Seems that Spike can pitch, but he can't catch.

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

VHS Member Old Skool
Interesting that Spike Lee will criticize Clint about how he represents certain groups in his WWII films, but he won't take criticism from the Italians partisans that he represents in his:

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20081001/122289041500.html

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]"I would not allow anybody to tell me how to make a film, be it a partisan or the president of the United States,"[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
Spike never said you couldn't criticize, that's part of free speech. What he said is, I will not change my films based on peoples criticism, the same response Clint had to Spikes critique. So there is no valid point to your response. Sorry, just don't get it. As I see it, Spike has a valid point and expressed it in his film, poignantly I might add.
 
Okay, maybe I'm looking at this wrong. I am just bothered by what seems to me a double standard. I completely agree that everyone has a right to criticize. But I am bothered by the fact that he went out of his way to criticize Clint's work as misrepresenting the contribution of Black soldiers, but when he is criticized for doing the same thing, with a different group, he just blows it off saying essentially, that he doesn't have to listen to anybody else's criticism. Especially when that criticism is coming from the very same people who he represents in the film.
 
I agree with Jim. If Spike Lee was honest, his position would be:

"Clint Eastwood should not allow anybody to tell him how to make a film, be it Spike Lee or the President of the United States."
 
PerroneFord said:
While I love Clint's work, I seem to remember him blowing it off too... No?
Click to expand...
I think that's his point? Unless I'm misunderstanding.

Spike is doing the same thing. Spike, don't piss in someone else's pot if you don't like people pissing in yours. :)
Seems like he's getting a taste of his own medicine and he doesn't like it.

At least Clint is making better movies lately. I've still yet to see Miracle at St. Anna but it's not looking good.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Okay, maybe I'm looking at this wrong. I am just bothered by what seems to me a double standard. I completely agree that everyone has a right to criticize. But I am bothered by the fact that he went out of his way to criticize Clint's work as misrepresenting the contribution of Black soldiers, but when he is criticized for doing the same thing, with a different group, he just blows it off saying essentially, that he doesn't have to listen to anybody else's criticism. Especially when that criticism is coming from the very same people who he represents in the film.
Click to expand...

I think it's consistent. It's like another way of saying film should stir up controversy and discussion and force us to look at difficult things but the filmmaker shouldn't cow to controversy. Spike might hate what Clint says but he'd be the first one to defend his right to say it.
 
I'm not a historian but the article talks about the "Nazi occupation of Italy." Weren't the Germans and Italians allied?
 
brianluce said:
I'm not a historian but the article talks about the "Nazi occupation of Italy." Weren't the Germans and Italians allied?
Click to expand...
From the article...
[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Spike Lee the partisans who 'hit and then ran away' were responsible for the Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre," ANPI said on its website.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Before shooting his film, the director should have read the truth about that horrible slaughter," it said, posting a copy of the 2005 verdict of an Italian military tribunal which convicted 10 ex-Nazi officers for the murders.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...
If he depicts the slaughter in another way.... then I can see their point.
 
brianluce said:
I think it's consistent. It's like another way of saying film should stir up controversy and discussion and force us to look at difficult things but the filmmaker shouldn't cow to controversy. Spike might hate what Clint says but he'd be the first one to defend his right to say it.
Click to expand...

It's been awhile since I read the piece on Spike's criticism of Clint's films. But I seem to recall that he wasn't just criticizing the film on its merits as a film, but rather the responsibility that Clint (according to Spike) shirked regarding the way he portrayed (or didn't portray) Black soldiers.

I didn't get a "Hey, I didn't think it was good, but he has the right to say what he wants with his film" attitude. He seemed to be implying that Clint was irresponsible or complicit in some marginalization of those events.
 
Jim Brennan said:
It's been awhile since I read the piece on Spike's criticism of Clint's films. But I seem to recall that he wasn't just criticizing the film on its merits as a film, but rather the responsibility that Clint (according to Spike) shirked regarding the way he portrayed (or didn't portray) Black soldiers.
Click to expand...

Spike was simply upset that there were NO black soldiers in Clint's film and Clint's response was that there were no black soldiers in that particular conflict. I understand both side and both men are overly emotional.

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
Spike was simply upset that there were NO black soldiers in Clint's film and Clint's response was that there were no black soldiers in that particular conflict. I understand both side and both men are overly emotional.

-Nate
Click to expand...
And some are disrespectful.
There was no basis to Spike's argument and he should have kept his mouth shut.

Eastwood is a proven legend, both as an actor and a director. Respect is something that Lee has no concept of. If his new film is twisted to his own agenda it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

You won't find Eastwood calling him out on that though. Not unless he's asked directly. Too much class.

Just my opinion.

Mike
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Eastwood is a proven legend, both as an actor and a director. Respect is something that Lee has no concept of. If his new film is twisted to his own agenda it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Click to expand...

Bigfoot is a legend, Eastwood is a human director open to criticism like anyone else. Just because he's old and surely has been in some classic films (the Dirty Harry films are classic as well as some of his westerns). But do you think Eastwood had an agenda? And what would Spike's agenda be to twist the story. And Spike Lee has a right to criticize him, "Legend" or not. It's not like Spike Lee said "You don't know how to make films. He criticized the idea of not seeing black Americans in two very big WWII war films. Black Americans made huge contributions including the Tuskegee Airmen (my father trained at their base where he learned to be a paratrooper). And for the sake of argument here's what Spike has to say:

"Well, I wasn't really thinking about perception. The first thing I said at Cannes is that Clint Eastwood is a great filmmaker. And I was just pointing out the fact that there were no African-American soldiers in that film. Now, there's a United States Marine, ex-Marine, his name's Thomas McFadden. I drove down to San Diego, put him on tape: He was at Iwo Jima. He was at the first photo. The pipe they put the flag in they got from him. He said there was nothing but black soldiers watching that photo get taken. They were there.

Did any African-Americans help raise the flag in those two photos? No. But they were on the island. Was the Army segregated at that time? Yes. But were black and white soldiers fighting and dying side by side when those Japanese started jumping out of those holes and tunnels? Yes.

It was not meant as an attack on Clint Eastwood. It was just stating a fact. Clint Eastwood has not made every other Hollywood film that has omitted the contribution of African-American men and women to the war effort. I think it's a great omission. I'm glad that George Lucas is going to be producing a film about the Tuskegee Airmen. It starts shooting in the spring and is going to be called "Red Tails." And there's a lot of other stories, too: There's the Red Ball Express, there was a black tank division - I think the 761st - that saved Patton's butt in the Battle of the Bulge."

That was taken from right here:
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2008/09/21/spike_lee_puts_up_a_fight/

Spike has valid points. How can one say he doesn't and be intellectually honest based on nothing more than Eastwood's status as "A Legend". Hey, how do I gain the status that I can make whatever I want and not be questioned. I think I'd like that.

-Nate
 
The movie was about the men in the photo who raised the flag, one of them a native american. I won't discuss it here all over again, there is an old thread about it.

My point is this, Spike Lee has no class. That's obvious from many of his comments. And yes, making great movies spread over many decades should at least earn you some sort of respect. Especially among your peers.

As much as Spike Lee likes to turn everything into free speech, this isn't it.

He's just being an ass. Now his movie is coming under fire after he made certain claims about its accuracy. That and the fact that its ratings suck probably don't help his demeanor.

His original comments were out of line. Now he's getting a taste of his own medicine. Looks good on him.

EDIT: Don't forget that Lee is the same guy who said "Why is a white guy making that?" when Eastwood made Bird, the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
EDIT: Don't forget that Lee is the same guy who said "Why is a white guy making that?" when Eastwood made Bird, the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker.
Click to expand...

Hey I'll be the first to say Spike isn't on point all the time. He is one of my heroes along with Tarantino (a man Spike Lee is definitely not a fan of), but I just took it to be kind of odd that Eastwood can't be criticized (right or wrong) because of his "Legend" status. By the way I don't think anyone is calling Eastwood racist is that's where this is all going.

-Nate
 
Nope, Eastwood can be called out just like anyone else. I just found that Lee was being disrespectful and didn't have much of a point to begin with. He was being a hypocrite.

Just look at the situation he's in now. The old adage is true, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. I mentioned Eastwood's "Legend" status and I stand by it. Some guys in the business have earned and deserve respect, doesn't mean they are unaccountable though. Lee was off point as you put it.

Cheers,

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top