On the hottest day of the year in Brooklyn, plenty of activity is going on around Sal's Famous Pizzeria, an Italian restaurant in the middle of a black neighborhood. But tension mounts and sooner or later something has got to give. What happens when people stop being nice and start being real? I have some immense issues with this film. Now, the film is interesting and well-made and the characters are cool. Sam Jackson shows up, Danny Aiello and John Turturro are great. Ossie Davis gives a memorable performance, and Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" remains constantly in the background. (Martin Lawrence and Rosie Perez also make debut performances here.) So, don't get me wrong, the set-up is there. But my issue is with Spike Lee.
The film is ambiguous, which is both its strength and its weakness. By contrasting Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, we are unclear if the film endorses violence or not. But Spike Lee's one words seem to suggest violence is justified. At the climax, Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) demands that Sal post photos of black celebrities on his wall. Sal refuses, and further asks Raheem to leave because he blasts his music in the restaurant. Before long, Raheem attacks Sal, the cops are called and Raheem is killed. A riot breaks out and Sal's is burnt to the ground.
Lee has said white viewers don't understand the film because they rank "white property" over a "black life". Well, I'm a white viewer. And I don't think Raheem should have died, but I see no justification for Sal's to be destroyed. Sal was a fine member of the community and he was not responsible for Raheem's death, the police were. Both the property damage and murder were wrong -- I think Lee is off-base to make it an either/or scenario.
Now, he leaves himself an out by having Da Mayor express the greatest lesson in life is "do the right thing", and the moral of the story could be that practically nobody in this film did the right thing. So it could be shown that the movie is teaching us right by showing us wrong. But Lee's words don't suggest this interpretation, and his lead character, Mookie, clearly favors unnecessary violence (which Malcolm X may have wrongly termed "self-defense").
The American Film Institute puts this as one of the top 100 films of all time. Even the Library of Congress has had the film preserved as culturally significant. I don't want to say they're wrong, but I'm very unclear about this film. On one hand, it certainly sparks discussion and has had my brain thinking constantly for the past week -- more than any other movie in years. But, also, the message seems like one that may not be something we want to preserve. Am I missing something? Why do I want to watch this movie again?
The film is ambiguous, which is both its strength and its weakness. By contrasting Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, we are unclear if the film endorses violence or not. But Spike Lee's one words seem to suggest violence is justified. At the climax, Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) demands that Sal post photos of black celebrities on his wall. Sal refuses, and further asks Raheem to leave because he blasts his music in the restaurant. Before long, Raheem attacks Sal, the cops are called and Raheem is killed. A riot breaks out and Sal's is burnt to the ground.
Lee has said white viewers don't understand the film because they rank "white property" over a "black life". Well, I'm a white viewer. And I don't think Raheem should have died, but I see no justification for Sal's to be destroyed. Sal was a fine member of the community and he was not responsible for Raheem's death, the police were. Both the property damage and murder were wrong -- I think Lee is off-base to make it an either/or scenario.
Now, he leaves himself an out by having Da Mayor express the greatest lesson in life is "do the right thing", and the moral of the story could be that practically nobody in this film did the right thing. So it could be shown that the movie is teaching us right by showing us wrong. But Lee's words don't suggest this interpretation, and his lead character, Mookie, clearly favors unnecessary violence (which Malcolm X may have wrongly termed "self-defense").
The American Film Institute puts this as one of the top 100 films of all time. Even the Library of Congress has had the film preserved as culturally significant. I don't want to say they're wrong, but I'm very unclear about this film. On one hand, it certainly sparks discussion and has had my brain thinking constantly for the past week -- more than any other movie in years. But, also, the message seems like one that may not be something we want to preserve. Am I missing something? Why do I want to watch this movie again?