Films I Should Have Seen A Long Time Ago: Do The Right Thing
A couple nights ago my wife and I watched Do The Right Thing for the first time. This is of course Spike Lee’s breakout film about race relations that takes place on a hot day in my neighboring neighborhood of Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn. Not only is this the film debut of Martin Lawrence and Rosie Perez (and her too hot for ‘89 opening sequence bustin’ a move to Public Enemy’s Fight the Power in full-body spandex), but it also showcases John Turturro, Samuel L. Jackson, Ruby Dee and Danny Aiello (among others).
This film has received much critical acclaim over the years and I don’t know exactly why. The only characters who garner any sympathy are Sal (Aiello, who deservedly won an Oscar for the role) and maybe Mookie (Lee). Most of the others are such one-dimensional, one-note characters that it felt like a children’s book. Nuance is rarely the top priority of political films, so yeah, I get why he doesn’t employ it, but that’s my exact reason for not sympathizing with the characters of whom Lee wants me to sympathize.
Here’s what bugs me (spoiler ahead): Sal is a good, white pizzeria owner who genuinely likes the black community he feeds. A few malcontents instigate trouble and a fight ensues. The white cops assigned to the neighborhood come to break it up and end up killing one of the original instigators, Radio Raheem. Sal had nothing to do with the cops’ actions, yet he pays for it when Mookie (Sal’s employee to whom he said he cares for him like a son) tosses a garbage can through his window and begins a riot which leads to the total destruction of Sal’s restaurant. When viewers have asked if Mookie “did the right thing” by tossing the can through the window, Lee’s response is that only white people ask that question and that we are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man. Mookie tells Sall to “Motherf*** a window. Radio Raheem is dead.”
Aren’t these two separate issues? Sal had nothing to do with the death, nor did he instigate what lead to the death. And can’t we hold in our heads two thoughts at the same time? That an injustice was done to Sal and that an injustice was done to Radio Raheem (and the cops were wrong in their response). Who says that because we sympathize with Sal that we can’t sympathize with those who lost their friend? Again, Lee doesn’t have any use for nuance as he only sees in black and white (ZING!)
I can’t remember if I’ve seen this movie or not. I do remember that I really liked the movie Crooklyn, but that may have been mostly for the music.
Comment by Susan M — December 4, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Nuance is rarely on display in Spike Lee’s films, which is maybe why I didn’t notice or mind its absence here. This is the only Spike Lee film I can claim to like, though it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it.
Aiello didn’t win an Oscar for this, BTW. He was nominated but lost to Denzel Washington.
Comment by Brian V — December 4, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Brian,
You are indeed correct. My mistake.
Comment by Rusty — December 4, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Rusty, I thought part of the point was that Mookie wasn’t necessarily right at all, and Lee acknowledges this.
Comment by Supergenius — December 4, 2008 @ 11:44 am
brian v,
No love for Inside Man?
Comment by a random John — December 4, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
DO THE RIGHT THING is a great film. This very post proves its ability to provoke thought and conversation, which very few films do. I think it easily deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Picture the year it came out.
I don’t agree that Mookie and Sal are the only sympathetic characters, but even if I did, that isn’t a very good barometer of a film’s quality, in my opinion. Many great films have entirely unsympathetic characters. Plus, I don’t know that one can definitively say Lee wants you to sympathize with certain characters and not with others. His stated goal as I remember it was to accurately portray race relations in America at the time, and I think the film accomplished that.
As an ensemble piece, I think DO THE RIGHT THING doesn’t delve into multi-dimensional portrayals of its characters, not should it have to. I think Lee and his actors are more interested in portraying a multi-dimensional place and time. Having said that I think a lot of the supporting performances are excellent and beyond one-note.
I think that your reaction to the film, Rusty, is quite common and natural, but I also think it’s exactly the reaction Lee wanted to provoke among White audiences, and is in itself a testament to the film’s greatness.
Comment by Brian G — December 4, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Right, but at the awards ceremony Aiello responded to Washington’s win by bashing Jack Nickleson over the head with a garbage can, so now everything’s even.
Comment by BrianJ — December 4, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
I thought the movie was decent but I don’t think the payoff was equal to the build-up. Much like Miracle at St. Anna.
Comment by Tim J — December 4, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Spike Lee strains at gnats.
Comment by David J — December 4, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Rusty,
My take on this movie is almost exactly the opposite of yours. It’s the moral ambiguity that makes it compelling and disturbing and that makes the movie resonate long after you watch it. If Mookie had convinced the ghetto-blaster crew to tone it down and cut Sal some slack at the end of the movie, I think it would have ventured into After School Special territory.
Spike Lee is a very talented filmmaker. Whether you agree with him or not, I disagree with Brian V that his movies don’t have nuance. I think that’s what separates Lee from, say, Oliver Stone, who I can’t stand.
Comment by BTD Greg — December 4, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
I liked Jungle Fever.
My understanding of the greatness of DTRT (which is debatable, IMO) is that at the time it was made it raised questions about race that no one else was asking, not that it gave us any answers about race issues, much less correct ones.
I think Lee is a very uneven filmmaker, but he deserves credit for making movies that no one else could or would make.
Comment by MCQ — December 4, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
In my opinion Lee is no more uneven than Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese, Lynch, or other reknowned contemporary American directors.
Comment by Brian G — December 4, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Right on BTD Greg.
Comment by Supergenius — December 4, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
MCQ (#11) - perfectly said. DTRT needs to be contextualized properly for it to have meaning (just like anything, I guess). Some of Lee’s past works like this just don’t have the “punch” they have today. Wasn’t he the one that made Malcom X? I liked that one. Denzel should have received the Oscar for that instead of Training Day.
Comment by David J — December 4, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
So this is the film responsible for foisting Rosie Perez on an unsuspecting public. Ugh. As good as reason as any to stay far away from it.
Comment by Clark — December 4, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Other, older, must-see films:
1)Gandhi
2)The Magnificent Seven
3)Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid/
4)The Sting
5)Chariots of Fire
6)Double Indemnity
7)Funny Girl
8)Monty Python and the Holy Grail
9)Bringing Up Baby
10)My Man Godfrey
Comment by larryco_ — December 4, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
SG (4),
I haven’t read anywhere that Lee acknowledges that. But if he does, isn’t he also acknowledging the validity of the very question that he says only white people ask (whether Mookie did the right thing)? Perhaps that’s his point, to get white people to ask a question that black people don’t.
Brian G (6),
You are right that it is successful in provoking thought and conversation. In fact, I never said it was a bad film, only that I didn’t understand why it was such a critical success. In fact, I only wrote that which I didn’t like even though there were things I enjoyed. But I still stand by my point that most of the characters were one-note characters who show little or no nuance.
I’m fine with the analysis that he’s trying to accurately portray race relations at that time. He’s probably right, I was 12 when it came out and didn’t know a single black person then. However, now that I’ve lived in Brooklyn for 6 years and half my friends here are black and my wife works with mostly black kids from broken homes from dangerous neighborhoods, my views have evolved into something which I wouldn’t consider average white. But you said:
I think that your reaction to the film, Rusty, is quite common and natural, but I also think it’s exactly the reaction Lee wanted to provoke among White audiences…
What exactly are you saying? I sincerely want to know. Are you suggesting that most white people do indeed value white property over black lives (like Lee insinuates) and that I’m one of them? Or are you saying that Lee wanted “White audiences” (me) to sympathize with Sal so that Lee could tell us that that’s the problem? Please clarify.
BTD Greg said: If Mookie had convinced the ghetto-blaster crew to tone it down and cut Sal some slack at the end of the movie, I think it would have ventured into After School Special territory.
Oh, I agree. But I think it would have been much more “morally ambiguous” if Sal would have been the one that initiated the fight (that lead to Radio Raheem’s death and his own restaurant’s destruction) rather than the other way around. I wouldn’t be stuck saying, “Sal did nothing wrong, why is Lee making him suffer for the policeman’s brutality?” If Lee truly is playing neutral here (something he’s not known for) then I would agree with you about the moral ambiguity, but I didn’t read it that way. I could be wrong though.
And I think we just have to agree to disagree that Lee has nuance and Stone doesn’t.
MCQ,
You are probably right. If nobody was asking those questions at the time then he certainly deserves credit for doing so.
Comment by Rusty — December 4, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Brian G:
I’m not sure what you mean. “Uneven” is not meant to be completely negative. It means he has made some great films as well as some crappy ones. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement, and of course it is true of many directors, including those you named (with the exception of Scorsese, who is in a different league).
But if you are saying that Lee is no more uneven than any renowned contemporary American director, that’s just silly. Lee has proven himself to be talented and provacative, but he has also made some incredibly bad movies along with the great ones.
Comment by MCQ — December 4, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Clark (#15),
LOL!
She’s near the top on my “Famous People Who Shouldn’t Be Famous” list.
Comment by David J — December 4, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
MCQ,
I don’t think what you said is particularly controversial, and I think I have a pretty good handle on what uneven means.
I just think Lee’s work stacks up favorably against other directors with comparable critical reputations and bodies of work of similar size.
Comment by Brian G — December 4, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Rusty,
Do you think I’m trying to suggest you’re racist? I apologize because that’s not my intent at all. For the record, my initial reaction to DTRT wasn’t much different from yours. I saw it when it first came out, so I’ve had a lot of time to think about it.
I just think Lee wants people to think about Mookie throwing the trash can in the window, and whether that was right or not, justifiable or not. I think he probably wants Whites and Blacks to ask that question (and I probably shoudn’t have only mentioned White audiences in my earlier comment) but he also knew that the answers would differ down racial lines and I think nearly 20 years after this film was released they probably still do.
Many great filmmakers raise more questions than answers. I think Lee is one of those filmmakers.
Also of note, the film references a real life incident where a Black man was killed by the choke hold the cop uses in the film. It also makes reference to Howard Beach. The point is that New York City in the mid 80s was a racially tense place. I think a fair analysis of DTRT needs to take that historical context into consideration. The film gives voice to the anger of its time.
Comment by Brian G — December 4, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
But Brian, Rusty IS racist.
Comment by Supergenius — December 4, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Rusty lives in Brooklyn: he’s just trying to protect his Pizza place. My advice: Would it kill ya to hang a few pictures of African Americans on your wall of fame? A few head shots of Malcom, Martin, Tiger and Michael and everybody lives. You wanted answers, you got ‘em.
Comment by MCQ — December 4, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
I disagree with Brian V that his movies don’t have nuance. I think that’s what separates Lee from, say, Oliver Stone, who I can’t stand.
Totally agree with you on Oliver Stone - Mark Kermode said watching one of his films is like being shouted at, which says it perfectly, I think.
While Spike Lee isn’t that bad, I don’t think he’s very far behind. To be fair, though, I haven’t seen one of his movies in a long while - I think the last new one I saw was his abysmal adaptation of Clockers. I kinda liked it at the time, but I re-watched it a few months ago and it has not aged well AT ALL. Maybe he’s gotten better in the last decade or so, though the reviews I’ve heard for Miracle at St. Anna would indicate otherwise.
Comment by Brian V — December 5, 2008 @ 5:19 am
[...] HaveClark: Films I Should HaveDavid J: Films I Should HaveSupergenius: Films I Should HaveBrian G: Films I Should HaveMCQ: Films I Should [...]
Pingback by Kulturblog » Uneven Filmmakers — December 5, 2008 @ 12:08 pm