Let me say from the outset that I am a Spike Lee fan. I enjoy every
movie of his that I’ve seen (which I think is probably every single one), even
if I find his messages a bit heavy-handed. His characters are riveting, even if
his stories are somewhat chaotic and hard to follow. His movies are all so
personal, and therefore it adds a certain sense of realism (maybe the only
sense of realism) to an otherwise completely fictional world.
With that being said, I do have some issues with Spike Lee’s directing
style, his characters, and his movies. As I said before, I find his directing
to be very heavy-handed. What do you I mean by this? I mean that he
consistently uses the same actors, the same character types, and the same
settings to beat his audience over the head with his message. This has changed
somewhat in Spike’s later career as he’s broadened his cast, his stylization,
and his focus to more than just a one-dimensional beat down, letting you know
that racism still exists in this country.
It’s understandable why Spike Lee directed his early movies the way he
did. For one, he grew up in Fort Greene in the 1960s and 70s; and though this
neighborhood may be a contemporary haven for members of the old Brooklyn middle
class and yuppy artists, the neighborhood was hit with the same waves of crime
and drugs in the 70s and 80s that embroiled the rest of big apple. So Spike probably
grew up with some Snuffy’s rolling around the neighborhood, and he definitely
had to deal with the likes of Sal, the disgruntled pizza shop owner that Lee’s
characters worked for in Do the Right
Thing. So his reason for making the movies and characters the way they are
is understandable, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right.
Social commentary is certainly made more poignantly with one dimensional
characters than with complex, multi-layered individuals. With one dimensional
it’s easy to understand who the character is supposed to represent, and doesn’t
cloud the overall message with trying to figure out who this character is in
the grand scheme of the film. However, one dimensional characters also do not
accurately represent the complexity within all of us that is deeply than simply
an overtly stated belief. All people are not anything all of the time.
Criminals can be kind, drug users can be logical, racists can be thoughtful,
players can be trustworthy. It’s important to remember this when we’re
pigeonholing people; that though people may openly display seemingly one
dimensional characteristics, there is a whole lot going on within that person
that we’re completely unaware of.
As a movie watcher, and not someone in the movie industry, my criticism
of Spike Lee maybe be somewhat quaint or simple minded, but I think his movie
create much too simplistic ill-concieved perceptions of the world around us,
especially for people that live in major cities, and especially for people that
live in Brooklyn. It’s true that racism still exists, and it’s true that people
sometimes (unfortunately) conform to stereotypes instead of create them, but
that doesn’t mean that every white cop in Brooklyn wants to bust in the head of
a young black man, or that every Jewish club owner is a scheming “shylock”
trying to screw over his employees, or that every Korean grocer is hateful and
suspicious toward their black patrons.
Spike Lee’s creation of a fantasy world where all black men and women
in whatever neighborhood he’s portraying not only get along, but all know one
another, is simply a distortion of the depth and nuance that exists within
everyone racial or cultural community, and creates the illusion that a) the
world is against black people (especially young black men) and that b) there is
no way to fight back against it, because the outside forces are too strong to
overcome.
As I finished writing this post I realized two major errors that I've
made. The first is that I’m criticizing Spike Lee movies that (for the most
part) were made around 20 years ago. His perspective has changed a lot, his
characters have changed a lot, and his movies have changed a lot. I give him
credit for that. The second major error is that while I might want Spike Lee to
create a more realistic setting, maybe that’s not what he was trying to do. His
intention was not to show reality as it exists, in fact. His intention might
have been to instead show reality as it is seem by a specific person or group
of people. Therefore, to understand what he was trying to say, you can’t judge
against the world we see around us in the neighborhoods we occupy, but instead
we have to look within ourselves and interpret the world through our own
filtered experiences.
2 comments:
Interesting post indeed. I remember the first time I saw Jungle Fever. I actually was watching it... with my then conservative roommate, a Southern white young lady who now works for the Mitt Romney campaign. I don't know that I've ever felt so uncomfortable. I felt obligated to explain that while some of what was depicted was a harsh reality, a lot of it was garish and overwrought. She left before the middle of the movie and honestly, I can understand way.
This doesn't take away from the fact that Spike Lee is a genius and I'd love to see more contemporary work from him.
Good post.
You know what's funny, after I wrote and posted this, I had a few conversations with friends and I basically kept coming to the same conclusions that I did at the end of the post. I think I'm referring most of Spike's early work (which I still love), because his maturity as a director, and the complexity of his movies has been dramatic over the past several recent years.
Post a Comment