The Hollywood Renaissance, which took place during the 1960’s and 1970’s, contained films that reflected and explored what was occurring during this era inside United States.

In Geoff King’s “New Hollywood Cinema”, King writes that the Hollywood Renaissance “was a time when Hollywood made a gesture towards the more liberal or radical forces in American society,” (King 13).  King then goes on to discuss that many of the films that were released during this time period often contained themes of “youthful alienation and/or rebellion” (King 15).  One example that King gives in support of this claim is the film Bonnie and Clyde. King explores how Bonnie and Clyde, the two main characters of the film, rob banks simply because they enjoy it, demonstrating that Bonnie and Clyde are rebels against society, as well as typical bank robbers.

Stephen Prince, in his “The Hemorrhaging of American Cinema: Bonnie and Clyde’s Legacy of Cinematic Violence” essay, discusses the violence in the Bonnie and Clyde, and how it sparked debate in America.  Prince goes on to imply that this new level of violence in film was a reflection of the instances of violence found in the Vietnam War, as well as the breakup of society, writing that all of these elements together “helped put the subject of violence on the national agenda in an urgent and ominous way” (Prince 129).

However, reasons for certain elements inside early drafts of the Bonnie and Clyde’s script being cut also reflected the mindset of most Americans at the time.  In Matthew Bernstein’s “Perfecting the New Gangster: Writing ‘Bonnie and Clyde,’” Bernstein discusses the nature of a sexual relationship between Bonnie, Clyde and Jones, which was quickly cut.  Bernstein gives a quote from David Newman, one of the screenwriters for Bonnie and Clyde, writing the Newman has stated, “‘It was a time when people called gays ‘perverts’ or worse’” (Bernstein 21).  This quote demonstrates the American views on sexuality at the time and how anything outside of the typical heterosexual relationship of two people was viewed very negatively.

What makes films such as Bonnie and Clyde, as well as other films from the Hollywood Renaissance, so exquisite is how well they captured the spirit and events that were occurring in American society at that time.

-Eion Harrow (emh519)

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is uncontestably a quintessential film that deals with race relations as well as gender stereotypes but, at the same time, it is also a very tame and controlled representation of these topics that were being so wildly transformed at the time of its release (1967). There are good reasons the film managed to make and maintain a lasting impression on movie-goers; it is well written and well performed and is a perfect example of American art reflecting the culture of society at the time. It is an endearing, funny, and memorable film. However, in my humble opinion, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner—perhaps because of the still white dominated mainstream production companies—makes the conscious decision, possibly to its own slight detriment, of presenting the issues of old v new and hypocrisy v authenticity as they pertain to race and gender in a wholly anodyne fashion. Compared to the films that we read about and watched some clips of last recitation, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner appears to be presenting the less volatile sides of the issues, effectively staying away from the violence and brutally harsh truths of race issues taking place in the late sixties. The film deals with race relations and how they affect the affluent (in one of the most progressive cities in the world) over their maid-prepared dinners and international medical conventions, rather than how it affected lower classes and cities that were more prone to rioting and violence. In this way the film sort of chooses to depict a cleaner, watered-down version of race relations in 1967. So, while it is without a doubt a well-made film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner does not manage to convey the harsher, grislier side of racial tension in the sixties since it chooses to focus on the issue affecting wealthy, well-mannered, and sheltered individuals.

-Jeremy Lawrence(jl6701)

Sam Blumenfeld

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
Guess Who’s coming to Dinner is an excellent example of a once progressive film that wouldn’t necessarily stand the test of time. While the film was undeniably progressive and dealt with racial issues that are still relevant today, it failed to take an issue with gender expectations and more specifically the roles of women. In Anne Perin’s article, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner: The Web of Racial, Class, and Gender Constructions in late 1960s America” she notes that the “film has rightly highlighted the way in which white male power maintains its integrity by controlling white womanhood”(849). However, the film fails to take an issue with this. In fact, in a sense it uses it as the backbone of the plot. The film feels as though it wouldn’t be comfortable ending the white male patriarch approves of its end. This doesn’t particularly trouble me. Obviously it’s easy for me to say that as a white man but what I’m getting at is that this movies ambition was still admirable. It would be a tall order to ask for the industry to change its views on both race and gender in one film. In the article, “Hollywood’s Collapse”, Robert Sklar explains that even after the end of vertical integration, “a fourth generation of young men came forward as studio executives” (289). This was the way of the industry, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner defied it in at least one way.

I haven’t seen “Bonnie and Clyde” yet but after the readings I am very excited to finally see this movie which counts as a landmark film which established a new threshold for screen violence.

The climate of the 60s in the United States was definitely a precondition for Penn to visualize graphic violence. But it was very fascinating to read how many forces actually play a role in the realization of “Bonnie and Clyde”. The interplay of the social, industrial and stylistic forces which lead to the so called Hollywood Renaissance is fascinating and I am excited to observe that in the lecture. It will be interesting to see how Bonnie and Clyde represent the youthful rebellion of that time and how the death scene portrays a new technique of film making which also stands for the freshness and the stylistic innovations of the 60s. “Bonnie and Clyde” represents a change with the past. Especially if one looks at the old and new Hollywood system. The changes in regulations such as the revision of the old production Code and the creation of the Code and Rating Administration gives the filmmakers a new creative freedom which made it possible to create such movies as “Bonnie and Clyde” or “The Graduate”.

-Lisa Perissinotto (lp1794)

As I went through the readings, I was fascinated by the social context surrounding Bonnie and Clyde. In Matthew Bernstein’s essay, “New Gangster: Writing ‘Bonnie and Clyde'”, he describes the way Bonnie and Clyde “thoroughly integrates Hollywood and French New Wave filmmaking.” Instead of becoming a conventional Hollywood film (and potentially forgettable), or having the “loose, episodic narrative construction” (29) of Truffaut, who the writers greatly admired and drew influence from, Bonnie and Clyde became a film that reflected the rebellious attitude of the 60’s and 70’s.

Geoff King discusses the social context of Bonnie and Clyde and other films of New Hollywood in the first chapter of New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. He describes the social unrest that was occurring, including the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War protests. King states that “the upheavals of the 1930’s and the Depression” were “a loose surrogate” to the social unrest of the 60’s and 70’s. This substitution allowed the film to have an identifiable situation in more implicit than explicit manner. Bonnie and Clyde committed what the government considers crimes for the freedom a life of crime offered ( 15), and their downfall at the end of the film still did not change the fact that the world around them was still in the middle of a financial crisis. The authorities could rid themselves of a pair of criminals, or quell riots and protests, but they still would not be addressing the root of the problem.

While their rebellious attitudes shared similarities to the youth of the 60’s and 70’s, Bonnie and Clyde, to me, found themselves in a situation where they could not make a dent in the sizable issues of society, being two individuals against everything else, and raised hell with whatever they were able to. But the alienated youth that came to absorb this film as part of their counterculture had power in their numbers, which enabled them to make progress in dealing with the various problems they were faced with, evidenced by the Civil Rights movement and anti-war protests.

Channing Hans

Week One

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

After reading Lykidis’s chapter on “Black Representation in Independent Cinema” and watching Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner I was interested by the relationships between gender, race, age and class. It is like this film echoes a since of pride when it should not. Like Nothing but a Man, it was shot by an entirely white crew, so even if the film its self was “progressive” for its time, the process in which it was made was not different than any other film at that time. When reading the textbook and then viewing clips of Nothing but a Man and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner in class it is evident that these films leave out female activists. They “fail to capture the important contributions of female political activists to the Civil Rights and Black Power movements” (Lykidis 50). For example, in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner the mothers of both Joey and the doctor are seen as the ones who symphasize yet lack the power to make a decision without their husband. They must spend 45 minutes convincing their husbands that this marriage is okay. Some critiques say this is because they are women and therefore they are going to be swept up in the excitement and not think about what situation is truly occurring here (interracial marriage). That too is frustrating, woman are actually capable of thinking about consequences. I am also interested and saddened by the way that generation affected civil rights and the way it is shown in these films. Not only did people of color have to fight white prejudice but also their parents seemed to be trying to pull them back into the past. This can be seen by the relationship with the doctor and his father in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and the son and son in law in Nothing but a man. 

Rachel Whiteman

Week One

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

” Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner argues that the white, elite male’s acceptance of a black male into the white family via the transfer of control of the white daughter is a sign of progress. This thesis is based on a historical fear of miscegenation. ” -ANNE GRAY PERRIN

After being released in 1965, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? has come to epitomize the cultural shift taking place during the American Civil Rights movement, in which a black Dr. Prentice and a white Joey Drayton seek approval from their parents as they plan to marry after merely two weeks together. What begins as mere moral acceptance, eventually becomes an intense personal conflict, when Dr. Prentice states that he will not marry his daughter, should Mr. Drayton not approve of their relationship. In this moment, the future of their marriage as well as Mr. Drayton’s reputation lies in the decision he has only one evening to make.

Historically, the movement was led in-part by students, the younger generation, who sought inclusion for all and who challenged the older generation’s definition of race and class. Twenty three year old Joey serves as the driving force towards seeking acceptance for Dr. Prentice, into her family. The “problem” occurs when Dr. Prentice needs approval from her white, elite parents; when he needs the old white man, to say “okay”. Dr. Prentice possesses the kindness to ask others how they feel before preceding on his own path, however it could also be argued that he lacks the courage to stand up for himself. Joey’s naiveté allows her to see past black and white and drive towards what she wants, while Dr. Prentice, a slightly older and more experienced man, understands his place in the world and seems nervous to step out of line, a line in which he is enforcing simply by giving Mr. Drayton the power to decide. Because of Mr. Drayton’s final decision, it suggests a positive future for civil rights, however this future remains in the hands of an upper-class white man, allowing us to question whether or not anything has truly changed.