J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
It's cool Rook. I thought you were getting al mad at me.
: /
: /
Spike Lee rips into Eastwood and the Coens.
- Thread starter Michael Anthony Horrigan
- Start date
- Status
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Shut your trap is a bit childish, but that was not all he said. The bulk of his remarks create a context that I agree with. Eastwood made a film about a set of events wherein black soldiers did not play a major role, so they were not included. That is not wrong, nor is it irresponsible.
At the same time I have no problem with Lee making a film that features black soldiers (I would speculate that whatever white characters are portrayed in the film will be marginalized or evil). They are each telling a story, the subject of which is personal to them. Lee's remarks however imply a sense of racism about a filmmaker who seems anything but.
My gut tells me Spike doesn't say such things just for press. I think he's highly sensitive to the issue. It's more important to him than any issue in his life. And he thinks about it every day. It's the reason for his films. It's the reason for his life. He has experiences that he believes warrant that degree of attention. Is he right all the time? Nobody is. I still respect he has a point of view, and I think a lot of the time it's legitimate, even if it's hyper-exaggerated. Anyhow, a filmmaker without apoint of view is as interesting as a light switch.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
True. He has never tried to hide his agenda. And I am glad that he makes films from his POV. The subjects they embrace are important. But allow others the same courtesy. Not every film has to underscore the plight of African-American injustice and contributions.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I have total respect for Spikes views and concerns on the issue of race. But there seem to be two kinds of crusaders on this issue.
One who tries through peace and example (MLK for example?) to bring awareness and progress and then the one who constantly looks for excuses to bemoan and create atmosphere that only serves to fuel the darker side of the topic.
One who tries through peace and example (MLK for example?) to bring awareness and progress and then the one who constantly looks for excuses to bemoan and create atmosphere that only serves to fuel the darker side of the topic.
The world would be far less interesting without radicals. I'm an advocate of (peaceful) radicals. They are the flip-side to the status-quo and balance the extremes of the other end of the spectrum. Germain Greer didn't lead become a legend (or get rich) by being polite, gawd love her. I wouldn't want to get in her way, but I love what she has to say. She makes me think. And so do Spike's films.
I hardly think Spike is a dangerous radical either. He's effecting change through movies after all. Hardly going to hurt anybody. If all he's doing is moaning, then we can choose to listen or not. I figure if someone is saying something with that much passion and conviction then I might still gain from considering their point of view. What's the harm?
I hardly think Spike is a dangerous radical either. He's effecting change through movies after all. Hardly going to hurt anybody. If all he's doing is moaning, then we can choose to listen or not. I figure if someone is saying something with that much passion and conviction then I might still gain from considering their point of view. What's the harm?
Last edited:
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
Racism isn't a one-way street so not sure "reverse" is what you really mean...... unless I'm reading you wrong.
racism |ˈrāˌsizəm|
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.
DERIVATIVES
racist noun & adjective
That's a Korean person's job to bring attention to their lack of representation in cinema or anything else. And your wiki definition went to reverse discrimination not to racism two similar but different things, very different in a social aspect. That said Spike Lee's agenda has always been to point out the separate/disparate and inequity in all things. Have you ever seen school daze? Did you get it? Do you know why so many black people were pissed about that flick? Spike is an equal opportunity pisser offer
And John race in this country is deep and dark, people are afraid to be pissed off about it. No matter though, with the current state of things class will be more important than race believe that. 4 bucks a gallon and the peso gaining on the dollar, **** being black is the least of my problems.DDP i've always found that definition of racism to be weak. Its a cop out, that is no more than a way a person feels, almost like an emotion. I hate n*s. It does nothing to me. Thats simple bigotry.
wiki puts it best
institutional racism
[edit] Classification
Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic policies and practices within the institution, that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups. Certain housing contracts (see restrictive covenants) and bank lending policies (see redlining) are seen as forms of institutional racism. Other examples can include racial profiling by security and law enforcement workers, use of stereotyped racial caricatures by institutions (such as "Indian" mascots in sports), the under- and mis-representation of certain racial groups in the media, and barriers to employment or professional advancement based on race. As with the more general term of "racism", "institutional racism" carries with it a socially negative connotation which can make accurate classification contentious[citation needed].
Some have distinguished between institutional and structural racism. With the former focusing on the norms and practices within an institution and the latter referring to the interaction between institutions that produce racialized outcome. One of the things that is important about structural racism or structured racialization is that it cannot be reduced to individual prejudice or the single function of an institution. It is also important to note that once a structure is in place, it is likely to impact not just specific racialized groups but the entire population. Structural racialization also bring into focus many of the institutional arrrangements that are often identified as American exceptionalism such as the lack of a labor party, weak unions and a fragmented government system. Structural racialization borrows from system theory which looks at the interaction between institutions or entities and rejects reductionist thinking. There is a mutual and cumulative causation instead of a single cause. The use of the systems approach for structural racialization also call into question of rather race or class in the United States is more important. Instead, it suggests that there is an interaction between race and class and they have an impact both on institutional design and meaning.
Examples from U.S. history can help clarify the nature and effects of institutional racism.
In 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Social Security Act, guaranteeing an income for millions of workers after retirement. However, the Act specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers, many of whom were Mexican-American, African-American, and Asian-American. These workers were therefore not guaranteed an income after retirement, and had less opportunity to save, accumulate, and pass wealth on to future generations.
The U.S. property appraisal system created in the 1930s tied property value and eligibility for government loans to race. Thus, all-White neighborhoods received the government's highest property value ratings, and White people were eligible for government loans. Between 1934 and 1962, less than 2% of government-subsidized housing went to non-White people.[2]
These examples depend not on the individual, isolated, and idiosyncratic beliefs or biases of individuals, but rather on biases embedded in social structures and in institutions. Moreover, in the first example, no "race" was specifically named to be excluded from the Social Security Act, but the Act effectively allowed wealth benefits to accrue to certain racial groups and not to others. There need not be, therefore, any explicit intent associated with institutional racism in order for it to benefit certain races over others
This is the real concern.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
The harm is twofold:
1) He scares people into political correctness. I am a fan of radicals as well (believe me, as an advocate for families with special needs, i make a lot of waves), but when people whine ad-nauseam about stuff like this, you get to the point where every film has to have an obligatory cross-section of humanity, whether it is appropriate for the subject matter or not, just because nobody wants to offend anyone.
2) He undermines the credibility of his own position to the larger world. Something like Do The Right THing was a very relevant film because of the tensions it exposed and the questions it asked. My guess is that the subject of his new film has the potential to do the same thing. But if he is going to rant about things like this, all but those who already share his POV will tune him out. How is that raising awareness or helping his cause? Does anyone listen to people like Al Sharpton anymore? Lee hasn't gone that far, but he is edging closer with this type of finger-pointing.
If he continues to make (or returns to, depending on your opinion) relevant films that raise issues of race in a way that we can relate to, that would be far more important and helpful.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
"The Korean persons job"
Is it any one's job ? Spike forgets that all people are equal and that race does not make us all the same. We are all individuals and the color of our skin shouldn't be an all lumped in category.
Does everyone black person agree with Spike? probably not. In fact, there's most likely many that are saying 'Spike, shut your face'
Perhaps I have used the term incorrectly in your eyes, but I still stand by it with Spike.
And I don't believe racism is a two-way street. It is one persons own bizarre spin on their world.
Is it any one's job ? Spike forgets that all people are equal and that race does not make us all the same. We are all individuals and the color of our skin shouldn't be an all lumped in category.
Does everyone black person agree with Spike? probably not. In fact, there's most likely many that are saying 'Spike, shut your face'
Perhaps I have used the term incorrectly in your eyes, but I still stand by it with Spike.
And I don't believe racism is a two-way street. It is one persons own bizarre spin on their world.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Cinebuddy:
Excellent post.
Excellent post.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
It would be interesting to note what the Japanese really thought of Letters from Iwo Jima. Was the emotional story accurate from their experience?
Anyone from that part of the world care to comment?
Anyone from that part of the world care to comment?
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
There was a time, less than a hundred years ago, where newspapers carried classifieds with the line, "No Irish Need Apply"
You are correct, I worded poorly. I believed your point was Spike might be racists against whites which by definition isn't reverse racism it's plain old racism.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The Irish are one of the many people who have screwed on a regular basis over the centuries.
I also see your point as well ddp.
1) Well, I'm not scared. I'll be as politically incorrect or as politcally correct in my films as I see fit. I will let my point of view drive my film, rather than fear of comment. That said, I might be open to incredibly negative criticism and hostility if my point of view is hurtful to people. I'll take that risk when I see fit. But I won't be scared into being politcally correct. More likely you can be scared into not speaking up against stronger more numerous forces. That can be scary. Try being the only guy on set asking folks to can the anti-X jokes.
2) Are you then saying you'd like to advise him/see him do a better job with his agenda? I don't think that's most people's motivation in reacting negatively. They want him to shut up. But he's very outspoken. People like him probably won't shut up, because he's angry, even if he'd make more friends and money if he did shut up.
When a Black guy says something bothers him, I guess I'd rather not see white people telling him it shouldn't bother him. Maybe he has good reason to be bothered by it. He's probably the most outspoken Black filmmaker working with the Hollywood system. He's hte only one within the system speaking out this way. But I bet a lot of other Black filmmakers know exactly why he says the things he does. Maybe Clint Eastwood is just being used for his agenda. I think Clint can take it. And I agree Clint could have come back with something better than shut your trap. I've already read better responses against Spike's comment in this thread.
Good for the Irish! The planet would be a more peaceful place if we all screwed as often as the Irish!
Thomas J. O'Hara
Senior Citizen
lol
- Status