From: trammell@engin.umich.edu (James Trammell)
Subject: Re: The Sabotage of Malcolm X
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 11:19:14 EST
Organization: The University of Michigan AI and VR Laboratory
Originator: trammell@spot.engin.umich.edu


In article <1993Jan6.013417.18710@leland.Stanford.EDU>, stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski) writes:
> 
> There is a force at work here. Its name is Spike Lee.
> 
> 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. 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".
> 
> 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", 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


No, the result is what you want it to be.  You looked for a history lesson
and you found it.  I looked for a movie that might finally show the average
joe what Malcolm believed in.  At this point I may have found it.  I was 
concerned however that Lee glossed over Malcolm's childhood.  I would have
been willing to sit another 2 hours for its inclusion.


> 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. But who cares about the truth when you are 


I did not hear about this.  Which events were fabricated?


> 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. Are America's


I completely agree.  This could have been left out.  


> kids really supposed to emulate a man who:
>     - started out as a criminal,
>     - converted to a bizarre offshoot of Islam with a crack-brained,
>       racist theology, an impossible set of standards of conduct, and
>       a corrupt leadership,


Crack-brained?  I'm not a member of NOI, but its theology is no more
crack-brained that God creating the universe in 7 days, turning sticks into
snakes, creating women from the ribs of men, etc. etc. etc.  As for corrupt
leadership, I don't think there's ever been a religious organization that
hasn't been corrupt.  Just as in any religion it's up to members to keep
themselves from worshipping their immediate leaders.  Sometimes they have
to watch their wallets too.  Look at all the televangelists today who beg
daily for cash.


>     - badmouthed and insulted the black political leaders who were
>       making enormous progress in overcoming racism,


Malcolm didn't have much leeway here being with the NOI.  They wanted (and
still want) a separate nation created only for Blacks.  At the time,
in 50's-60's America, to the NOI anything less constituted "Tomming."


>     - recognized the truth (that there is good and bad among all
>       races) when that truth had been staring him in the face for
>       years,
>     - died a horrible death at the hands of his former associates.


I think the idea was to show a man who when faced by circumstances
much beyond his control still made something of himself.  

 
> 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.


Lee didn't set out to depict a Christ figure, so he didn't fail.  He
set out to show a man who just plain wasn't afraid to say and do the things
that needed to be said and done.  For the most part I think he succeeded,
but just like with any movie, READING THE BOOK(S) FIRST IS ESSENTIAL.
A movie can never go into the depth a book can.


> 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.
> 
> 
> Stefan


Peace,
 ____    ____	____________________________________________________________
|    \  /    |  James Trammell			      University of Michigan
 | |\ \/ /| |    "In this journey, you're the journal, I'm the journalist;  
 | | \  / | |  	 Am I eternal, or an eternalist?"		     -Rakim
 | |  \/  | |	trammell@engin.umich.edu
|___|    |___|	____________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american