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.

Once upon a Time in the West

Henry Fonda--the good guy, the gentleman, the regular, down to earth guy is no more. In the film, Once upon a Time in the West, Fonda went from being the hero to the villain. The New York Times says that "heroes as well as villains are apt to be motivated by greed and revenge, and the environment in which they operate are desolate and godless, though very beautiful."This ideology of what we thought was normal has completely changed. We as the viewers expect our heroes to be a certain way as well as our ideologic gender roles (the way a women and a man are supposed to act and behave towards each other). Sergio Leone, the director of Once Upon a Time in the West, has completely shaken up realism in westerns.

A good example of this is shown in the beginning scenes when we see an early shoot-out between four cowboys at an almost deserted train station. This is supposed to the end of the movie, the climax! None-the-less, the movie truly is "electric in dramatic detail" as the New York Times describes and I would agree and  say further that it kept my interest because this movie challenged my ideological expectations. As a genre movie, Once Upon a Time in the West has the ability to challenge ideology, our idea of what seems normal,  and flip it upside-down.

 Right from the beginning, it is very difficult to tell who is the hero and who is the villain. Every cowboy seems to be the "bad guy." Even Henry Fonda, who is known for his "good guy" image on the screen turns to the dark side when we see him shoot a boy at point blank-range. Another example of how Leone challenges dominant ideology in this movie is when he portrays the lonely widow as a prostitute. You don't know if you are supposed to feel sorry for her or to feel disgusted in her presence. Also, her interaction with Cheyenne is very different from what one would expect. She openly accepts the idea of being raped, knowing that it has happened before to her as a prostitute, and does not act the way a lady is "supposed to act during those times in the presence of a man. Cheyenne is also surprising in regards to his actions in return, again challenging our ideologic roles. Seemingly the bad guy, he comes off as a somewhat sensitive man towards Jill, the widowed prostitute.



As a genre movie, Once Upon a Time in the West has the ability to challenge ideology, our idea of what seems normal,  and flip it upside-down. Leone pushes against what is "normal," not only within the western genre, but also heroic roles and gender roles because he knew his audience would come in with certain expectations about the genre. I think this was a riveting movie that kept me on the edge of my seat, and forced me to question the idea of realism and ideology. Although the New York times viewed this movie as "the most absurd," I believe that it was absurd in all the right ways.

The Searchers

The New York Times reviews John Ford's movie, The Searchers, as a "rip-snortng Westen, as brashy entertaining as they come." Bosley Crowther, the writer for this article, goes on with his boastings about Mr. Ford and his crew. "It is an honest achievement of a well-knit team," Crowther said.

After watching this film last night, I must say that I completly disagree with these statements. The movie was incredibly slow, racist and I could not relate to it at all. as a viewer in the 21st century. The story takes place in Texas, just after the Civil War where Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is welcomed home by his brother and family after fighting for the Confederates. The first sign of racism shows in Ethan when his brother introduces him to his adopted son, Martin, who is part indian,. One day, Ethan and Martin as well as a few others go out on their horses and the tention is high between Ethan and Martin. after about 40 miles out they find massacured cattle in the dusty lands and Ethan immediaty knows that it is a bad sign. When they return, the brother's house is burned down, most are dead, and the two girls, Lucy and Debbie are missing. Ethan and Martin go searching for the missing girls and quickly find Luch, raped and murdered. Angered and saddened, they set out to find Debbie.

This is literally the entre movie. The search for Debbie. It spans a matter of five long, dull years, of which, you couldn't tell because there is nothing that really shows the passing of the time. For example, Martin does not age physically or emotionally throughout the entire movie. This frustrated me because as a viewer, you are more connected to the characters rather than the actual plot, but I couldn't connect to Martin because he never grew up. He never learned from his mistakes or even changed at all.


Once they finally track down Debbie, they realize that she has forgoten who she is and has become branded with the indian trait. Ethan's racism boils and goes so far as to try and kill his only living niece rather than rescue her! Ethan, the supposed hero, turns out to be a pretty nasty guy. He can't control his anger or his desire to kill (that sounds like some kind of psychopath to me) and is unable to form any close relations to anyone because he thinks he is better than everyone and is right all the time. In the end, Ethan does save Debbie and everyone lives happily ever after, but the audience doesnt. Well, at least I didn't.

Panama Deception

Shock. Disgust. Outrage. Disbelief. These were the words that kept replaying in my head after seeing "Panama Deception." Director Barbra Trent uses both her ideology  and camera techniques such as juxtaposition to provoke extreme emotions within the audience and shows how skewed American media really is.

Rather than shooting a documentary of the U.S. invading Panama from American media's view, Trent reveals the other side--showing how skewed American media is. Before and during the invasion, the U.S. citizens were led to believe that the purpose of the invasion was to liberate Panama from its harsh dictator, General Manuel Noriega, and bring democracy to the struggling country. In contrast, "Panama Deception" shows that the intent of the U.S. gov. was to weaken panamanian army, thus destabilizing the country, and test new, highly developed machinery on them for future conflicts and wars.

The New York Times review describes the movie as, "canny film making. Its images are moving in themselves and beautifully edited. It really doesn't need a lot of Elizabeth Montgomery's instructive narration, which constantly tells the audience what it's supposed to think. The pictures and the testimony do quite well on their own."

This editing largely made up of juxtaposed images put one right after the other--linked by the narrator like a cause and effect--creates an entirely new intended idea for the audience. For example, in the early scenes of the film, Trent juxtaposes noble military men with terrified and angered civilians of Panama, saying the opposite things about the invasion. This is trying to let the audience make the assumptions and come up with their own answers rather than shoving it down their throat. Another powerful image was when civilians told the camera crew that "everything that moved, Americans shot" but they thought that the intent was to only capture Noriega and save the civilians from his dictator ship. This image was juxtaposed  with U.S. soldiers opening fire at men, women, and children. Yet another example of this juxtaposition is shown first with a professional Representative of the U.S. government denying that Americans systematically burned houses. The juxtaposed image is of a Panamanian saying the exact opposite and then showing an entire city burned to the ground. These juxtapositions show many contradictions with what American media says. Everything about the Panama invasion was neither legal, moral nor constitutional.

After watching this documentary, it opened my eyes to its ideological point of view. It showed that the U.S. made this terrible mess because of its own greed as an empire, then tried to fix it by putting the blame on others and made it seem like they were the hero's when they came in.

When comparing this documentary to one of the History Channels, one can truly see the skewed perception of media and the control the government has on media. After watching the History Channels documentary on the Vietnam War, I was intrigued by how it never showed any actual action of the war. It only statistics of the dead rather than any footage of dead bodies and went through the series of events like it was supposed to happen and that it wasn't a big deal that we went to war without a cause. These major points in the film detached the emotional aspect to viewers and made it easier for them to just accept and move on. But uunlike "Panama Deception," they showed real footage of war, dead bodies and stories of individuals who's lives were ruined.


"Panama Deception" is a powerful documentary with many techniques and ideologies to get their message across--media always has a skewed perception. That is why as individuals with individual thoughts, we should be constantly questioning what the media says, never accepting and believing its inaccuracies.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane begins with an establishing shot of Chalres Kane's ominous estate called Xanadu. The camera then lingers on the "No Trespassing" sign, a long shot, and then uses a zoom shot to gradually make its way towards the house. In the house, Kane on his death bed, holding a snow glob in his hands. Then, the next image is a close shot of Kane's hand and the snow globe crashing to the grounds as he utters his last words, "Rose bud".

In the next scene, a newsreel entitled News on the March announces the death of Charles Foster Kane, a famous, once-influential newspaper publisher. The announcer, or the narrator, would be considered a voice over in this case. The news reel acts as an obituary of Kane's life and when it ends, the scene switches to a dark movie theater. the lighting in the room shades the men's faces who are talking about Kane's life, also known as rim or kick light. One of the men in the room notes that Kane’s last word was "Rosebud" and wonders if that may hold the key to Kane’s character. He then decides to appoint a reporter, Jerry Thompson, to talk to Kane’s former associates to try to uncover the identity of Rosebud.

Throughout the film, there are numerous flashbacks during Thompson's interviews of people such as Ms. Susan Alexander Kane, Walter Parks Thatcher, and Jedidiah Leland. During Ms. Alexander Kane's first attempted interview, the director decides to use a deep focus shot with Thomson in the foreground and Ms. Alexander Kane in the background image. Later in Thatcher's interview, the director decides to use a spot light, a single light from above directly on Thatcher for a moment, creating a shadowy area around him. Then, during the interview with Thatcher, the audience is pulled into a flashback and we are at Kane's childhood where he first meets Thatcher. There is a deep focus during the image of the adults quarrelling in the foreground and Kane playing with his sled outside in the background. Ms. Alexander Kane's second interview with Thompson gives the audience another flashback into the life of Kane and Kane's ex-wive, Ms. Alexander Kane. In the flashback of the opera scene both a zoom shot and a tracking shot is used to first show Ms. Alexander Kane on the stage during her performance,zooming in on her face, and then a tracking shot to the celling, revealing to men. Also, the music in the film when Ms. Alexander Kane is singing, would be considered diagetic because it is part of the movie. In contrast, the booming sound of the band that plays every time a new newspaper comes out and encompasses the entire screen would be considered extra-diagetic sound because it is not actually part of the film.

Thompson interviews other people who were close to Kane, and these characters relate their memories of the man through flashbacks as well. He goes through Kane's close friends and ex-wives and even to the butler, Raymond, who remembers Kane saying “Rosebud” following a violent episode after Susan left him. Thompson never does find out the meaning of Kane's last words and finally, he gives up the quest. As Thompson leaves Xanadu, the camera pans the workers burning Kane's less valuable possessions. The camera zooms in on his burning sled from his childhood years and the words "Rose Bud" slowly melt off the sled.
The New York Times review considers this movie very controversial but at the same time, states that "it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood." This article reveals the deep and moral thought behind "Citizen Kane" saying that even if you gain all the wealth of the world, how can you be happy if it is in exchange for your soul? I think that this is one of the biggest themes throughout the movie and a major moral issue that people struggle with to this day. Even though the movie is not a clear ending, everyone who watches it still comes out with a lot to learn from.