CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Gossip › Spike Lee is really fucking angry!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spike Lee is really fucking angry!!!

post #1 of 154
Thread Starter 

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/sundance/spike-lee-sundance-rant-213602690.html

 

Christ, it never ends with this guy.  Black militant to the core.  As a black man, I hate that this racist fuck brain is seen as some sort of voice of African Americans.  He's an old, washed up, bitter midget with a chip on his shoulder who's way past his prime and still living in the 60s or something.  I think he does more to divide races than bring them together.  I don't need someone constantly reminding me of how bad I have it in this world because of the color of my skin, I've already got enough problems paying the rent.  Fuck Spike Lee and the mule he rode in on.

 

 

post #2 of 154

Yeah... but Inside Man and 25th Hour are great.

post #3 of 154

Spike Lee is a racist who makes (made) great films. Is wrong that I'm looking forward to his heads-plosion when Django Unchained is released? 

 

post #4 of 154

Uh, he's a great filmmaker and he's 100% right.

 

Also, that's not a "rant." If anyone of any other background said this in that tone, it wouldn't be called that. But it's Spike, and he's black, so he has to be the Angry Black Man.

post #5 of 154

Yeah, that paragraph-long outburst counts as a "rant?" No. And yeah, he's pretty much on the money.

 

Also, I don't think he's a racist.

post #6 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Uh, he's a great filmmaker and he's 100% right.

 

Also, that's not a "rant." If anyone of any other background said this in that tone, it wouldn't be called that. But it's Spike, and he's black, so he has to be the Angry Black Man.



Spike Lee himself and people who were actually there called it a "tirade".  I think I'll take their opinion on it.

 

That said, yeah, this isn't all that controversial a stance.

post #7 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Uh, he's a great filmmaker and he's 100% right.

 

Also, that's not a "rant."


“We never went to the studios with this film. I bought a camera and said we’re gonna do this motherfucking film ourselves. I didn’t need a motherfucking  studio telling me something about Red Hook! They know nothing about black people! Nothing!" He added, "And they’re gonna give me notes about what a 13-year-old black boy and girl do in Red Hook? Fuck no!”

 

"You are the very first audience that has seen this film. Do me a favor. If you go out and talk about it, please tell them this is not a motherfucking sequel to 'Do the Right Thing.'"

 

Reports described Lee as appearing "furious" on stage and "screaming at the top of his lungs" at the audience.

 

So how the fuck is that not a rant?  Even his wife was apparently looking at him sideways and Spike himself called it a tirade.  And if this were any other filmmaker, we'd be having the same conversation (besides the race issue).  He was acting like an infant and does this regularly.  He's an angry man and needs  to shut the fuck up.  And two good films since the fucking late 80s does not make this man anything special.


 

 

post #8 of 154

You know what? GOOD. He's right, knows it, and said it loud. Let him.

post #9 of 154

Rant or no rant, if that's the extent of it, I fail to see what is controversial about anything he said.  I mean, the only thing that could be possibly construed as at all racially charged is that "Hollywood knows nothing about black people", and considering all the other aspersions (fair and unfair) cast at Hollywood by a myriad of disparate sources, I don't see what there is to be up in arms about that one in particular.

post #10 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post

You know what? GOOD. He's right, knows it, and said it loud. Let him.


Of course he's right.  He's not saying anything we all don't know and have known for decades.  So what?  Nobody who can change that is paying attention.  My problem is he's the only black filmmaker anyone takes seriously and I'm sick of him continuing to ass rape that distinction.  Now if there were two, three or four other black filmmakers I could put alongside the names of Tarantino, Soderbgerh, Fincher, etc that were on the same list to be considered for major films, it wouldn't bother me as much.  But this is it.  One.  Fucking. Guy.  And he's a douchenozzle and one of the worst examples of biting the hand that feeds him (in the same rant he cries about Universal not making Inside Man 2 for him direct???).  If you got something to say about Hollywood, do it in private with friends.  I'm sick of this guy being the poster boy for black film...we're already fucked enough as a race.  Obama is next on my shit list.

 

post #11 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

Rant or no rant, if that's the extent of it, I fail to see what is controversial about anything he said.  



Taken by itself, it's no big deal really.  My reasons for being up in arms about it is different from the media's, they're just playing straight into his hands again as a media whore who loves seeing his name in the paper. 

 

post #12 of 154

I think Spike Lee suffers more from Small Man Syndrome than Angry Black Man Syndrome.

post #13 of 154

It's Spike being Spike. He sued Spike TV for Christ's sake. This is very much par for the course. His art outweighs the eccentricities in my eyes, though admittedly they're pretty much mutually exclusive at this point.

post #14 of 154

Seems more like a Von Trier moment to me.  And/or some weird desire to inject a little bit of Rock&Roll into the stuffy niceness of Sundance.  Not a bad thing.  The movie sounds kinda mild so that warm-up seems a bit off key.  But Spike was always erratic with tone.

 

I think Spike is always going to be The Black Filmmaker, even after a director's origin has ceased to matter.  He's kind of made his bed there.  It's probably more important to not think he speaks/acts/directs for everybody even if he thinks he does, if that makes any sense.

 

post #15 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post

I think Spike Lee suffers more from Small Man Syndrome than Angry Black Man Syndrome.


I love Spike's films and can't wait for Red Hook Summer.

 

But can't stand Spike the person.  Every time I see a knicks clip he is always standing up and trying to make himself the center of attention. 

 

post #16 of 154

Eh, nothing especially assholish there. White media always loves to blow his shit out of proportion. I'd like to see actual video.

 

What he's quoted as saying is 100% correct, and none other than the unlikely comrade George Lucas will back that up. Spike has said since the '80s that Hollywood doesn't give a fuck about black stories unless they're minstrel shit, gangsta shit or Driving Miss Daisy/The Help shit. It was true then and it's true now, though it's perhaps worth saying that Hollywood doesn't give a fuck about intelligent white stories either. Todd Solondz sure doesn't have any three-picture deal at Universal. Even Woody Allen has to go overseas now because that's where the money is.

 

Spike's real problem is he isn't and never will be a Hollywood player. At heart he's an indie filmmaker. I'm amazed he got to do Malcolm X at the level he did, and even then he had to go hat in hand around the rich black community.

 

Having said that, I do need to catch up on a lot of his 2000s stuff.

post #17 of 154



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 I'm sick of this guy being the poster boy for black film...we're already fucked enough as a race.  Obama is next on my shit list.

 



Not sure if I have any right to talk here, but if that's where your head is (and I don't want to imply too much), I think you need to do some soul searching. When the alternative for "poster boy for black film" is Tyler Perry, a guy who could never make Do The Right Thing or Jungle Fever or Get on the Bus or He Got Game* or Malcolm X or practically fucking anything in Lee's oeuvre, I would imagine that's an alternative any cineaste would want nothing to do with. For the record, there's nothing wrong or incorrect with what he said. Lee can be abrasive and seemingly w/out a filter, but plenty of other filmmakers are like that as well, your mileage may vary. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I know basketball like I know astrophysics, and I still absolutely love this movie.

 

 

 

post #18 of 154

I love how Ambler's mad at Spike Lee for being too prickly, so naturally the next person on his shit list is the other candidate for "angriest black man in America"...Barack Obama?

post #19 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/sundance/spike-lee-sundance-rant-213602690.html

 

 I don't need someone constantly reminding me of how bad I have it in this world because of the color of my skin

 


This year's Republican candidates are more than happy to do that for you, minus any sense of altruism.

 

 

 


 

 

post #20 of 154

Having worked with Spike, he is pretty nice in person. And the reason studios won't give him money has nothing to do with race. Spike likes to thumb his nose at the studio system and not follow its rules (his AD staff is looked down upon by almost every AD I know). Well guess what, there are rules to working int he studio system. You want their money, you have to follow their rules.

post #21 of 154


Not to dogpile on you, but I'm interested in this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post


My problem is he's the only black filmmaker anyone takes seriously

 


Do you mean in terms of acclaim or in terms of actually getting stuff made? Because in the early '90s there was a boomlet of talented black filmmakers, many of whom have had long, sad gaps in their filmographies. I remember people hailing Menace II Society as if it clowned Scorsese eight days a week, and the Hughes brothers haven't equalled it since. It does seem like a lot of the post-Spike crowd eventually bagged Hollywood and went where the easy money is, videos. Singleton started strong, then drifted into action bullshit. Kasi Lemmons, Charles Burnett (he preceded Spike by about a decade, actually), a bunch of others, the money (what little of it they actually were ever given) just stopped being there. The saddest story is Charles Lane, who made the great, overlooked Sidewalk Stories (which has never been available on video, even on VHS) and then got sidetracked into True Identity and that was it for him.

 

In terms of box-office being-taken-seriously it's Tyler Perry, as others here have mentioned, and, yeah, Tyler Perry.

 

It's gotta be tough. You're a black filmmaker, you make something happy-faced and you're a sellout, you make some piece of miserablism like Precious and you're feeding the racist view that black people are animals, and you're definitely not given the latitude that white filmmakers are, by Hollywood or by the critics. I don't blame Spike for being pissed off. I don't think he wants to be "the only black filmmaker anyone takes seriously." I think he would welcome ten, twenty other black filmmakers at his level or higher. To explain why there aren't would take a book-length manuscript, and it's not just racism, although that's a big factor.

 

post #22 of 154

I could be way off base, but it sounds like Amblers real beef is how under represented african americans are among Hollywoods ranks of mainstream directors.

post #23 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I love how Ambler's mad at Spike Lee for being too prickly, so naturally the next person on his shit list is the other candidate for "angriest black man in America"...Barack Obama?

 

My beef with Obama is for entirely different reasons.  Obviously.
 

 

post #24 of 154

I was thinking about that, how there must be some black filmmakers around whose blackness goes virtually unnoticed.  I mean, by now, surely.

I was checking out the wikipedia list.  It's generous, but there's a few.  I had no idea Tim Story was black, for instance There's a few in TV;  Ernest Dickerson has a had a long career (although there's a lot of Spike, The Wire and Treme on there).  Anthony Hemingway just did that Red Tails after a lot of varied TV.

Antoine Fuqua never struck me as a "Black Director" in the way, say, Singleton does.  But Singleton came along when people were looking for the Next Spike and you wouldn't want to be saddled with that sort of thing anyway.

 

If you dig a bit you do find a few about.  They all might be mad about the opportunities as well.  But despite Spike raising his fist to some PE still, things have changed a little from 1990.  Not much, but some.

post #25 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

I could be way off base, but it sounds like Amblers real beef is how under represented african americans are among Hollywoods ranks of mainstream directors.


Yes, this is true.

 

If you say the names John Singleton, or The Hughes Brothers, or Kasi Lemmons, most people wouldn't have a clue who you were talking about.  Say Spike Lee and they start nodding.  Spike Lee is pretty much the only well known black director working right now.  And he got his start in the mid to late 80s.  Ouch. 

 

And having that title, to me, makes him more prone to the magnifying glass, because shit...I'm an aspiring filmmaker and it's getting close to the point where I'll be in a room with some execs and they're expecting me to either start talking jive, or go on some bitter angry black man spiel because of all the negative stereotypes out there that have brainwashed people.  It's the reason I do not hand my scripts directly to the CAA agent I'm currently friendly with.  He doesn't know what I look like, and on the phone I sound like I'm from suburbia.  I don't want my race coloring their views of my work at least until I'm signed, though it's probably just unnecessary paranoia on my part.  But I've got alot riding on a screenwriting career at this point and I'd rather be paranoid than sorry I wasn't.

 

The next recognizable name on the list is Tyler Perry.  My brother lives in Atlanta and is an actor, and regularly auditions for that phony because his studio is out there.  I don't like it, but honestly with my brother being Will Smith junior in appearance and attitude, it's probably the best way in for him.  Another thing that makes me sad.

 

So excuse me for being angry, but this stuff runs deep with me.  Race is that touchy subject nobody wants to talk about unless their working on their third martini or something.  I'm probably overreacting, I get that, but what can I say...

post #26 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post


Yes, this is true.

 

If you say the names John Singleton, or The Hughes Brothers, or Kasi Lemmons, most people wouldn't have a clue who you were talking about.  Say Spike Lee and they start nodding.  Spike Lee is pretty much the only well known black director working right now.  And he got his start in the mid to late 80s.  Ouch. 

 

And having that title, to me, makes him more prone to the magnifying glass, because shit...I'm an aspiring filmmaker and it's getting close to the point where I'll be in a room with some execs and they're expecting me to either start talking jive, or go on some bitter angry black man spiel because of all the negative stereotypes out there that have brainwashed people.  It's the reason I do not hand my scripts directly to the CAA agent I'm currently friendly with.  He doesn't know what I look like, and on the phone I sound like I'm from suburbia.  I don't want my race coloring their views of my work at least until I'm signed, though it's probably just unnecessary paranoia on my part.  But I've got alot riding on a screenwriting career at thing point and I'd rather be paranoid than sorry I wasn't.

 

The next recognizable name on the list is Tyler Perry.  My brother lives in Atlanta and is an actor, and regularly auditions for that phony because his studio is out there.  I don't like it, but honestly with my brother being Will Smith junior in appearance and attitude, it's probably the best way in for him.  Another thing that makes me sad.

 

So excuse me for being angry, but this stuff runs deep with me.  Race is that touchy subject nobody wants to talk about unless their working on their third martini or something.



But really then, Spike is Spike, he's always been this way, it sounds like you're really angry at a mainstream media and prevailing culture all too eager to frame narratives about angry outspoken black artists as it feeds into a paradigm-accepted (well, white) cultural framework that re-enforces pre-conceived biases and stereotypes of african americans in general and artists in particular.

 

It sounds to me like you're angry at the symptom rather than the disease.

 

"Don't hate the player" and all that .

post #27 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

 

It sounds to me like you're angry at the symptom rather than the disease.

 

Yes, the bigger issue is the racial programming, but when the only well known black figure in Hollywood's filmmaking league is a loud mouthed, media hungry, angry person I can't help but take issue with it.  The only other well known white filmmaker I know which such consistently negative outspoken theatrics is Kevin Smith, but nobody is more apt to look down on whites because of him.

 

The problem is Spike is not just a filmmaker, but he's a racially outspoken activist through his films.  You can't think of him without thinking of race relations somehow.  As a black filmmaker he's done loads for black culture in giving a certain section of that community a voice...the problem is, that voice is consistently negative and overbearing because of this one individual.

 

post #28 of 154

Again, Spike's Spike, you may as well rail at the sky for being blue.

 

The prevailing cultural narrative is the problem.

post #29 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

Again, Spike's Spike, you may as well rail at the sky for being blue.



Oh, so it's his color?  I see how it is, Rain Dog.

 

(or should we call you Racist Dog??)

post #30 of 154

I'm just thrown for a loop that Tim Story is black. Had no idea.

post #31 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post



Oh, so it's his color?  I see how it is, Rain Dog.

 

(or should we call you Racist Dog??)



198.x600.timein.dvd.rev.whitedog.jpg

 

White Dog.

 

post #32 of 154

Not to derail, but institutional racism or no, you can't be doing yourself any favors by hiding your face from your representation while trying to get stuff made.  There's 8 million spec scripts floating around Hollywood in any given day, so any decision to give somebody any kind of shot is going to be a close one.  And if its a close call, people will always go with the name they can put a face to.  That's just how our brains work.

post #33 of 154

If Todd Solondz and Woody Allen have to go the indie route, then it would make sense that most (not all, of course, see: INSIDE MAN) of Spike's films fall in that niche (low budget, limited demo) category as well. Maybe Spike should suck it up and ask Tyler Perry for some financing,

 

post #34 of 154

Maybe it's time for Spike to make his Marvel Studios $200 million flick.

 

A Spike Lee Joint: Nick Fury with Samuel L. Jackson. DO IT.

 

...though I get the sense there's bad blood between the two since Spike criticized Tarantino for overuse of the N-word and Jackson got kind of prickly in QT's defense. Then again, QT was in Girl 6, so...

 

Anyway, Spike bitching about no Inside Man sequel rings kind of dumb to me. Make another, equally mainstream thriller with Denzel. Tony Scott can't make 'em all.

post #35 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Not to derail, but institutional racism or no, you can't be doing yourself any favors by hiding your face from your representation while trying to get stuff made.  There's 8 million spec scripts floating around Hollywood in any given day, so any decision to give somebody any kind of shot is going to be a close one.  And if its a close call, people will always go with the name they can put a face to.  That's just how our brains work.



One good thing that came out of this exchange is that it's made me realize this is an issue I'm going to have to work on.  Honestly you can sell a spec from Alaska without ever setting foot in Hollywood, it's happened plenty of times...but after that you're definitely going to have to go to meetings and such if you wana career.

 

post #36 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post



One good thing that came out of this exchange is that it's made me realize this is an issue I'm going to have to work on.  Honestly you can sell a spec from Alaska without ever setting foot in Hollywood, it's happened plenty of times...but after that you're definitely going to have to go to meetings and such if you wana career.

 



You can, if you have a really great script with obvious commercial appeal.  But that's, you know, really fucking hard.  No need to make it any harder.

post #37 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

You can, if you have a really great script with obvious commercial appeal.  But that's, you know, really fucking hard.  No need to make it any harder.


Well you need that whether you live in Alaska or Los Angeles. 

 

The difference is, an agent doesn't need you in a room to sell a spec script. 
 

But you do need to be present to be considered for writing assignments because it involves a relationship with a studio or production company, hence the face to face.  They want to make sure you're not a whacko, or you know, an angry black person.

 

post #38 of 154

.

 

Lee is absolutey correct. Hollywood, as an institution, is racist as fuck. The whole kerfuffle with George Lucas and Red Tails put it into sharp perspective.

 

If anything, things have gone backwards for blacks in film since Lee was at the peak of his powers in the 90's. Films with all blak casts were routinely greenlit by studios (even if many of them jumped on bandwagons like the "inner city gangster genre" or Terry McMillan romcoms/dramas). Black leading men were more plentiful (Wesley, Denzel, Fishburne, Will Smith,  Cuba Gooding, Tupac, Sam Jackson  etc). Now  only a near 60 year old Denzel and Will Smith can get a  studio to even think about greelinghting a film. The industry never wanted to bring in young blood to replace these guys. They always seem to be on the look out for Channing Tatums, Shia Lebeouf's etc. Even the quality ones like Christian Bale, Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling and Tom Hardy.....you trying to tell me there are no young black leading men with that talent level, and looks/appea?. Of course there are. But in Hollywood, unless you specify otherwise, the default casting is always white. That's some institutionalised shit that not enough people in Hollywood are doing enough about. Steve Mcqueen (director of Shame and Hunger) had a Hollywood roundtable interview a few months ago with fellow directors, and was asked about the lack of minority casting in Hollywood pictures. McQueen said as much as Lee, and called the whole thing shameful. But all the other white directors were basically cowards and said they didn't want to talk about it. These directors/writers are part of the issue.

 

In the old days, Hollywood tended to blame the public for not wanting to accept films with black casts. I think something more sinster is at work now. The blatant refusal to promote credible new black leading men and women is becoming beyond a joke. How come blacks were good enough to become leads in the 90's, but now obvious leading man material like Anthony Mackie, Nathan Parker, Michael Ealy and Chiwetel Ejiofor are mostly playing second fiddle supporting roles in big films (wheras you get white actors jumping to instanting leading man status the moment they have some success). That British kid  ( John Boyega) who looked like a young Denzel from Attack The Block (and was regarded as the breakout performer)....if he was white, you know he'd be the NEXT BIG THING!!! As it is, I can see him being allowed to fade away, like so many potential blaclk leading men.

 

I think there is a subconscious fear in Hollywood, by the people that control it. That if you lett too many blacks in the door, or in postions of power, it'll become like the music industry or sports, where blacks tend to have a dispropotionate influence and reprsentation. So they deliberately try to limit how many they let reach the top (hey, black people you've got WILL and DENZEL!!!! You should be happy. Stop complaining.lol!). And even for those with potential to reach the top, it's still a ridiculously slow grind (ie Idris Elba should really be where Fassbender, Bale or Gosling are. Yet he's 40 years old and still playing bit parts in Thor and carrying a TV show).

post #39 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Maybe it's time for Spike to make his Marvel Studios $200 million flick.

 

A Spike Lee Joint: Nick Fury with Samuel L. Jackson. DO IT.


I think "Black Panther" would be right up his alley...or maybe "Luke Cage", if its set up in the 70's and he's wearing the yellow shirt  and tiara combo...and is played by Terry Crews in "Old Spice" mode.

That aside, yes, Spike Lee's body of work is amazing and incredibly influential, but his public persona has much to be desired, at least in his attitude and worldview; guy needs to chill out, and if he claims the system is fucked up, then why not try and change it? mentor or sponsor young, talented african american filmakers working in the indie circuit , finding alternative funding and producing options and so on? Right one, Will Smith is one of the world's biggest stars, Tyler Perry can put whatever he wants on a screen and make buckets of money, and the president is african american; sounds like a good time to start promoting and building change.

 

Or maybe he's just bitter cause he didnt get on the rocket headed to mars; got shafted with a one way ticket to the sun.

post #40 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post


I think "Black Panther" would be right up his alley...or maybe "Luke Cage", if its set up in the 70's and he's wearing the yellow shirt  and tiara combo...and is played by Terry Crews in "Old Spice" mode.



Between this post and this picture of Terry Crews photo bombing from the "The fact that this exists is hilarious" thread, I nearly went insane. God would that film be the most awesome thing since 1928.

post #41 of 154

The thing is that even though he's right, he has publicly blasted so many studios, who the hell wants to deal with him? Especially when his films aren't commercial behemoths? Does Universal want to give him 60 million to do "Inside Man 2" , only to have him talk shit about it the first time things don't go his way? Warner Bros. gave him 35 million to make "Malcom X" back in the 90's. He blasted them because he felt it wasn't enough. I'm a fan of his work, but if I was running a studio, I definitely wouldn't want to deal with his temper tantrums and bad publicity.

post #42 of 154

Well to be fair, I'm sure most studio execs would love it if most directors were simply company shill yes men like Ole Shrimp Dick himself, in fact if they could program a DirectorBot3000 to make all their films for them they'd do that too.

 

In short - fuck studio excs, since when did we start feeling for those greedy fucks?

post #43 of 154

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post


I think "Black Panther" would be right up his alley...or maybe "Luke Cage", if its set up in the 70's and he's wearing the yellow shirt  and tiara combo...and is played by Terry Crews in "Old Spice" mode.

That aside, yes, Spike Lee's body of work is amazing and incredibly influential, but his public persona has much to be desired, at least in his attitude and worldview; guy needs to chill out, and if he claims the system is fucked up, then why not try and change it? mentor or sponsor young, talented african american filmakers working in the indie circuit , finding alternative funding and producing options and so on? Right one, Will Smith is one of the world's biggest stars, Tyler Perry can put whatever he wants on a screen and make buckets of money, and the president is african american; sounds like a good time to start promoting and building change.

 

Or maybe he's just bitter cause he didnt get on the rocket headed to mars; got shafted with a one way ticket to the sun.



Spike Lee has probably done more to  positively benefit the progression of African-Americans in cinema than anyone bar Sidney Poitier. Expecting him to do even more at this stage is ridiculous. Lee gave Denzel his first true leading man role in Mo Better Blues (before that, he was an Oscar winning actor, but seemingly always relegated to supporting roles. Lee made Holywood recognise Denzel as a hearthrob/romantic leading man type, that propelled him into the big leagues). He brought through so much African-American talent, it's hard to know where to count. The guy has done his bit, and I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be pissed off at the state of regression, despite his best efforts.

 

Will Smith is one of the world's biggest stars....so what? He's just one guy. Hollywood isn't trying to find or promote any new Will Smith's. One is enough for them. And that's a problem.

 

Tyler Perry is part of the regression of African-Americans in cinema. Goofy films where Perry is in drag/fat suit half the time. It's the sort of shit Lee made fun off in Bamboozled, and the sort of nonsense white studio execs are most comfortable promoting, when it comes to entertainment featuring black people. We can never get enough of black men making bufoons of themselves dressed as women in fat suits. I can see a studio greenlighting a Tyler Perry/Martin Lawrence blockbuster as we speak....Big Momma vs Medea!!!

 

post #44 of 154

Yeah its just ingrained systematic racial stereotyping and soft bigotry white controlled Hollywood has been feeding American (and worlds ) culture the last century or so - let it go Spike, geez!

post #45 of 154

The thing is that by what he said on stage, he's pissed that he hasn't got the money for "Inside Man 2". Personally, I don't give a shit about execs, but it's obvious that HE does. You can't play the bad boy rebel act then act surprised/upset when studios don't want to work with you.

post #46 of 154

As in film, what happened to all the television shows starring black actors?  I am Anglo-Saxon in skin tone and as hirsute as the next Teutonic man, but I loved watching Fox in my youth. A Fox filled with shows like Roc, Martin, In Living Color,  Living Single, The Bernie Mac Show, MANTIS.  Bernie Mac reminded me of my father something fierce. All these shows I have fond memories of, yet never did I think "Oh, I am watching a black show." I may have been one of the 10 people watching Everybody Hates Chris. Perhaps, I grew up at just the right time, with just the right people, but I loved the stories first and race was really far down the list (and mostly in a "my grandmother would throw a fit if I brought that girl home, but I would still bring her to Thanksgiving"),  I grew up on real Nick at Nite, watching The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Good Times, 227, and Amen.

 

 

post #47 of 154

Tyler Perry has that market covered too.

post #48 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by levrock View Post

The thing is that by what he said on stage, he's pissed that he hasn't got the money for "Inside Man 2". Personally, I don't give a shit about execs, but it's obvious that HE does. You can't play the bad boy rebel act then act surprised/upset when studios don't want to work with you.



I think he's pissed because Hollywood has always claimed to be about simple economics. Inside Man did massive buisness (for a film of it's type), in worldwide box office and ancillaries (DVD etc). It had a really big profit margin, considering it's quite low budget as well. Lee brought it in, on time and professionally. He thought it would be a turning point in his career, as far as studio financing, because he showed he could deliver a hugely profitable mainstream feature. Yet the next film he wanted to do, Miracle At St Anna,  he couldn't get any studio backing and had to find independent Italian investors.

 

It shouldn't matter how outspoken, loud or obnoxious Lee is percieved to be. They are not hiring him for his personality. At the end of the day, Inside Man made a big profit for the studios, and money is supposed to counteract all that. There's no fathomable reason that Inside Man 2 couldn't get made, especially since the principle actors (Clive Owen, Jodie Foster and Denzel) were all more than happy to return if Spike did.

 

I think maybe Spike feels that some people in Hollywood don't want to see him having too much box office clout (and were maybe surprised the first film did as well as it did), and that's the only reason the film got pulled. Assuming thesequel made a lot of dough, Lee might have found himself propelled into the sphere of people like Nolan or Fincher or Tarantino, who have box office clout to match their critical acclaim.

 

post #49 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holistic View Post

I think maybe Spike feels that some people in Hollywood don't want to see him having too much box office clout (and were maybe surprised the first film did as well as it did), and that's the only reason the film got pulled. Assuming thesequel made a lot of dough, Lee might have found himself propelled into the sphere of people like Nolan or Fincher or Tarantino, who have box office clout to match their critical acclaim.

 



...and who knows what filmic statements he might have the power to make if that happened? No no, gotta keep the token angry black guy in his place - he's fun to wheel out at parties, but in no way should ha have a mainstream voice in modern film-making.

post #50 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post



...and who knows what filmic statements he might have the power to make if that happened? No no, gotta keep the token angry black guy in his place - he's fun to wheel out at parties, but in no way should ha have a mainstream voice in modern film-making.



Pretty much. Pulling the plug on Inside Man 2, is essentially a way to prevent Lee from accquiring real power within the System. Like you said, he's supposed to be the "token" who makes a lot of noise, but does little financial buisness in the real world. So Hollywood can easily dismiss him as a troublemaker who can do little to hurt their bottom line. If he becomes a moneymaker, things change. Spike Lee as a box office force is a scary proposition for Hollywood.

 

Miracle At St Anna wasn't even a million miles away from something like Inglorious Basterds. I think if it had been financed and supported properly by a major studio, it could have been a pretty big hit.

 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gossip
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Gossip › Spike Lee is really fucking angry!!!