Do the Right Thing

Spike Lee's film, Do the Right Thing  was one of the most controversial movies of its time. Reflecting the current state of race relations in America, many people were unable to handle it because the issue was not displaced. All of the tension, conflict and emotional energy is completely in your face and is not diffused to a secondary, less inflammatory focus that most people are used to and able to understand. According to the Desson Howe's article in the Washington post, "Lee has fused political message, gripping drama and community comedy with finesse. Whether or not you agree with his provocative views (and late in the movie some of his conclusions could upset the most open-minded of viewers), there's no doubt about the film's sheer power and taut originality."

The story is set on the hottest day of the year in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Tensions are height and still growing because the only local businesses in the a Black community is coming from a Korean grocery and an Italian American owned Pizzeria (Sal's Pizzeria). Mookie, played by Spike Lee, is a Black delivery boy for Sal who essentially acts as the ambassador between his family and the Black and Hispanic community. Now, this is not the typical urban cityscape we've seen in in a number of action movies about violence and guns and drugs. People people live here and they accept one another. There are problems within the neighborhood but there is also a sense of community.


 Buggin Out, a social militant and activistcreates a disturbance when he decides that Sal's Pizzeria needs to support a black community because that is who all of his customers are. He demands to have honored and famous black men on his wall instead of just the white Italians. Sal refuses and kicks him out. Later, Buggin Out comes back with support and creates a huge brawl with ends in a death from the police. "Lee does not tell you what to think about it, and deliberately provides surprising twists for some of the characters, this movie is more open-ended than most. It requires you to decide what you think about it," writes Robert Elbert in his review in SunTimes.

This film not only creates tension between the characters but also with the viewers watching it. I was extremely torn between whose side to be on. The binary opposite lines of good and evil are blurred and create dissonance that at times, made it hard for me to digest. But either way, there is no question that this movie is hear to make a statement. The message it gives stems from two major black influences of the Civil Rights, MLK and Malcom X. Violence is both impractical and immoral but is it wrong to use it in self defence? Again, Lee does not give you the answer, but provokes the audience to decide. Do the right thing.

Shaft (2000)

 The music is familiar, enticing, and electrifying, but this Shaft is not who he used to be. Most obviously, in the 2000 remake he's played by Samuel L. Jackson, not Richard Roundtree. He's leaner, meaner, than the old-school Shaft, who was consummately smooth, self-possessed and seductive. Jackson's Shaft is also bald. Without the fro and the side-burns, the new shaft just can't match up.

But realistically, that is not why Shaft (2000) is so much different from its original. Radical views of race and revenge make Jackson's Shaft far from the old-school version. In Shaft (2000) John Shaft arrests Walter Wade, Jr. for murdering a black man on account of his race. To make matters worse, the eye witness is paid to disappear and Wade jumps bail for Switzerland. Finally, Wade returns to face his trial, confident his father’s money, influence, and racial politics as a big business tycoon will guarantee an innocent verdict. Shaft goes on the search for the witness but Wade has plans to have her killed.

According to Bailey Henderson’s review at realmovienews.com, “John Singleton, Shane Salerno and Richard Price wrote the script for Shaft. In my opinion, the problem with the script was having too many ideas and visions between the three writers forced into a 100 minute script.” This is completely true and I would add that because of all the different visions and ideas in the film, it turned out to be a movie with no depth. In the old shaft there was no definite evil character, many could be justified but none could truly be pin pointed as the one true “bad guy.” This is one of the reasons why the old complex had depth and complexity. It also gave undertones of racial issues but never deliberately pointed it out to the audience. In comparison, the new Shaft had a definite “bad guy” and racial problems that were well known to the audience.  The new Shaft had more action and violence but no substance.

Shaft (1971)

A Harlem detective story, Shaft, is riveting movie filled with a mix of street life, downtown police and John Shaft--a black private-eye with a tough operator reputation. Earning respect from both cops and hoods, Shaft straddles the black and white divide with ease.
 
This movie is one of the first to change the ideological perspectives of viewers. According to Bill Nicholas, author of Engaging Cinema, "what characters say and do, behavior--ideological or normal, subversive, idiosyncratic, neurotic, or psychotic--lies at the heart of visual media like film, television and theater. Films represent behavior extremely effectively, highlighting and dramatizing it with different camera angles and distances, compositional choices, lighting, music editing, and the older expressive techniques. Behavior is habitual.

Gordan Parks, director of Shaft completely switches ideologies of good and evil by portraying the "good guy" as a black man and white people as the villains. He makes the cool black private eye John Shaft is hired by a crime lord to find and retrieve his kidnapped daughter from the white Italian Mob. The ideology is also challenged because of John Shaft's relationship with Vic, the good cop at the station. Shaft seems to always have one-upped him in some way or another, strutting around like he is "all that," which he is. Shaft and Vic also have a working relationship and stick their legs out for each other once in a while.

This movie could be considered a social problem genre of film that draws public attention to a serious public issue of racism. in the 1970's racism was at its height, creating much tension between whites and blacks. This movie could be addressing the need for more equality between whites and blacks as well as the need for realization that blacks can be the "good guys" both in the movies and real life.

I was very surprised when I was unable to find a well credited review from the New York Times or The Washington Post. The only semi-legit review I found was at this site by Damian Cannon who said that this movie was "rhythmically exciting" and had "lots of racial themes." I wonder if the reason why I couldn't find many credible sources is because this movie was part of the black exploitation movies or that it was very controversial to many.