If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Antoine Fuqua says that Spike Lee is on the wrong side of the n-word debate   (nydailynews.com) divider line 118
    More: Followup, Quentin Tarantino, Spike Lee, Antoine Fuqua, Jamie Foxx, spaghetti westerns, freed slave, Kerry Washington, bounty hunters  
•       •       •

5958 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-02 08:11:02 AM
Sounds like he knows what the Fuqua he's talking about.
 
2013-01-02 08:12:50 AM
Yeah, but what the Fuqua does he kno...dammit, Mag.
 
2013-01-02 08:13:21 AM
Well, Fuqua!
 
2013-01-02 08:13:22 AM
So has Spike Lee actually made any movies recently or was his comment just sorta like "I'm Spike Lee,please give me some attention"?
 
2013-01-02 08:20:06 AM

A Terrible Human: So has Spike Lee actually made any movies recently or was his comment just sorta like "I'm Spike Lee,please give me some attention"?


He has, but his comments regarding Tarantino and his use of "the N word" in his films are always just, "I'm Spike Lee, please give me some attention."
 
2013-01-02 08:24:20 AM

Jizz Master Zero: He has, but his comments regarding Tarantino and his use of "the N word" in his films are always just, "I'm Spike Lee, please give me some attention."


I can somewhat understand his outrage but did he think that word wasn't said during the time the film is set in or what?
 
2013-01-02 08:26:35 AM
Shut up, Spike.
Your 15 minutes for up twofiddy ago.
 
2013-01-02 08:33:01 AM

A Terrible Human: Jizz Master Zero: He has, but his comments regarding Tarantino and his use of "the N word" in his films are always just, "I'm Spike Lee, please give me some attention."

I can somewhat understand his outrage but did he think that word wasn't said during the time the film is set in or what?


He's one of the people who believe that an author writing fiction somehow needs the permission of each ethnic group (of which the author isn't a member) to use any slur for that group in the fiction.

Oh wait, that's not right: Lee was fine with Tarantino using every other ethnic slur, but he has a problem with only the N-word.

Lee operates under the delusion that many people do: that creating one good or great work somehow makes you qualified to talk about everything, all the time.  The man has made some good films, but that doesn't make him an expert on the N-word any more than any other person who has been victimized by that word.  Lee has no more authority on this subject than Jamie Foxx or any other person who has been called the N-word.  His condescension towards Tarantino and everyone else is just hypocritical pablum.
 
2013-01-02 08:33:21 AM
Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.
 
2013-01-02 08:39:38 AM
I am a very successful waiter in an upscale restaurant in New York City, who despite spending half of my 30 years in the United States maintained a strong French accent, mainly because it improved my tips. One evening Spike Lee came in with one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.
As his waiter, Lee ran me ragged, flaunted his--generally inaccurate--knowledge of wine and kept a running commentary of asides to his date about the inadequacy of the service and the deficiencies of the food. Between each course I fumed in the kitchen, describing the boor's latest offense. "Now, ee says zee wine eez corked. It eez not." I could also tell that Lee's girlfriend could see right through the lout, and she graced me with sympathetic glances while Lee prattled on. "She eez too goud for eem," I complained.

When I presented the bill, Lee paid with a credit card, adding a tip of exactly 10 per cent. Then he insisted on lingerin at their table long after the bill was paid, much to his date's restlessness.

As they were leaving, Spike Lee excused himself to go to the men's room, and I took the opportunity to speak momentarily with this arse-hole's date. "Per-aps," I said, "you would like to go out sometime with a man who eez more generous and more appreciative." I handed her his telephone number.

She called the next day. I ended up marrying that girl and I have never seen a single Spike Lee movie.
 
2013-01-02 08:44:06 AM
Oh. The Huckleberry Finn argument.

Don't apply modern mores on a historical period.
 
2013-01-02 08:48:35 AM
The reason nobody notices that Spike Lee is a moronic, simple little boor is that he's constantly surrounded by people who need him for their fame. He has an entourage of yes-men and get-alongs who are terrified that noticing he's an idiot would be like yelling out about the naked emperor. There are more intelligent advocates of racial harmony, more reasonable voices who want to both educate and empower both sides to be better, but over and over, the press likes to fellate these megalomaniacs with anger issues.
 
2013-01-02 08:54:07 AM
Spike Lee is a racist.

/that is all
 
2013-01-02 08:57:53 AM

A Terrible Human: Jizz Master Zero: He has, but his comments regarding Tarantino and his use of "the N word" in his films are always just, "I'm Spike Lee, please give me some attention."

I can somewhat understand his outrage but did he think that word wasn't said during the time the film is set in or what?


I think Lee is still annoyed that Tarantino wrote himself that part in Pulp Fiction where he drops the N-bomb. Noticeably, in Django Unchained, Tarantino's character is one of the few who doesn't say it a whole bunch of times.
 
2013-01-02 09:00:21 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.


If I didn't know that was him, I don't think I would've cared. It was such a minor role and as an American I don't have an ear for accents. He really only had like 2 lines.

Anyways, Fuqua still hasn't seen the movie either. Good on him for trusting his friend Foxx and calling out Lee for his constant bullshiat.
 
2013-01-02 09:15:44 AM

mattharvest:
Lee operates under the delusion that many people do: that creating one good or great work somehow makes you qualified to talk about everything, all the time.  The man has made some good films, but that doesn't make him an expert on the N-word any more than any other person who has been victimized by that word.  Lee has no more authority on this subject than Jamie Foxx or any other person who has been called the N-word.  His condescension towards Tarantino and everyone else is just hypocritical pablum.


His calling out of Eastwood over Flags of Our Fathers was another incredibly low point for him. Honestly if ushing the race button is all he can do these days he may as well pitch a show to FOXNews called "Loud Black Man Yells for No Reason and Scares White People". His act was old years ago, now it's degenerating into parody.
 
2013-01-02 09:28:12 AM
Just let the honkie make movies.
 
2013-01-02 09:35:25 AM

karnal: I am a very successful waiter in an upscale restaurant in New York City, who despite spending half of my 30 years in the United States maintained a strong French accent, mainly because it improved my tips. One evening Spike Lee came in with one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.
As his waiter, Lee ran me ragged, flaunted his--generally inaccurate--knowledge of wine and kept a running commentary of asides to his date about the inadequacy of the service and the deficiencies of the food. Between each course I fumed in the kitchen, describing the boor's latest offense. "Now, ee says zee wine eez corked. It eez not." I could also tell that Lee's girlfriend could see right through the lout, and she graced me with sympathetic glances while Lee prattled on. "She eez too goud for eem," I complained.

When I presented the bill, Lee paid with a credit card, adding a tip of exactly 10 per cent. Then he insisted on lingerin at their table long after the bill was paid, much to his date's restlessness.

As they were leaving, Spike Lee excused himself to go to the men's room, and I took the opportunity to speak momentarily with this arse-hole's date. "Per-aps," I said, "you would like to go out sometime with a man who eez more generous and more appreciative." I handed her his telephone number.

She called the next day. I ended up marrying that girl and I have never seen a single Spike Lee movie.


Fake story is fake. Why even go there?
 
2013-01-02 09:36:06 AM
Spike Lee is near!
 
2013-01-02 09:36:45 AM

thecpt: Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.

If I didn't know that was him, I don't think I would've cared. It was such a minor role and as an American I don't have an ear for accents. He really only had like 2 lines.

Anyways, Fuqua still hasn't seen the movie either. Good on him for trusting his friend Foxx and calling out Lee for his constant bullshiat.


why is it ok for fuqua not to see the movie, but is it not ok for spike not to see the movie?

spike has some serious issues with the movie and with quentin tarantino. spike is right.
 
2013-01-02 09:40:07 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: thecpt: Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.

If I didn't know that was him, I don't think I would've cared. It was such a minor role and as an American I don't have an ear for accents. He really only had like 2 lines.

Anyways, Fuqua still hasn't seen the movie either. Good on him for trusting his friend Foxx and calling out Lee for his constant bullshiat.

why is it ok for fuqua not to see the movie, but is it not ok for spike not to see the movie?

spike has some serious issues with the movie and with quentin tarantino. spike is right.


No, Spike needs to educate himself and learn what "fiction" is. It's just a movie, even when it's one of his own.
 
2013-01-02 09:40:54 AM

Flappyhead: mattharvest:
Lee operates under the delusion that many people do: that creating one good or great work somehow makes you qualified to talk about everything, all the time.  The man has made some good films, but that doesn't make him an expert on the N-word any more than any other person who has been victimized by that word.  Lee has no more authority on this subject than Jamie Foxx or any other person who has been called the N-word.  His condescension towards Tarantino and everyone else is just hypocritical pablum.

His calling out of Eastwood over Flags of Our Fathers was another incredibly low point for him. Honestly if ushing the race button is all he can do these days he may as well pitch a show to FOXNews called "Loud Black Man Yells for No Reason and Scares White People". His act was old years ago, now it's degenerating into parody.


Please explain what's wrong with Spike's original criticism?

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Spike Lee is right on the mark with his criticism. The irony is that while Clint Eastwood exposes exploitative practices and government hypocrisy in his film, he overlooks the contribution of African-American soldiers at Iwo Jima - soldiers who were themselves subject to discrimination. As Spike Lee put it: "Here's the paradox ... These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second-class citizens."



Again, though, where was Spike Lee off? Or is this ultimately a sideways version of the 'X is a racist for noticing racism' conventional wisdom which white libtards and white conservatards like to go around and around with?
 
2013-01-02 09:44:04 AM
I saw Django Unchained over the weekend  and loved it.

karnal: She called the next day. I ended up marrying that girl and I have never seen a single Spike Lee movie.


Cool story bro.
 
2013-01-02 09:46:59 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: why is it ok for fuqua not to see the movie, but is it not ok for spike not to see the movie?

spike has some serious issues with the movie and with quentin tarantino. spike is right.


No, I was trying to point out that neither has seen it and that makes this argument even more stupider. I just liked that he disagreed with Spike Lee based on faith in a fellow human. Also, no. Spike is an a-hole who hasn't made a good movie in the last decade. I'll respect 25th hour even, despite it being 2 hours of Ed Norton saying that he's going to be raped.
 
2013-01-02 09:48:50 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.


yeah, i thought that was a bad misjudgment. then again, it was pretty funny how his character left the story.
 
2013-01-02 09:49:46 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Flappyhead: mattharvest:
Lee operates under the delusion that many people do: that creating one good or great work somehow makes you qualified to talk about everything, all the time.  The man has made some good films, but that doesn't make him an expert on the N-word any more than any other person who has been victimized by that word.  Lee has no more authority on this subject than Jamie Foxx or any other person who has been called the N-word.  His condescension towards Tarantino and everyone else is just hypocritical pablum.

His calling out of Eastwood over Flags of Our Fathers was another incredibly low point for him. Honestly if ushing the race button is all he can do these days he may as well pitch a show to FOXNews called "Loud Black Man Yells for No Reason and Scares White People". His act was old years ago, now it's degenerating into parody.

Please explain what's wrong with Spike's original criticism?

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Spike Lee is right on the mark with his criticism. The irony is that while Clint Eastwood exposes exploitative practices and government hypocrisy in his film, he overlooks the contribution of African-American soldiers at Iwo Jima - soldiers who were themselves subject to discrimination. As Spike Lee put it: "Here's the paradox ... These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second-class citizens."


Again, though, where was Spike Lee off? Or is this ultimately a sideways version of the 'X is a racist for noticing racism' conventional wisdom which white li ...


He was off because it was about the guys who raised the flag. They were white and being part of a segregated military they diodn't have muchinteraction with black marines.

On top of that the movie did show black marines.

So the complaint that not showing black marines was a whitewash was BS as the story didn't require or need them for accuracy, and it is wrong because they were shown.
 
2013-01-02 09:50:46 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Again, though, where was Spike Lee off? Or is this ultimately a sideways version of the 'X is a racist for noticing racism' conventional wisdom which white libtards and white conservatards like to go around and around with?


Since there were over 70,000 people involved in Iwo Jima, the contribution would have been proportionally represented by about a second of screen time of one black person.
 
2013-01-02 09:56:44 AM
"Besides, I'm good friends with [Django Unchained star] Jamie Foxx and he wouldn't have anything to do with a film that had anything racist to it."

Is that the black version of the "some of my friends are black!" speech?
 
2013-01-02 09:57:20 AM
The guy who titled a movie "Jungle Fever" is calling another guy racist? Bravo.
 
2013-01-02 09:57:41 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.


The way people talked about it I expected him to have a bigger role, but he only had a few lines and then died a spectacularly violent death. Though I agree that just his presence takes you out of the movie somewhat.
 
2013-01-02 10:02:19 AM

FLMountainMan: The guy who titled a movie "Jungle Fever" is calling another guy racist? Bravo.


that's their word.
 
2013-01-02 10:02:32 AM

bingo the psych-o: ExperianScaresCthulhu: thecpt: Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.

If I didn't know that was him, I don't think I would've cared. It was such a minor role and as an American I don't have an ear for accents. He really only had like 2 lines.

Anyways, Fuqua still hasn't seen the movie either. Good on him for trusting his friend Foxx and calling out Lee for his constant bullshiat.

why is it ok for fuqua not to see the movie, but is it not ok for spike not to see the movie?

spike has some serious issues with the movie and with quentin tarantino. spike is right.

No, Spike needs to educate himself and learn what "fiction" is. It's just a movie, even when it's one of his own.


Wat?

Django Unchained is not just a movie, and Quentin Tarantino himself didn't set out to make 'just a movie'.

Nor are either Lee or Tarantino just directors. Neither one of them spit out movies like a Michael Bay with no message and no meaning beyond 'look at the pretty colors'. Both Lee and Tarantino see movie making as art, not paycheck. Sometimes the result is hack-tastic (and in Tarantino's case moreso than Lee's). Neither one of them do it because they need the money, though; they both do it out of love.

In 2007, Quentin Tarantino, speaking with The Daily Telegraph, discussed an idea for a form of spaghetti western set in America's pre-Civil War Deep South which he called "a southern," stating that he wanted "to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to." -- does this sound like the mind of a man who approaches filmmaking like a Bay or a Boll to you, Bingo?

That last sentence about 'because they don't feel they have the right to' is at the core, I believe, of Spike Lee's real issue with Tarantino. Tarantino does not have the right to spray the N-word, Tarantino does not have the right to mimic black mannerism and speech in the name of exploitation, Tarantino does not have the right to present a skewed version of history.

Remember the controversy over The Color Purple?

You know how only Jews are really allowed to deal with the Holocaust, and it's very rare to find a non-Jew who's allowed to deal with Jewish history on celluloid in less than reverent stepping-on-eggshells tones? and how no non-Jew is really allowed to deal with the Holocaust as a subject for deconstruction?

Is that right? Is that how it should be?

Spike has issues with Hollywood's hypocrisy, always has, always will, and he'll always be in the right for it.

Spike's own words: ""American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them," he wrote on Twitter."

Instead of having that sentiment respected, Lee is being put down for it??! Are people for real? Can you imagine if several Jews were put down for saying they were going to honor their ancestors by not viewing a black comedy version of Auschwitz made by a non-Jew?

Look, Tarantino is an exploiter. He has no love for the black community or for black culture. Tarantino takes what he thinks is cool, but jettisons the sum of the whole. Tarantino has always had obvious issues relating to black male sexuality, black male cool, black male idiocy and black female otherness, and I don't think he gives a fk that those issues are forever on display on celluloid. Tarantino is the Wigger (Chav?) as Filmmaker. That's just who he is, and more power to him.

But this hatred of Spike Lee is deep, deeper than just disagreeing with what he has to say. I think it needs to be deconstructed itself -- and I think Antoine should have kept his mouth shut on this one.
 
2013-01-02 10:05:57 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Flappyhead: mattharvest:
Lee operates under the delusion that many people do: that creating one good or great work somehow makes you qualified to talk about everything, all the time.  The man has made some good films, but that doesn't make him an expert on the N-word any more than any other person who has been victimized by that word.  Lee has no more authority on this subject than Jamie Foxx or any other person who has been called the N-word.  His condescension towards Tarantino and everyone else is just hypocritical pablum.

His calling out of Eastwood over Flags of Our Fathers was another incredibly low point for him. Honestly if ushing the race button is all he can do these days he may as well pitch a show to FOXNews called "Loud Black Man Yells for No Reason and Scares White People". His act was old years ago, now it's degenerating into parody.

Please explain what's wrong with Spike's original criticism?

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Spike Lee is right on the mark with his criticism. The irony is that while Clint Eastwood exposes exploitative practices and government hypocrisy in his film, he overlooks the contribution of African-American soldiers at Iwo Jima - soldiers who were themselves subject to discrimination. As Spike Lee put it: "Here's the paradox ... These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second-class citizens."


Again, though, where was Spike Lee off? Or is this ultimately a sideways version of the 'X is a racist for noticing racism' conventional wisdom which white li ...


I'd like to tell you how wrong you are, but others have already covered it. Toodles.
 
2013-01-02 10:06:04 AM
Spike Lee's movies farking suck.
 
2013-01-02 10:06:21 AM
ExperianScaresCthulhu

bingo the psych-o: ExperianScaresCthulhu: thecpt: Tyrone Slothrop: Django is a good movie, but it loses points for Tarantino putting himself in it. He can't act.

If I didn't know that was him, I don't think I would've cared. It was such a minor role and as an American I don't have an ear for accents. He really only had like 2 lines.

Anyways, Fuqua still hasn't seen the movie either. Good on him for trusting his friend Foxx and calling out Lee for his constant bullshiat.

why is it ok for fuqua not to see the movie, but is it not ok for spike not to see the movie?

spike has some serious issues with the movie and with quentin tarantino. spike is right.

No, Spike needs to educate himself and learn what "fiction" is. It's just a movie, even when it's one of his own.

Wat?

Django Unchained is not just a movie, and Quentin Tarantino himself didn't set out to make 'just a movie'.

Nor are either Lee or Tarantino just directors. Neither one of them spit out movies like a Michael Bay with no message and no meaning beyond 'look at the pretty colors'. Both Lee and Tarantino see movie making as art, not paycheck. Sometimes the result is hack-tastic (and in Tarantino's case moreso than Lee's). Neither one of them do it because they need the money, though; they both do it out of love.

In 2007, Quentin Tarantino, speaking with The Daily Telegraph, discussed an idea for a form of spaghetti western set in America's pre-Civil War Deep South which he called "a southern," stating that he wanted "to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to." -- does this sound like the mind of a man who approaches filmmaking like a Bay or a Boll to you, Bingo?

That last sentence about 'because they don't feel they have the right to' is at the core, I believe, of Spike Lee's real issue with Tarantino. Tarantino does not have the right to spray the N-word, Tarantino does not have the right to mimic black mannerism and speech in the name of exploitation, Tarantino does not have the right to present a skewed version of history.

Remember the controversy over The Color Purple?

You know how only Jews are really allowed to deal with the Holocaust, and it's very rare to find a non-Jew who's allowed to deal with Jewish history on celluloid in less than reverent stepping-on-eggshells tones? and how no non-Jew is really allowed to deal with the Holocaust as a subject for deconstruction?

Is that right? Is that how it should be?

Spike has issues with Hollywood's hypocrisy, always has, always will, and he'll always be in the right for it.

Spike's own words: ""American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them," he wrote on Twitter."

Instead of having that sentiment respected, Lee is being put down for it??! Are people for real? Can you imagine if several Jews were put down for saying they were going to honor their ancestors by not viewing a black comedy version of Auschwitz made by a non-Jew?

Look, Tarantino is an exploiter. He has no love for the black community or for black culture. Tarantino takes what he thinks is cool, but jettisons the sum of the whole. Tarantino has always had obvious issues relating to black male sexuality, black male cool, black male idiocy and black female otherness, and I don't think he gives a fk that those issues are forever on display on celluloid. Tarantino is the Wigger (Chav?) as Filmmaker. That's just who he is, and more power to him.

But this hatred of Spike Lee is deep, deeper than just disagreeing with what he has to say. I think it needs to be deconstructed itself -- and I think Antoine should have kept his mouth shut on this one.



Just like you should have kept your mouth shut? or is that different?
 
2013-01-02 10:09:08 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: SNIP


OK now you're just getting too obvious.
 
2013-01-02 10:11:23 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu:

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.



Wow, around 1% of the American presence. How could have Eastwood overlooked this towering contribution to the battle?
 
2013-01-02 10:15:15 AM
I just want to say that seeing this movie in a theater full of black folks was amazing. For once, I wasn't the only one guffawing at the comedic and dramatic moments of violence. I nearly got kicked out of Kill Bill for that.

Oh and Spike, shut up. It's been over 150 years since the end of slavery. We can turn our humor on the antebellum South like we can Nazism. It's a necessary stage in coming to terms with a tragedy and humor helps empower the powerless.
 
2013-01-02 10:18:58 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Instead of having that sentiment respected, Lee is being put down for it??! Are people for real? Can you imagine if several Jews were put down for saying they were going to honor their ancestors by not viewing a black comedy version of Auschwitz made by a non-Jew?


I woudl sayt he "black comedy version" of Jews in Hitler came pretty close with Inglorious.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: That last sentence about 'because they don't feel they have the right to' is at the core, I believe, of Spike Lee's real issue with Tarantino. Tarantino does not have the right to spray the N-word, Tarantino does not have the right to mimic black mannerism and speech in the name of exploitation, Tarantino does not have the right to present a skewed version of history.


Yeah he does have that right and any effort to make a movie in that time with black peopel that doesn't have that word would be a whitewashing of history.
 
2013-01-02 10:19:56 AM

Moopy Mac: ExperianScaresCthulhu:

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Wow, around 1% of the American presence. How could have Eastwood overlooked this towering contribution to the battle?


It's like saying Full House was homophobic because there were no gay characters.
 
2013-01-02 10:23:50 AM
ExperianScaresCthulhu:

Someone else wrote:

That "someone else" is Yvonne Latty Link a black woman who is yet another revisionist historian who makes her living by hollering "racism" every chance she gets.

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Yes, in support roles. Living on ships that were kept out of range of the Japanese shore batteries and only coming in to deliver supplies, then going right back to the ships. The United States military was not yet integrated and there were no
black combat units on Iwo Jima. As much as professional black whiners like Lee and Latty would like to re-write history
to change this in the movies, the fact remains that Eastwood got his story historically correct.

Spike Lee is right on the mark with his criticism. The irony is that while Clint Eastwood exposes exploitative practices and government hypocrisy in his film, he overlooks the contribution of African-American soldiers at Iwo Jima - soldiers who were themselves subject to discrimination. As Spike Lee put it: "Here's the paradox ... These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second-class citizens."

No, Lee is completely full of crap, as usual. Eastwood got his movie historically correct. Lee later made a WWII movie that should have told the story of the American black contribution to WWII, but he failed miserably by making a horrible movie. Lee did his race a great disservice with his incompetence. He not only got his story historically incorrect, his over the top modern day racist preachiness failed to show the great dignity of the Buffalo soldiers of the 92nd infantry division. Lee had his hero spit in someone's canteen for goodness sake! Who in the hell is going to look up to some sorry bastard who does that?

One day I hope that a good director tells the story of the black soldiers contributions to WWII, especially the predominantly black replacement units in the Battle of the Bulge. It was their heroism that led to the integration of the United States military, and that story has never been told and is little known. And hopefully when they do tell it that professional black racists like Lee and Latty and their ilk will have nothing to do with it.
 
2013-01-02 10:30:12 AM

browntimmy: Moopy Mac: ExperianScaresCthulhu:

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Wow, around 1% of the American presence. How could have Eastwood overlooked this towering contribution to the battle?

It's like saying Full House was homophobic because there were no gay characters.


3 guys living in the same house in San Fran? You sure there were no gay characters?
 
2013-01-02 10:32:55 AM
The problem is that Spike has proven to be a angry jerk so many times he has zero credibility left even when he might have a point.
 
2013-01-02 10:49:15 AM
If Spike Lee spent as much time making movies as he does complaining about how every movie he watches with black people in it is racist, he might have actually made a decent movie by now.

Your body of work is laden with garbage, Spike. What about "Do The Right Thing"? That whole movie is about as racist as it gets, and you wrote it. Didn't you?

Spike's a hypocrite, and his relevance is questionable.

Last week I was watching TMZ and they asked someone who Spike Lee was. The person said he was the short guy on the New York Knicks.

Just sit down and shut up, Spike. Delete your Twitter too. You're old news.
 
2013-01-02 10:49:51 AM

Moopy Mac: ExperianScaresCthulhu:

Someone else wrote:

"In Flags of our Fathers, Eastwood exposes the cynical fashion in which the iconic flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were exploited in order to help boost the war effort. With Eastwood's keen eye for injustice, you would think he would have noted that his movie renders all-but-invisible the role of black troops in the battle. This isn't a minor detail - almost a thousand African Americans took part in the historic battle.

Wow, around 1% of the American presence. How could have Eastwood overlooked this towering contribution to the battle?


The other problem being was "Flags of Our Fathers" was almost entirely about the infantry fighting to take the island, particularly a certain Company that raised the flag. Segregation at the time restricted black Marines to rather dull and "unsexy" tasks as logistics, cooking, mortuary details, and re-supply details.

Don't get me wrong, logistics wins wars, but for the average movie-goer who just wants to see GIs killing dudes, seeing a cut-away to a bunch of guys doing dull Supply Sergeant stuff wouldn't be particularly interesting.

You could even argue that it would backfire, that the average uneducated movie-goer would assume that black Marines were cowardly shirking the more hazardous duty of infantry, and choosing to stay in the rear, without a lengthy and clumsy exposition explaining the specifics of what jobs black Marines were restricted to.
 
2013-01-02 10:49:52 AM
Spike Lee's never even made a movie that was any better than average.
 
2013-01-02 10:51:39 AM

palladiate: I just want to say that seeing this movie in a theater full of black folks was amazing. For once, I wasn't the only one guffawing at the comedic and dramatic moments of violence. I nearly got kicked out of Kill Bill for that.


I suppose this is a variation of "my black friend said it's okay" but I had the same experience. I was one of the only white people in the theater on a sold-out opening night crowd. I liked it and everyone else in the theater seemed to like it, so I figure Lee is in the wrong and Tarantino did alright.
 
2013-01-02 11:06:42 AM
Quentin Tarantino rules, Spike Lee sucks.

Next issue!
 
2013-01-02 11:07:36 AM

FlashHarry: FLMountainMan: The guy who titled a movie "Jungle Fever" is calling another guy racist? Bravo.

that's their word.


Really? When did "they" create this word? Do you think it helped for Spike Lee to title a heavily-publicized movie "Jungle Fever", and thereby perpetuate the "black people are savages from the jungle" cliche?
 
2013-01-02 11:13:37 AM
If you're white, and say n*gger, you're a racist cracker.

If you're black and say ni*gger* you're a. a funny man and or b. a sensitive film maker just trying to improve the world.

See? Easy isn't it?
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report