Controversy often accompanies independent films. To a certain extent indie films court controversy in order to be noticed at all. On the other hand, Hollywood generally shies away from controversy in order to not alienate any potential viewers. However, in the course of polarized reactions to films such as Lynch's Blue Velvet, Lee's Do The Right Thing, or Tarantino's Pulp Fiction the actual points being made are ignored or misunderstood.
Obviously, Lynch is no more endorsing Frank's violent obsession any more than Lee is proposing Mookie's actions as a solution to racial strife. Both are simply exploring human behavior and social problems. We could say these misunderstandings are partially responsible for conventional Hollywood skittishness about such focus.
The other aspect that gets lost is simply presenting and exploring an issue does not mirror the director's views in a direct fashion. Good writers and directors feel compelled to explore all sides of an issue rather than simply present a foregone conclusion (Hollywood's favorite stance when they do wade into such waters). It's a different (and more aesthetically truthful) notion of what morality is. Morality is often about the collision of two perceive goods rather than a simple battle of good and evil. Consequently, we see Sal's desire to "own" his place of business and do as he pleases with his American-Italian Wall of Fame, though we acknowledge Buggin' Out's point about accommodating his wholly African-American customers. Both have a right to their views, but are unwilling to listen to or acknowledge the other's rights, which of course is where the problem begins. Soon it becomes a shouting match and quickly descends into violence. Sal's is sacrificed, but in the process so is Radio Raheem. A minor problem quickly becomes deadly, and nothing ultimately is resolved. Sadly, as our discussion noted, this is still the case as Eric Garner's tragic death in the same city under similar circumstances suggests.
The critical response that took Lee to task for irresponsibly inciting violence with the film (which never actually occurred) demonstrates he hit a nerve. However, the critical sermonizing suggests a desire to turn attention away from the problems he exposes to a nonexistent potential problem. This critical turn mirror the larger society's tendency toward exactly the same response--turning away rather than confronting the matter. Blaming the victims for their deaths rather than addressing the issues that brought them about in the first place. Hence, we find ourselves mourning yet another victim.
As a panelist my questions for this film were mostly addressed during conversation, however I believe more can be taken from them here. My first question is, How is the temperature used in the film? How does it relate to the plot? My second questions is "Seeing how Mookie seemed to play the mediator during most of the movie, why do you think he started the riot?" My third question is"Why do you think the mob did not attack the Asian owned store?" My fourth question is "The song Fight The Power is heard multiple times during the film, how does this reflect the films plot?"
ReplyDeleteThis movie was written and director by Spike lee, he also stars in the movie. The film came out in 1989. it starts out, like any other film, gives a little bit of background of who are going to play some big parts in the film. The story takes place on one of the hottest days of the summer and the street corner is filled with distinct personalities, most of whom are just trying to find a way to deal with the intense heat and go about their regular day-to-day activities. One of the first locations, is a little pizza place, that is run by a Italian man, and his two sons. And they have a black friend, that works for them as delivery boy. One of his friends comes into the shop and starts to run his mouth about. The wall of fame, he notices that its all Italian-based men. When the shop is in the middle of a black part of town. So he tells him how, he feels about it and lets just say there isn’t nice things said. But, as the movie goes on, the more tense it gets. You can feel the race differences, well I did, from a far.
ReplyDeleteFights break out during the film and its not just your normal fight. It’s a fight about which part of the block belongs to each race. There’s one part in the movie where its, black vs. white. I found it very rude, since it stuck with the serotypes of each race. One caring about fitness while the other, cares about shoes. Take a guess about which race is what. That’s an issue I had with this film, was the way that the stereotyped each race. I also find it, uneasy about how this film was done in 1989 and its 2015 and we’re still having the same issues, talk about going back in time.
There are other different stereotypes in this film, but the one that they talk about the most is the black vs. the Italian, which I find interesting, since both parties are misunderstood. There’s something else about this film that makes me think that, were just stuck in one spot, we’re not growing, we’re not moving forward, like we need to. If it wasn’t for the low color, style of outfits, the set, and the actors. I would have thought this was a few months old. Since we’re still fighting the same fights, with some of the same stereotypes. This film had me thinking a lot about today’s day times, and how we can fix it.
There’s is still so much hate and misunderstanding in today’s world, that needs to be fix before we can move on. This film reminded that we might take a step forward but, we’re not moving fast enough. That’s mostly what I got from this film, that no matter what year it is, there’s still the same issues. Over all a great film, made me think about the stereotypes that we have.
Spike Lee does a great job pointing out the racial tendencies and prejudices that existed then and appear to still be around some now. I love how he painted the problems within each race from the younger generation not respecting the mayor to the older Italian son who was extremely racist to the younger son who was making friends with Mookie. It was ashame where the lack of respect from both sides caused such a tragedy. The earlier films we have seen you could see the Indie tendencies with sets, camera shots, long scenes, etc. I am not sure I would have thought this was an Indie film with the exception of the tilted camera shots if I had not read about the movie.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this didn't seem like an indie film. The music, the production values, the use of light, really didn't scream "indie" to me. Maybe if it had been in black and white, it might have seemed more indie to me.
ReplyDeleteI saw this when it first came out. It is really sad that if not for the clothes, you'd never know this came out in 1989, as the themes are still relevant. However, with the topic being racial unrest, perhaps that makes it indie. It's a touchy subject, and that ties in with indie film topics handling the sort of stuff that makes people squirm, or at least confront their inner feelings.
Here's an article along with the video that Spike Lee made, splicing together Eric Garner's death with that of Radio Raheem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/22/spike-lee-splices-footage-of-eric-garners-death-with-radio-raheems-in-do-the-right-thing/
Here's an article along with the video that Spike Lee made, splicing together Eric Garner's death with that of Radio Raheem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/22/spike-lee-splices-footage-of-eric-garners-death-with-radio-raheems-in-do-the-right-thing/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gloria in thinking that this film doesn't scream Indie to me. Maybe by this time production techniques evolved enough to make it appear like a much more expensive movie. At the same time, the movie doesn't have a lot of fluff or extras. The movie at first seems like it will be about the lives of a few people on one day. The build up throughout seems to only provide evidence about this. Characters whine about their smaller problems. Race obviously proves to be an issue but to me it was simply an every day tension that people who live paycheck to paycheck worry about. The interconnections of race in New York were interesting to look at. The complexities of everyday life seemed much more complex. In the end, the movie was about police brutality. How it often can surpass racial distinctions. I didn't expect the movie to end like that. I believe that it is an indie movie now because the message of the movie was so important to the film. It is strange how this movie has obvious relevance today even 25 years later.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is strange how their style reminds me a lot of what people are wearing today.
The title of the movie was “Do the Right Thing”. The title was the crux of the film with Mookie and other characters trying to do the “right thing”. Mookie didn’t do everything right as a father or a worker but he was trying. He had a sense of what should be done and what the “right thing” was. He wanted to make money, and he wanted to visit his child and the child’s mother but he wasn’t always successful in the eyes of his woman. The old man known as “Da Mayor” was a drunk but he also saved a boy’s life and he helped Mother Sister when she was distraught over the riot. Other characters are trying to promote the cause of African Americans. The temperature being so high was the springboard for tensions rising and tempers flaring. It was an indicator of how people felt.
ReplyDeleteThe one character put the picture up of Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. on the “Wall of Flame”. It is ironic that the characters wanted the pictures of African Americans up on the wall but when they were placed there it was after there was no longer a restaurant for them to patronize. The wall of fame became the “wall of flame”. It was interesting that the character wanted African Americans on the wall but it was an Italian restaurant and the wall was covered with actors, singers, and sports people of Italian descent. None of the pictures were of people involved in politics. It was a pizzeria with pictures of people associated with Italy on the wall.
It seemed like an independent film in that it was filmed using the natural light and within a one block radius. Money was saved by the lighting and the set. Also local people were used, which cut costs and added an element of authenticity.
One thing I thought was kind of interesting about the "Wall of Fame" was that although "Bugging Out" wanted blacks to be included on the wall, and argued there should be because all of the patrons were in fact black, it was somewhat narrow-minded of him to view all of the people on the wall as simply being "white". Classifying individuals by their skin color is somewhat ignorant, and for him to say all Italians are white because of their skin color is also degrading. The owner "Sal" was of Italian descent and nationality and was showing a sense of Italian pride by paying tribute to his fellow countrymen by putting their pictures on the wall. Sal wasn't excluding Blacks from his wall because he was racist against blacks. And i'm not sure of too many famous Black Italian Americans, but if there was one we could argue that perhaps Sal would've included them on the wall. Either way Sal owned the restaurant and was free to put up whoever he liked on his wall.
DeleteBuggin Out didn't, to my knowlege, classify everyone on the wall as white. Sal even told him that they're all Italian. Buggin Out just wanted to know why there were no "brothers" on the wall.
DeleteBuggin Out didn't, to my knowlege, classify everyone on the wall as white. Sal even told him that they're all Italian. Buggin Out just wanted to know why there were no "brothers" on the wall.
Delete