From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: spike lee &  boston celtics
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:45:48
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: isbell@ai.mit.edu's message of 20 Nov 92 09:12:21

barrus@cod.nosc.mil writes:
|Wait a minute.  If this were true, why does he seemingly go out of his way to 
|piss the middle class whites off before they ever even get a chance to go see 
|his movies. Statements in the press showing his separist views and his "white 
|people just don't get it attitude" are enough that I wouldn't spend any money 
|to finance his future projects of trying to push his opinion down my throat.  
|Same reason I won't see Oliver Stone films.  Maybe if I was involved in the 
|film industry I would see them because it would be my job, but I am not, so I 
|can make a choice.  If he was trying to make films to enlighten white folks, 
|then he would be better served by trying to get whites to go see the film 
|rather than alienating them.  It seems that he is making films to enlighten 
|only black folks as if white folks don't fit in the equation of eventual 
|racial harmony.  To me this is severely limited thinking if not actually 
|racist.

This seems strange to me.  What seems to irritate people the most is
that he makes films about Black America without reference to White
America (most notably in Mo Better Blues, She's Gotta Have It and
School Daze).  So what?  Since Black Americans have lives and
experiences without reference to White America, this would seem
appropriate.  One could contrast this to films like _A Dry White
Season_ which while taking place in South Africa or whatever are
really stories about White people who are dealing with the suffering
of surrounding Black people and feeling angst or rigtheous indignation
about it.  Similarly, _Mississippi Burning_ is one of these films.  To
misquote someone else, these films "are so obviously made by a [White]
person."

One of his skills as a storyteller, in my opinion, is his ability to
present an even-handed set of events, allowing the actors and the
audience to extract their own meanings (this is most obvious in _Do
The Right Thing_ and _Jungle Fever_).  As such, I'd appreciate a
further explanation of examples where Spike Lee uses his movies to
"push his opinions down [one's] throat".  Can you think of any
examples, really?

I can't.  Even when one character pushes an opinion another disputes
it in some way.  I take as empirical evidence of this the widely
differing interpretations of posters of r.a.m. after _DTRT_ in
particular and many of his other films in general.

I think Spike Lee is right:  many of his critics do not have opinions
on his films, they have opinions on HIM.  I find this somewhat lame
and even disingenious.

But perhaps I am wrong.  Anyone care to present some examples from his
films without dengenerating into a commentary on his bsketball
preferences? 

BTW, _Malcolm X_ is an excellent film.

--
Peace.
                     "When society acknowledges you as one of its victims 
                      rather than one of its members, it no longer has 
                      any responsibility to help you."
                                - Kyle Baker, Why I Hate Saturn
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-