From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: The Sabotage of Malcolm X
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:21:09 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan6.013417.18710@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski) writes back to
>dem2@pyuxd.uucp (Me) who hinted darkly:
>>It appears that there are forces at work that are trying to hinder
>>the success of Spike Lee's _Malcolm X_ movie (and also thwart the
>>communication of Malcolm's important message to the masses).
>>....
>
>There is a force at work here. Its name is Spike Lee.
.
.
Oh, puh-leeze...

>Hollywood trade publications are reporting that Lee's movie is
>shaping up as a moderate box-office flop. Surveys indicate
>two reasons: the movie is too long, and it's perceived as a
>preachy, tedious history lesson.
.
.
Yeah, I saw that "Datebook" article in the Chron today, too.
However, I saw the movie twice (and plan to see it agin), and
although it was less than SRO, it did appear to be well-attended
during the New Year's weekend shows.  A fair smathering of white
folks were there.
.
.
Ironically, when the movie was
>being released, there were dark rumors about mysterious forces
>that were trying to cut down the length of the movie, presumably
>in order to "thwart the communication of Malcolm's important
>message".
.
.
Look, I think that as the movie is, there is no way someone could
cut something out and feel free. One of my favorite books, E.L.
Doctorow's "Ragtime," was made into a movie...and I was vastly
disappointed in the result. The movie was a great melange of people,
like Emma Goldman, Commander Peary and Matthew Henson, Harry
Houdini.  Something like that oughta be 10 hours long.
.
.
>Having seen the movie at last over the weekend, I am now aware
>of America's guilty little secret: "Malcolm X" is not very good.
>Spike Lee is so terrified of his subject, and so intent on creating
>a pigmented version of "Ghandi",
.
.
Say what?  And he misspelled Gandhi's name, too.  No, Spike probably
felt awed, and reverential, not terrified.  I don't think he was
trying to create a Christ or a Gandhi figure in Malcolm.  This is
wishful thinking on your part.

 that he forgot all about making
>an exciting movie about a complex, brilliant, slightly disturbed
>man. Spike wants to be a great educator, but the second half of
>the movie rarely rises above the level of a made-for-TV docudrama.
>The result is - a preachy, tedious history lesson.
.
.
Not here on this side of the theater. First of all, I didn't go for
the only nonviolent confrontation between the Malcolm's NOI and the
police...simply because it wasn't historical fact. This was wishful
thinking on Spike's part and I had already been clued to this in
subsequent critiques.  Secondly, I felt that Malcolm's drug use
depicted in the movie was too clean.  It was almost as if Spike
couldn't picture brotherman sniffing around for coke dust on the
floor to get a last freeze.  I didn't see Malcolm rock bottom in my
idea of the picture.
.
Lastly, the dance hall sequence was too staged, like something out
of "School Daze."
.
Otherwise, this girlfriend felt entertained, challenged (I was
mentally rifling through my knowledge of the Perry book and the
Haley book, remembering, dusting off, putting on the mantlepiece for
show) and engaged.  Seems like you came to dog, so dog you did.

>It's too bad that the script is slavishly based on the self-serving
>"autobiography", when recent scholarship has shown that many of its
>events were fabricated.
.
.
SOME events were fabricated.  And even I have problems with certain
of Perry's allegations, which I put on this board. But I can
understand why Malcolm did it. It's nothing like Kurt Waldheim's
omissions, or the Howard Hughes interview hoax of many years back.
Malcolm hid because of pain, not for personal gain.

 But who cares about the truth when you are
>painting an icon? Even so, the events of Malcolm's life are so
>peculiar, that the movie's ending (when lots of kids jump up and
>assert "I am Malcolm X!") makes no sense at all.
.
.
Then, dude, you really didn't get it at all. You wasted the movie's
time.
.
Malcolm redeemed himself.  He showed the way.  He cared enough about
his mission to try to rescue others as well.  He renewed the
idea of black pride in self, in manhood, in accomplishment, in our
history.  Without thinking, well--where's that hundred you owe me.
That took courage. That is why he is indeed "our black prince."

.
 Are America's
>kids really supposed to emulate a man who:
>    - started out as a criminal,
.
He started out straight, certain people said he couldn't be who he
wanted to be, and he went down hill from there...the Perry book
confirmed that incident.

>    - converted to a bizarre offshoot of Islam with a crack-brained,
>      racist theology, an impossible set of standards of conduct, and
>      a corrupt leadership,
.
.
Despite what you say about the Nation of Islam, many black men WERE
redeemed by their crackpot ideology.  It's just unfortunate
that their lives were saved by THAT ideology. Sometimes it takes
certain "evil" things to create good.  The rigorous training, the
adherences gave their lives focus, if not meaning.  They learned to
be self-reliant.  They learned to create.  I'm sure Malcolm was not
the only one to leave the Nation.  I'm sure these brothers and
sisters went along with it and then, when they had had enough, took
what they needed AND LEFT THE REST...
.
Of course,
>    - badmouthed and insulted the black political leaders who were
>      making enormous progress in overcoming racism,
.
.
No, they--King, Abernathy, etc--overcame racist laws. Nothing can
erase that achievement.  However, racism still exists. It exists in
the hearts, the minds, the culture, the society, the institutions.
Malcolm knew this to be true.  For all that rhetoric, Malcolm was
trying to say, don't believe the hype, the leader syndrome, the
whole enchilada.  For racism to be eliminated, white people would
have to transform themselves.  And they are STILL unable to do that.
.
>    - recognized the truth (that there is good and bad among all
>      races) when that truth had been staring him in the face for
>      years,
.
The truth had always been with him, even as a child.
.
>    - died a horrible death at the hands of his former associates.
.
.
Yes, they were chump change, weren't they?  They just wished they
were Malcolm, even little Elijah Muhammad.

>I fully recognize the man's admirable qualities, chiefly his eloquent
>espousal of the worth and dignity of Black Americans, and his emphasis
>on pride and self-reliance. But Spike Lee set out to depict a Christ-like
>figure, and failed.
.
.
You say the same about the docudrama made about King.  King fully
expected to be on the cross.  However, that smile on Malcolm's face
as he saw his killers wasn't of relief.  It was one of defiance.

 The funny thing is that there was (and still is) a
>great movie to be made from the fascinating life of Malcolm X. It was
>said that it's impossible for a white person to make such a movie. I
>think that's true but, in today's racially super-charged America, it may
>be impossible for a black person as well.
.
.
I say that a black person should have made this movie.  However,
the consciousness-level oughta be a case in point. Women of color of
the feminista stripe always tell the white feminists that just
because one is a woman, it don't mean she got the RIGHT politics.
Can you see James Meredith filming this movie--if he had some
directoral smarts?  Lord, have mercy.
.
Spike did a good job. A real good job.  This is the best movie I've
seen of his oeuvre. Spike's obvious sexism was at a distinct
minimum, too. Maybe because the Widda Shabazz was checking him out,
too.  OH, by the way folks.  Betty Shabazz had a tiny role (I don't
know whether she was speaking or nonspeaking) in the Jill Clayburgh
movie "An Unmarried Woman." She played a psychologist, I believe.
If anything, she was listed in the credits--that's what I remember.