The Family Stone: Dinner Scene

In the film The Family Stone (2005), the writer and director Thomas Bezucha analyzes what it means to be “normal” by going beyond the binaries of race, class, sexual orientation and disability all in one scene: The dinner scene. Although these categories are all “socially constructed, (that) is not to say that that category has no significance in our world” (Crenshaw, p. 375). To find a mainstream film that actually addresses more than one dichotomy in any aspect of the movie is extremely difficult. Usually mainstream Hollywood sticks to only addressing the intersectionality of two things at a time. Bezucha, however, addresses intersectionality through the characters of an interracial, gay couple in which one partner is deaf. The character Patrick who is a gay Black man and his partner, Thad, who is a white, deaf, gay man are attempting to adopt a child. Bezucha also casts Sarah Jessica Paker, a mainstream Hollywood actress, as the character of Meredith, whom he describes as, “ultra-conservative white women from Manhattan,” to pose the question of what is “normal.” Meredith’s viewpoint of what is “normal” is limited to being a white, heterosexual, able bodied person, in a hegemonic household. The dinner scene takes place in a all white household, where Thad is one of the sons of the host and Meredith is a guest of his brother.

The scene starts with Patrick and Thad being asked if they have a preference for the race of their child. This was a great way for Bezucha to address the complications of how race intersects with the adoption of a child for an interracial couple. Because of racial formations, this question would never be posed to a couple with the same race. It is assumed that if both prospective parents are white, that they would be adopting a white child. Bezucha goes beyond the binary with this by having them respond by saying that it does not matter the race of their child, as what is more important to them is the opportunity to have a child. This is significant because it is talking about a homosexual couple adopting a child, which is going beyond the binaries of patriarchy.

Bezucha then goes a step further by addressing the intersection between an interracial couple and class. Thad explains that his deafness has not been a problem in the adoption process, but rather their economic status and the fact that they are in an interracial relationship have more been areas of concern. This addresses how class intersects with adoption processes as a certain amount of money is required to adopt a child. In essence, this means that only middle or upper class couples can adopt. The second half of the dinner scene is where Bezucha does a great job of addressing intersectionality in a family setting. This scene clearly shows how Patrick and Thad’s family goes beyond the binaries by accepting them for who they are. He does this most effectively by showing the contrast between the Stone family as a whole, and the character of Meredith.

It is most effective to analyze the way Bezucha represents this by breaking it down into sections. Bezucha first addresses intersectionality between sexuality and disabilities by defining what homosexuality is. Meredith views homosexuality as something that is undefined. She poses the question as to whether or not Thad and Patrick “believe in nature v. nurture” in terms of the whole “being gay thing.” This implies that being gay could be due to the environment in which one lives or is raised. The definition used by Bezucha is then given by the father character who says that their family views “sexual orientation as a genetic predisposition much like handedness.” The way Bezucha defines sexual orientation is in a direct intersection with disability. Bezucha also goes beyond the binaries in this particular part by addressing the belief that homosexuality is a choice, and how that belief is incorrect. In writing this scene as he did, he is also addressing how Thad’s sexual orientation is intersected with his disability and that neither of them is a problem nor can be separated from each other.

The family as a whole, around the table, does a great job of making Meredith’s offensive language into a joke i.e. talking about the drapes in the house and how they are not fashionable and would never yield a gay child. However, in doing this the mother makes a statement saying she hoped that all of her sons were gay. From this Bezucha addresses the intersectionality between sexuality and race. Meredith is confused about how a mother could hope for a gay son and makes the statement, “how can you hope for a child to be challenged. Life is hard enough as it is. Why would you want to make it more difficult. Patrick you understand.” By addressing Patrick within this statement, Meredith is addressing the intersectionality between sexuality and race, as well as, the fact that racism exists in our society. Meredith is pushing the “essential black subject,” as Stuart Hall describes in his piece New Ethnicities, that all Black people are the same and have the same experience onto Patrick at the same time as acknowledging that racism exists. However, while Bezucha does not address the racism in this portion as much as he does at the beginning of the scene, he does show the intersectionality of the two by having Meredith address Patrick as being a gay Black man. Gloria Anzaldia would call this a borderland for Patrick, floating between being black and gay, as well as being part of an interracial couple in society, yet, that is the only way that Bezucha address racism.

After realizing that she has offended the whole table, Meredith tries to defend herself by saying “that she just thinks a mother would want her child to be as ‘normal’ as possible.” Thus, Bezucha ends the dinner scene by connecting race, class, sexuality, disabilities all into one intersectionality that, for Meredith, encompasses not ‘normal.’ Meredith then is told by the family to stop and that she has said enough. After Meredith leaves the room, the mother looks at Thad and Patrick to tell them that they are more normal than any other person around the table. Bezucha is incorporating Crenshaw’s argument that, “the most critical resistance strategy for disempowered groups is to occupy and defend a politics of social location rather than to vacate or destroy it” (p. 375). Thus, Bezucha embraces their intersectionalities and goes beyond the binaries to represent that everyone should.

Representations of multiple intersectionalities in mainstream Hollywood films are very minimal and difficult to come across. Yet, Bezucha addresses four intersectionalities within one scene of a movie, in an intense, inspirational movement for everyone to go beyond the binaries and address the issues with what is ‘normal’ in our society.


Questions to consider:
1. How does Bezucha represent the 'mainstream' ideals of normal? What body does he use to pose the question of normal? To challenge the ideals of normal? After watching this do you see your ideals of normal being challenged?

2. How does Bezucha go beyond the binaries in this scene? Do you think he could have went further?