Interpersonal communication is necessary for the existence of man.  It is a tragedy that this need is so often ignored in our art.  Hollywood films so often glamorize the "strong, silent type" like Clint Eastwood or Kiefer Sutherland that we as a culture sometimes forget why we speak at all.  It is refreshing when a well-written film can remind us.  Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is such a film.  Originally released in 1967, the movie focuses on a newly engaged interracial couple as they attempt to win their parents' marriage approvals in one day.  This was no easy task in the 60s (and unfortunately still is not), as the nervous parents are full of questions and require both convincing and time for contemplative solitude.  Though all the relationships between the various characters are intriguing, one stands out above others. This is the relationship between the hopeful bride-to-be, Joanna Drayton, and her staunchly opposed father, Matt.

Classifying this relationship in any way is difficult.  Given the intense emotions involved in the predicament, characters fly from one extreme to the other and none more rapidly than Matt Drayton.  For example, Matt Drayton's power-authority structure with his daughter is constantly shifting.  At times he praises his daughter for her intelligence and expresses faith in it and in her judgment, a sure sign of a person-oriented structure.  Matt takes on the role of the caring father who only wants to see his daughter happy, while his daughter plays the part of the young innocent, madly in love.  At other times, however, Mr. Drayton is determined to impose his decision onto his daughter, clearly a position-oriented structure.  During these episodes he takes on the role of the strict and angry father, though he respectfully does his best to hide it from his daughter.  His daughter, meanwhile, takes on the role of the "star-crossed lover" throwing caution to the wind.  Furthermore, Joanna Drayton"s fiancé has - unbeknownst to her - bestowed final approval of the wedding to Mr. Drayton.  Therefore Mr. Drayton's decision in the matter is indeed the outcome, once again an illustration of a position-oriented structure, albeit an indirect one.  He words his final decision - approval - so that it is not so much permission as it is a demonstration of faith in the judgment of his daughter and may be interpreted as an example of a person-oriented structure.  Given the importance of this final move it may be said that the relationship between Matt Drayton and his daughter Joanna is indeed person-oriented, though the stressful situation they experience leads him to experiment with a more positional model.  This experimentation, both with power-authority structures and with roles, is healthy to the relationship because it allows both members to exercise their role competence and ultimately be confident about their decisions.

Despite the high-strung nature of the players, Matt and Joanna Drayton still manage to participate in some important family functions.  All families are expected by society and in some states by law to provide certain services for its members.  In America, the function considered to be the most important is provision of emotional support.  While Matt Drayton may not care for his daughter's decision, he certainly does care for her emotions.  Matt precariously avoids making his feelings prematurely known to his daughter, who is so hopelessly in love she probably wouldn't notice them anyway.  Matt's genuine care for his daughter's feelings is precisely why he is so wary of the marriage.  Matt, if nothing else, is a good provider of emotional support.  A secondary function that Matt and his wife Christina perform is intellectual development.  Throughout the film this couple recalls Joanna's upbringing, claiming that, "We always told her that color wasn't important."  Indeed, their successful work into Joanna's intellect is manifested before their eyes with the arrival of her new fiancé.  Because their efforts into her intellectual development and Matt"s determination to provide emotional support are the causes of the dramatic situation, it can be said that these are the most important family functions in the relationship.

Both Matt and Joanna approach their conflicts with a particular style, and those styles lend themselves easily to the Thomas-Killmann conflict model.  For example, Joanna comes home, announces her engagement, and then sits back and lets events unfold around her.  With her head in the clouds, Joanna makes little or no attempt to convince her parents that the marriage is warranted.  This approach is known as the avoidance style.  While this style is effective in the film, it may not garnish its user such a happy ending in real life.  As illustrated in the film, the avoidance style leaves the burden of solution on the opposite party, and people (especially Americans) never like having to solve other peoples' problems.  Joanna would be much better off if she participated more in her own problem.  By communicating more with her parents, she could better convince them of the reasons for marriage.

This is not to say that Matt Drayton's way of handling the situation is any better.  Matt, being a well-written character, constantly shows a dichotomy of emotion.  At times he avoids letting his opinions wreck his relationship with his daughter, but he knows that his steadfast opposition to the marriage will surely have diminishing effects on it.  Though Matt allows himself to be persuaded, his initial "no way, no how" response is a definite example of the competing style. The competing style is by no means a smart choice as it focuses on achieving personal goals over relational ones, and Joanna's relational goals in this situation are not ones to be easily brushed aside.  Matt would be better off listening to his daughter.  Though Matt tries to educate himself on the situation (by calling a background check on his daughter's fiancé) he ignores the greatest source of information: his daughter.  This not entirely his fault because, as previously mentioned, she's not saying much, leaving Matt to bellow to himself and his wife.  Joanna's complete obliviousness compliments Matt's roaring indignation, and the result is a couple that is not listening to each other.

This is the couple's greatest weakness.  Sarah Trenholm and Arthur Jensen, authors of Interpersonal Communication, would agree that Matt and Joanna suffer from poor interpretive competence.  This is to say that neither one understands how the other views the situation.  To Joanna, the task of going home and getting marriage approval in one day is a simple and lovely affair.  She happily packs her bags and looks at photo albums, totally ignorant that her house is dividing against itself.  For Matt, the matter is just the opposite.  Matt must take on the dark and dreary task of telling his daughter that he disapproves of her marriage.  This predicament is not aided by the choice of conflict styles described above, nor by Joanna's elusive role-playing or Matt's ignorance of his daughter.  What Matt and Joanna need is the one conversation that doesn't happen in the film: a frank discussion between the two in which Matt tells his daughter how he feels.  She would then understand or seek to understand her father and would be better motivated to make her viewpoint clear to him.  Joanna's earnestness might swing Matt to support the marriage, for in the film he is accused of forgetting, "what it's like to be in love."  Of course, the absence of this conversation is what keeps the film moving, as both parties must guess as to the thoughts of the other.  Had it occurred, it is likely that both Matt and Joanna would better interpret the other's beliefs and intentions, thus improving interpretive competence.

Not all aspects of their communication require improving.  For all their faults, this father-daughter duo has excellent role competence.  This may initially seem contradictory.  Wasn't it a poor choice of complimentary roles that caused the rift of silence between Matt and Joanna?  Not entirely.  Though Joanna does little to help the situation, it is hard to blame her.  She is, after all, head over heels in love, and popular culture would have us believe that there is no creature more aloof than a woman in love.  Luckily for her, her father does exactly what he needs to and takes on a very active role.  Though it may not be the role anyone wants him to play, it is at least one which seeks to affect the situation.  Matt needs to be involved because, though it is her marriage, Joanna is not.  The real problem is not that these roles are incompatible, but that Matt and Joanna don't have the previously prescribed frank discussion.  While the roles themselves are not ideal, they are necessary responses to the situation, especially on the part of Matt Drayton, who must make sense of the chaos without any help from his near-catatonic daughter.

Luckily for everyone - including the audience - this is Hollywood and there are no sad endings.  Matt, after much deliberation and an unnecessarily descriptive monologue, approves the marriage.  After an hour and forty minutes the audience still cares, thanks to the brilliantly crafted writing and believable relationships.  Though they may not be the epitome of good communicators, Matt and Joanna Drayton ultimately manage to understand one another, and that is truly the purpose of interpersonal communication.

-Back to Essays -Back to Home