By exploiting the communicability of parallel editing and common transitional devices, Stanley Kramer augments the narrative and visually discloses the interrelationships at play in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. From graphic match to the harsh variation between different shot/reverse-shot sequences, Kramer is able to establish “sides” in this controversial marriage decision. In addition, Kramer ascertains Matt Drayton’s centrality; by lingering on Drayton’s individual scenes and diverging from the frequent cuts scene throughout, he establishes Mr. Drayton’s prominence through scene length. Therefore, Kramer renders Drayton’s inner turmoil the sole element in determining the conclusion. The suspense is in his hands¬. Despite the foreseeable
…show more content…
The film advances through various dialogues, attempts to tackle race issues, and comment on society yet it does aggregates to a predictable conclusion. Though it’s minimal, a degree of suspense can be attributed to certain scene lengths. Matt Drayton’s individual scenes tend to linger, he tends to battle himself, stepping into and out of the “shadow of doubt,” the editing creates the suspense. When he is the only character on screen, the scene lingers as his mind waivers. The editing is designed to mimic Mr. Drayton. His movements are slow and infrequent and the transitions correlate to his methodical mental process. What will he choose? What is he thinking? There are no cuts to reveal different angles of the same scene; rather, the camera remains fixed. These scenes communicate suspense for, throughout most of the film, transitions are made as conversations close and cuts are frequently used to establish a sequence of dialogue. However, here, scenes are seemingly suspended, leaving the viewer fixed in time, trapped in Drayton’s individualistic state amidst a collection of characters rendered as one; though they may be on opposing sides, (Mr. Prentice as compared to the others), their opinions are negligible for the transitions choose to isolate Drayton (a group is shown and then there is a transition to his sole presence on camera), unifying the others as merely participants in Drayton’s internal struggle.
The film advances through various dialogues, attempts to tackle race issues, and comment on society yet it does aggregates to a predictable conclusion. Though it’s minimal, a degree of suspense can be attributed to certain scene lengths. Matt Drayton’s individual scenes tend to linger, he tends to battle himself, stepping into and out of the “shadow of doubt,” the editing creates the suspense. When he is the only character on screen, the scene lingers as his mind waivers. The editing is designed to mimic Mr. Drayton. His movements are slow and infrequent and the transitions correlate to his methodical mental process. What will he choose? What is he thinking? There are no cuts to reveal different angles of the same scene; rather, the camera remains fixed. These scenes communicate suspense for, throughout most of the film, transitions are made as conversations close and cuts are frequently used to establish a sequence of dialogue. However, here, scenes are seemingly suspended, leaving the viewer fixed in time, trapped in Drayton’s individualistic state amidst a collection of characters rendered as one; though they may be on opposing sides, (Mr. Prentice as compared to the others), their opinions are negligible for the transitions choose to isolate Drayton (a group is shown and then there is a transition to his sole presence on camera), unifying the others as merely participants in Drayton’s internal struggle.