At Cannes, former director SPIKE LEE spoke out against what he perceived as a racist slant to CLINT EASTWOOD’S acclaimed war movie about Iwo Jima called FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS.
His initial comments, blurted in his usual stream-of-consciousness manner, railed against the lack of black people depicted in Eastwood’s film:
“If you reporters had any balls you’d ask him why. There’s no way I know why he did that — that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It’s not like he didn’t know.”
Eastwood allowed Lee’s comments to simmer for a while before responding thusly:
“A guy like him should shut his face.”
When Clint Eastwood tells you to shut your face, your probably should. However, rather than leave it at a threat, Eastwood went on to elaborate on the reason why he did not include black people in the film:
“The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they (black troops) didn’t do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people’d go, ‘This guy’s lost his mind.’ I mean, it’s not accurate.”
This sensible conclusion did little to dissuade Lee, who today responded yet again with another tirade:
“First of all, the man is not my father and we’re not on a plantation either,” he told ABCNEWS.com. “He’s a great director. He makes his films, I make my films. The thing about it though, I didn’t personally attack him. And a comment like ‘a guy like that should shut his face’ — come on Clint, come on. He sounds like an angry old man right there.”
Pretty childish, if you ask me. Then, Lee proposes a new strategy to convince Clint of his wrongdoing:
“If he wishes, I could assemble African-American men who fought at Iwo Jima and I’d like him to tell these guys that what they did was insignificant and they did not exist,” he said. “I’m not making this up. I know history. I’m a student of history. And I know the history of Hollywood and its omission of the one million African-American men and women who contributed to World War II.”
With whom do you agree?
Personally, I think Clint is absolutely correct. The film was a fairly intimate look at the famous flag-raising picture taken at Iwo Jima, and the soldiers who lifted it were all white men. While Spike is correct that there were a million black soldiers fighting in World War II, the fact is that Clint’s film did not address that issue.
I faintly understand the continuing hostility and outrage of black people in the face of perceived double standards; at least, I make the best attempt I can to understand it as a white male. But the indiscretions and injustices of the past are not rectified by rewriting history in an attempt to mold it into current standards of political correctness. We can’t change the damage that has been done in the name of racism; we can only look at it with honest eyes and learn from it.
Further, Lee’s insistence that Eastwood’s creative vision be edited and reworked into something that forcibly represents everyone is absolutely hypocritical. Forcing someone to acknowledge something that they do not accept is what we might call “creative racism.” The tactic Lee is using here on Eastwood is a method we have seen far too often in America and the world in order to push an agenda: cry racism, despite whether it is warranted or not. Occasionally, the cry of racism is true and important – Rosa Parks, segregation, etc. At other times, the cry is abhorrent and almost evil in nature … like the O.J. SIMPSON debacle from 1994, for instance.
The simple fact of the matter is that Eastwood has the right to craft any damn film he chooses and desires to tell. In this case, the film concentrated on a small faction on Iwo Jima out of a much, much larger conflict. The people documented in the film were white soldiers from white neighborhoods and white families. Eastwood is not required – and chose not to – include black soldiers and their stories because it simply was not appropriate given the context of the film.
Lee prefers to concentrate his efforts on black films, and that is wonderful; his DO THE RIGHT THING is one of the most important films of the last 25 years. Someone like Eastwood could certainly look through Lee’s films and find stereotypical characterizations of white and Asian peoples, yet he and others have remained silent. Lee is within his right to make his films as he sees fit, and populate his films with the people and stories that interest him.
Guess what, Spike? Clint Eastwood has that right, too. So go cry racism over things that really matter, like all of the white people (like me) who can’t get food stamps because they are white … although they still get to pay the bills on it with their hard-earned taxes.
Rather than see non-existent racism in the films of others, Spike would be much better off improving the quality of his own films before he loses the privilege altogether. Looking at his box office numbers, his audiences these days are not black or white; they’re transparent.
The world is going colorblind, Spike. Your constant and lonely cries of racism make you sound like the real racist.
20 Comments
I think Spike is right on this one, even though the movie was based around the men who put the flags up, there still was other soldiers throughout the movie that didn’t put the flag up and he could’ve made some of them african american. He could’ve just put some in the background, but none.
Ray, I believe one of the flag raisers was Native American, I can’t see how you could have missed that seeing as he was a main character.
Im afraid I do have to side with Spike on this one even though his constant cries of racism towards other film directors is both annoying and very often unjust, but in this case Spike does have a point. If black soldiers did fight at Iwo Jima then they should have been represented during the battle. If hollywood is going to recreate a historical moment, then they should do it right, it wouldn’t have taken much for Clint to have included black extras. Of course hollywoods treatment of not including ethnic people in their war films has been well documented and it’s something thats been allowed for an incredibly long time so im glad someone has come out and said something.
One thing I don’t agree with Spike on is having Clint go back and re-edit his film, I think the damage has been done so lets just move on and learn from it so that the same mistake is not repeated.
I think that its a childish spat from both guys. There have been films about black US combatants Glory comes to mind, althought that was an earlier period. Eastwood is right that there was no black troops in the flag raising, but Lee has a point of including some black troops in the film. Spike Lee had a point and for Eastwood to say “a guy like him should shut his face” I’ve lost some respect for him with that remark.
I agree with Ray. I’m Puertorican and that means that I belong to a so called minority in USA. Sometimes hispanics and black people exagerate in their complains about racism. Racism still exist in USA no doubt about that, but sometimes the complains of some people are very selective and unnecesary. Mr. Eastwood have the right to do his movies the way he want it, period. Mr. Lee should focus on his artistic endeavours, period.
Congratulations Ray, the Dumb-ass of the Year award goes to you! Check the US Dept of Agriculture and the US Census and you’ll see that whites are the majority of food stamp recipients and always have been. Your race is certainly a plus for getting government benefits.
BTW do you even bother to fact-check or do you just shoot from the lip and figure it doesn’t matter? Spike Lee is completely justified to point out that blacks have been part of EVERY military action the US has ever undertaken and that Hollywood consistently leaves them out. Spike Lee knows his history, you don’t. So YOU should shut your face.
You know, I’ll bet the black soldier in The Patriot pissed you off no end. You were probably pounding your chair in the basement screaming, “There weren’t any blacks fighting in the American Revolution! They were all still slaves! God Bless America!”
There were plenty of blacks at Omaha Beach, but Spielberg left them out of Saving Private Ryan. Only one black person at Pearl Harbor? And no blacks in the Thin Red Line. Have you ever actually looked at Hollywood’s exclusion of blacks in war movies Ray, or did you just decide that if Spike Lee says something your white pride HAS to respond….even when it makes you look ridiculous?
And the conceit of people like you is really disgusting. It’s all but impossible to get studios to finance a war movie centering on blacks (and even then it’s a super LOW budget affair shown late-nights on HBO). Gee, can’t imagine why Spike Lee feels blacks are being discriminated against.
But here the ignorant legions like you come saying, “Everyone has the right to make a movie from their own point of view.” Of course what you left unsaid was that there have only been a handful of war productions centering on blacks and an army –pardon the expression– of movies centering on whites.
Interesting how people like you always seem to forget that small point when ranting out Spike Lee.
So go take you Fox News-lite “Whites are the ‘real’ victims” horseshit and shove it. That line of crap is SO nineties.
@ Jaysmack – My response to your foodstamps point – research well done – is this: my own experience in my part of the U.S. is that the majority of foodstamp recipients are black, and I used to deal directly with foodstamp recipients. The statistics are as follows:
41 percent of participants are white; 36 percent are African-American, non-Hispanic; 18 percent are Hispanic; 3 percent are Asian, 2 percent are Native American, and 1 percent are of unknown race or ethnicity.
Of course, we look at this and think like Jaysmack … “Wow, white folks is da worst user of da foodstamps!”
Unfortunately, this slight discrepency in the numbers (I mean, 41% to 36% is fairly close on such a huge scale) is probably caused by the fact that there are nearly SIX TIMES the number of white people to black people in the United States. The 2006 census showed that 73.9% of the population is white, as compared to 12.2% of African American descent. When viewed that way, it is clear that the foodstamp program is largely used by the black population, and disproportionately.
As for your other comment about war movies not featuring black people:
Who gives a fuck? I don’t need movies to feature white people because I’m white. I see movies featuring black people all the time – I just reviewed THE GREAT DEBATERS on this site recently – and the racial shit means nothing to me. The function of movies is to make either great art or great commerce, not to cater to various special interests. No director should feel obligated to make a film that caters to a minority or other special interest group EVER. Clint’s story simply did not feature black people – TOO FUCKING BAD.
The only reason someone would watch FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and bitch about not having a black person in the film is if that person is completely insecure about his skin color or position in life. That person would sound like a little child not getting HIS/HER way on the playground: “But what about ME and what I want???” Tough shit, kid. Grow up and do your own thing and stop worrying so much about yourself.
FACT: The film had nothing to do with the black soldiers. They simply did not belong in this particular story. Yes, Clint could have stuck a few black soldiers in there at some point in a random scene, but why does he NEED to do it?? He doesn’t.
Oh, and by the way, I never said whites were the real victims. I merely implied that, like Spike Lee, I can piss and moan about shit that isn’t really important or fair to the rights of others. It’s called reverse racism … and yes, I consider Spike Lee to be a racist.
I completely agree with Ray. To me, this feels like a publicity ploy for Lee’s next film Miracle at St. Anna about a regiment of African American soldiers in WWII. Spike Lee is just mad he makes one good film out of ten. Here’s hoping Miracle at St. Anna can hold a candle to any one of Eastwood’s last 5 directorial efforts.
I agree as well with Ray…also…didnt Spike a few years ago cry copyright over his name being used on spike tv? what kinda looser gota whine over that??? Im sure some people have a last name fox. should they all sue over that? or should I be sued cause when I was 7 (30 years ago) I name my dog spike? HAHAHA! Spike Lee is a coward and a disgrace…focus on your films, not stupid shit.
A quick note to this talented but deluded director (not that he’ll ever read this but…):
Spike, please not everything is about race! Eastwood made a movie about a group of white men who did something important in history, and he forgot to check the racial makeup of the background characters. That means he didn’t think about race, not that he deliberately erased black men from his movie – there’s a big difference.
Besides – welcome to Hollywood, Spike. Historical inaccuracies are rampant, especially in WW2 movies. Plenty of people in the UK were pissed when U-571 pretended that the capturing of the Enigma machine was the work of Americans or when the significant contributions of non-Americans on Omaha Beach was left out of Saving Private Ryan. Not to mention when Pearl Harbour pretended that Ben Affleck was the reason for winning the Battle Of Britain. This comes with the territory, unfortunately. That wasn’t racism, just blind devotion to demographics at the exense of accuracy. People who look to movies for historical accuracy are fools anyway.
There’s a way to fix racism, and that’s not by shouting “racist!” where no such thing exists. Is make Spike Lee racist because he didn’t concentrate on black characters in New York in Summer Of Sam? No, because the film was concentrating on characters in an Italian-American neighbourhood. It’s that simple with Iwo Jima as well – the characters being looked at were simply not black.
Please go away, make some more entertaining movies. Inside Man did a lot more for racial harmony than your comments have. Did anyone notice that the main character was a black man? I didn’t even think about it while watching the movie. That would have been incredible back when you started directing, now it’s relatively commonplace. Please don’t undo the good work you’ve been doing by calling attention to non-existent problems.
Hmmm… “Is make Spike Lee racist” should read “Is Spike Lee racist”… English *is* my first language, honestly!
Ray, your “editorial” was a thinly veiled racially-hostile rant that started off bitching about Spike Lee, then –predictably– descended into defending the exclusion of blacks in cinema and finally dived into the cesspool of deriding blacks in general.
It’s blatantly obvious your bitching, and the cheap ignorance behind it, had nothing to do with anything Spike Lee said. You just wanted to vent and any excuse would do. And if it wasn’t Lee you would have simply used someone else as a springboard for your tirade. That you called it an “editorial” was a putrid joke.
A true editorial weighs the pros and cons. You simply wrote a cheap polemic. No analyses but plenty of invective. It’s the antithesis of an editorial.
I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say, “Please, spare us any more of this crap in the future!”
There seems to be this group of angry whites in America who just can’t get through their day without whining about something racial, and invariably they are wrong. The VAST majority of films are made by whites, starring whites and they make it a point to exclude blacks. Spike Lee points this out and rather than you saying something intelligent like Michael Kaminksi did a few days ago about women in cinema, you instead opt to turn this board into a sewer of racial invective.
You took the coward’s route. Rather than challenge Spielberg, Eastwood or Cameron to do better –which would be the truly courageous position– you attack Lee under the facetious banner of “artisitc freedom?”
You were reduced to using strawmen to make your “case.” Nobody ever said Eastwood didn’t have the “right” to make a war movie with no blacks, the argument is that Eastwood wasn’t RIGHT to make a war movie with no blacks. So what the hell was your point anyway?
Other than that you dislike blacks in general and Spike Lee in specific, there didn’t seem to be one.
Well, you’ve gotten that off your chest. Do you feel better now? Somehow, I think not.
For future reference, do us all a favor; save your ethnic-ranting for Stormfront, Fox-News.com, or whatever political site it is you frequent and leave the webspace here for movie news.
1. Clint Eastwood gives Morgan Freeman an Academy Award winning role in Million Dollar Baby.
2. Clint makes Morgan Freemans character in Unforgiven the driving force behind his own characters return to the saloon to face off against a dozen men and meet his inevitable death.
3. Clint defies expectations and mirrors his Iwo Jima movie about the Americans with another movie that explores the enemies side, see non-Americam, see Japanese. It is even the better film in the end.
I really don’t think race even enters Eastwooods mind, particularly when making his bookend Iwo Jima films.
Let’s look at Lees last major studio film, The Inside Man.
Nazi collaborator – white man (Christopher Lee)
Conniving bitch – white woman (Jodie Foster)
Bank robber – white man (Clive Owen)
Aggressive cop – white man (William Dafoe)
Hero who exposes the truth – black man (Denzel Washington)
Heroes sidekick – black man (forget name, guy in Red Belt)
I hate even thinking this way.
“That means he didn’t think about race, not that he deliberately erased black men from his movie – there’s a big difference.”
EXCELLENT point.
“I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say, “Please, spare us any more of this crap in the future!”” NO YOU DONT.
Jaysmack – I completely disagree with your post. Just because Ray is unapologetically against Lee’s comments doesn’t make him a racist. White people are allowed to disagree with Black people, you know. Ray chose to argue against the validity of Lee’s claims, and now everyone has a forum here to voice their opinions.
Just try to voice your opinion without calling someone a dumb-ass ignorant racist.
“There seems to be this group of angry whites in America who just can’t get through their day without whining about something racial, and invariably they are wrong. The VAST majority of films are made by whites, starring whites and they make it a point to exclude blacks.”
Wouldn’t Spike Lee fall into the category of an angry black man in America who cant get through his day without whining about something racial, and inevitably being wrong?
Yes, the vast majority of films are made by whites and star whites. But i disagree that a point is made to exclude blacks. This was true in the past, but this is not the case now. If anything, there are more movies that are deliberately all-Black than all-White.
Did anyone think that maybe these “powerful White hollywood men” (a large percentage of whom are Jewish by the way, another historically-oppressed group), make films about what they know? Scorsese made many films about italian neighborhoods in New York because that’s what he knows. Is he racist? John Singleton’s best film, boyz in the hood, was based on what he knew. Eastwood makes films about what he knows…including, lest we forget, a biopic about legendary jazz singer Charlie Parker (Bird) who was *gasp* BLACK.
“we’re not on a plantation either”…OK Spike…way to be overdramatic.
@ Mike – Thank you for your help. Jaysmack, like Spike Lee, desperately wants people to think like he does, and any dissent is greeted with blind hostility. It never ceases to amaze me that people like this can read an editorial, and then somehow manage to infer from it that I am “defending the exclusion of blacks in cinema and finally dived into the cesspool of deriding blacks in general.”
I never said anything at all like that. How sad it is that some cannot see truth and reason through the thick fog of their own special interests.
I applaud you ray for speaking your mind and making some very good points. Clint made a very good movie and stayed true to the history of Iwo Jima. There is way too much racist outcry these days over things like this. These days it seems mandatory to include african-americans in every situation in the entertainment world, regardless of relivancy.
As an avid reader and film buff, I find it irritating that many people these days cry racism over movies from 50or more years ago. Even treasures like the Little Rascals (which made blacks some of thier most powerful characters) is considered too racist to show on television these days. That is really sad.
Think about this: what would Spike Lee have said if Spike TV had changed it’s name to White TV (BET)? Blacks can speak their mind but whites can’t.
If any of you have actually seen flags of our fathers, the majority of it isn’t even focused on the battle. It is mainly focused on the flag raisings, and the effect of the photo on the AMerican people. Then the most of the battle scenes are there to show what happened to the flag raisers in the remaining days. Black soldiers and white soldiers rarly faught side by side in combat so it makes no sense to have them in these scenes. Also the article doesn’t say 1 million black soldiers faught at Iwo Jima, it says 1 million faught in World War II.
Lastly, Letters from Iwo Jima is about the JApanese side of the conflict and you can hardly see the American troops for much of the movie so once again this is not worth the arguement.
Spike Lee’s films are probably the most colorblind of any. He shows the true colors of every race, both positive and negative.
Why doesnt Spike Lee do a war movie depicting Black-Americans?
Isnt he a filmmaker too? If Spike didn’t like the way Clint did his movie then he should redo it the way he wanted to see it.
Spike made himself look like a dope. He’s just mad because he hasn’t produced anything of quality in 100 years.
The representation of Asian-AMERICAN men in film, eh hemm GOOD FILM, is MUCH lower than almost any other minority group in the US.
So why don’t you do something about that, Spike? Do some quality work depicting Asian-American Males, Native American, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, etc…and stop showing up at those awful Knicks games.
As for racism 50 years ago, that’s different. Racism in film was pretty blatant 50 years ago and it shows! I don’t think there’s anything wrong with bitching about it because It was what it was. I don’t like it, but it happened. shame on those people’s narrow mindedness.
You have heard of the Miracle at St Anna, haven’t you? Maybe if Eastwood was directing it might get more attention since it would be considered more prestigious.
And Will Smith helped produce a film called Saving Face (written and directed by a female lesbian Asian, and not surprisingly was about the same subject). You want to know why Lee doesn’t make a film about Asians, just check out how blacks are portrayed in that movie.
You can say a lot about Lee, but one of the things you can’t say is that he’s wrong.
Since when white people couldn’t get food stamps?? The majority of welfare goes to whites, considering two facts: 1) Whites are the majority of the population and 2) Farm susidies are taken from the same pool of money considered to be welfare