What is Spike Lee babbling about?????????!!

Your default setup is to see racism, and maybe that's understandable if you've lived in an atmosphere where it's pervasive...

Since we're now in the mode of making assumptions...

Your default position, much like the default position of many whites, is NEVER to see racism. Sorry, no blank slate, no impartially pure eyes on your end either.

Not ever seeing it, dogmatically resisting that it still exists or has existed is just as warped. I've had people on this board tell me "this is a movie not a documentary" in response to a film that completely ignores the the reality that if Will Smith shook hands with Charlize Theron's character as he did in this film, he would've been STRUNG UP ON A TREE. Can you imagine the outrage if a movie like this took place in Germany and the Germans and the Jews were breaking bread instead of the only power dynamic that could've been possible at the time--One of mass murder??? This is the exact same thing.

To blithely state "perhaps Redford meant to be subversive," is indicative of such a dogma. It's a baseless claim about a film that is anything but. My argument, to the degree that is "emotional," has at least been supported by things that are actually in the film and the long history of race in this country. Even spitballing that this film might be "subversive" is the apex of clinging to a worldview.

I don't believe that Robert Redford is a racist; it's possible that you think he is one... That's just a matter of perception, but to act as though this film is incontrovertible proof, is completely absurd. Leaving the matter open as I like to do; you ask why Bagger isn't white? I say that maybe - just maybe - Bagger was on the page as indeterminate ethnicity, but Robert Redford really admired Will Smith and wanted to work with him... As an unavoidable side-effect of this admiration, Will Smith is black, and there is not much that could have been done to change that, despite the resultant negative connotations that could then be read into the story.

I didn't say he was a "racist." Most of my arguments have been tempered. It's you who is now knee-jerking and overreacting. I said he was a conservative. That is all. And it's true.

OK. New argument now. You claim perhaps in the screenplay, Bagger Vance was a neutral character (read: white) and Redford cast Will Smith because he fit the role just so well. OK.

Let's compare Bagger Vance to a movie where it's well-known that something like this did indeed happen; Red in Shawshank Redemption. What a role. What a 3-dimensional character. This equated to one of the most unforgettable performances ever. In other words, there was nothing "magical" about him. It was a fine role for a fine (black) actor.

Moreover, from a race perspective, I bought that a black man could have existed in this world. It took place in an isolated setting--prison--where things like loyalty, age, etc often trump race. But moreover, it was set in late 1940s Maine not the 1930s Jim Crow South.

Will Smith wouldn't knowingly sign up for a project that he believed to be racist, unless you want to call the man an Uncle Tom, and add that to the list of aspersions cast against people you don't know?


Classic. Black people are in the Tea Party ergo the Tea Party is not racist.

In the case of the Tea Party, many of those people are "Uncle Toms." In the case of Will Smith, you assume that everyone has the same level of consciousness and awareness. Black people have taken on the roles of pimps, pushers and prostitutes for decades--sometimes knowingly, sometimes simply to survive as an actor and sometimes unknowingly.

None of this has anything to do with an image or scenario or character on the big screen.

... because Bagger is articulate, you've then changerd tack somewhat and insisted that the MAIN problem (despite never before having stressed this facet above all others) is Baggers appearance to "fill a void, without a backstory". Effectively then, you've just determined that no black person can ever appear onscreen as a Good Samaritan, helping a person of another race. You think that there always has to be a sinister ulterior motive besides just demonstrating the basic humanity that we all should share. To me, that represents reverse racism at its worst... So what if it's a black person helping a white person, a white person helping a black person, or two black people helping each other?! I suggest that in ANY of those cases, it doesn't matter, because fundamentally - as you said - it's all about good intentions.

Sigh...

I'll state this in as few words as possible.

Historically, there's far more of the "person of color helping a white person," in every form of American art--from the earliest plays to 3D Avatar--than the reverse.

Historically, the manner in which a person of color helps a white person is markedly different than the manner in which a white person helps a person of color.

Nevermind--That's more stuff to disagree on because your default position is just as "influenced" as mine.

I'll just say again what I've always said. He's a Magical Negro. He appears out of nowhere. He employs naturalistic elements that are race-specific. His sole purpose is to help out white folk when if he was actually given agency, he'd use those tools to help out his own situation and that of his race.