Clint Eastwood vs. Spike Lee

[oldsheperd]

Clint Eastwood is such a dichotomy of a personality. He makes movies like Letters from Iwo Jima to show the Japanese experience, he's an avid jazz fan, yet he supports John McCain, so I'm defacto taking Spike Lee's side. ; )

[flyonthewall2983]

He didn't say he was supporting McCain this election, just in 2000.

[oldsheperd]

Still. Supporting a guy who voted against the MLK holiday.

[domino harvey]

I'm waiting for Kanye to weigh in

[oldsheperd]

Puhleeeaaase! Here's tongue, there's cheek.

[akaten]

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.

To try and draw something of greater value out of this thread, David is this interview available to read anywhere, do you still have access to it to make available, as I'm sure myself and others would very much like to read it, not least because the early Lee films are of much greater interest to me than his later works.

Anyways while others here are trying to suggest these petty, often unsubstantiated remarks by Spike Lee rather than formulate a reasoned argument are somehow apart from his films I have noticed these tendencies are increasingly present in several of his films, in particular the 'montage of shame' sequence in Bamboozled, so I feel the most interesting Lee related piece that could be done right now is to somewhat cut through all his bull and confront him as to why he feels the need to act the way he does in the public domain.

[Grand Illusion]

Wouldn't the actual historicity of segregation have prevented Eastwood from putting black soldiers fighting side-by-side with those soldiers that actually mounted the flag?

The real attacks on Eastwood should be the fact that he took a ridiculous and histrionic script from Paul Haggis and didn't shred it before filming.

[David Ehrenstein]

No idea if that interview is available.

[oldsheperd]

I agree with Grand Illusion. I'm surprised that at the end of the movie the Japanese and Americans didn't realize the error of their ways and come together and hug ala Crash.

[Polybius]

There is a lot of talking past each other in all of this. That's the nature of things when you have an "argument" long distance, speaking through filters on each end. Eastwood seems to think Spike wanted him to put a token black guy in the flag raising group, but it's clear from the link that Antoine provided that he wasn't saying that.

"I never said he should show one of the other guys holding up the flag as black. I said that African-Americans played a significant part in Iwo Jima. For him to insinuate that I'm rewriting history and have one of the four guys with the flag be black … no one said that."

Similarly, Spike seems to want there to be an acknowledgement that segregated black troops played a role in the operation, which that screencap suggest was something that Eastwood did feature, perhaps too briefly.

"It's just that there's not one black in either film. And because I know my history, that's why I made that observation."

If the two of them sat down together and laid off the name calling and self dramatization, they might find themselves closer together than they think.

Maybe.

[Morbii]

I bet Spike Lee's movie about the Buffalo division doesn't include any white people in the fight.

[HerrSchreck]

All this has basically added up to nothing more than--surprise!-- great publicity for Lee's coming film... and a bunch of irritated folks.

[David Ehrenstein]

NBC called yesterday and asked if I'd like to go on to talk about this. The producer had not only heard of me but my past tangles with Spike. I said yes, but a few hours later they called back to say it was off.

Apparently Spike wouldn't go on with me -- which figures.

[HerrSchreck]

No surprise there, Lee's a chickenshit and only attacks easy targets. I remember him back from the 80's hanging with his brother Cinque' at Art & Design HS... from all who know him and from firsthand, his potential for chumpiness is well known and registered over the decades. Normally would feel 'off' saying stuff like this, but when a man goes around picking clumsily uncomfortable-feeling fights a la Eastwood, he invites close looks. The key is Easy Targets...

Llike Maher w Religulous.

[PimpPanda]

At the TIFF 2006 screening of When the Leeves Broke, Lee was sitting a few rows behind me. The film was great and was my favourite out of the relatively few that I saw that year. Seeing that I loved it, I sort of wanted to say something to Lee, but I was intimidated. Anyway, when I was waiting near the entrance, I felt something hit my shoulder. I looked forward, and realized that he pretty much just walked into me and then walked away. He also had two volunteers escorting him and blocking him off from people for some reason. I don't know if there really was a point to that stury, but yes, Lee's comments are very irrating and do seem to be mainly a publicity stunt.

[tavernier]

Spike has been doing this kind of thing for awhile.

[David Ehrenstein]

Testy little bitch!

He says "Clint Eastwood isn't my father." And that's the heart of the matter. His father divorced his mother and married a white woman. Spike has NEVER gotten over it.

And never will.

[whaleallright]

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.

HOME OF THE BRAVE (1949) is an early example of a film that dealt with African-American soldiers in WWII. Part of the late-1940s/early-1950s trend of "problem films" that included e.g. PINKY and GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. It was written by a bunch of future blacklistees.

[Antoine Doinel]

Though it should be noted that Home Of The Brave isn't available on DVD.

[moviscop]

It makes me sick to see something like this going on. I respected Spike Lee after he made "Do The Right Thing" which I see as a genuine American masterpiece.

However, when he tries to draw up controversy with racial issues he is just adding fuel to a fire he is trying to fight at the same time.

He needs to stop finding fault in other directors' work and at the same time, stop his Al Sharpton cynicism.

[sonicstooge]

All I wanna know is if Inside Man 2 is still happening.

[moviscop]

Oh, Inside Man 2 is happening. It will feature and all-white cast as the criminals and Denzel as our protagonist.

Sounds about right.

[Antoine Doinel]

As much as I loved Inside Man, the idea of a sequel is terrible.

[Roger_Thornhill]

There are black American in Flags. Not major roles, of course, but in the background I remember seeing black Marines/Sailors.

Also, for those complaining that blacks weren't given a more prominent role there's a couple of things to consider:

- The movie did not set out to exhaustively detail the Battle of Iwo Jima and, in fact, only included limited portions of the actual fighting and concentrated exclusively on the flag raisers.

- Historical accuracy. Because of segregation black Marines were mostly relegated to munitions duty/aiding wounded during the battle and did not take direct part in offensive combat operations. They did, however, fight the Japanese in a more defensive role.

- Less than 1% of the US troops who took part in the battle were black Americans.

Here's wikipedia on it:
The movie has been criticized for omitting black Marines and drawn the ire of a small number of veterans groups. in fact, black Marines are seen in scenes where the mission is being outlined, and during the initial landings - where a wounded black Marine is being carried away. During the end credits historical photographs taken during the Battle of Iwo Jima also show black Marines. Although black Marines fought in the battle, they were restricted to auxiliary roles such as ammunition supply. They were not involved in the battle's major assaults, but took part in defensive actions. Of the 110,000 U.S. troops who fought at Iwo Jima, approximately 900 were African-Americans.

A couple of other things that popped into my head. Why exactly is Spike criticizing a movie that came out almost two years ago? Why not then? Well, I think it's because his new movie is a WWII movie about a group of black Americans fighting in Italy. The controversy this has stirred is clearly bringing free publicity for his upcoming film.

All in all, Spike really should shut his face even though his core argument is valid (lack of black Americans in American war movies), but he picked the wrong guy and wrong film to pick on.

[Antoine Doinel]

Great post Roger! Someone please forward to Spike.