Rant #1,728: Two Extremes

As I said a few Rants ago, I have had it with high-priced movies and movie theaters, which give you a nice seat for your money, but little else.

That does not mean I have sworn off movies altogether, because I haven't.

This weekend, amidst the tumult that was going on in New York Yankeeland--the ARod and Mark Teixeira retirement announcements--I tried to retire on my own terms with a few movies.

I watched them back to back in the comfort of my own home, so I didn't have to pay extra to sit in a comfortable chair to watch some flicks.

Watching these two particular movies back to back, I came to the realization that this really is the best way to watch films; you don't need to go the theater, because the movie-going experience has become so overrated. It really was something great to do in years past; today, it is something to avoid at all costs if you can.

Anyway, sitting in the comfort of my own home, I watched two films on the opposite end of the spectrum, and I mean on the truly polar opposite sides of the movie spectrum.

One movie was so bad, and it was supposed to be; the other was so good, and yes, it was supposed to be.

The first movie on my five-hour movie binge was "Sharknado 4," the fourth installment of perhaps the most insanely popular horrible movie franchise that is currently going.

And all the films are designed for home viewing, or at least the versions that we see are.

There really isn't much to say about the latest installment. If you don't know what is happening to begin with, let me summarize it by saying that there is a weird weather phenomenon going on in these films, where tornadoes are somehow melding with sharks, and yes, that is what a "sharknado" is.

These things come around every year--even though the current film says that one hasn't occurred in five years, but "Sharknado 3" was only a year ago--and our hero Finn needs to save the world each time.

I don't know what is more preposterous in these films--the science, the script, or the acting--but somehow, the public has latched onto this franchise, and for brainless fun, I guess it works its own magic.

It has resurrected a couple of careers--how about David Hasselhoff?--and Z-list actors are literally dying to get an appearance in these movies, this time around including Gilbert Gottfried and Wayne Newton.

What viewers see in this SyFy network original is a watered down version of the film, which has a lot of obvious cuts for nudity, which you won't see here unless you view the film overseas or buy the video, which I am sure will come out on DVD within a month.

But for pure check your brains at the door fun, I guess it works.

But for the other film I watched this weekend, you have to open the door, and you have to open the door really wide.

I first saw "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" when it first came out in 1967, and living in South Jamaica, Queens, in a mixed race area, it had a major impact on myself and the area that I lived in.

It was the movie to see nearly 50 years ago, and you know what? With all of its then-current references, it still is a movie to see, and cherish, all these years later.

Just in case you don't know what the film is about, it is about phony liberalism and racism on all sides of the equation. At the same time, it is about remorse, and redemption.

A young 23 year old, wide-eyed to the world girl, who was taught ultra-liberal values by her ultra-hip and liberal parents, tests this environment in her own home by announcing that she is getting married, but not getting married to a WASP-y suitor, but to a black man, a black doctor several years her senior.

She surprises her parents with this revelation, and it puts to the test everything her parents believe in, and taught their child as she was growing up.

In fact, her father, a newspaper editor, it so tested by this news that his own prejudices come out, showing that he isn't as liberal as he had portrayed himself to be.

In a nutshell, he only comes around when he sees that no matter what he says or believes in, his daughter's love for her beau--and her beau's love for his daughter--is as true as the love he had for his own wife decades earlier, and he begrudgingly admits he was wrong, and gives a somewhat strained blessing to the marriage.

Yes, this is pure Hollywood fluff, addressing an issue that was first coming to the fore back then, namely, interracial unions, and the problems they faced from a society that didn't understand them and didn't want to understand them--and from both sides of the equation, from whites as much as from blacks.

The thing that makes this fluff rise above the possible low meter level is that the screenplay for this film--by William Rose--is superb, and the acting is even better, led by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn as the parents of Katherine Houghton, the girl who is madly in love with Sidney Poitier. Also good was Esther Rolle, a few years before "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons," playing a maid who believed she was onto Poitier's ploy, because of her own bigotry.

Hepburn won an Oscar for her role, and the speech given by Tracy at the end of the film, where he basically agrees to the marriage with a few caveats, is one of the great orations in movie history. It really has to be seen, and heard, from beginning to end.

I think the realism of the film is that there was a lot going on in real life with the actors in the movie that was translated to the screen.

Poitier actually was in a mixed marriage; Tracy and Hepburn had been in a long-lasting affair brought on by Tracy's refusal to divorce his actual wife because he was a practicing Catholic.

All that angst and real world experience was brought to the screen, as was the fact that Tracy was sick during the filming. He gave his all, and he passed away soon after the filming was completed.

During his speech, Tracy mentions that the soon to be couple was going to be facing a lot of challenges with their union. His speech was almost prophetic. He said something to the effect that, "I don't know about in the future, I don't know about 50 years from now, but right now, the challenges you are going to be facing are real ... ."

Well, bringing the story up to 2016, nearly 50 years later, mixed unions are much, much more common today, and while there will always be challenges in any marriage, I think today the hurdles are much less than they were 50 years ago. These unions are more accepted, although many still are against them, for a variety of reasons.

But whatever, the case, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a whale of a movie, a dramedy that will hit you squarely in both your brain and your heart, and if you haven't yet seen in, do not see the idiotic remake of a few years back, which switched the portrayals around--this is truly the version to see, the original, the best, and if you are fans of Hepburn and Tracy, you must see this film.

"Sharknado" vs. "Dinner?" Pass the black eyed peas directly to me, please.