criterionforum.org

We nearly had a David Mamet/Mike Nichols take that I thought was supposed to star Tom Hanks.

We’ll see. Lee is like Ridley Scott in that many of his projects get announced but never enter production

domino harvey wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:10 am Lee’s film is called Highest 2 Lowest

it sounds like the name for a sequel if high and low was a hollywood flick.

domino harvey wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:10 am Lee’s film is called Highest 2 Lowest

Teaser.

sabbath wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2025 10:46 pm A new trailer for Spike Lee's Highest 2 Lowest. This and the previous teaser don't show one important premise in Kurosawa's High and Low. Wonder if they decided not to use it or simply hide it until the release.

brundlefly wrote: Mon May 05, 2025 2:45 pm

domino harvey wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:10 am Lee’s film is called Highest 2 Lowest

Teaser.

I totally forgot his middle name was Ranch

So hyped for this…

Highest 2 Lowest is a mixed bag. The melodramatic sections (which make up the bulk of the film, an unfortunate change to the Kurosawa) are often clunky in their pacing, in service of sustaining an uneven operatic tone, but the thriller sequences are dynamite. Denzel gives one of his best performances in years and Wright is dependable as always, but some of the other actors are real dogs. Some alterations to the original makes sense, especially to morph the film into something more personal and familial, but it also worked much better as a proto-Zodiac procedural. And the choice to shoot everything twice and use the number 2 so often (get it?) is silly and distracting - not to mention the palm-to-face studio reference. Where Lee never fails to succeed though is in crafting a great movie about music - the eclectic mix of soulful black artists would be more than enough, but the middle set piece features a propulsive piano score that shifts into a very different Puerto Rican jam, and it somehow works perfectly.

Lee really doesn't have a good track record with remakes.

Nope, but I think this beats the others even if it's heavily flawed - the bar ain't high, though

What else is there besides Oldboy?

Didn’t he remake Ganja and Hess?

swo17 wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:19 pm What else is there besides Oldboy?

There’s also his remake of Ganja & Hess, Da Sweet Blood of Jesus.

I think I got more from Highest 2 Lowest than blus. The '63 Kurosawa version is one of my all-time faves, thus I didn't want to see Lee's version follow it too closely, cause that would only come up short. Lee's major changes to Kurosawa's adaptation made it feel less like a remake and more personalized. The two biggest changes I noticed were 1. making the lead a music mogul instead of a shoe mogul; and 2. the role of the police. The character change allowed the film to comment on issues of modern music. The decline of labels, the hip hop scene, and "attention being the new currency" were reflected in the film, and fit into Spike's views. And I'll echo that the score was great, particularly in the money drop-off sequence. Secondly, the police ultimately catch the kidnapper in the Kurosawa's film. But here, when the police dismiss a valuable lead, Denzel and Jeffrey Wright had to take matters into their own hands, and end up catching the kidnapper themselves. This also fits into Spike's critical views of the police force, in this case, failing to solve the crime. Highest 2 Lowest gave me something to think about more immediate than the usual 'how does the remake compare to the original?' discussion any time a major remake or reboot comes along. I find the positives here outweighed the pacing and tonal issues, twbb addressed. I don't go to the movies as much as I did the past few years, but overall I'm glad I made the trek.

This had some better and worse sequences; Denzel was spectacular as usual and some of the rest of the cast was awful. But above all it was just uninteresting. It seemed to have little interest in following up its better ideas or even discerning what they were. I think the biggest problem is that Lee identifies too much with the main character and is unwilling to interrogate him or open up any real moral ambiguity. (It's not as though Denzel isn't capable of playing a villain or a character with rough edges.) I thought all the stray shots of the Denzel character's art collection and framed posters of Hurston novels and Kamala(!) posters might have been working toward some sort of critique of the Black bourgeoisie, or at least the main character's complacency, but unfortunately I think it was all just face-value fetishism and aggressively reaffirmed by the dreadful final sequences. In that sense this was in line with the worst tendency of Hollywood remakes to turn the originals into wish-fulfillment fantasies. It's hard to hate a film that very intermittently has such joy in it, as most of Lee's films do. But this also was further evidence of the limits of Lee's social imagination.

And yeah the score was utterly awful. Lee has a tendency to drench his films in unnecessary and distracting mood music—this even mars parts of Do the Right Thing—but this was a new low.

pistolwink wrote: Mon Sep 01, 2025 3:49 amI think the biggest problem is that Lee identifies too much with the main character and is unwilling to interrogate him or open up any real moral ambiguity.

I think you nailed it. And there are plenty of moments of moral ambiguity the script offers up and that Lee takes the time to show in full (the iffy family dynamics, especially between father and son, the ransom decision impacting Wright and/or Denzel’s image, etc.), but never ultimately demonstrates an interest in exploring them

Just caught up with Spike's latest, and found it closer in spirit to She Hate Me than High and Low. If you're a fan of the man, and know his movies - this movie proudly boasts all of Lee's idiosyncratic stylistic flourishes, with his love for movies, art, music and New York City. It's a real triumph of production design, and it is beautifully photographed. A celebration of black culture, and at times uproariously funny. While not as exciting as Inside Man, this movie clearly won't be the box office hit for Spike like 2006, but its far more personal, and a film very much about the world we live in today. Yes, at times I was reminded of memes about old men yelling at clouds, or pulling up your pants - but I applaud the daring risk it was to remake Kurosawa's classic - knowing it could not be equalled - but still delivering a soul-searching alarm where Spike sees his world going. The climax with Denzel and ASAP Rocky is a stunner, and the musical coda is sublime.

pistolwink wrote: Mon Sep 01, 2025 3:49 am And yeah the score was utterly awful. Lee has a tendency to drench his films in unnecessary and distracting mood music—this even mars parts of Do the Right Thing—but this was a new low.

Why is it that, whenever a contemporary film score is assailed as "heavy-handed" or "button-pushing" or "manipulative", it turns out to be one of the best of the year and the rare recent score I want to own on CD? And yet a melody-deprived score that truly IS obnoxiously intrusive to the point where it even drowns out the dialogue (like for pretty much any Christopher Nolan movie) is showered with critical praise and Oscar gold?

I enjoyed it a lot, too. It's really a remake in name only, hitting many of the same major story beats, but Lee's preoccupations are so different than Kurosawa's that it feels more like homage than a remake. Or perhaps, it's maybe like a song that samples an older song while still being its own thing.

Lee is only vaguely interested in the procedural aspects and focuses so much more on the families and communities around them. And while Kurosawa digs into the underworld for a close look, Lee's vision of community is much deeper and more holistic. For example, one scene that really stood out to me that doesn't have an analogue in the Kurosawa was when the Denzel character visited Yung Felon's wife, and I think it's key to Lee's vision. In the Kurosawa, Mifune's character was a rich guy with a decision to make, but the ramifications never really extend outward past his and the chauffeur's families. But here, we get this heartbreaking scene where we see how personal David's situation actually is - he's not just a rich guy who lives in a prominent house on a hill, he's a guy who people know and look up to and invest their own dreams in, and so also a potential source of disappointment to them.

Which is all to say, I think this subject matter suits Lee in a way that Oldboy did not. It provides a lot of jumping-off points for him to delve into all kinds of little digressions - he's got a lot on his mind. I know that often leads to charges against him for inconsistent tone or sloppy construction, and not unjustly so, but I always find it energizing when he's working in this mode even if it can be kinda messy.

Brian C wrote:In the Kurosawa, Mifune's character was a rich guy with a decision to make, but the ramifications never really extend outward past his and the chauffeur's families.

The film does have an anti-capitalist stance regarding Gondo. His decision to take over the company himself and not side with the other faction is his refusal to make flashy shoes with shoddy workmanship that fall apart quickly, increasing profits. He favours the artisan's position of making high quality, timeless products over pure profit. Gondo's downfall is implied to be a victory for capitalism at its worst. So there is a sense of a wider social ramification, but the movie doesn't make much of it, so there's a fruitful avenue here for Lee to explore the wider community context, as you say.

Brian C wrote: And while Kurosawa digs into the underworld for a close look...

Sorry if this comes across as pedantic, but it gets at something on my mind since a rewatch of the Kurosawa: High and Low actually doesn't dig into the underworld, it skims across the surface. Kurosawa gives a sustained, penetrating look at the world of big business and at the methods of police work, but he spends no time on the underworld as a social phenomenon. He spends some time on the Dostoevskian moral/spiritual rot of the kidnapper, but his milieu is taken for granted. The descent into the underworld near the end of the movie is a tourist's vision of hell, complete with drug addicts who stagger up, dead-eyed and moaning, like a hoard of zombies when the police try to enter their slum. The kidnapper kills three drug addicts, none of whom are named, and none of whom the police seem much to care about except that it'll give even more ammunition to punish the kidnapper for the more serious crime of separating a decent rich man from his money. Seriously, the excitement the police feel when they discover the bodies and learn they can really stick it to the kidnapper is striking, and the panic they feel when they realize that the kidnapper is going to test out his hot shot on a junkie is only because they lose track of him briefly in the slum, not because they're powerless to stop a murder they're kinda complicit in, and indeed once they locate him again they're right back to business. It's painful, actually, how little interest the movie takes in the poor and downtrodden, and how it kinda looks at drug addicts as subhuman. It's one reason why the second half of the film is weaker than the first (the other being that it never attains the same intensity as the pressure cooker of Gondo's house). It's still one of Kurosawa's best films, but it's never been a personal favourite of mine.

Which is all to say, unlike Oldboy, the exact kind of movie that doesn't need a remake, there are a lot of avenues for Lee to work with here.

Mr Sausage wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:53 pm

Brian C wrote:In the Kurosawa, Mifune's character was a rich guy with a decision to make, but the ramifications never really extend outward past his and the chauffeur's families.

The film does have an anti-capitalist stance regarding Gondo. His decision to take over the company himself and not side with the other faction is his refusal to make flashy shoes with shoddy workmanship that fall apart quickly, increasing profits. He favours the artisan's position of making high quality, timeless products over pure profit. Gondo's downfall is implied to be a victory for capitalism at its worst. So there is a sense of a wider social ramification, but the movie doesn't make much of it, so there's a fruitful avenue here for Lee to explore the wider community context, as you say.

I don't know if that's much of a critique of capitalism. Both the mass-market manufacturer and the artisan focused on quality are part of a capitalist system; in 1960s Tokyo, as now, there was presumably a market for higher-quality shoes that perhaps cost somewhat more, with the customer free to act on their own preferences. And Gondo does indeed end up working for another company where his priorities are more respected, does he not? I'm not sure that I see much wider social ramification in that. It's merely a question of differing business plans at the company, not differing economic philosophies on a societal level.

Sorry if this comes across as pedantic, but it gets at something on my mind since a rewatch of the Kurosawa: High and Low actually doesn't dig into the underworld, it skims across the surface. Kurosawa gives a sustained, penetrating look at the world of big business and at the methods of police work, but he spends no time on the underworld as a social phenomenon. He spends some time on the Dostoevskian moral/spiritual rot of the kidnapper, but his milieu is taken for granted. The descent into the underworld near the end of the movie is a tourist's vision of hell, complete with drug addicts who stagger up, dead-eyed and moaning, like a hoard of zombies when the police try to enter their slum. The kidnapper kills three drug addicts, none of whom are named, and none of whom the police seem much to care about except that it'll give even more ammunition to punish the kidnapper for the more serious crime of separating a decent rich man from his money. Seriously, the excitement the police feel when they discover the bodies and learn they can really stick it to the kidnapper is striking, and the panic they feel when they realize that the kidnapper is going to test out his hot shot on a junkie is only because they lose track of him briefly in the slum, not because they're powerless to stop a murder they're kinda complicit in, and indeed once they locate him again they're right back to business. It's painful, actually, how little interest the movie takes in the poor and downtrodden, and how it kinda looks at drug addicts as subhuman. It's one reason why the second half of the film is weaker than the first (the other being that it never attains the same intensity as the pressure cooker of Gondo's house). It's still one of Kurosawa's best films, but it's never been a personal favourite of mine.

Yeah, I think the film comes across as slightly more sympathetic that you do towards the addicts (aside from the kidnapper, at least), but I don't really disagree with any of the particulars you list out. Although on the other hand, it strikes me as a pretty accurate portrayal of police attitudes, if police during that period in Japan were anything like the American cops I've personally known! As a police procedural, I think the second half works very well. But you're right, it's not very interested in the addicts as individuals.

Brian C wrote:I don't know if that's much of a critique of capitalism. Both the mass-market manufacturer and the artisan focused on quality are part of a capitalist system; in 1960s Tokyo, as now, there was presumably a market for higher-quality shoes that perhaps cost somewhat more, with the customer free to act on their own preferences. And Gondo does indeed end up working for another company where his priorities are more respected, does he not? I'm not sure that I see much wider social ramification in that. It's merely a question of differing business plans at the company, not differing economic philosophies on a societal level.

Critique of profiteering? The specific lable here doesn't matter so much as the suggestion that Gondo's downfall means the success of corporate greed at the expense of the consumer, with artisans also becoming alienated from their products by the rise of garish, trendy mass produced shit with no care or craft in it. There is a hint of wider social ramifications, but again, the film doesn't do much with this, nowhere near what you describe Lee doing.

Gondo's work at the new company (a small company where he has little prestige) works as the redemptive end in salvation story. Gondo finds himself back working at an honest company where he's again physically in touch with his original trade and which lets him ply it in a way consistent with his values as a traditional artisan, away from the culture of corporate greed that had compromised him enough ethically that doing the right thing became a fraught decision. This is why I called the issue capitalist (a lable I'm not wedded to if you really wanted to argue it, I guess), because the film is using money, specifically wealth, greed, and profiteering, to make a moral and spiritual argument. The high and low of the title is among other things a spiritual and economic divide.

Brian C wrote:Yeah, I think the film comes across as slightly more sympathetic that you do towards the addicts (aside from the kidnapper, at least), but I don't really disagree with any of the particulars you list out. Although on the other hand, it strikes me as a pretty accurate portrayal of police attitudes, if police during that period in Japan were anything like the American cops I've personally known! As a police procedural, I think the second half works very well. But you're right, it's not very interested in the addicts as individuals.

Fair point about the police! But the film presents them so consistently as moral agents, indeed people who are moved personally by Gondo's downfall, that I have trouble feeling that the film is being cynical here. I think the filmmakers just assumes the viewer is more invested in the kidnapper being caught than in the plight of a random victim. They're not wrong, but Kurosawa's consistent failure to portray the down and out in a convincing manner contrasts poorly with Mizoguchi and Imamura. Kurosawa was much better at the elevated and the tragic, hence Gondo's fall is so electric, and the police procedural gripping, while the kidnapper and his world feel kinda melodramatic in contrast (it's a good thing we don't spend that much time with him).

I'd be interested in why you think the film is more sympathetic to the addicts than I make out. The film seemed pretty unconcerned with who they are--I don't believe we're told their names or backgrounds; with the first two victims we only see their feet poking from under the covers, and with the third victim, she may as well be an animal with the way she's shown wild-eyed, scratching at the walls, incapable of human speech. None of the other characters express much pity for them. They seemed less like people than ideas to move the plot forward with. But maybe I'm forgetting something?

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2025 2:31 amCritique of profiteering? The specific lable here doesn't matter so much as the suggestion that Gondo's downfall means the success of corporate greed at the expense of the consumer, with artisans also becoming alienated from their products by the rise of garish, trendy mass produced shit with no care or craft in it. There is a hint of wider social ramifications, but again, the film doesn't do much with this, nowhere near what you describe Lee doing.

Gondo's work at the new company (a small company where he has little prestige) works as the redemptive end in salvation story. Gondo finds himself back working at an honest company where he's again physically in touch with his original trade and which lets him ply it in a way consistent with his values as a traditional artisan, away from the culture of corporate greed that had compromised him enough ethically that doing the right thing became a fraught decision. This is why I called the issue capitalist (a lable I'm not wedded to if you really wanted to argue it, I guess), because the film is using money, specifically wealth, greed, and profiteering, to make a moral and spiritual argument. The high and low of the title is among other things a spiritual and economic divide.

And a physical divide!

If you're not married to the "capitalism" label, then I have less of a disagreement, because that was the biggest objection I had. Still, even granting your argument that the film is doing this, I still think it's an extremely feeble critique on the film's part, because we've all had plenty of instances in our lives when we've been perfectly happy as consumers to trade lower price and/or greater availability for lesser quality, and it seems silly to frame that decision in moral or spiritual terms. Whatever argument the movie's trying to make along these lines, it's frivolous to the point where I think it's best ignored, especially since, as you say, Kurosawa doesn't do much with it anyway; the movie functions just as well (or better) without it. It's enough that Gondo's professional stance makes him a more sympathetic figure to the audience and heightens the tension when he is reluctant to pay the ransom without assigning a wider, very tenuous social critique to it.

Fair point about the police! But the film presents them so consistently as moral agents, indeed people who are moved personally by Gondo's downfall, that I have trouble feeling that the film is being cynical here. I think the filmmakers just assumes the viewer is more invested in the kidnapper being caught than in the plight of a random victim. They're not wrong, but Kurosawa's consistent failure to portray the down and out in a convincing manner contrasts poorly with Mizoguchi and Imamura. Kurosawa was much better at the elevated and the tragic, hence Gondo's fall is so electric, and the police procedural gripping, while the kidnapper and his world feel kinda melodramatic in contrast (it's a good thing we don't spend that much time with him).

I'd be interested in why you think the film is more sympathetic to the addicts than I make out. The film seemed pretty unconcerned with who they are--I don't believe we're told their names or backgrounds; with the first two victims we only see their feet poking from under the covers, and with the third victim, she may as well be an animal with the way she's shown wild-eyed, scratching at the walls, incapable of human speech. None of the other characters express much pity for them. They seemed less like people than ideas to move the plot forward with. But maybe I'm forgetting something?

To be clear, I don't think the movie is being cynical. I agree that the film admires the policework, more or less, which Lee is (as you'd probably expect) much more skeptical of. And I agree that this is a weakness of Kurosawa ... well, maybe not "weakness" as much as a "limitation," because Kurosawa's films in general seem to favor bold dramatic character types over naturalistic, individual characters. Perhaps it was inevitable that the kidnapper here would suffer from a neglected characterization as much as it was inevitable that the bureaucrats in Ikiru would be so obnoxiously unhelpful.

As for you missing something with the addicts, I doubt that's the case! I don't disagree with what you wrote and my difference in opinion is only at the margins. Maybe this is pedantic as well, but I suppose that I would label the film's treatment of the addicts not as "subhuman zombies" but rather as "lost souls" - more in keeping with the underworld theme, perhaps, and not framing them as villains or monsters. They may be accomplices of the kidnapper, but they're also victims of his.

I am not saying that this is a particularly laudable treatment of the addicts, but I see the film's treatment as more of benign neglect (and perhaps sheltered ignorance) than an effort to make them something less than human. I agree obviously that the cops themselves couldn't care less.

I agree about benign neglect with the exception of the scene in the slum itself. There Kurosawa is plainly using the masses of drugged out slum dwellers to chill and horrify his middle class audience, with imagery right out of a horror movie. That scene weighs on the rest of the film’s neglect, at least to me. It’s the weakest scene in the movie, much like a similar (and critically lauded!) scene in Stray Dog.

To bring this back to Lee, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to see his remake, but your post got me interested. Think I’ll check it out now.