Clint Eastwood vs. Spike Lee

[Gator]

[-X Space Cowboys is his best film.

[dave41n]

And Unforgiven is not a revisionist western.

Why not? It subverts a number of Western conventions and, most importantly, is in conversation with the prevailing myth(s) of the West and the Western hero as constructed by the genre.

[Gator]

And Unforgiven is not a revisionist western.

Why not? It subverts a number of Western conventions and, most importantly, is in conversation with the prevailing myth(s) of the West and the Western hero as constructed by the genre.

It doesn't really subvert any Western conventions. Or if it does you'd have to say the same about a huge number of other Westerns. I think what the film offers is a number of pleasing variations on familiar situations, in the service of exploring the effects of violence on a group of individuals. But I don't think it subverts anything anymore than I think it's revisionist. How revisionist can a movie be when the hero rides into town at the climax after his best friend's been killed, guns his enemies down & then rides off again? I love Unforgiven but, smart & knowing as it is, it's pretty traditional stuff & let's remember that American audiences, who flocked to Unforgiven to the tune of around $100 million, aren't exactly known for embracing genuinely revisionist takes on anything, much less the Western.

[Tom Hagen]

He wasn't badly used in Baby.

I wasn't referring to Freeman's performance in Baby (though I personally found it to be essentially paint-by-numbers territory for him), as much as I was comparing his casting in that film to his casting in Unforgiven vis-a-vis his race. In Baby, Freeman played the classic magical Negro archetype that people like Spike Lee have been criticizing for years. In Unforgiven, on the other hand, his presence as an associate and equal of Eastwood's character subverts the traditionally marginalized roles that African Americans were given in Hollywood westerns. (One of many reasons that the film is a revisionist piece.)

By the way, this thread probably needs to be split at this point.

[flyonthewall2983]

It probably could have been split much earlier.

[Mr Sausage]

He wasn't badly used in Baby.

I wasn't referring to Freeman's performance in Baby (though I personally found it to be essentially paint-by-numbers territory for him), as much as I was comparing his casting in that film to his casting in Unforgiven vis-a-vis his race. In Baby, Freeman played the classic magical Negro archetype that people like Spike Lee have been criticizing for years. In Unforgiven, on the other hand, his presence as an associate and equal of Eastwood's character subverts the traditionally marginalized roles that African Americans were given in Hollywood westerns. (One of many reasons that the film is a revisionist piece.)

By the way, this thread probably needs to be split at this point.

How does Freeman do the "magical-negro" thing in Million Dollar Baby? He doesn't provide any life changing wisdom (his biggest piece of wisdom, that you only have a certain number of fights, only explains him), and he doesn't directly say or do anything that determines the choices of, or unveils some hidden wisdom to, either the Eastwood or the Swank character (sure, he helps Danger regain his confidence, but Danger isn't a main character and there was nothing mystical or particularly wise about "anyone can lose a fight").

Quite the opposite, he's the one that introduces Maggie to another trainer behind Eastwood's back, an offer she refuses. Finally, it's the priest in the movie, not Freeman, who has the major talk with Eastwood about his choices concerning Maggie's desire for death, and even then Eastwood makes this decision on his own contra the advice of the priest. The Freeman character did two things: 1. served as an always present manifestation of Eastwood's guilt, and 2. stood a bit outside of the story as an observer, relating the narrative for the audience. To call his character a typical "magic-negro" requires that one overlook quite a bit.

[Jeff]

it's interesting to point out Eastwood's argument that he made Bird. Yes, he made a film about a black person. But I wonder if it would've been greenlit as quickly had an African American director been at the helm? Let's not forget that Norman Jewison was originally attached to direct Malcolm X for chrissakes.

Eastwood wasn't just bringing up Bird to say, "Hey, I already made a film about a black guy." He was reminding the interviewer that Lee vociferously complained about a white man daring to make a film about Charlie Parker, even though nobody else was interested in the project. Lee also complained about Spielberg doing Amistad, and as you point out, famously railed against Norman Jewison making Malcolm X. Never mind the fact that Jewison knew Malcolm X, had been deeply involved in the civil rights movement when Lee was still in grammar school, shut down production on In the Heat of the Night to fly with Poitier and Steiger to Malcolm's funeral, and made three powerful films about racism. I agree with Lee to a certain extent that a black director is more qualified in many ways to tell such stories, but I don't think it's his position to tell other filmmakers what films they are and are not qualified to make. If he is going to do so, it's a little hypocritical to complain again when those same filmmakers don't include token black characters (which is exactly what the Flags situation would amount to) in their films.

I love Spike Lee as a filmmaker. He's easily one of the best of the last quarter century. His confrontational and accusatory approach to depictions of race in cinema, however, makes him pretty tough for me to take as a person.

To bring the discussion back around to the new topic of this thread, I'll point out that Eastwood's next films after Changeling are about a Hmong community in America and Nelson Mandela.

[Robin Davies]

And Unforgiven is not a revisionist western.

I think I read somewhere that a "traditional western" is one where lots of people get shot and a "revisionist western" is one where lots of people get shot but everyone feels really guilty about it.

[Polybius]

Bird is a bit of an iffy piece to be hanging the pro-Clint case on. He was widely criticized by black writers and a lot of white ones, too (like the then-lucid Stuart Klawans) for elevating Red Rodney to a position greater than he really held (while marginalizing real life close friends of Parker's, like Gillespie) in order to shoehorn an almost Lethal Weapon dynamic into the story. That and making Parker to be some terribly morose, endlessly suffering character, when he was, in fact, often quite the opposite, even as he slowly killed himself.

Maybe "polite eye rolling" is what Spike gets around here and some other similar places, but I've encountered a lot of snide, out of hand dismissal of not just his comments, but his body of work, talent and right to say much of anything about Clint Eastwood. Sputtering rage rather than ironic, mild dismissal.

Having said all of that, I agree largely with Jeff about Lee's talent and his proclivities in his comments. They serve, far too often, to cloud proper judgement of his work, even by people inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[MichaelB]

Having said all of that, I agree largely with Jeff about Lee's talent and his proclivities in his comments. They serve, far too often, to cloud proper judgement of his work, even by people inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

...and it's one of the reasons I fought shy of watching When the Levees Broke when I first had an opportunity to do so, as I couldn't see how it would be anything other than four hours of shrill Bush-bashing. (Certainly not undeserved, but a tad monotonous).

Fortunately, when it turned up on BBC4 I decided to give it a look, and it completely confounded all my expectations - and reminded me of what a great filmmaker Lee can be when he's firing on all cylinders and treating his material as something other than a vehicle for simplistic polemic.

[Gator]

In Unforgiven, on the other hand, his presence as an associate and equal of Eastwood's character subverts the traditionally marginalized roles that African Americans were given in Hollywood westerns. (One of many reasons that the film is a revisionist piece.)

Black sidekicks have been a familiar feature of Hollywood Westerns & action movies for more decades than I care to remember. Freeman's presence as an associate & equal is not something that suddenly arrived like a bolt out of the blue with Unforgiven!

And Unforgiven is not a revisionist western.

I think I read somewhere that a "traditional western" is one where lots of people get shot and a "revisionist western" is one where lots of people get shot but everyone feels really guilty about it.

Yeah, by that standard we could call almost every western ever made revisionist since the notion of a hero feeling bad about shooting somebody is as much a staple (well actually a cliche) of the American western as the black hatted villain.

[lady wakasa]

Just wanted to mention (because I was posting about this on another board yesterday) - the oral history that's mentioned in the Guardian link (which is quoted in there as well), does mention a Black soldier who was involved, however tangentially, in the first flag raising on Iwo Jima. (I think the story was he provided the length of pipe that the flag was raised on.) He's not in the movie.

Including him would've shut down a lot of the media complaints about the movie, and not just from Spike Lee.

Also, apparently the oral historian and her publisher contacted Eastwood and the production company (also sent them a copy of the book) and asked them to be aware of the issue of Black soldiers, but were basically ignored.

So Lee might've been blowing up things, but I'd say he does have a point. I also think that this is more Hollywood looking at their budget than purposefully being bigoted, but don't think that's much of an excuse.

And I really appreciate the tone here, because the other board was more like a witch hunt than a discussion.

[Antoine Doinel]

Spike Lee responds, "...we're not on a plantation."

As much as I get what Spike is driving at, he really does need to shut his face.

[Polybius]

Fortunately, when it turned up on BBC4 I decided to give it a look, and it completely confounded all my expectations - and reminded me of what a great filmmaker Lee can be when he's firing on all cylinders and treating his material as something other than a vehicle for simplistic polemic.

Best film of that year. We had a good discussion about it .

[exte]

Of all the people to pick a fight with, Clint Eastwood? And I like Clint's defense about making Bird and yet still he got shit for that for being white.

Is this really how someone like Spike Lee needs to promote his films? I don't think Clint tore up other WWII films just so he could promote his own. And do we really need racially divisive rhetoric during this campaign season? But of course he ends it with this:

"Even though he's trying to have a Dirty Harry flashback, I'm going to take the Obama high road and end it right here," he told ABCNEWS.com. "Peace and love."

[flyonthewall2983]

I absolutely agree, exte. Although I have great respect for him as a filmmaker, Spike almost has this attitude that there has never been a film about the black experience in WWII.

[Gator]

“He did two films about Iwo Jima back to back and there was not one black soldier in both of those films,” said Lee...

Here's a screenshot from Flags of Our Fathers showing those non-existent black soldiers.

[Joe Buck]

This is an obvious attempt to drum up controversy and publicity for his new film. I try to respect him as an artist and appreciate his talent, but then he's gotta try to turn everything into a black/white issue, and it's just such a tired old ploy. His attitude makes me not want to even give his film the time of day.

[portnoy]

I absolutely agree, exte. Although I have great respect for him as a filmmaker, Spike almost has this attitude that there has never been a film about the black experience in WWII.

I can think of The Tuskegee Airmen, which was a TV movie. Maybe A Soldier's Story, though that's set in Louisiana and isn't about combat.

And Camp de Thiaroye, though that's about Africans after the war.

Not that Lee's argument about the Iwo Jima films holds any water, but I can't think of any other major films about the black experience in WWII. Am I missing something painfully obvious?

[David Ehrenstein]

I interviewed him for the late lamented Los Angeles Herald-Examiner circa She's Gotta Have It and he went on about how great it was to be able to talk to a black reporter like me for a change. By the time of Malcolm X I was writing regularly for The Advocate. I asked for an interview and got dead silence. Then he made some bug whiney speech about how there weren't any African-American critics and reporters out there wanting to interview him. So I contacted Warner Bros. again with a simple "HELLO!!!!!" and still nothing.

So I wrote column for The Advocate in which I read the snotty little motherfucker like the telephone directory.

THEN he started making appearances at black colleges claiming that I had demanded to be flown across the country to interview him. This was of course A BLATANT LIE.

Spike Lee is not without talent as a filmmaker, but I have no use for him as a human being.

And neither should Clint.

[Polybius]

I absolutely agree, exte. Although I have great respect for him as a filmmaker, Spike almost has this attitude that there has never been a film about the black experience in WWII.

I can think of The Tuskegee Airmen, which was a TV movie. Maybe A Soldier's Story, though that's set in Louisiana and isn't about combat.

And Camp de Thiaroye, though that's about Africans after the war.

Not that Lee's argument about the Iwo Jima films holds any water, but I can't think of any other major films about the black experience in WWII. Am I missing something painfully obvious?

If you are, I am, too.

African Americans in WWII combat, for a country that couldn't manage to grant them full legal equality at home, is a story that could be amazing. One fraught with poignance, especially an account of their experiences in the ETO. I would recommend Ed Zwick, based on Glory, which managed to be a solid, dramatic piece as well as an unfortunately necessary remedial history lesson for mainstream America, but based on his recent films, I have a bad feeling we'd see half of the screen time devoted to a white officer and his girlfriend.

[David Ehrenstein]

There's also Rossellini's Paisan.

[exte]

I hate to be political because I like Spike Lee and am voting Obama, but Spike is acting in a certain style that rubs me the wrong way... It's like, there are zero films about blacks in WWII. Therefore, the quotas are way off and when I make this film, it will fill a vacuum at long last. Therefore it is significant enough and merits a degree of credit and publicity. Now, what if Spike Lee just made a film, rolled it out, and word on it was super hot. A must see for the subtle strokes of mastery, honesty, art, pathos, the black experience, WWII veterans in general, MLK, etc... And then we championed it? It's almost like affirmative action marketing and receiving. He's telling us to like it for its cause. No? What if instead it was truly like Obama? I'm not running because I'm black, or because I want to be the first black this or that, but because of the content of my ideas, the power of my vision, the amazing and inspiring oratorical and rhetorical...... you know what I mean? Wasn't it Jesse Jackson in '88 who said I got the second highest amount of delegates, therefore I should be VP? Anyway, maybe I'm off track. That screen grab says it all, though...

[dx23]

You guys have to remember that Spike Lee is the same guy who sued Viacom for changing the TNN channel to Spike TV. The only thing I agree with Lee in his race "debates" is the stupidity of BET.

[flyonthewall2983]

I remember that. I was actually rooting for Spike in that because at the time I thought Spike TV was a stupid name for a network.