Should be re-made with a gay couple
It would be the Guess Who's Coming to Dinner for our generation, having the same effect on today's audience as this film did in 1967.
shareThat is a very good idea!
share
MovieChat Forums > Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) Discussion > Should be re-made with a gay couple
[deleted]
[deleted]
Alcoholics are a little different to homosexuals..
The starts above are what capture me, far from us all.
uhm... how does "proud unrepentant heroin addict or alcoholic" relate to homosexuals???
*sniff sniff* smells like homophobia...
"I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection."-Tyler
Agree completely... gay marriage is to our generation what interracial marriage was to our parents'.
Unfortunately movies today are a lot more cynical than back then in my opinion; while I'd certainly enjoy an idealistic film in the same tone as this one, I fear it'd be considered cheesy and dated by today's reviewers. Gay couples have been featured in a lot of movies but notice how they're usually comedies. Very few approach it in a "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" style (lighthearted but still making a serious point and striving to inspire people).
"I ought to tell you something."
"Don't get sentimental now, Dad, save it for when we get out of here."
"The floor's on fire."
See Ang Lee's "The Wedding Banquet". Very similar in theme.
"I love corn!"
[deleted]
The real core of the theme has to do with the difficulty the parents have with accepting the difficulty inherent in the union of the offspring. Where the groom understands the ensuing problems and is willing to abide by the wishes of his fiancee's parents' wishes is the part that troubles me.
As far as the whole political discussion with regards to the term 'marriage' used with respect to a legal union between two members of the same sex, I agree with you. As long as the legal rights are consistent across the board, who really cares what the union is called. "Marriage" is just a word. A rose by any other name...
I understand the fear that motivates most of the men and women against gay marriage. Thankfully our forefathers showed courage when they wrote the Constitution. Liberty and justice for all, right?
"I love corn!"
"I love corn!"
[deleted]
This thread doesn'r seem like the 'bashing' kind, or I would not post to it. You ought to watch Douglas Sirk's remake of "Immitation of Life". It's melodramatic, but I think the director really tried to make a point with the "colored" angle.
Part of the plot involves a girl who can pass for white and wants to be white. She sacrifices so much of her own soul in order to 'pass' that she ends up in misery.
I'm not sure if you are gay (and grew up in the sixties, seventies or even the eighties), but, if you are, you probably know about the urge you had as a child to 'pass' for straight because being gay meant that you would have to give up so much that the rest of the people enjoy. You might have even wasted part of your life dating men or women hoping that something would change; you probably hurt innocent people along the way. If you are gay, you would want the rights that Thoreau, Ghandi and King fought so hard to secure for all people.
"I love corn!"
i am tired of people comparing gay rights to civil rights. there is absolutely no comparison
The underlieing principle is *identical* whether you are talking about race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.
Either you tolerate (or actively practice) prejudice and the associated second class treatment of some of your citizens, or you don't.
The thing that I'm sick of is people claiming that legalized prejudice is "right" because their religion says that homosexuality is a sin. Guess what, those same religions are even more emphatic about their stance on practicing any other religion (for the Jews and Christians that would fall under the "worshiping false idols" part in the Ten Commandments). Nobody is trying to transfer that admonition about sin into the states' laws. You think that homosexuality is a sin? Fine, so don't do it. But the respect that is shown for other people's right to their own religion should apply equally in this case.
But, back to the more specific case of the thematic approach to this movie. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is, at its heart, a challenge thrown down to all of the Matt Draytons of the world, the "life long fighting liberls" as he is described in the movie. It is challenging them to effectively put their money where their mouth has been. Are you really prepared to put into practice what you've been arguing for? Or was that just nice abstraction for living room conversation? In the 1960's that was a very real question that was worth putting to a lot of white liberals. "It's not the fact that he's black; it's that he [fill in the blank]" was all too common, and this movie was directly challenging the sincerity of those statements. So, 40 years later, what is the equivalent of Joey bringing home a black fiance back then? The nearest equivalent, for making that same kind of challenge, would be to have the offspring in their early 20's come out to their parents for the first time by bringing home a same sex partner. share
So what happens to your whole argument if people decide they're anti-gay and atheists?
shareNothing.
Flat out homophobes, wihtout even the rationalizations associated with religion, are simply bigots without any pretense of any semblance of right or reason on their side.
estcst-3 wrote: "So what happens to your whole argument if people decide they're anti-gay and atheists?"
I'll throw that back at you. What happens to the anti-gay argument? Apart from lamely referencing the Bible (as if that governed our lives in a secular democratic republic in the 21st Century), the anti-same-sex marriage advocates don't seem to have much to go on. So I am wondering what argument said atheist would make. If you can produce an atheist who is anti-same-sex marriage then we could ask him/her.
casanovafrankenstein19 wrote: <<probably will be bashed for this,>>
Good. You're ready.
<<but i dont care. i am tired of people comparing gay rights to civil rights.>>
Why? They are similar. Two groups of people have been denied certain rights, and have found it helpful (when able) to hide (or pass) -- that's sad. They have many things in common.
<<there is absolutely no comparison,>>
Oh, yes there is. Do a little research. People used to be arrested for being gay -- did you know that? As I said before, one of the saddest things is the desire to "pass" just to make one's life easier. Light-skinned blacks, straight-acting gays -- it just saddens me when societal pressure makes it hard for people to be what they are. Gays are not allowed to serve in the army. Blacks, for many years, were not allowed to serve, or were only allowed to serve in a limited capacity. Good god, do some freaking research.
>>and it is insulting to everyone, white or black, who fought so hard, and sometimes died, for civil rights.>>
I am the child of those people. I know what you think you are talking about.
<<black people cannot hide the fact that they are black,>>
Wanna make a bet? Taken a good look at Eartha Kitt's daughter recently? Actually, I don't even know how to define black anymore -- and it is defined differently in different countries in the world.
<<and that is the end of the comparison right there. period.>>
No -- it's not. See all I wrote above and crack a freaking book. Learn something.
<<not saying gays should have to hide their sexual orientation, because they shouldn't. but the fact that they can ends ANY comparison to civil rights.>>
Really? Why don't you talk to the Tuskegee Airmen about that?
<<fight your fight on its own merits and stop trying to piggyback on the shoulders of giants>>
Progress is made by standing on the shoulders of giants.
johngh-1 wrote: <<So please, stop trying to push your agenda by accusing those of us who are opposed to gay marriage (which happens to include the liberal "messiah", mr. obama) as racist or lacking tolerance.>>
Hah! Watch me! I won't accuse you of racism -- I have no idea if you are one of not. I will, however, accuse you of lacking tolerance. Oh, you may use your religion to justify it, but that doesn't change the facts. You follow every rule of your religion closely? What do you do on Sundays? Ever take the Lord's name in vain? Think women should be allowed to sing or speak in church? Wear a linen/wool blend? You picking and choosing through a bible that's been translated a million times to find something to justify your vile intolerance. So there.
johngh-1, marriage is NOT a religious institution. It has many legal and financial connotations. Your outdated 'agenda' is exactly what this movie was fighting against. I can't believe that you watched this movie and then come on here with a comment like that. The Bible also says that you should stone your children if they do not show you proper respect and that it is against the law of God to yoke an oxen and a steer. As you point out, it does not say people from different races shouldn't marry, nor does it say people of the same sex shouldn't marry.
I know, I know, the tired old misinterpreted soddom thing. Well, may you turn to salt. Did you do as the Bible says and personally circumcize all your wife's male relatives? I mean you can take things with a grain of salt and people today need to be able to interpret relevant aspects of the Bible without being stupid. Do you take the Noah's arc literally? Why aren't we regularly checking babies for the 666 as the Bible says? Come on.
The essence of the Bible and what Jesus taught was to love one another. That's pretty much it. Yet people use the name of Jesus to justify war, killing, hatred, and money lending. Jesus would really hate all that.
As Spence says, all that matters is what people feel. And if it's half of what he felt, that's everything. Watch the movie johngh-1. You must have missed the entire message. I am sorry your educational system failed you. You are really stupid.
Well you're with you, honey. That's never a good time.
[deleted]
Ang Lee's "Wedding Banquet" was sort of a remake of this type. It was a Chinese/Caucasian gay couple.
"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"
[deleted]
"The essence of the Bible and what Jesus taught was to love one another."
No, Darling, the New Testament and Jesus said that. The rest of the Bible is just a load of poppycock.
Oh yes ! I remember watching this film on TV a few years ago... Excellent !
shareWhat happen, because even though in SOME states people want gay marriage to be legalized, it doesn't mean they approve of the practice in itself. For example, since most of the people supporting the legalization are straight (gay people are a minority of the population), very few of the former would be gay themselves, would want to engage in homosexual relationship, nor would they approve if a close relative or friend engaged in one.
By the same token, just because a person supports pro-choice laws, doesn't mean the person would personally abort each and every single embryo that ever comes to exist.
Legalization of gay marriage is not the same as support.
What happen, because even though in SOME states people want interracial marriage to be legalized, it doesn't mean they approve of the practice in itself. For example, since most of the people supporting the legalization are white (black people are a minority of the population), very few of the former would be black themselves, would want to engage in interracial relationship, nor would they approve if a close relative or friend engaged in one.
By the same token, just because a person supports pro-choice laws, doesn't mean the person would personally abort each and every single embryo that ever comes to exist.
Legalization of interracial marriage is not the same as support.
[deleted]
Yes, we are everywhere. Sometimes we are even in the mirror, staring back, try as we might to refute it.
"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."
[deleted]
actually it should be remade with an Arab-Muslim as the potential husband, and her family all opposed because they think she's marrying into a world of burkas, honor killings and fatwas. And he's just an Engineer or Doctor whom, other than having a beard and attending religious services, just wants his piece of the American Dream.
Can also deal with the percieved racism of "Well he's obviously marring her for his green card" etc.
I think that'd be a very hot button set of issues in this day and age.
Can also deal with the percieved racism of "Well he's obviously marring her for his green card" etc.
But at that point, you're making a very different movie; not updating the premise of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
The whole point of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is that it very specifically kicks the legs out from under any possible rationalizations leaving race as the only issue under discussion. (Some people complain the John is presented as an unrealistically perfect character. They're missing that that is precisely what was being aimed at. The whole point was to make it absolutely certain that race was ONLY POSSIBLE issue or objection that anybody could ever raise.)
So if one were to remake this movie fully with your premise, the Muslim of Arab descent would have to be about a third generation American who's military service included being heavily decorated in a couple of combat tours in the Middle East. Plus, of course, he would still have to be highly educated, economically quite self-sufficient, etc. It would have be *entirely* about the mere facts of "Muslim" and "Arab", not leaving any room for any rationalizations about things such as green cards or national loyalty. (Of course, that would also require that the daughter's family be non-religious enough that marrying someone who practices any other religion wouldn't be an issue for them in of itself, regardless of which religion it was.)
I don't think that would be nearly the hot button controversy that "gay" would be now, or that black / white was in the 1960s. share
I don't think it would work. I thought about this while I was watching the movie for the first time.
I know that some children do hide their sexuality from their parents, and that some parents simply don't believe their children when they say that they are gay; however, if this movie was remade with a gay couple, the parents would not be upset over the other man/woman. They would be upset about their son/daughter being gay. The whole movie they would be questioning themselves and the way they brought up their daughter. I don't think they would care about the integrity and success of their child's partner.
That's the main issue in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. The parents believe they raised their daughter right, so they want to believe that she made the right decision...but they also know it is going to be very hard for her and John.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not saying that I wouldn't watch a new remake about a gay couple. I'm just saying I don't think it could be an easy carbon copy that covers the same issues and prejudices. I think it would cover new ones. (Is that a bad thing? Of course not!)
Different question: Would it still be set in San Francisco?
I highly doubt the people in San Francisco would make such a fuss that your daughter/son brought home a same sex partner.
Geronimo
FletcherofLocksley, your comment kind of answers itself. If the new version was in San Francisco or anywhere else, the plot point about whether the kid needed to be closeted or not completely depends on the parents and predicts their reaction to a potential same sex marriage.
If the child felt that they needed to be closeted beforehand, then obviously the parents were potentially not very susceptive to LGBT issues. If the kid was already out, then it would likely play out as a matter of geography. In San Francisco, it would probably be a-okay. But in Alabama or even Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida, even an out child bringing home a same sex marital partner (where it is still illegal in those states) would cause major upheaval and soul searching for the 'rents. Assuming that they accepted their LGBT child, now what are they to do? Did they accept them just because it was THEIR own child or do they accept that all LGBT people should have equal rights afforded to straight people?
Isolating the same prejudices as in GWCTD with an LGBT couple would indeed be profound today.
At least there will be plenty implied.