WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-05 16:26:59 +0000

Reason and Rage seldom go hand in hand. I would stick my neck out and say that he did the wrong thing - but that is me as an outsider looking in. How can anyone not in that situation say what they would ultimately do? Sweet Dick Willie to Buggin Out: "You wanna boycott someone? You ought to start with the goddamn barber that fucked up your head."

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-05 16:28:20 +0000

Still don't buy it. Flimsy argument all told. I would have accepted Mookie cleaning Vito's clock over destroying Sal's pizzeria. He continues to wear his Sal's pizzeria workshirt (with "Mookie" sewn on it no less) through the whole riot. If he genuinely wanted nothing to do with that family, why not remove the shirt? Classic Spike Lee where he doesn't know how to end movies. Bad script-writing.

Posted by G lib on 2007-03-05 16:33:38 +0000

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-05 16:34:37 +0000

Sorry about the italic thing - hope this works to turn it off

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-05 16:35:00 +0000

maybe? - Allright!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-05 16:44:56 +0000

Say what, G?

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 16:57:59 +0000

G was merely closing the italic tag. Her post was "</i>'"

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 17:04:45 +0000

First of all, it is a movie, if you are looking for a message, then have a talk with your priest, rabbi, reverend, or psychotherapist, whichever you prefer. Do not constrain the Art by subjecting it to temporal, contextual concerns. I haven't seen Do The Right Thing in a while, but, if you want to tangle with "what is the filmmaker's message", well... ---- Mookie plays the peacemaker. He tries and tries to make peace. He sees the stupidity on both sides. He feels constrained by his obligations to both side. He wants to do right by all, and finds out you can't please everyone. His stature in the community obligates, forces?, to decisively declare himself on one side or the other. Finally, once you realize that words will never get you to where you want to go, then _you_must_ take action. ACTION! Maybe even... VIOLENCE! It's MLK vs. Malcolm X, and Lee sides with X.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-03-05 17:05:50 +0000

Mookie sides with X. Lee sides w/ MLK. It's the whole point of the film!!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-05 17:10:03 +0000

Hah! Since when does Spike Lee just make a movie? He is always making a Big Important Statement. Besides, don't you think "Hamlet," "A Tale of Two Cities," The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Mona Lisa, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity all have messages? Or are they just a play, a book, a poem, a painting, and some physics?

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 17:12:21 +0000

Again... I should read prior posts more clearly. MC is looking for the character's motivation... I think my response still stands. Mookie is sick of straddling the line. Require him to remove the "Sal's" shirt because it implicates him in some sort of property dispute with his (supposedly now after the broken window) former employer, not sure if that's a strong complaint. I don't see how it lessens his decision to do something (whether it's "Right" or "Wrong" is left to the viewer...) In fact, it might add to the allusion of breaking free of Slavery and Jim Crow America. The Sal shirt represents the cloak of inivisibility that Black Americans toiled under... Or, it represents the "White Acting" Negro. Mookie as Uncle Tom. Mookie appeases the white owners, adopting their style of dress, finally since he can't change the institution from the inside, he must attack it from the outside. Wow, what a great movie. Maybe we shouldn't attempt to see Art without the message...

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 17:13:03 +0000

I've always seen the Mookie character as Lee. I guess not...

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 17:13:28 +0000

Yes.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-05 17:15:00 +0000

Call me old fashioned, but I like it when characters are written in such a way so that you can see their actions unfold without trying to figure out why they did something. "Notes On A Scandal" featured a similar ending -- the shit hits the fan when Cate Blanchette's character discovers pages of Judi Dench's diary in the trash . At that point, I stopped caring and believing -- out of the blue, I'm supposed to think that Dench's character, a devoted diarist, is going to rip a page out of her diary and throw it in the trash . Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Same thing with 'Do The Right Thing' -- the peacekeeping character turns 180 degrees. There's the smart person route, which is to analyze the signifiers and try and decide on the symbolism, but c'mon. There would be no need to do that if the character was written well.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-05 17:15:18 +0000

Well... there it is.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-05 17:18:03 +0000

Especially when the writer is working in melodrama (like both of these cases Epoisses cites).

Posted by G lib on 2007-03-05 18:05:36 +0000

I can't comment because the my memory of the movie's plot are kind of fuzzy. I can say that I'm not sure I'd want to watch it again--although back in the day it tied with Better Off Dead for #1 of all-time. It's really too cringe-worthy to remember the reasons why I loved that movie so much, but it certainly affected me a lot. It gave me a knee-jerk reaction to "racism" and an understanding of Black culture so oversimplified that I just didn't understand my first black boyfriend, who was an angst-y suburban geek like all of the others. I wonder if that was what Spike Lee was going for?

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 19:51:20 +0000

The play, the poem, the song, the phsyics should be enjoyed as Art, without the baggage of a "message". I admit there is some joy in witnessing the message being transmitted via the Art. Mona Lisa has a sublime smile regardless of the 16th century Florentine politcal climate.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 20:01:51 +0000

Haven't seen Notes... so, I can't comment on the unbelievability of the script. Although, MC's original complaint is with the ending, not the character development. I don't see Mookie's reversal as poor character development. I think the ending of ...Thing _was_ strong. It certainly leaves an impression. Let's write an alternate ending: "Mookie rips off his shirt, tells Sal to screw, and excites stage left". Why can't be the "peacekeeper" suddenly become fed-up with the system? I can imagine that the devotion to act as an intermediary, the passion to solve disputes, could ultimately boil over into a righteous rage that crosses the line. Haven't we all done things that are "out of character"? Isn't it always the quiet family next door that ends up with a dismembered wife and the husband captured, 200 miles away, in socks, in the middle of the winter?

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-05 20:24:12 +0000

I was under the impression that the original comment was on the character's seeming lack of motivation for going off at the end, which sounds like a character development thing to me: But I'm sorry, but where's the character motivation for Mookie to throw the garbage can through the window? He's siding with Sal not 3-5 minutes beforet the riot and not only that, but also Mookie is the peacekeeper through the whole movie! What gives? Of course we all do things that are out of character in our lives. But in a movie, which is like two hours showcasing certain charcters' lives, it's pretty sloppy. The ending would have been better -- more believable -- if Spike had foreshadowed with the character, no?

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-05 23:00:08 +0000

That the character is beset on all sides by competing interests isn't enough to foreshadow that he might snap?

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-05 23:28:29 +0000

Not when *all* the characters are beset on all sides by competing interests, no.

Posted by theduane on 2007-03-06 13:09:58 +0000

NONE OF US ARE BLACK (AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THIS?) SO SINCE WE ARE ALL WHITE DEVILS THEN WE CAN NEVER KNOW WHAT THE "RIGHT" THING TO DO IS!!!!!!!!!

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 02:19:10 +0000

Depends on what you mean by "BLACK". It's possible that Caucasians have West African or Sub-Saharan ancestors. Do you mean "Black" as in "descended from West African slaves brought to this country and kept in bondage or subjected to unequal treatment under the law for the past 400 years"? Even if you do, I reject the idea that I cannot understand a community defined by a race not my own. (Race being a perilously imprecise term). Sure, I can't really know what it is to be a Black American, however, I think humans are capable of empathy. Maybe the fact that I think I can understand the Black community makes me a White Devil...

Posted by theduane on 2007-03-07 03:51:51 +0000

I THOUGHT THE CAPS WERE SARCASTIC ENOUGH TO ALIENATE A RIDESIDE REGULAR. I GUESS I SHOULD GO BACK TO "THE GHETTO".

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 04:28:13 +0000

SORRY, YOUR CAPS LOCK PROBLEM IS MAKING IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO SENSE NUANCES LIKE TONE, SARCASM, AND INTENT. I'LL NEVER TAKE YOUR POSTS SERIOUSLY AGAIN, HOWZA 'BOUT THAT?

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-07 04:34:47 +0000

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 04:50:36 +0000

Racists against CAPS LOCK.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-07 04:51:50 +0000

racl it up!

Posted by tommy on 2007-03-07 13:10:22 +0000

THEDUANE, WHILE I APPRECIATE Y OU POSTING YOUR COMM ENTS IN A SINGLE CAS E, I HAVE TROUBLE SC ROLLING MY VIC-20 SC REEN TO SEE ALL OF T HE TEXT. KEEP IT TO 20 COLUMNS PER LINE , PLEASE!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-07 15:04:09 +0000

Post of the decade.

Posted by theduane on 2007-03-07 15:13:51 +0000

HE'S RIGHT!!!!!! THAT WAS THE POST OF THE DECADE!!!!!!!!!

Posted by theduane on 2007-03-07 15:16:42 +0000

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING RACIST! I'M FROM CANADA!!!!!!!!!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-07 15:17:39 +0000

This guy crosses the border via indian reservations..

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 16:25:41 +0000

I hinted at that very response in my inital reply. Chani wasn't "Feeling It", though.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 17:50:44 +0000

Say for the sake of argument that Smiley did throw the trash can. Wouldn't that necissitate another title for the film? Do The Right Thing would have made even less sense of a title then.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-07 18:03:45 +0000

A+.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 18:08:50 +0000

Yeah... SC (Stinky Cheese, aka Epoisses) made a point a few posts ago about all characters being able to suddenly act out of character, and that there is no foreshadowingn that Mookie has the capability of turning on Sal. I don't see how that works though. (I feel like a Bush apologist... "Oh yeah? Sure, the writing is crappy, but how would you end it then?") What if one of Sal's sons beats-up Radio Raheem for having his "beats-up"? Would we then be arguing over whether or not Lee's message is "all wops are goons"? ...oh wait. Radio Raheem is dead. Give me another few moments with wikipedia.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-07 18:12:45 +0000

... I disagree. Da Mayor says the title, so you could still call it that. .

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-07 18:24:51 +0000

My head hurts.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 18:25:30 +0000

But that would eliminate the key protagonist dilemma in the film. The title would then be based off of a Miller Lite swilling drunk man's non-sequitur (no disrespect intended to Ossie Davis). These changes would dramatically alter both the controversey created upon the film's release as well as the viewer's gut reaction to the film. Do The Right Thing is fine the way it is.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-07 18:54:31 +0000

He coulda called it Mookie, and still had the protagonist dilemma. By calling it Do the Right Thing, if anything, Lee leads the question. There are tons of amazing dramas whose titles come from tossed off lines: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, You Can't Take it With You, All My Sons, A Streetcar Named Desire, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, The Zoo Story, to name a few.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-07 18:56:42 +0000

"No negotiations."

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 20:39:52 +0000

Arguing that Do The Right Thing has a protagonist dilemma, or as we seem to be arguing, a motivation-for-the-protagonist dilemma, isn't working for me. If you think Mookie's actions _can't_be_plausibly_explained_ then you are probably not sympathetic to the dilemma the film is trying to elucidate: Peace or Violence? I don't think Lee is actually pushing one or the other, frankly. Do The Right Thing isn't a question of is Mookie right or wrong? Mookie represents Mankind, capable of both peace and violence, obviously. It's not a question of what is the Right Thing™, it's a call to step back and ask "What Are We Doing"? Who the hell cares, right? They're just poor urban blacks... why can't Mookie get a real job?

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 20:44:06 +0000

I don't think Lee is actually pushing one or the other, frankly. Hear, Hear. I dont know if there was purpose in what Mookie did or not, nor do I ultimately know if it was right or wrong. It just was - that's just what escalated on a particularly hot day in NYC in a story Spike wrote.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2007-03-07 21:12:53 +0000

How praytell is Lee being unbiased in calling the movie "Do the Right Thing?" It the same as a polling agency asking: "Who would you rather see as President? An intelligent man like Rudolph Giuliani or a stuck-up cunt like Hillary Clinton?"

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 21:18:43 +0000

Yet it doesn't seem like he makes a convincing case for peaceful or violent resistance. I grant you he's leading the question by suggesting one is right and one is wrong. If that is his intention of naming the movie literally. Can we be given some credit for not taking the title literally?

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 21:19:56 +0000

what is racl its been buggin me today

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 21:22:58 +0000

You're such a racl-ist for not knowing about racl! (Do I need to demark that with sarcasm quotes... or am I being flippant?)

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 21:25:13 +0000

Context clues - duh Flippant your Wig.