Spike Lee said "Only white people.... - Do the Right Thing (1989) Discussion

[–] Mandingo609 9 years ago

No diversity in thought? Are you trying to pretend that the Fox News Channel doesn't exist? Sad thing about your selective perception comment is that Do The Right Thing is only a Movie.

reply

[–] Iceman-15 9 years ago

My comment had nothing to do with Fox News.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

I completely agree with you on all points. Mookie's actions were ridiculous and nonsensical; and Spike Lee is an idiot.

reply

[–] outofideas555 9 years ago

Fox News is fairly moronic as well, pretty widely known too, not a good rebuttal

{oo)==V==(oo} -Christine

reply

[–] SlickySlixta 8 years ago

I've come across Mandingo609 on a few boards now and I've come to the conclusion that he is the master of "Apples and Oranges" type rebuttals. I often get a tremendous lol from reading his posts 

Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.

reply

[–] wmlopez 8 years ago

So if FOXNEWS is moronic and conservatives get their news from there then what does that say for liberals who get their news from THE DAILY SHOW & NIGHTLY SHOW?
FOXNEWS shows both sides of the argument and that's what liberals don't like.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

I guess that only white people notice that Radio Thug tried to choke Sal to death over a broken boombox. Radio Thug wasn't killed by cops because of his radio, he was killed by cops for attempted murder.

reply

[–] CapitanHowie 8 years ago

I guess that only white people notice that Radio Thug tried to choke Sal to death over a broken boombox. Radio Thug wasn't killed by cops because of his radio, he was killed by cops for attempted murder.

That makes it OK? Your right- most WHITE people think a business being trashed is more important that a Black life. Reading this board confirms it.

You don't see a Black mans life as being equal to your own.

~~~
I've never met a racist person, just a scared and uneducated person.
~~~

reply

[–] wPatriot 8 years ago

So... someone attempting to murder someone else does not make it OK to kill them, but killing them does make it OK to then commit a different crime as some warped form of revenge?

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

That isn't what he said. What he said was that he'd been asked many times whether Mookie did the right thing, and he commented, "Not one person of color has ever asked me that question." That's a statement from personal experience, not a generalization about white people (or people of color, for that matter). Furthermore, I've read several interviews with Lee about this film, and it's clear his point isn't that Mookie's actions were morally justified, but that it should be possible for us to understand them.

reply

[–] Iceman-15 8 years ago

That isn't what he said. What he said was that he'd been asked many times whether Mookie did the right thing, and he commented, "Not one person of color has ever asked me that question."

This from Wikipedia:

"Spike Lee has remarked that he himself has only ever been asked by white viewers whether Mookie did the right thing; black viewers do not ask the question."
So by making that comment, what is he alluding to? That only white people find such a question to be legitimate? It's obviously a legitimate question, so again, what is he alluding to, that black people aren't very thoughtful, and white people are? That black people are in favor of someone starting a riot, what? Anyway you look at it, he's putting black people down, which is what this film did.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

You really need to look at other things Lee has said about the film to get where he's coming from. For example, he told People magazine in 1989:

"I'm not advocating violence.... I'm saying I can understand it. If the people are frustrated and feel oppressed and feel this is the only way they can act, I understand."

Lee is saying he (and most other blacks) identify with the feelings of anger and frustration underlying Mookie's act; he is not saying he approves of the outcome.

It's important to understand that most blacks in this country tend to view situations like this very differently from most whites. Whites tend to look at it in terms of the threat posed by the rioters, whereas blacks tend to see it as a matter of being victimized by the cops. This isn't an issue of assigning blame; it's an issue of who you identify with most as you watch the conflict unfold.

This is a Rorschach test that anticipated many things which happened in the years since the release of this film. For example, why do you think most African Americans sided with OJ? It isn't because they "aren't very thoughtful," it's because they harbor profound distrust of the police, and while that feeling may be brought to an irrational extreme in that case, it doesn't come out of nowhere. And this movie helps you understand why, for those willing to examine it with an open mind and not just sort the characters into simple heroes and villains like it was a conventional Hollywood melodrama.

Is Lee sometimes guilty of overgeneralizing, by implying that all blacks think the way he does? Perhaps. But he's describing something very real and was one of the first filmmakers to deal with it straight on.

reply

[–] Iceman-15 8 years ago

"I'm not advocating violence.... I'm saying I can understand it. If the people are frustrated and feel oppressed and feel this is the only way they can act, I understand."

And you know what, I can understand it too. The problem is, Lee did not give us enough of a reason to understand it. You see, he is asking us, the audience, to understand why a mob would destroy the pizzeria of a benevolent businessman, which putting it mildly, is difficult. First off, Sal had nothing to do with Raheem's death, so the audience - reasonable members of the audience - are shaking their heads. Besides, Raheem was not a character who could inspire that kind of sympathy. He was a troublemaking thug who went into Sal's pizzeria, after hours, demanding that he do what he wanted him to do. Then, he tried to murder him. Not a nice guy. So how does Lee "understand" the violence? He's clearly warped, correct? Radio Raheem is not a character that you destroy a neighborhood pizzeria over. As I said before, you can't separate the film from the filmmaker.

As far as OJ goes, it had very little to do with the police. It was more about the racial climate that had began to develop at that time. If OJ had murdered his black wife and her black friend, and then got off, black people's reaction would have been more along the lines of, "so what". They wanted to see OJ get off for murdering this white woman and this white man because they feel that white people in the past had gotten off for so many murders against black people. The fact is, black on black crime generates little interest in the black community.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

And you know what, I can understand it too. The problem is, Lee did not give us enough of a reason to understand it.

I think the signs are there throughout the entire film. Most of the blacks in the neighborhood like Sal, but there's some underlying resentment there, too--particularly from Mookie. It all boils over in the series of events that happen that night.

First off, Sal had nothing to do with Raheem's death, so the audience - reasonable members of the audience - are shaking their heads.

I think you are letting Sal too much off the hook. True, he wasn't directly responsible for Raheem's death, and nobody claimed that he was. But he clearly handled the situation poorly. Instead of doing the proper thing when someone is misbehaving in your store and refusing to leave--calling the cops--he provoked an open confrontation by continuing to scream at the guy, threatening him with a baseball bat, calling him by the N-word, and finally destroying his radio. That wasn't acting responsibly. While he didn't physically attack anyone, he did everything he could to provoke a violent confrontation.

Besides, Raheem was not a character who could inspire that kind of sympathy. He was a troublemaking thug

How so? Up to that point in the film, had he ever done anything violent? Beaten someone up? Robbed someone? Committed any crimes beyond trespassing and disturbing the peace?

In fact, the indications are that he hadn't done any of those things until that night. In earlier scenes, we see that Sal and others in the neighborhood know Raheem by name (or nickname), and while a few are intimidated by his size, most don't behave as if they expect him to get violent. We also see that he has a nicer side, as in the following scene:

https://youtu.be/ShgXC62a09o

So, was he a troublemaker? Sure. But a thug? That stretches the meaning of that word well beyond its normal definition.

They wanted to see OJ get off for murdering this white woman and this white man because they feel that white people in the past had gotten off for so many murders against black people.

In the decades since the OJ case, I've never heard a single black person say anything of the sort. What they did say was that OJ was framed by the racist cops--in other words, that he didn't do what he was accused of doing.

It's similar, really, to why many Jews supported Julius Rosenberg--it wasn't because they approved of what he did, it was because they didn't believe he did it. In both cases, it was a denial of the truth rooted in a well-justified preoccupation with bigotry in the justice system.

The fact is, black on black crime generates little interest in the black community.

That's a common media talking point that isn't supported by the facts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/why-dont-black-people-protest-black-on-black-violence/255329/

reply

[–] Iceman-15 8 years ago

Wow! I'm sorry, but you are so far off, here.

Most of the blacks in the neighborhood like Sal, but there's some underlying resentment there, too--particularly from Mookie.

Why? Because Sal gave him a job, tolerates the fact that he's a fair employee at best, told him that he's "like a son to him"? Why would Mookie have resentment against a man like that? Oh, could it be that because in Mookie's warped mind - in this case, Spike's as well - that just because he was being nice to his sister, that there has to be some sick, sexual context there? It was never revealed in the film that Mookie had a valid reason to have resentment towards Sal.

I think you are letting Sal too much off the hook. True, he wasn't directly responsible for Raheem's death, and nobody claimed that he was. But he clearly handled the situation poorly. Instead of doing the proper thing when someone is misbehaving in your store and refusing to leave--calling the cops--he provoked an open confrontation by continuing to scream at the guy, threatening him with a baseball bat, calling him by the N-word, and finally destroying his radio.

And I think you're expecting way too much out of Sal. It had been a long hot day, he'd already had unprovoked confrontations with Raheem and Buggin earlier in the day, and here they are again, after hours, breaking the law, blasting music, calling him a "Guinea bastard", and demanding they do what they want him to do. Maybe the "proper" thing was to call the cops - that's debatable - but do you expect every human being to be so proper in a situation like that? And I find it curious how you mentioned Sal's use of a racial slur, but failed to mention that a racial slur was originally directed at him! The fact is, when those two thugs entered Sal's pizzeria - they're thugs because they're breaking the law - that was clearly what set off the chain of events that led to Raheem's death and Sal's pizzeria being destroyed, but reading your reply, I believe you think it was all Sal's fault!

In fact, the indications are that he hadn't done any of those things until that night. In earlier scenes, we see that Sal and others in the neighborhood know Raheem by name (or nickname), and while a few are intimidated by his size, most don't behave as if they expect him to get violent. We also see that he has a nicer side, as in the following scene:

I always find it humorous that the common defense of the Raheem character, is the ring scene. But no one ever mentions him being confrontational with practically everyone, including the Koreans, the Puerto Ricans, and of course, Sal. He was like a ticking time bomb. Like many black youths, the life expectancy of not very long.

In the decades since the OJ case, I've never heard a single black person say anything of the sort. What they did say was that OJ was framed by the racist cops--in other words, that he didn't do what he was accused of doing.

Whether or not you've heard any black people say that is not the point. The point is, it's the truth. Every black person knows/knew OJ did it. The fact that it was two white people played an extremely important role in public fascination. Make it two black people and the dialogue is something like this: "OJ, had it all, why did he have to go and murder his wife and her friend, just sad." It's not a "race" case, or a question of police planting evidence. If you don't see that....

I didn't watch that video, but the fact that the question is raised proves my point. "Why don't black people protest black on black violence?" There's a saying I've been hearing lately: "Black Lives Matter". Someone has added this to it, "Only When Taken By A White Person." There is most definitely a measure of truth to that.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

I didn't watch that video, but the fact that the question is raised proves my point.

It isn't a video, it's an article, which supports its position with facts and evidence--which you'd have known if you'd clicked on the link.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss any disagreements we may have and to listen to what you have to say. But if you're not going to even look at contrary evidence, and you preemptively choose to ignore it using the moronic non sequitur "the fact that the question is raised proves my point," then I see no purpose in discussing the matter further with you. You don't seem like a troll, which makes your recent response all the more sad, because it's essentially an admission that your mind is truly closed on this subject. In a way you're as bad as the OJ truthers you so deride: you believe what you want to believe and refuse to consider any evidence which conflicts with your worldview.

reply

[–] Iceman-15 8 years ago

I'm perfectly willing to discuss any disagreements we may have and to listen to what you have to say.

Yes, and to prove that you comment on one little snippet of my response. Which, believe it or not, I had a feeling you'd do. You're done. Later.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

"Raheem was not a character who could inspire that kind of sympathy".

He may have indeed been a troublemaking doofus, not even well-liked by other blacks, but from the point on when he's killed, none of that matters - he becomes just another black man murdered by the white police using excessive force in a long line of similar incidents. It becomes an "us vs them" thing along the racial dividing lines and the mob mentality takes over. Likewise, Sal ceases to be a person in the eyes of the angry blacks and is reduced to being merely a white, representative of the race that has subjected them to all manner of indignity over the centuries. I guess one 'does' have to be black to fully understand this mindset, this deeply seated resentment many of them apparently still feel.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Iceman-15 7 years ago

He may have indeed been a troublemaking doofus, not even well-liked by other blacks, but from the point on when he's killed, none of that matters

Yes it does matter. Stop looking at black people as a bunch of ignorant idiots. Black people DO realize that Raheem committed the crime of trespassing when he entered Sal's pizzeria after hours. What you're trying to do is justify the behavior of these characters when there is no justification. You're believing this crappy movie that Spike Lee wrote just because he's black. Black people DO NOT give a sht about pictures on a wall.

. I guess one 'does' have to be black to fully understand this mindset

That part you got right. You're not black. I am. This movie is bullsh!t. Black people DO NOT do the things that spike tried to get people to believe they do and I'm tired of white people calling this movie some kind of classic when it's nothing but an insult to toilet paper.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] wurstero 8 years ago

The funny thing about Spike Lee is that nearly everything he says is complete and utter stupid uninformed trash.
It's funny because Do the right thing is definitely one of the best films of the last 50 years.

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

The funny thing about Spike Lee is that nearly everything he says is complete and utter stupid uninformed trash.
It's funny because Do the right thing is definitely one of the best films of the last 50 years.

I can't disagree with you much there, but I don't think he always was that way. I read an interview with him by Roger Ebert from around the time the movie came out, and his comments were thoughtful and balanced. He talked about how there weren't supposed to be any clear good guys or bad guys in the film, and how he wasn't taking sides.

What needs to be kept in mind is that the movie, upon its initial release, was met with a flurry of unfair negative criticism that suggested it was an incitement to riot. Furthermore, at Oscar time the movie wasn't even nominated for Best Picture, and the film that did win, Driving Miss Daisy, happened to be an insulting, racially backwards movie in which Morgan Freeman plays one of these old-fashioned, obsequious black men who works as a chauffeur to an old white lady. (I don't think it's a coincidence that Lee helped popularize the term "magical negro" in our culture.) All of this must have stung Lee, and helped convince him that both the Hollywood establishment and mainstream media were underlyingly reactionary and racist, despite an outward appearance of being forward-thinking and progressive.

What's unfortunate is that Lee increasingly seemed to become exactly the caricature his critics had depicted him as. He seems to court controversy, he's veered into anti-Semitism, he's got a persecution complex a mile wide. (That's not to mention his infamous 2012 tweet, where he gave out the real name and address of an elderly couple he erroneously assumed to be living in the home of George Zimmerman.) He's so obnoxious that I truly believe it's caused lots of people to be turned off from his movies off the bat. When I hear people talk about how they hate his films, I'd wager that 90% of it is a reaction to Lee as a public figure.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

What's unfortunate is that Lee increasingly seemed to become exactly the caricature his critics had depicted him as. He seems to court controversy, he's veered into anti-Semitism, he's got a persecution complex a mile wide. (That's not to mention his infamous 2012 tweet, where he gave out the real name and address of an elderly couple he erroneously assumed to be living in the home of George Zimmerman.) He's so obnoxious that I truly believe it's caused lots of people to be turned off from his movies off the bat. When I hear people talk about how they hate his films, I'd wager that 90% of it is a reaction to Lee as a public figure.

Do the Right Thing offers a more balanced perspective than Spike Lee's own warped worldview. Lee's own statements make it clear that his own attitude and behavior is just like Buggin' Out (Lee's attacks on Clint Eastwood for not showing black Marines in Flags of Our Fathers reminds me of Buggin' out's harrassment of Sal). However, most viewers would watch this movie and recognize Buggin' Out and Raheem as trouble-making hoodlums and Sal as a decent man who treats people well and takes pride in his business. So the portrayal was honest in spite of the fact that Spike Lee's sympathies were 100% on the side of the trouble-makers.

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

So the portrayal was honest in spite of the fact that Spike Lee's sympathies were 100% on the side of the trouble-makers.

That's not what Lee said in the interview with Roger Ebert I talked about before. Lee talked about how he couldn't stand black youth like Raheem who blared their radio, and he said that while he had some sympathy toward Buggin' Out's argument that Sal should have had some blacks on his wall, he also felt Sal had a very valid point when he talked about how they should open their own restaurant and run it the way they please.

Nothing in the interview suggested he was 100%--or even 50%--on the side of the troublemakers.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

Nothing in the interview suggested he was 100%--or even 50%--on the side of the troublemakers

I never read that interview, so I was basing my statement that Buggin' Out is a stand-in for Lee himself based on Lee's many other public statements. As I said, how is Lee telling Clint Eastwood to have more black characters in his movies different from Buggin' Out telling Sal whose photos should be on the walls of his restaurant?

Furthermore, when Lee says that people who criticize Mookie for trashing Sal's restaurant "value a white man's property over a black man's life," he ignores the facts that Buggin/Raheem initiated the confrontation and that Raheem tried to murder Sal in retaliation for a smashed radio. That implies that Lee values a black man's radio over a white man's life, so it's a little hypocritical of him to criticize whites who have no respect for Mookie's actions.

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

Furthermore, when Lee says that people who criticize Mookie for trashing Sal's restaurant "value a white man's property over a black man's life,"

I want to see the full quote, in the original context. I suspect it's a misquote.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

From the horse's (or rather, jackass's) mouth:

Recalling reactions to the film’s violent climax, Lee would later remark, “If in a review, a critic discussed how Sal’s Famous was burned down but didn’t mention anything about Radio Raheem getting killed, it was pretty obvious that he or she valued white-owned property more than the life of this young black hoodlum.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/do-right-thing-still-racial-rorschach-20/

reply

[–] kylopod 8 years ago

Nowhere in that article does Lee claim that "people who criticize Mookie for trashing Sal's restaurant" are "valuing a white man's property over a black man's life." Lee was referring to a specific reviewer and noting that the reviewer denounced the destruction of Sal's business without even mentioning the event which instigated it--the death of Radio Raheem. He was commenting on the relative weight of the two tragedies. He was not, as you seem to think, arguing that Mookie's act was a morally justified response to Raheem's death.

reply

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

That Spike Lee thinks (some or most) white people can't empathize with an action doesn't mean he thinks all blacks would support it. I thought a big strength in the movie was that it showed a lot of differences and even tension among the black characters, the white characters, even the same characters acting very differently under different circumstances.

reply

[–] Iceman-15 8 years ago

That Spike Lee thinks (some or most) white people can't empathize with an action doesn't mean he thinks all blacks would support it.

Apparently that's what he's suggesting, if not, why make such an idiotic comment.

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] m-huston92 8 years ago

I feel like the point is lost with everyone, even the director. Raheem and Buggin Out didn't deserve to be devalued, Sal didn't deserve to have the peace in his restaurant broken and be disrespected, Raheem didn't deserve to have his boom box smashed in, Sal didn't deserve to be strangled, Raheem didn't deserve to be murdered, Sal didn't deserve to lose his livelihood. But you see the spark of it all, right? The small little altercation, the insignificant slights and misunderstandings that lead people to hate and perform rash actions. Sense was lost by all parties because they all struggled to understand one another, and something as simple as that cause a young man to lose his life.

reply

[–] Iceman-15 8 years ago

Yes, but who ignited that spark? A couple of trouble making ass holes, that's who. And THAT is why they were "devalued".

I graduated from the college of the streets, I gotta Phd in how to make ends meet.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

That might be the message, but it doesn't come through at all. In fact, it's laid out in such a way that it all feels like the blacks instigated and escalated everything each and every time. They hate anyone not black and we can see their true colours (pun slightly intended) come to full light at the end. It seems to me it's a mindset problem among blacks. They embrace being the villain, the outsider, because doing the right thing is not only beyond them, but too much work.
I'd rather watch black movies like Menace II Society...because at least then I am given an honest view, despite those movies also depicting immoral and deplorable black behaviour in civilized society.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4054) 6 years ago

I am pretty sure that Lee said "Only white people ever ask him why Mookie threw the garbage can through the window." Can you say he is wrong about what people say to him?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Oh, so that's why I didn't understand anything about this movie. I did notice how the blacks treated the Asians like utter shit, meanwhile the whites treat the blacks well, and so much better than they deserve. Why do I say that? Because all the blacks in this movie has criminal behaviour, even those we thought at first might be actual human beings with morals. The blacks in this movie disgusted me. When I saw it 10 years ago I was only left with the thought that this movie only serves to show how blacks really behave. And no one can deny it, being made by Spike Lee and all.

reply