Spike Lee rips into Eastwood and the Coens.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Specifically the soldiers in the photo actually.
Click to expand...

I know. you said that. But there are a lot of other actors and soldiers in the movie. I agree with Simon Hofer--I think that's what Spike was saying. Again, I'm not saying the film has a problem. I'm saying that Spike Lee said so, and he might have a point. And he sees things from a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE than Michael Anthony Horrigan.
 
sean90291 said:
One answer: yes I have.
Click to expand...
Cool. Well, when a movie is based on a bunch of guys in a photo who didn't happen to be African American... what did you expect?

Regardless, it's obvious what Lee is up to. His latest comments directed at Eastwood's rebuttal prove that.
'We're Not on a Plantation'


Please.
 
Ugh. Okay, last comment I'll make. There were hundreds of soldiers in that movie. I didn't count em, but there were crowds and crowds. I didn't notice their ethnicity, but obviously Spike did. He said none were black. I'd have to do a frame by frame analysis of the movie to prove him wrong. But I do believe there were some (a lot?) of black soldiers who fought in that real life war. And I do believe that there is (inadvertent) racism in casting of movies.
 
sean90291 said:
Ugh. Okay, last comment I'll make. There were hundreds of soldiers in that movie. I didn't count em, but there were crowds and crowds. I didn't notice their ethnicity, but obviously Spike did. He said none were black. I'd have to do a frame by frame analysis of the movie to prove him wrong. But I do believe there were some (a lot?) of black soldiers who fought in that real life war. And I do believe that there is (inadvertent) racism in casting of movies.
Click to expand...
I'm not debating that so we can move on.

The fact is, there may be many different cultures running around in the background. I didn't really look, that's not what the movie is about.

As for the Coen remark... Lee's an idiot. Plain and simple.
I won't go see his movie despite this press that he's trying to drum up.

Mike
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Well, I didn't look through the film with this in mind. I wonder though, who here has seen the film?

I mean... the story follows these guys around and how they deal with the picture and the publicity that follows. It's their life stories after all.
Click to expand...

Thats correct, it follows the MARINES (not soldiers) before, on, and after that fateful day.

Were there black Marines at Iwo Jima? You bet. Were they n significant numbers? Not really. Did they play a significant role? In my mind, every sailor and Marine that served during that campaign did.

The difference between Spike Lee and me is that I look at the whole picture, he looks for controversy with a microscope.
 
JConnors said:
Weren't black soldiers segregated in units during WWII?
Click to expand...

For the most part, yes. But their contribution went a long way to helping their cause for equal rights that was to occur later.

Black, white, brown or whatever, they all bled red for their country.
 
I think he looks for a reflection of how things are. If you look at movies he's made that aren't as some you say out to make a point, they reflect an entire range of society i.e. Inside Man. And he does'nt supress idiocy from any one point of view. Do The Right Thing showed bigotry from all perspectives real/imagined/retarded korean, white, black, young, old. I think his point about Clint's movie is a passing news clip, I read it and go yeah and... But the reverse racist angle I don't buy at all. Racism is an institution plain in simple, and without empowerment an individual can't practice racism.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Spike has always struck me as a reverse racist.

Seems to be unnecessary comments to gain attention.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an "unnecessary comment" to get the attention of American media. Spike is sherwd. If you want attention you have to compete with whatever a hilton or lohan is doing to get attention. It's all about creating a stir.

That is exactly why he has gotten SO MUCH attention. He's making a story out of thin air that has bought his movie MILLIONS of dollars worth of media attention FOR FREE.

If our current media system wasn't pandering to the lowest possible standard then he wouldn't have to beat them at their own game like this.

And dude, what the hell is a "reverse racist"?

Do you mean some one who is accepting of everyone despite their creed or color or did you mean something else?
 
Its pretty easy to figure out...

Every time Spike Lee has a movie coming out... he calls someone a racist... simple...why... free exposure and marketing for his new movie...
 
Yes, Black soldiers were segregated in WWII. They often had jobs as cooks, valets and graves registration details. There were a great number of Black soldiers and units that fought with great bravery and distinction during the war. There were also Native American and Nisei units that did the same. But to me (not being Black) to put a few black soldiers in a shot of a WWII film actually betrays them more than anything. Because it glosses over the very real fact that they were segregated.

I'm sure if he put a black man in the film, playing a significant character, Lee would have been all over him for that, claiming that Eastwood was being insensitive to the racial issues of the period. You can't win with people like that.

I met Ken Burns a few years back and he was gracious enough to discuss his then-upcoming doc, The War. He was very open about the families they had chosen to follow, and there seemed to be no agenda except the peculiar heartfelt nature of each. It was a difficult decision to make. Yet, before it aired, there was an outcry from Hispanic groups who claimed he ignored their contribution. Under pressure, he caved and recut the film. That was sad to me, because there are conutless demographics who were not represented. No story tells everyone's point of view, and the more personal you make a story, the less inclusive (yet somehow more universal) it can become. Storytellers have the right to choose their pallete. It does not mean their is a socio/politico/racial agenda behind it.

As for a comparison of the three directors, all have films that I think are great, and all have films that I think are pretty bad and over-rated.
 
rook said:
There is no such thing as an "unnecessary comment" to get the attention of American media. Spike is sherwd. If you want attention you have to compete with whatever a hilton or lohan is doing to get attention. It's all about creating a stir.

That is exactly why he has gotten SO MUCH attention. He's making a story out of thin air that has bought his movie MILLIONS of dollars worth of media attention FOR FREE.

If our current media system wasn't pandering to the lowest possible standard then he wouldn't have to beat them at their own game like this.

And dude, what the hell is a "reverse racist"?

Do you mean some one who is accepting of everyone despite their creed or color or did you mean something else?
Click to expand...

I hope my comment wasn't taken personally Rook. I think you know enough of me to know I don't mean any harm with it.

Per Wiki

Reverse discrimination, is the practice of favouring a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically dominant group .

I think Spike should spend more time bringing the people together and less time trying to create controversy and allegations that only serve to divide.


And

If he made better films, they'd get the attention they deserve.
 
I think it's the very fact that Eastwood made "Flags of Iwo Jima", and the press making so much of his showing the story from "all angles", that makes his lack of attention to the participation of black soldiers rankle so much. I think "shut your trap" is a childish response, used when onse has no reasonable response.

As I read the story (which we all must understand is filtered into soundbites that don't convey everything), Spike Lee's comments are perfectly suitable because his movie is indeed a RESPONSE to Flags of our Fathers and other films that fail to portray the contributionof black soldiers in WWII. I don't think that's something hidden - that's one of the major reasons for the film, and when being asked about the movie, SHOULD indeed be discussed.

As for the Coen brothers... I think we're missing the context of that statement. Who knows what question he was responding to. I didn't read it as particularly negative about the Coens... just a different in approach. I did find it interesting... it made me think of the treatment of death in Spike Lee's films, and he does tend to have an interesting approach... I don't know if "respectful"ness is exactly the difference, but it certainly tends to have a powerful focus on the reactions of others around, rather than the mechanics and the suffering of the one dying...
 
Don't worry, I was just busting your balls.

My point was though, that spikes films (which used to be great) and now usually kinda sit between boring and mediocre are not the issue. The issue isn't even what he said about eastwood.

The point is that he plays the same card game every time and manages to win. He gets a HUGE amount of free press and draws all kinds of attention to his films.

Which is smart. Very smart.

I'd be willing to wager that he is just playing the game and there is very little else to do about it.

He was in Cannes to promote a film that isn't even completed. He has done an amazing job of promoting it. All the articles based around this ridiculous non-story mention his new film.

Brilliant.
 
And if Clint did not cast Morgan Freeman in THE UNFORGIVEN, would Spike have cried that were black cowboys ?

Other Eastwood films that featured black actors in prominent representation ?

Bird
Million Dollar Baby


Wait a second ? Eastwood made Letters From Iwo Jima. How come Spike isn't moaning about the lack of featured Koreans who fought alongside the Japanese ?

-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top