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.

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.

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.

LOL!

She’s near the top on my “Famous People Who Shouldn’t Be Famous” list.

In my opinion Lee is no more uneven than Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese, Lynch, or other reknowned contemporary American directors.

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.

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.