Spike Lee vs Clint Eastwood

[Mark Carver]

What is Spike Lee's problem? Clint Eastwood made 2 as historical as accurate movies on the Battle of Iwo Jima from WWII and Eastwood should have changed things around to include blacks in the movies?

Round 2 for Spike Lee vs. Clint Eastwood (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/movies/09arts-ROUND2FORSPI_BRF.html?ex=1213675200&en=057d2b5768fda177&ei=5070&emc=eta1)


In an interview with The Guardian, Clint Eastwood, above left, responded to recent criticism from Spike Lee, above right, saying Mr. Lee should “shut his face” when it comes to talking about Mr. Eastwood’s 2006 films about the Battle of Iwo Jima, “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters From Iwo Jima.” The squabble began last month when Mr. Lee, at the Cannes Film Festival, said that black actors appeared too infrequently in war films. “Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen,” he said at the time. In the interview with The Guardian, the British newspaper, Mr. Eastwood defended the historical accuracy of his movies, saying that black troops were not involved in raising the flag at Iwo Jima. “The story is ‘Flags of Our Fathers,’ the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn’t do that,” Mr. Eastwood said in the Friday interview. “If I go ahead and put an African American actor in there, they’d say, ‘This guy’s lost his mind.’ ”

[MurphDogg]

Spike is not alone. These black veterans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/21/usa.filmnews) think that there black people there too...

"almost 900 African-American troops took part in the battle of Iwo Jima"

The film may have been "as historical as accurate" portrayal of the book that the film was based on, but it was not encompassing of the entire battle. Unfortunately, a huge part of the way we remember history is through film adaptations, and this one totally ignored African-Americans contributions. But, yeah that Spike Lee sure is crazy, wanting to change history and all.. :rolleyes:

[ledzepp8]

Spike is not alone. These black veterans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/21/usa.filmnews) think that there black people there too...

"almost 900 African-American troops took part in the battle of Iwo Jima"

The film may have been "as historical as accurate" portrayal of the book that the film was based on, but it was not encompassing of the entire battle. Unfortunately, a huge part of the way we remember history is through film adaptations, and this one totally ignored African-Americans contributions. But, yeah that Spike Lee sure is crazy, wanting to change history and all.. :rolleyes:

Did they take part in the raising of the flag? Because that is what the movie is about. Besides at that time wasn't the military segregated?

[TonySoprano]

The subtext of this is Spike Lee implying that Eastwood is a racist for overlooking the blacks in this film. Lee didn't have the stugots to come out and say it directly. Eastwood was right to tell him to shut his pie-hole.


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."Source - U.K. Guardian (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2283921,00.html)

[MurphDogg]

Did they take part in the raising of the flag? Because that is what the movie is about. Besides at that time wasn't the military segregated?

Yes, the military was segregated at that time. The complaint from Spike Lee (as well as the complaint of black marines who fought in the battle) is that African-Americans are being done a disservice by not being featured in the defining film about the Battle of Iwo Jima. Eastwood is taking Lee's criticism out of context, claiming that Lee wanted there to be a black actor among the flag raisers. Both make salient points as to the importance of maintaing the authenticity of the historical events, the problem is that film is the medium through which most Americans learn about history and for an important film about the Battle of Iwo Jima not to show black soldiers, at least in the background as ammunitions carriers, does a disservice both to the black veterans who fought for our country in Iwo Jima and to the public for many of whom the film is their lone exposure to the Battle of Iwo Jima.

In my opinion it was Eastwood who was being disingenuous in his response to Lee's criticism claiming that putting an African American in the flag raising picure would be crazy.

[MurphDogg]

The subtext of this is Spike Lee implying that Eastwood is a racist for overlooking the blacks in this film. Lee didn't have the stugots to come out and say it directly. Eastwood was right to tell him to shut his pie-hole.

Source - U.K. Guardian (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2283921,00.html)

“Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen,” -Spike Lee

That is the only statement I have about the original complaint Lee made about Eastwood. I see nothing there implying racism and Lee asking why there weren't any black actors in the battle scenes is not necessarily racist. If there is another statement Spike Lee made then I would like to see it but I don't think anything there requres talk of stugots or pie-holes.

[ledzepp8]

The subtext of this is Spike Lee implying that Eastwood is a racist for overlooking the blacks in this film. Lee didn't have the stugots to come out and say it directly. Eastwood was right to tell him to shut his pie-hole.

Source - U.K. Guardian (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2283921,00.html)

Yep, and after Clint said that Spike came back and said this:

"First of all, the man is not my father and we're not on a plantation either. ... And a comment like 'a guy like that should shut his face' -- come on Clint, come on. He sounds like an angry old man right there."

Look I enjoy a lot of Spike Lee's movies. Do The Right Thing is a masterpiece, but the guy needs to chill. The plantation comment is totally uncalled for and unfounded. It's just another veiled accusation of racism against Eastwood. If anyone is angry, it's Spike Lee. It's no wonder that he always does these types of things when he has a movie coming out. Didn't he learn anything when he criticized Tarantino about his use of the N-word in his films and Samuel L. Jackson tore him a new one? Plus he's accusing Clint of being a racist and this is the same guy that made the biopic Bird, cast Morgan Freeman as a cowboy in Unforgiven, directed Morgan Freeman to an Academy Award in Million Dollar Baby, etc. The comments are nonsense. Besides all that, Lee is still wrong about no blacks being in Flags because there were blacks in the film.

[ledzepp8]

Yes, the military was segregated at that time. The complaint from Spike Lee (as well as the complaint of black marines who fought in the battle) is that African-Americans are being done a disservice by not being featured in the defining film about the Battle of Iwo Jima. Eastwood is taking Lee's criticism out of context, claiming that Lee wanted there to be a black actor among the flag raisers. Both make salient points as to the importance of maintaing the authenticity of the historical events, the problem is that film is the medium through which most Americans learn about history and for an important film about the Battle of Iwo Jima not to show black soldiers, at least in the background as ammunitions carriers, does a disservice both to the black veterans who fought for our country in Iwo Jima and to the public for many of whom the film is their lone exposure to the Battle of Iwo Jima.

In my opinion it was Eastwood who was being disingenuous in his response to Lee's criticism claiming that putting an African American in the flag raising picure would be crazy.

The movie is about the men that raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Was there a black soldier in that famous picture?

Besides, like I said there were black people in the film.

[ledzepp8]

“Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen,” -Spike Lee

That is the only statement I have about the original complaint Lee made about Eastwood. I see nothing there implying racism and Lee asking why there weren't any black actors in the battle scenes is not necessarily racist. If there is another statement Spike Lee made then I would like to see it but I don't think anything there requres talk of stugots or pie-holes.

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."


http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0239997/

That's a pretty big implication right there.


Lee also criticised Eastwood for the lack of black actors in his movies, saying: "[He] made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen.

"If you reporters had any balls, you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that - that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a96502/spike-lee-criticises-eastwood-coens.html?imdb

His point may be valid, but it's aimed at the wrong person. And it's certainly wrong of him to imply that Clint Eastwood is racist. Really what did he expect him to do in a film about the flag raising on Iwo Jima? Have some unrelated side story about a platoon of Black soldiers?

I'm sorry, but the whole thing is about getting publicity for his upcoming WWII film which (surprise!!) is about Black soldiers.

[MurphDogg]

The movie is about the men that raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Was there a black soldier in that famous picture?

Besides, like I said there were black people in the film.

There were black people in the film? Well then I feel silly for defending Spike Lee's statement that said "Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen". Also, then the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/21/usa.filmnews) is wrong in stating that "While the film's battle scenes show scores of young soldiers in combat, none of them are African-American." I guess I am just feeling contrary tonight because I have two finals tomorrow that I am studying for.

[ledzepp8]

There were black people in the film? Well then I feel silly for defending Spike Lee's statement that said "Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen". Also, then the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/21/usa.filmnews) is wrong in stating that "While the film's battle scenes show scores of young soldiers in combat, none of them are African-American." I guess I am just feeling contrary tonight because I have two finals tomorrow that I am studying for.

Yeah it's no one in a starring role or anything, but there are definitely Blacks in the film. It shows wounded Black soldiers and the end credits show historical photographs which include those of Black soldiers.

[MurphDogg]

Yeah it's no one in a starring role or anything, but there are definitely Blacks in the film. It shows wounded Black soldiers and the end credits show historical photographs which include those of Black soldiers.

The complaint that Lee was making was battle scenes, that there were black heroes who fought in Iwo Jima and for whatever reason Eastwood chose to ignore them. As for the end credits, that really only helps Lee's case because the editor probably recognized that black soldiers weren't shown in the film and wanted to paint a more full picture. Again, I am just playing the devil's advocate here, certainly Lee is trying to promote his film but to outright dismiss what he is saying seems presumptive. And Eastwood certainly was being cheeky to insinuate that Lee wanted him to cast an African-American actor as one of the men raising the flag.

[ledzepp8]

The complaint that Lee was making was battle scenes, that there were black heroes who fought in Iwo Jima and for whatever reason Eastwood chose to ignore them. As for the end credits, that really only helps Lee's case because the editor probably recognized that black soldiers weren't shown in the film and wanted to paint a more full picture. Again, I am just playing the devil's advocate here, certainly Lee is trying to promote his film but to outright dismiss what he is saying seems presumptive. And Eastwood certainly was being cheeky to insinuate that Lee wanted him to cast an African-American actor as one of the men raising the flag.

I don't think so because the movie is about the men who raised the flag. The film focuses on those men: Marine Sgt Mike Strank, Marine Corporal Harlon Block, Marine Private First Class Ira Hayes, Marine Private First Class Franklin Sousley, Marine Private First Class Rene Gagnon, and Navy Pharmacist's Mate Second Class John "Doc" Bradley.

Anyhow, like I said Spike may very well have a point somewhere in his ranting, but he's barking up the wrong tree and accusing the wrong person. The thinly veiled accusations of racism are totally uncalled for and unfounded.

[The Wedge]

And I know it's not Lee's cause to fight for other forms of racism, but lest we forget that Eastwood never originally intended to make Letters from Iwo Jima, but while filming Flags of our Fathers was moved to as he studied both sides of the campaign. So I guess he's only racist for sticking to the source material for Flags of Our Fathers and then making a movie from the Japanese point of view. ;)

Lee has a point, in a way, about overlooking certain aspects of the involvement of black men in Iwo Jima and the Pacific campaign, but at the same time, you get a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome here.

[DREKTUNES]

Oh, totally Clint Eastwood. His records are better, he had more influe - - oh, sorry. Wrong thread.

[NewMarketSean]

I don't know how Eastwood is racist... even if you only look at FooF and LFIJ.

Eastwood cast a Native American in a lead role (Adam Beach, because it was historically accurate) and then went on to make an entire movie about the Japanese side of the battle.

How is that racist?

Lee is off his rocker here. Sometimes I think he believes that blacks are the only race that are ever offended, neglected, whatever.

[TonySoprano]

Really what did he expect him to do in a film about the flag raising on Iwo Jima? Have some unrelated side story about a platoon of Black soldiers?There is an art to storytelling, a logical flow of events. The black troops in question weren't important in the framework of the story being told. If this was a larger story about the battle then the critics would have a point, but they don't in this case.

It is shameless the way the racism canard is wrecklessly thrown out there again and again as if this is the only possible explanation for any perceived slight. Once out there, however baseless the charge, the accused is unjustly viewed skeptically and left scrambling to reestablish their public standing. Meanwhile, the accuser sits back, piously, in the comfort that his accusations will go unchallenged. To throw the taint of racism at Clint Eastwood is irresponsible. His response, IMO, was classic.

[Why Not?]

What is Spike Lee's problem? Clint Eastwood made 2 as historical as accurate movies on the Battle of Iwo Jima from WWII and Eastwood should have changed things around to include blacks in the movies?

Round 2 for Spike Lee vs. Clint Eastwood (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/movies/09arts-ROUND2FORSPI_BRF.html?ex=1213675200&en=057d2b5768fda177&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

What is Spike Lee's problem? He hasn't produced anything of note for about 15 years and felt he needed to reclaim some spotlight.

[MurphDogg]

I don't know how Eastwood is racist... even if you only look at FooF and LFIJ.

Eastwood cast a Native American in a lead role (Adam Beach, because it was historically accurate) and then went on to make an entire movie about the Japanese side of the battle.

How is that racist?

Lee is off his rocker here. Sometimes I think he believes that blacks are the only race that are ever offended, neglected, whatever.

He's not suggesting that any of that is racist. He is suggesting that not showing black people in the battle scenes does a disservice to the black heroes who fought at Iwo Jima. Nothing controversial, Lee is not trying to cast a black guy in a flag raising role. Just black people in the background of the battle. It may be a little nit-picky but I don't see how he is off his rocker. He could have been more tactful in pointing it out but he does have a point. As for what TonyS said, there didn't have to be black actors in the battle scenes but there certainly could have been and it would have been historically accurate to include them.

And as for the point of the accused being viewed skeptically, it seems like, at least in this thread that the accuser is getting the benefit of the doubt as it should be.

[TonySoprano]

And as for the point of the accused being viewed skeptically, it seems like, at least in this thread that the accuser is getting the benefit of the doubt as it should be.That's true...in this thread. This thread however doesn't reflect how the media works. Rather, it works as I outlined previously, with the person so charged left to prove a negative i.e. defend why they aren't racist, but still the taint remains. No one in their right mind wants the scarlet letter of racist branded upon them. What matters then is not the legitimacy of the charge, but the seriousness of it.