Clint, Spike Trade Barbs Over WWII Films - AOL News
I accept that history gets compromised in movies, but it should be used sparingly and only to move the story along, like condescending several characters into one or two, but I hate when it's done for so-called Political Correctness. Steven Spielberg was attacked by people who didn't know history for not having black soldiers in Saving Private Ryan, when there were no black soldiers at Normandy. They weren't allowed to fight in the war until later.
Now Spike Lee (who fancies himself a student of history) attacks Clint Eastwood over the lack of black soldiers in Clint's two Iwo Jima films. Clint says that the only black soldiers were in munitions and nowhere near the raising of the flag and Letters From our Fathers is virtually all Japanese. What is Spike's point? That Clint should pretend that black people raised the flag? Should Abraham Lincoln be played by a black man?
This is not the first problem these two have had. Back in 1988, Clint made a good movie about jazz player Charlie Parker called Bird. The whole cast was practically black as it should have been for the subject and time. But Spike had a problem with a white man making a movie about Charlie Parker at all. WHAT???!! Eastwood is a renowned jazz fan and even plays jazz for fun. His movie was far better than Spike's jazz movie, Mo' Better Blues. I don't care who makes what movie about what subject, just as long as they do a good job.
There are plenty of crappy movies about black people made by black directors, I dare you to try and watch Cotton Comes to Harlem as I just did. I'll agree that maybe 30+ years ago white directors watered down black people's stories, but I don't think that's an issue anymore. A Soldier's Story, Color Purple, and Amistad are all good movies made by white directors. Except for Malcolm X, Spike Lee has never made a movie better than any of those three.
The Freditor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment