‘Do the Right Thing’ Discussion: Racist or About Racism? (1 Viewer)

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Whatever emerged, then, was not merely a product of Mr. Lee's mind, but also that of Mr. Aiello's. At least, that's the way I understand it.

Don't forget that Mr.Aiello is used to playing caricatures of Italian American stereotype. Not that he's a bad actor, but that he has been cast in roles that give his character very little depth.

Perhaps the actors in Summer of Sam felt the same way. Nevertheless, I felt that the characters in that movie were nothing but caricatures, and that they didn't really represent anyone's reality (as far as I could tell. Certainly no one jumped up in the critical world and claimed that those characters were true-to-life for them). Summer of Sam perhaps captured the fear of the time (I have heard people attest to this anyways--I had yet to be born), and perhaps it captured in some small way the alienation that punk rockers felt, but for the most part I felt the film was simply an exercise in style (I enjoyed it as such), and that at best it was an inversion of the appeal of Scorsese's NY Italian American gangsters. Not a worthless film, but not really a notable film either.

My point being: I don't know what Aiello's background is, but as far as I can tell, he (and Turturro) was just playing a role, whereas Spike Lee was making a film with a point. Perhaps I am not being fair to the actors. In any case, I don't think the film made any pretense of presenting an Italian American perspective so much as a perspective of Italian Americans.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Kevin,

I never said it was right to force him to change his wall. I only said it would have been the right thing for him to do it.

Don't forget: not only does Sal not even consider it, he gets as heated as Buggin' Out on the other side.

 

[Kevin M]

It's right to buckle under unjust pressure to conform? It's HIS establishment, HE owns it, anyone telling me that I have to do what they say in my own establishment can hit the bricks.

Don't forget: not only does Sal not even consider it, he gets as heated as Buggin' Out on the other side.

Hey, if someone comes into your place of business and tells you in a very belligerent tone what to put on your wall, yes, you will get heated.
To me it is almost as if Spike is saying that "Might makes right if your cause is just" but it is awfully subjective as to whether one person's cause is more "just" than another.
To not have your "Race"* represented on a Wall of fame or to be dictated to in your own place?
It's a slippery slope of semantics that leads to violence if you're not careful.

Could that be one of the messages in this film as well? I don't know about that.

*I have a problem with this use of the word but "Nationality" or "color" doesn't fit either.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

What if a group of Italian Americans whom frequented an African American restaurant began pressuring the owner in increasing levels of belligerence to include pictures of Great Italians on the wall next to pictures of Malcolm X and MLK?

Putting aside, for the moment, whether this is right, or whether Sal should have conceded and put up photos of black heroes on his wall, I want to point out that the two scenarios are not the same. The events mirror each other, but they do not occur in a vacuum. Sal is a white man, in a position of power, in a black neighborhood. He has financial power, and he has authority in his own little domain.

A black restaurant owner in an Italian-American community would not have such power. If she didn't cater to the Italian-American community, she probably wouldn't get much business (they probably already have Italian-owned restaurants). In any case, whatever power she did have would be within a larger scope in which she is part of an ethnic group that doesn't have much power in this country. If the Italian-American community ran her out of town, or chose to let the business starve, it would mean less competition for the local restaurants. If the community ran Sal out of town, or destroyed the pizzeria (which they did, of course), it means that they have to walk farther to get pizza.

These are simplistic scenarios, and are not that useful in an of themselves, but they (weakly) represent my point, which is that these events (acts of racial aggression) do not occur in a vacuum, and that the larger social context must be considered to even begin to make any sort of valid judgement. If you pretend that the social context doesn't exist, or that it is irrelevant, then the judgement is without merit.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Except Lew, that the film doesn't show that deep down everyone is racist. There is no racist behavior from Da Mayor, MotherSister, Jade, Senor Love Daddy, the Richard Edson character who's name escapes me, John Savage, etc. George still hasn't answered this, choosing to gloss over it though it's been brought up several times.

Well Brook I’ve actually made two, somewhat opposing arguments: that Lee presents everyone with some degree of racism and that some of the characters are not racist.

Now a part of this is that Lee is presenting to us a conundrum, but also in my first post I generalized a bit too much and in another I overlooked an action of one of the characters.

Specifically, Jade does not appear to have any amount of racism—she is the only idealized character in the film. About her only marginally moral crime is to play up to Sal just a bit (the more so as she clearly knows that it irritates Mookie). Good call on Da Mayor. While not perfect, racism is not a part of his makeup. Mother Sister, I would argue, shows a bit of racism during the riot (others have commented on this), though she quickly pushes it back down. Vito (Richard Edson) does not appear to be racially prejudiced, though I would argue (this is a literary thesis) that this is because Vito and Pino (the older brother) represent two sides of the father (Sal), so (again from a literary perspective) we can’t really consider him as a complete person. Señor Love Daddy as I alluded to in another post, is the chorus in the film, and as such is not only not a complete person, is not a person at all.

For me, Lee is having it both ways: everyone (nearly) has some racial issues and there are some who do not. If I were writing a paper deconstructing the film, I’d probably go on to consider the reasons that Da Mayor and Jade appear without racial prejudice, but as (I don’t think) I’m being graded on this, I’ll forego the effort.

Now I don’t believe that Lee having it both ways is wrong. Indeed given the overall style of the film, it is consistent and correct.

 

[Lew Crippen]

It's right to buckle under unjust pressure to conform? It's HIS establishment, HE owns it, anyone telling me that I have to do what they say in my own establishment can hit the bricks.

Of course it is his right, Kevin. But sadly, insisting on his rights in (as you accurately state) the increasingly belligerent tone of request and refusal results in tragedy for everyone.

I think that Lee is pointing out the obvious: that the demands by Buggin Out and the stubborn refusal by Sal lead to tragedy. One that so easily have been avoided, if either had taken a conciliatory approach.

And by the way, without going in Jun-Dai’s observation on who has the power, it would be politic for any restaurant owner to not offend their clientele. This is a very different thing than standing on your rights. It is a commercial issue.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

The characters are not stereotypical; they may appear to be to someone who's never lived in that type of neighborhood, specifically in Brooklyn in the mid 80's (ie I can't believe people like that really exist!).
I grew up in Queens, and had a lot of friends in Brooklyn, and I saw with my own eyes the exact type of people (who appear to be caricatures when you meet them in real life) that Lee portrays in his Brooklyn series of films, including DTRT. These people exist, and shit like that actually happened (and STILL happens) every day all over big cities, but ESPECIALLY in the racially charged, ethnically mixed neighborhoods of New York City's outer boroughs. When I see reactions here from people in "Anytown, USA" calling the film, and these characters racist, one dimensional stereotypes, I HAVE TO wonder:

What world are these people living in? I've seen reviews and read statements similar to some of what I've seen here so far since the movie came out, and they have always baffled me and at the same time saddened me because they remind me how provincial & small minded most Americans continue to be.

-Dennis

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

*I have a problem with this use of the word but "Nationality" or "color" doesn't fit either.

Try ethnicity. Race is a very tricky word, and ethnicity is more appropriate to what we're trying to get at. Italian-Americans are not a race, they belong to a race and they are an ethnic group (or ethnicity). Just to complicate things, Italian American immigrants and their children can be (and historically have been) subject to all sorts of racism from the dominant white group (the "real" Americans).

 

[Lew Crippen]

Good idea Jun-Dai, though many films don't engender this type of discussion.

Indeed they don’t. The last one I recall was Bowling for Columbine, with at least one thread one which subject was rightly closed.

Perhaps we have all progressed to the point that a discussion on racism in a film is less polarizing than one about guns.

Good posts btw, Jun-Dai. I find your ideas interesting.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I may post an alerting link here, with the indulgence of the thread originator.

Post away Rex, although if I’m not wrong indulgences were purchased.

 

[Kevin M]

I'm sorry but this is a rather convenient conceit on your part Jun-Dai, it is not correct for anyone to pressure anyone else as to what they can do on their own property or business or indeed their own lives. Does it happen? Yes, I never suggested otherwise. Is it acceptable, no and I don't think it should ever be acceptable no matter what "social context" you wish to paint over it in order to justify what is basically wrong, irregardless of race.

I do find it interesting that in your scenario you made the black owner a female even though I never alluded as to any sex whatsoever, this could be misconstrued as an attempt to subliminally stack the deck in favor of sympathy for one owner over the other who was patently male and therefore not (unfortunately as it still seen this way in this society) as sympathetic.
I'm sure that that wasn't the intention of course, as that would be rather cheap.

 

[Kevin M]

Try Ethnicity.

D'oh!(slaps forehead) Exactly.

 

[Richard Kim]

Concerning Sal's refusal to put African American figures on his wall: On the Criterion DVD, didn't Lee criticize Buggin' Out for putting so much time into trying to organize a boycott that in the long run would do little good for his community? In fact, I believe Lee said that Sal was within his rights to put whatever pictures he wanted in his business establishment.

 

[george kaplan]

I'm glad the discussion is back on the film, but since I asked for it, I do want to respond to the following, after which I won't post anything non film-related.

Well Brook, a few things.

As the sole person who seems to think this film is racist and who is participating in these debates, I can't respond to everything.

As I've stated on numerous occasions here, my antagonism is because I think the message of this film is racist. The prevalence of racist characters is part of this, but only part.

If there are major characters who clearly are non-racist, then I am wrong. I rarely rewatch a movie I hate, but I guess I'm going to have to make an exception in this case since I've clearly forgotten some details (I believe in the idea of knowing your enemy), and I can't respond with certainty about some of the finer points.

I seriously doubt though that my feelings about the message of this film will change since I've seen it twice and both times was struck by the portrayal of both blacks and whites as racist and was deeply offended by the message I got out of it.

So, with that, until I have a chance to watch it again, I will step out of this debate.

 

[Kevin M]

Richard Kim, that is very interesting. I have not heard the commentary so I can't say, however that is not what many here seem to be basing their opinions on.

I must rent the DVD.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

The characters are not stereotypical

.

I think this is debatable. Radio Raheem is very much like a common black stereotype. This does not mean that he is not a realistic character, but because we know only a little about him, he also matches this stereotype. A lot of people appear--from certain perspectives--to fit into this stereotype.

If you are riding on a bus, and someone (who is young and black) is listening very loudly to a boombox, you are probably perceiving a stereotype. If you know someone well who listens to boomboxes loudly on the bus, or you have done that yourself at some point, it will most likely seem a lot less like a stereotype.

I think that Spike Lee created this character to capture that effect. How many people have complained about black people on buses listening to loud music on boomboxes? Spike Lee has created a character that will remind some people of annoying experiences that they've had on buses (and because he doesn't develop the character that much, this portion of the audience isn't very likely to move past their annoyance of that character type), whereas it will remind other people of themselves, or of people that they know, even if only loosely.

So in a sense, Radio Raheem is a stereotype. Or more precisely, he was created to capture a stereotype. He is being used to trick audiences into being annoyed at him. This is why, of all the characters, he has to die. He knows his audience so well, and he is playing with their reactions to certain scenes, and this is something I've never seen him do so well in other films (in Summer of Sam he's manipulative, but I think it is more of a detrimental effect in that case).

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

I do find it interesting that in your scenario you made the black owner a female even though I never alluded as to any sex whatsoever, this could be misconstrued as an attempt to subliminally stack the deck in favor of sympathy for one owner over the other who was patently male and therefore not (unfortunately as it still seen this way in this society) as sympathetic.
I'm sure that that wasn't the intention of course, as that would be rather cheap

No, it wasn't the intention. My intention was simply that I try to vary my usage of he and she to refer to a person whose gender is not important. This is something that other people have been doing with increasing regularity (it was done once in this thread already, I believe), but it is still infrequent enough that it gets noticed when done, and that people suspect that there is a specific reason for it.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

it is not correct for anyone to pressure anyone else as to what they can do on their own property or business or indeed their own lives./QUOTE]

I think that this (very American) generalization is extremely dangerous. Let's change the scenario a little bit. Let's say that Sal has racial epithets and pictures of lynchings on his wall. Does the rule still apply? Should not people be in their right to pressure Sal to change his decor? I hope you agree that the generalization is bad. Please modify it so that we can continue discussing it, because as it stands I don't think anyone here can agree with it.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

When you talk about a test being biased against one group

Actually, I was talking about a test being biased towards one group and neglecting all the others. Very different.

 

[Kevin M]

Well that's certainly a relief, Jun-Dai. I was concerned for a moment.