criterionforum.org

There had better be black people in [The Changeling], or Spike Lee might get maaaaaaaad.

Spike Lee has launched a bitter attack on fellow filmmaker Clint Eastwood for failing to include black soldiers in his films about the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Do The Right Thing director insists African-American soldiers should have been included in Eastwood's Flags Of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima since hundreds took part in the 1945 battle for the Japanese island. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday at the Cannes Film Festival in France, Lee said, "There were many African-Americans who survived that war and who were upset at Clint for not having one (in the films). That was his version: the negro soldier did not exist. I have a different version." Lee screened the world premiere of an eight-minute trailer for his forthcoming feature film Miracle At St. Anna, a war drama about the all-black 92nd Buffalo Division, which fought against the Germans in World War II.

kaujot wrote:There had better be black people in this movie, or Spike Lee might get maaaaaaaad.

[The Changeling] is about Angelina Jolie losing her son. There has to be at least one black person in the movie.

Grand Illusion wrote:

kaujot wrote:There had better be black people in this movie, or Spike Lee might get maaaaaaaad.

This is about Angelina Jolie losing her son. There has to be at least one black person in the movie.

Maybe the sequel should be a documentary starring Madonna...

As much as I can understand Spike's point of view, Clint did direct Forrest Whitaker to a Cannes Best Actor for Bird and acknowledged the African American experience in The West in Unforgiven which pretty much most of The Western's predecessors ignored (that's right, MF you John Wayne) so find some more appropriate targets Spike..

Clint says about Spike, "A guy like him should shut his face."

Antoine Doinel wrote:Clint says about Spike, "A guy like him should shut his face."

Great article, but it's sad that the media has latched onto that one quote.

Thanks for the interesting article from the guardian. While I applaud Eastwood's abilities as a filmmaker, abilities which were honed in the old days of the studio system I have to say i diagree with his rationale for not including an African American presence in Flags of Our Fathers. There were at least three companies of African American soldiers involved in that brutal fight for the island. They may not have raised the flag but they were there.
His argument that people would view the film and criticize it as inaccurate if there were African Americans included is a disingenious argument. In reality too many Americans have no real sense of history and thus believe that the history or stories they see on film are in fact the "truth." Eastwood gives the American audience too much credit.
I look forward to seeing this film as have all the other films he has directed because he is a really competent visual storyteller.

filmnoir1 wrote:Eastwood's ... argument that people would view the film and criticize it as inaccurate if there were African Americans included is a disingenuous argument. In reality too many Americans have no real sense of history and thus believe that the history or stories they see on film are in fact the "truth." Eastwood gives the American audience too much credit.

Your argument, then:

Eastwood should have included an African-American in the flag-raising at Iwo Jima because many Americans are too stupid to know there wasn't one.

If you read filmnoir's post, he's arguing that black soliders should've been included in the battle for the island, not in the flag raising.

Antoine Doinel wrote:If you read filmnoir's post, he's arguing that black soliders should've been included in the battle for the island, not in the flag raising.

Still, we've been over the "should the filmmaker pander to the clearly stupid masses?" thing many times before, and the agreeing side has never come out from under all of the assumptions and accepted ideas holding their argument afloat.

Protests like this really upset me, because since they've wasted time on something that's obviously not racist (exclusion is not on par with actual racism), the next time something horribly racist pops up in a film, the media might be less apt to cover it-- "We already did the racist movie story, what else you got?"

domino harvey wrote:Protests like this really upset me, because since they've wasted time on something that's obviously not racist (exclusion is not on par with actual racism), the next time something horribly racist pops up in a film, the media might be less apt to cover it-- "We already did the racist movie story, what else you got?"

Like Morgan Freeman's magical negro in Million Dollar Baby?

Looking for proper representation and historical accuracy in a film that purports to pay tribute to the past isn't too much to ask. While I think Lee's tone is way too strident, he does have a point.

No film is required to be historically inclusive to the point of parading every race and creed just to appease social critics-- Lee's crusade against Eastwood is a mistake because it makes Joe America less likely to pay attention the next time racism is evoked, and the next time could very well be worth the attention it won't receive. Ask around, Lee's rant has been met mostly with polite eye-rolling. The absence of black characters does not automatically equate with a marginalization of the brave efforts of African-Americans, any more than it does those of Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, &c. This is a movie, not a textbook examination of historical events, despite what the filmmakers may have claimed. Elliptical exclusions are part of any history and therefore any historical fiction as well.

domino harvey wrote:Elliptical exclusions are part of any history and therefore any historical fiction as well.

That's a weak excuse. Just because exclusions and revisionism have happening in the past, does not mean it's acceptable moving forward. Again, I do think Lee's tone and singling out of Eastwood is way off base, but I do think he has a point. I'm not talking inclusivity to the point of tokenism - which is two different things - or even a subplot, but they couldn't cast or show a company or two of black soliders unloading at Iwo Jima?

And 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. And let's not forget that when that film went overbudget a paltry (by Hollywood standards) $5 million dollars on an already miniscule budget for that scope of film, he essentially had to fight to get the financing to finish the fim. So I think Spike's experiences are certainly fuelling his anger, but I think it's important to remember the minority stories in Hollywood have never been popular in (mainstream) Hollywood.

domino harvey wrote:..Lee's crusade against Eastwood is a mistake because it makes Joe America less likely to pay attention the next time racism is evoked, and the next time could very well be worth the attention it won't receive..

I havent seen the film or read spikes comment (though I can imagine it) so I really don't have an opinion either way, but on the above quote--

Domino I think you're underestimating Joe Americas infatuation with race. He can't get enough of it specifically because it involves people hating one another, and Americans more than any other Western Nation as a whole love to hate one another. They love controversy, they love schadenfreude, they love to see people blast each other-- Joe America will never be less likely to pay attention when racism has been invoked. (Whether or not they'll act in a desired or kind manner is entirely another matter.)

But regardless, the propensities of the average brainless Joe should never be invoked as cultural boss when a perceived injustice is a stake. The obligation is to teach the ignorant, not be ruled by their snoozing, lazy habits and attention spans.

Minority stories have only been popular as long as they allow Americans to try and assuage their gulit for the institutional racism that defines this nation. In the past it was the genre of the problem film which Cindy Patton's new book Cinematic Identity: Anatomy of a Problem Film does a good job of explaining through her analysis of films like Pinky, Imitation of Life, No way Out, and To Kill a Mockingbird.
Minority films are not popular overseas and this is one of the major reasons studio execs offer for not making films that attempt to speak to the "black" experience in America. Also all filmmaking is a matter of choice. While both of Eastwood's WW II films are remarkable they are incomplete because of the exclusions that he chooses to make. This is what has angered Spike Lee, and many other prominent African American scholars because America seems to forget that the very people who have been mistreated and ignored have been the very people who serve it, even when they could not vote or get a damn meal in a restaurant or see a movie.
I wholehearteldy endorse historicity in American thought and politics after all I am film theoretician who uses the work of Zizek, Foucault, and Marx to ground my own arguments. However, this faux history or as Fredric Jameson has called it 'nostalgia' is an inaccurate and incomplete means by which to (re)tell history.

filmnoir1 wrote: While both of Eastwood's WW II films are remarkable they are incomplete because of the exclusions that he chooses to make.

This makes no sense. If Eastwood had included a black person, his film would be "complete"? Without a black person, it's incomplete? In what way would the film succeed as a film with a token black person in the background compared to how it fails now?

History 101 tells you that every historian is the product of past histories, and that every history is the result of exclusion and selection. Every history, underline, period. Though these arguments you're making with concern to historical theoreticians are irrelevant since Eastwood isn't presenting a history, he's presenting a historical fiction. They are not the same thing.

Part of the irony in this discussion is that Flags of our Fathers features a Native American lead character and deals explicitly with issues of racial and ethnic discrimination suffered by that character.

Tom Hagen wrote:Part of the irony in this discussion is that Flags of our Fathers features a Native American lead character and deals explicitly with issues of racial and ethnic discrimination suffered by that character.

What's even more ironic is that despite Lee's insistence there are no black faces in Flags of Our Fathers, actually, there are. If you watch the shipboard sequence about 15 mins in, they're picked out when Neal McDonagh's character is lecturing the troops about the forthcoming invasion. He says something like 'The Eighth Ammo Company will land at Green beach ...' & over that is a shot of black soldiers looking on attentively. That is historically accurate because that's what black troops were used for at Iwo Jima. In fact given that Eastwood's film is a drama about the flag-raisers, & about 85% of it actually takes place back home, the very fact that Eastwood inserted a shot like that shows that far from ignoring history he was actually pretty darn concerned to get things right. I don't blame Eastwood for being pissed here. Frankly, he's got every right to be. In fact Lee's comments make me wonder if he's even seen the film.

Tom Hagen wrote:Part of the irony in this discussion is that Flags of our Fathers features a Native American lead character and deals explicitly with issues of racial and ethnic discrimination suffered by that character.

Was about to say the same thing. And this is exactly why the following quote:

filmnoir1 wrote:This is what has angered Spike Lee, and many other prominent African American scholars because America seems to forget that the very people who have been mistreated and ignored have been the very people who serve it, even when they could not vote or get a damn meal in a restaurant or see a movie.

...flies right in the face of facts. What the above objects to is not the absence of the institutional racism and minority struggles of the past, but that one minority rather than another is being shown to suffer under it, regardless of the historicity of it. It reeks of racial cheerleading.

Showing, for a second, a couple of black characters, or a squad of them, would be irrelevant to the structure and the narrative of the film. If such an element is irrelevant from such a major aesthetic angle, the only justification for wanting the filmmaker to included it is to appease a minority, and to do so in a rather cynical way, as if say "there, you get your five minutes, now don't complain." It solves nothing, and can only foster resentment.

Domino's right, I think. This takes focus away from the actual racism that deserves complaint. Movies about the black experience in the wars is necessary; but attacking another movie that does not contribute to the problem in order to highlight the gap you're trying to fill weakens your position.

EDIT: well, Gator just made most of this post unnecessary (thankfully).

Gator wrote: I don't blame Eastwood for being pissed here. Frankly, he's got every right to be.

I think among prominent white American filmmakers, Eastwood has shown a remarkable sensitivity to racial issues. With the exception of the aforementioned Million Dollar Baby (penned of course by that master of American race relations, Paul Haggis), some of his highest-profile films have directly confronted issues of racism. As badly used as Morgan Freeman was in Baby, he was thoughtfully used in the revisionist spirit of Unforgiven.

He didn't direct it, but I thought the rapport between his character and the Paul Benjamin character in Escape From Alcatraz. I also seem to remember him being quoted in his autobiography that he sometimes (because of his love of jazz) that he felt like a black man in a white man's body sometimes.

Tom Hagen wrote:As badly used as Morgan Freeman was in Baby, he was thoughtfully used in the revisionist spirit of Unforgiven.

He wasn't badly used in Baby. He turned in a pitch perfect supporting performance in Eastwood's best movie. And Unforgiven is not a revisionist western.

[-X Space Cowboys is his best film.