Clint Eastwood: "Shut your face, Spike Lee!"
Clint Eastwood folds his gangly frame behind a clifftop table at the Hotel Du Cap, a few miles up the coast from Cannes, sighs deeply, and squints out over the Mediterranean. "Has he ever studied the history?" he asks, in that familiar near-whisper.The "he" is Spike Lee, and the reason Eastwood is asking is because of something Lee had said about Eastwood's Iwo Jima movie Flags of Our Fathers, while promoting his own war movie, Miracle at St Anna, about a black US unit in the second world war. Lee had noted the lack of African-Americans in Eastwood's movie and told reporters: "That was his version. The negro version did not exist."
Eastwood has no time for Lee's gripes. "He was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that's why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else." As for Flags of Our Fathers, he says, yes, there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, "but they didn't raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."
Lee shouldn't be demanding African-Americans in Eastwood's next picture, either. Changeling is set in Los Angeles during the Depression, before the city's make-up was changed by the large black influx. "What are you going to do, you gonna tell a f*ckin' story about that?" he growls. "Make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I'm not in that game. I'm playing it the way I read it historically, and that's the way it is. When I do a picture and it's 90% black, like Bird, I use 90% black people."
Eastwood pauses, deliberately - once it would have provided him with the beat in which to spit out his cheroot before flinging back his poncho - and offers a last word of advice to the most influential black director in American movies. "A guy like him should shut his face.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Amen Mr. Eastwood. Spike Lee is in no position to be characterizing how others portray different races negatively in their movies.
"Just because something's popular, that sure doesn't make it right." -Penn Gilette
"You can't fix stupid." -Ron White
blog.digital-lifeline.ca
Clint, I love you.
The brain you stole, Fritz. Think of it. The brain of a dead man waiting to live again in a body I made with my own hands!
http://isisless.deviantart.com/
XBOX LIVE: AtomicVideoHead
So if Eastwood had worked in the Negro units, you'd have his characters taking a break from combat with black soldiers hauling ammo nearby. That would have gone over really well. Spike would have been talking about that instead.
History is history. I think Mel Gibson did worse in The Patriot; I don't recall any Negro soldiers portrayed in that, yet they appear in period accounts and even drawings of various battles, on both sides, but especially with British forces.
First I hate Spike Lee, then I remember that he made Do the Right Thing. Then I start hating him again, then I remember he made The 25th hour. Then I slowly start to hate him again...
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
he's a good director, and he does good films with social value. But I think in this case he's not fully aware of the situation.
A lot of people are uncomfortable with the actuality of history - 2nd Amendment individualists, Confederate apologists, Communists, radical liberals and conservatives to name just a few. It's a truism that we view history through the lens of our experiences, and without going back to original accounts and looking at the physical evidence, it's hard to avoid bias. Even then one can get sucked into the bias of the original observers.
I think Spike is 95.4% black.
XBox Live:MaxShrek ..VexilumCaptus. 'I've made contact with the three American Surrealists: Harpo Marx, Disney, and Cecil B. DeMill'- S.Dali
Robear, I'd argue your list, especially the 2nd Amendment individualists one. Especially given that military service was considered the duty of any able bodied adult male if a war were to be declared (in fact one of the military acts shortly after the creation of the union demanded that every able bodied adult male not only serve if called up, but that they had to supply their own rifle, ammo, powder, and other gear )
But On Topic: Way to go Mr. Eastwood.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
After Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, and Letters from Iwo Jima, Eastwood is easily in my top favorite directors.
Can't say much about Spike Lee, i always thought he came off as a douchbag (the whole spike tv thing). Inside Man was a good movie though.
Xbox Live Gamertag : Barab
EVE: Hannibal Dax
The individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the requirement for militia membership is (and was) immaterial, and so you are actually agreeing with me here. I probably should have said "non-militia interpretation" or the like. Unless you claim that enrollment in the militia has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, you are arguing the same position I am. That's why I say that history disagrees with the modern interpretation; the militia laws have never been repealed (to the best of my knowledge.)
It'll be interesting to see how the Supremes go with this issue.
I happened to have finished watching The Patriot earlier. Gibson did have one black soldier serving with the patriot side. He was part of a redemption storyline with some racist white soldier. There were some black soldiers among the British infantry.
But your basic assertion of Gibson's bad history is completely spot on. But thats another post
I haven't seen the movie in question, but I would ask if there was a reasonable spot to do as someone suggested and show some of the segregated support units without disrupting the flow of the movie.
It ought never to be forgotten that the past is the parent of the present ~ J.C.Calhoun
"Your broken corpses will taste delicious lightly seasoned with nutmeg." ~ The Creature in the Darkness
So now a director must throw in scenes of a minority group, in order to appease a angry director? Jesus the worlds getting nuts. The movie was about a specific group of soldiers, who did a specific task. The extras in the movie were all roles that pertained to the specific group. The odds of the flag raisers doing anything with the munitions guys are low, it wouldn't make sense, and Clint was trying to make a movie that really captured how the flag raisers saw what they lived. The movie showed the difficulties Ira Hayes, the native American marine faced when he got back, so it didn't just skip out on the race issue. I think Spike Lee was needing some press, and taking on Clint Eastwood, who wouldn't ignore the issue and would respond, was a way to get press.
Now lets see if Spike Lee makes a movie ABOUT the Black soldiers and sailors in WW2.
Clint Eastwood, still kicking ass at 78.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
To be fair, though, Million Dollar Baby was way overrated.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
No it wasn't.
My wife and I just finally watched it again last night since seeing it in the theatre. It was that touching/depressing/traumatic for us. Its one of those great movies that we will never own on DVD despite being very worthy.
Clint is just that damn good. And if you think about it, he learned staging, scene framing, concise meaningful words and how to deliver the big lines from his spaghetti western days.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
The movie was alright up until the cartoonishly evil family came into it. That just killed it for me. They were so over-the-top detestable, the movie lost all credibility, to me.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
Sadly enough, I know people who are like that.
I lost all respect for Spike Lee many years back. Gene Siskel was a huge fan of his work and (if I remember correctly) was a big advocate for his films. After Gene passed away, Spike was interviewed and asked to say a few words about him. Spike was so stoned he could barely manage to mumble his way through some generic phrases and maintain eye contact with the interviewer. Pathetic treatment to the memory of Gene Siskel who was such a big advocate of his work when Spike was still a new and unknown director.
A Mind Without Purpose Will Walk In Dark Places
"I may be out of ammo but I ain't out of chainsaw B*TCHES!" - Sinister's warcry for Gears of War
That's too black to be in one of Eastwood's films I guess. He only uses 90% black people.
Terrible, terrible title, too.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
I have to disagree... The scenes with that gaggle of parasites were some of the most resonant for me. If you ever want to see how selfish family can be, just add money.
But hey.. no one's saying you have to like the movie.
An ounce of prevention creates a single point of failure -- IT Security Proverb
Giannino - 70 Fury Warrior
We go dancing nighty in the attic,
While the moon is rising in the sky.
Anybody ever seen the Broadway show Billion Dollar Baby?
The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid. - Elysium
Wordsmythe is my hero. - rabbit
XBL: E Munnie
God, Spike. I really enjoyed Inside Man. But god, just shut up.
Quote:
XBL Tag: Prederick
I just watched The Outlaw Josey Wales, and was surprised at how good the film was. The cinematography was wonderful, excellent staging, deep shadows and very colorful. I liked the camera-work far better than any of Leone's spaghetti westerns. Leone sticks the actors' faces right in the camera, Eastwood shoots low with his actors looming over the camera at slight french angles, much more interesting. The film itself is a fairly typical western, you know, with bad 70's foley work and goofy bit actors saying "garsh tootin!" and slapping their kneecaps and such. But even at that point, 1976, you could see Eastwood's genius shining through. In fact, I'm getting the picture that Clint was always a great director and it just took the world this long to respect him as such.
Then again, he did direct Bronco Billy.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Have you seen The Gauntlet? I love Clint with all my heart but ugh, what a turd.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Whether or not you like the stories or settings of his films, the man is a craftsman. He managed to shoot a scene that had him, Donald Sutherland, Tommy Lee Jones, and James Garner fully starkers from the rear and actually included the line "assymetrical saggin' ass" in Space Cowboys and made it still kind of cool.
As far as Spike's comments, I'm with Eastwood. I hate that crap. You see it a lot in historical flicks too, where they add a girl who wasn't there wouldn't be doing whatever, or turning a more accurate character into something else for girl-power (turning Susan into Legolas in Prince Caspian, for example).
Duoae wrote:
I realize that Spike Lee can be a favorite punching back for his being outspoken, but for the record, here's an article on Huffington Post which has quotes from Lee himself defending his position -- which is about 180 degrees antithetical from this mischaraterization. The post includes an excerpt from the same article in the first post from this thread, as well as Lee's original statement about Eastwood's movies.
So, you know, just to avoid making this a game of Internet Telephone. One, quick Google search of both directors' names led me to that post with the click of a button.
He has, and it's called Miracle at St. Anna. Looks like it's due out in September or October, and this report has the official one-sheet release. Lee was, indeed, promoting the flick at Cannes, apparently.
A quick point of order: Roland Emmerich of Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, and Independence Day fame was the director of The Patriot. Mel Gibson was just the lead actor.
XBox Live: Megapute
Wii Friend Code: 1868 6813 6246 4731
LouZiffer wrote:
umm I'm not really sure your point here, my point was their was no reason for Clint Eastwood to put in a black actor when his films focus was about the flag bearers. How is Spike Lee not angry? Hes a race baiting jerk, just look at the first line
Well then I think we know why Spike decided to wait till NOW to start bitching. f*cking media whore.
Which, reading Spike's original problem with Eastwood, is addressed, I think, quite cogently here (from Huffington Post, again):
He's saying he's spoken with veterans who were upset at the lack of an African American presence in Eastwood's films. That's the entirety of the quote that we have Eastwood responding to thusly:
Above from The Guardian article linked in the first post.
Note how Eastwood mischaracterizes Lee's comments, because Lee attacked his films. Note how it was an ad hominem attack in response to a criticism of his work.
Aaaand back to the Huffpo article I linked to again, to quote it in context.
Because being told "A guy like that should shut his face" is certainly cause for Spike Lee to not respond? That's not race-baiting on Eastwood's part?
You know what? I think Eastwood may be right. That "boy" needs to learn him some "respect," don't you think? He's got no place voicing his opinion in a situation like this -- clearly when that "opinion" may reflect the opinion of some soldiers who feel like their contribution to the battle at Iwo Jima (not the flag-raising, mind, but their contribution to the battle as a whole) were not reflected by Eastwood's film.
No. Instead, that "boy" needs to learn to sit down and shut up and learn his place -- is that about right?[/sarcasm]
Well, given that Flags of Our Fathers was released in 2006, Spike's film's being released this year and -- wouldya look at that -- two years between the two, the typical timeline for film production and post.
So, yeah, he's bitching to promote his movie -- which, in a greater sense, can be seen as a direct rebuttal to Eastwood's movie. So, yeah, that makes sense -- and I personally don't begrudge him the opportunity to say "what makes my movie different? Because it reflects the experience of the black soldier in World War II -- and experience which if you watch, say, Flags of Our Fathers, was clearly not reflected, despite the first hand accounts I've heard in the researching of my movie."
And y'know what? Clint was bringing his next movie, The Changeling (which, by the way, I'm pretty excited about), into the conversation as well -- because he's promoting that movie...
...because that's these men's jobs. It's what they do; it's why they were interviewed at Cannes in the first place.
Why Eastwood had to make it personal, I'll never know, but I guess it's because, in the end, Spike Lee is a "f*cking media whore," isn't it? And he deserves what he gets for being an outspoken black guy.[/sarcasm]
That's all I'm trying to say -- it seems like everyone's riding the Spike Lee hate-train because he's outspoken, when I think his original comments may seem valid. Instead of actually reading those comments, this thread turned into an echo-chamber of negativity thrown his way and when, in particular, people were accusing him of speaking out-of-place when he hadn't made a movie about the experience of black soldiers during World War II -- when the very reason he was asked about his opinion on Eastwood's movies came during his promotion of said movie -- he's attacked again for being a "f*cking media whore."
Reporters: "How is your movie different, Spike?"
Spike Lee: "It's about the experience of black soldiers during World War II -- as opposed to other films, like Eastwood's, which didn't reflect the contribution of African American soldiers to the battles they depicted."
Eastwood: "Learn your place, boy."
Is that not an inaccurate assessment? And yet, Lee's not allowed to defend himself because, what, we don't like him for being outspoken? That hardly seems fair.
XBox Live: Megapute
Wii Friend Code: 1868 6813 6246 4731
LouZiffer wrote:
Spike said the same thing back before he started shooting. Since everyone is so keen on telling others to google i'll do the same.
Only reason this is news is because of the response from Eastwood which wasn't
It is for publicity on both sides. Well that and Clint probably is a cranky old man, but he's not stupid.
Gamer Tag: Rantyr
Good catch, RS, I forgot Emmerich did the film.
RS, suppose Eastwood *had* had black soldiers toting and carrying for the whites. Would Lee have been happy with an accurate portrayal? There was still a lot of racism in the services at the time. I think that if he'd shown them, especially briefly as suits their relationship to front-line troops, he'd be seriously accused of perpetrating racist stereotypes. It's a rhetorical catch-22, the "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of no-win situation.
As strongly worded as that is, it's still an understatement. The military command at that time would have felt at home in 1980s South Africa. Or maybe 1860 South Carolina. It was only because of the high need for combat troops that blacks were allowed to fight in combat units at all.