Essay Questions

How are Tillie and Hilary examples of the film’s subtly subversive approach to social commentary on the issue of race relations?

Hilary loses her job because of his explicit racist reaction to the news of the engagement of her employer’s daughter to a black man. Meanwhile, the black maid employed by the Draytons offer an equally unexpected racist perspective with her observation that she doesn’t “care to see a member of my own race getting above himself.” Another example of the way the film really quite subversively plays with the notion of racial tension in the turbulent 1960’s is the characters of Tillie and Hilary In a way, Tillie’s reaction to events is every bit as racist as Hilary’s. Both she and Hilary are close employees of the Draytons and as such enjoy the benefit of friendship as well. But Hilary—who is white—is expendable while Tillie is less so because, as a result of working within the home rather than in outside business—Tillie is more like family than a friend even though in reality as a black maid she would never in a million years enjoy the opportunities extended Hilary. Thus, the film situates racism as not just a psycho-sociological phenomenon, but also one shaped and defined by economics and social status. Tillie—a poor black maid—has been conditioned to see a successful black man as putting on airs. Hilary—much more financially and socially secure—ultimately is revealed to be just a few steps down the line from the Draytons in terms of being shaped by outmoded conservative values. The racist views of both employees are directly informed by the social construction of their class. That the Draytons are initially not that far removed from where Hilary stands the film’s subtle indication that widespread social change must begin with the individual.

Why is familiarity with the historical context of this film so vital to understanding its implications?

The 1960’s were—until the second decade of the 21st century—perhaps the single most incendiary and turbulent decade in American history since the Civil War. As such, just the racial tensions ranging from rioting to assassinations would be enough to make understanding history important to understanding why the film was controversial at the time of its release. It is not just the 1960’s in general which made Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner far more inflammatory upon initial release than it would seem now. The movie hit theaters exactly six months to the day after the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia; a decision which effectively brought an immediate end to the criminalization of interracial marriage through miscegenation laws which the Court struck down as unconstitutional. Also noteworthy: California—the setting of the story—had become the first state to unilaterally strike down these laws…thirty years earlier.

Night of the Living Dead was released just one year after Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Explain how they would make an appropriate double feature for exploring race relations in America in the 1960’s.

The whole point of casting Sidney Poitier as an articulate, educated, successful man whom any couple in the country—and especially an avowedly liberal one—would be thrilled to have as their son-in-law is that he is the acting equivalent of his character. American movie audiences felt “safe” with Poitier on screen. He was non-threatening, sympathetic, and intelligent. The same thing could be said of the far, far less famous actor cast in the lead role of George Romero’s groundbreaking zombie film as well as his character. Both John Prentice and Ben are presented as articulate, intelligent me capable of leadership and inspiring admiration and both are played by actors who successfully convey those qualities. While there certainly seem to be vast differences in the social status and economic condition of the two men (although it is hard to know for sure, since Ben’s background remains essentially unknown), there exists only one singular and truly momentous differentiation at work. The conflict in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner turns solely upon the color of John’s skin while the color of Ben’s skin plays absolutely no role whatever in the conflict he faces. In the span of just one year, race has managed to go from being what one hugely successful film with black man in a leading role is all about to being virtually a non-issue contextually (though certainly it is consequential within the subtext) in another equally successful commercial hit starring a black man.