From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: spike lee &  boston celtics
Date: 22 Nov 92 11:24:48
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<ISBELL.92Nov20152538@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Nov21.070657.454@u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: il@bambam.u.washington.edu's message of 21 Nov 92 07:06:57 GMT

il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:
|isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
|>il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:
|>|myra@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Myra VanInwegen) writes:
|>|> iho@cac.washington.edu writes:
|>|> >I've seen a few of his films (_Do_The_Right_Thing_, _Mo'_Better_Blues_,
|>|> >and _Jungle_Fever_) and have to disagree with you.  While they were
|>|> >interesting to watch, I wouldn't have minded missing them.  
|>|> >  His movies incorporate a lot of very
|>|> >stylistic elements and uniquely innovative techniques.  
|>|> You wouldn't have missed them despite their use of these uniquely
|>|> innovative techniques? Maybe your disagrement with the content is
|>|> blinding you to their artistic merit, which even you admit.
|>
|>|Maybe I misstated my feelings.  I don't feel like I really need to
|>|see his movies any more because they all tend to be about the same
|>|subject.  It's this limited scope of subject matter that I have a
|>|problem with.  For me, it gets old really fast.  The innovative
|>|techniques are nice, but they should be used to enhance the movie
|>|rather than become the attraction in the movie, in my opinion.
|>
|>I'd love to see you explain how _She's Got To Have It_ is "about the
|>same subject" as _Mo Better Blues_, _Do The Right Thing_, or _School
|>Daze_ or how any of those movies is about the same thing.

|I listed the Spike Lee movies I've seen.  You list 2 others I have not
|seen.  As for MBB and DTRT, I'll admit that MBB was different from the
|other 2 I've seen, but it was still not to my liking.  In my opinion,
|he doesn't use his techniques very well in his movies.  In fact, I
|think they distract me from the plot itself.  I thought I was very
|careful to state that these were just my opinions on movies made
|by one particular director, but I guess it wasn't clear enough.  I
|don't think that I made any objective critiques of his movies.  The
|only objective statement I've made was that he uses innovative
|techniques.  Gee, I never thought I'd be crucified for saying I
|didn't like any one particular movie (or three).

No one is crucifying you; however, your quotes are above.  What you
said is that his movies "tend to be about the same thing."  Even for
the two movies, you cite: _DTRT_ and _JF_ this is simply untrue.

Notice I never once say "his movies are great, you have no taste";
rather, I take exception to the notion that you advance here: 

"I don't feel like I really need to see his movies any more because
they all tend to be about the same subject.  It's this limited scope
of subject matter that I have a problem with.  For me, it gets old
really fast."

I claim that this assertion is simply incorrect.  Can you link even
the three films that you cite?  I'd like to see it.  As I noted
before: 

|>The only common thread is that there are Black people in the lead
|>roles.  This does not make them the same.

To which you replied:

|I didn't say that they were the same, but that they were about the
|same subject.  You helped me discover my error WRT _Mo'_Better_Blues_,
|but there is a recurring theme in his movies.  Furthermore, This
|particular recurring theme does not hold any particular attraction
|for me that I should keep going back for more.  This is, of course,
|just personal opinion.  I'm sure there are movies I like that you
|(and many others) don't, but it's a free country.

*What* really is the "recurring theme"?  What is the subject?  Are you
promoting subthemes to the focus of the films?  Are _Ghost_ and
_Defending Your Life_ "about the same thing"?

|>|[descriptions of some of S. Lee's techniques deleted]
|>|> >It's also blatantly obvious that
|>|> >the movies were written and directed by a black person,
|>|> Am I supposed to think that there's something wrong with this?
|>
|>|There's more to a person than his/her color.  If he/she can't get beyond
|>|that, he/she is cheating him/herself as well as the world of lots of
|>|potential
|>
|>And if critics cannot get beyond this then they are cheating
|>themselves of lots of potential.

|You can't possibly begin to imagine how little what critics think matters
|to me.

I'm sure I can; however, you miss the point.  Let us take a different
tack: how is it "blatantly obvious that the movies were written by a
Black person"?  What does this mean?  And is it a bad thing?  Is it
ever "blatantly obvious" that a film is made by a White person?

I can think of lots of times when I've thought so, but it's never been
a big issue.

|>|My problem is that his subject matter is always about racial conflicts/
|>|problems.  There are many other stories to be told.  As you said, there
|>|are countless white directors and writers, but very few of their movies
|>|are about the same subject.  Their subject matters cover a much broader
|>|spectrum.
|>
|>You're being narrow.  Linking _School Daze_ to _Mo Better Blues_ or
|>_Jungle Fever_ is a huuuuge stretch.

|Whatever.  I never saw SD, didn't care very much for MBB, and even
|less for JF.

|>Show me PLEASE how these are "about the same thing."

|I've seen 3 of his films: _Do the Right Thing_, _Mo' Better Blues_,
|and _Jungle Fever_.  I observed what I thought was a repeated
|underlying theme in both DTRT and JF (one I don't care all that much
|about).  Different strokes for different folks.

What is this theme?  How is it manifested?   Are these deep plot
elements or incidental to the character studies?

|I've admitted I had a memory lapse about the contents of MBB.
|In fact, I do remember thinking that I'd have really liked MBB if
|someone else had directed it.  Those innovative techniques I admire
|so much were distracting for me.

If you say so.  Still, you aren't discussing what I'm discussing.  It
seems to me that you have two basic themes:

1) Spike Lee's movies "tend to be about the same thing."

I consider this untrue and obviously untrue.  Further I think I have
demonstrated this.  In fact, even for the limited number of films
which you've seen, I think I've demonstrated this.  You on the other
hand have not even begun to substantiate your position.  At the level
of assertion, I think your claim to be as valid as saying that "Ghost"
and "Casablanca" tended to be about the same thing because they both
involved love stories.

2) You do not like Spike's "innovative techniques" in that they become
the focus of the film (mainly because of 1).

Well, this is an opinion.  I have not addressed this claim because of
this, even though I would be interested in your critque of them and
how they've detracted from his films.  For example, what techniques of
his doomed _MBB_ for you?


No one is crucifying you and I'd love to see how one would infer that
from my posts.  I simply noted my disagreement with what seems to me
to be an obviously untrue characterization of Spike Lee's films,
namely that they "tend to be about the same thing."  I cannot see
this.  Do you wish to expand your assertion?

Finally, if you decide that 1) isn't true, how does this affect your
opinion of his films?



--
Peace.
                             "You get your freedom by letting your enemy know
                              that you'll do anything to get your freedom; then
                              you'll get it. It's the only way you'll get it."
                                                  -- Malcolm X
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-