to the wedding that he could barely stand. Yet none of that is evident on screen. He channels all of that into the performance so that all you see is a man who not only has to come to grips with the how difficult to live up to one’s convictions, but is also having a hard time letting go of his daughter. Was it Spencer Tracey’s best performance ever? No, it wasn’t. But come on folks, the man was literally dying on-screen! What exactly does a guy got to do to win one of those little trophies?!?!
Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton, The Mother): Again, the Academy got it wrong. Oh, don’t misunderstand. I think Hepburn’s performance is wonderful, just not necessarily Oscar worthy. As good as she is in this film, she had much better performances in which she didn’t win – The Philadelphia Story and The African Queen (#47 and #39 on the list, respectfully) to name just two. In the case of this performance, the award was one of those “sorry-we-ignored-all-those past-performances” gifts that the Academy is famous for – along with some “sorry-Spencer-is-dead” sentiment thrown in for good measure (for those of you younger than 40 who might be reading this, Tracey and Hepburn had a very long and very private love affair).
All of that being said, Katharine does an excellent job of channeling just the right amount of her real life feelings for Tracey so that the interaction between the two of them feels authentic an genuine – exactly how you expect a long-time married couple to interact.
Beah Richards (Mrs. Prentice, John Prentice’s mother): Nominated for Best Supporting Actress and deservedly so. She plays the voice of reason that transforms into the voice of hope with a reserved dignity that deserves to be recognized. I would like to say that the Academy got it wrong here as well when it didn’t award her the Oscar, but 1967 was a really strong year for that category.
Isabel Sanford (Tillie, the Drayton’s cook): Yes, Weezie Jefferson is in this movie. :) While, her part isn’t large – she is great at it. Her interaction with Poitier as her character takes John to task for his perceived “presumption” is done deftly.
Acting – The Bad
Katharine Houghton (Joey Drayton, The Daughter and soon-to-be bride): Agh, the pain, make it stop – it hurrrtss usss, it hurrtsss us…
No seriously, she makes me want to dig my eyes out of their sockets with a rusty spoon. She is horrible! It is nepotism run amuck (she is the niece of Katharine Hepburn) on a level that won’t be seen again until Sophia Coppola in The Godfather, Part III. I mean, she was easy on the eyes and everything, but, I mean … oh geez, she is terrible.
I would like to believe that this isn’t entirely her fault. One of the problems with the execution of the plot / theme is that both Joey Drayton and John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) have to be perfect people for this story to work out the way it does (we will get to more on that in a moment). So the character itself is written as to be so “open-hearted” and “good natured” as to be dangerously naïve. So much so it is probably a bad idea for her to leave the house by herself. So much so that I would not have any problem believing this character – in some bizarre alternative movie universe – could easily have brought home the entire Manson Family immediately after they had left the Tate household and still be shocked by the her family’s reaction. “But, Mother, Charlie says we are to love each other – just like you and Daddy always taught me….” In the real world, the forces of Natural Selection would have eliminated such a person from the gene pool long before she could start thinking about reproducing. While a terribly written character isn’t an actress’ fault, the fact that I need an insulin shot every time she opens her mouth is. Houghton stinks in this movie; there is just no two ways about this.
Acting – The In-between
Sidney Poitier (Dr. John Prentice, the soon-to-be-groom): Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Poitier. I just kept waiting for him to do “something” with this character. He is trying, you can tell he is trying his best to put some life into this character, but God love him, how do you play someone who is just that perfect? I mean, Mother Theresa wasn’t as good a person as John Prentice is. How exactly is he supposed to make this person interesting?
Like with Houghton, Poitier is forced to play a certain kind of character to make the movie work. So, he is kind of trapped within this framework that is hard for him to move around in. The difference between Houghton and Poitier, however, is that Poitier makes me believe that such a person could exist. It just turns out that such a person isn’t all that interesting to watch, unfortunately.
The Theme / Plot / Overall Presentation – The Bad
OK, here are some problems with this movie when seen through “modern” lenses.
First, every minor character that appears in this film is ridiculously stereotypical. From the Christina Drayton’s assistant at the art gallery (i.e., the shocked, conservative socialite) to the various “young people” that the main characters interact with (all of whom seem to have escaped from various Frankie and Annette beach party movies), not one of them acts in anything resembling a realistic manner. That would be fine, except the movie is constantly trying to use these characters to reinforce its theme of how racial attitudes are changing (especially among young people) and these characters are so ridiculous that you can’t help but laugh as the film beats you over the head with a “things are changing, whether you like it or not” sentiment over, and over again. The scene where the Drayton’s young maid goes bobbing off with a delivery guy as they listen to their transistor radios is just ridiculously bad.
Yes, that is just how the “younger generation” was portrayed in films back in the day, but what comes across as humorously nostalgic in a film where Elvis could break out into song at any moment, is quite distracting in a “message movie”.
Second, does anybody believe for a second that Dr. John Prentice could in any way actually be in love with Joey Drayton? Really? Knock boots with Joey? Yes, I can see that. Want her as a trophy wife? Yes, I can see that. Actually have fallen in love with her? Not a chance. John Prentice is a highly educated man and a dedicated physician and humanitarian. Joey Drayton is a vapid bag filled with stupid. These two people should not be getting married. As the their relationship is portrayed in the movie, it doesn’t require a very long trip down the “close-minded road” to start to interoperate the reason why John Prentice is interested in Joey is BECAUSE she is white. Such a racist outlook is certainly not what the filmmakers intended, but they don’t exactly make the relationship believable either.
Thirdly, and in conjunction with some earlier points in this post, I realize that making the John Prentice character so perfect so as to remove any reason other than the age difference, and the length of time they had know each other (i.e., the same concerns they would have if he was white) to object to the marriage was done purposefully, but I also think that it makes the movie overly simplistic (and makes Sidney Poitier’s character kind of boring). Was that necessary back in 1967? Most assuredly. However, it is 2010 now, and the idea of an interracial couple being the sole issue of a story isn’t much to hang a movie on anymore.
The Theme / Plot / Overall Presentation – The Good
There are some elements of this film that I believe have actually improved with the passage of time. First and foremost, is the reaction of both sets of parents. While it is unfortunate that even some 40 years after this film was made that the idea of interracial couples is still not without its controversy, I suspect that modern audiences find the scenes with Tracey, Hepburn, Richards, and Glenn to still feel believable (although the men going off to Tracey’s study for “men talk” feels a bit quaint). In fact, their reactions, and how quickly they work through their own personal issues with the wedding, may come across as more believe now than it did back in 1967.
Second, the fact that movie addresses, albeit in a small way, the idea of black-on-black prejudice and the preconceptions that African-Americans have of Caucasians helps to prevent the movie from being simply a moralistic fairy-tale. Tillie has no problems telling John that he has no business messing around with a white girl. John’s father thinks that he is making a horrible mistake and isn’t afraid to let him know about it. It is a shame that the film didn’t take the time to examine these things further.
Final Thoughts
There is no question that this is a good movie. There is no question that this is an important movie (historically, if for no other reason). However, I don’t find it surprising that this movie was removed from the 2007 version of the 100 greatest movie list. I think that as time passes, however, this film is starting to lose its ability to convey its message in a meaningful manner. That is unfortunate since it is a message that still needs to be sent.
I give this movie 4 Stars – but it is a weak 4 Stars.
John
No comments:
Post a Comment