Clint Eastwood, Spike Lee at odds over movie casting

An ugly row has broken out between two of the nation's top film directors - a row whose real victim can only be cinema itself.

[Jack Hammer]

Who f'ing cares?!

[All the Bad Things]

Blacks scream racism over meaningless things so much it has lost all its meaning.

[Workaday Oakdale Brother]

All the Bad Things wrote:

Blacks scream racism over meaningless things so much it has lost all its meaning.

Not all Blacks. I'm Black and I think that Spike is being silly in this case...although Clint is a Conservative / Libertarian, he has shown quite a bit of respect for Blacks by making movies such as "Bird" (the Charlie Parker biopic). I hate it when some Brothers cry "racism" over silly things like this...it cheapens it when he point out real racism...kinda like "The Brotha Who Cried Wolf".

[Workaday Oakdale Brother]

Sorry, meant to say "when we point out..."

[Dirty Harry]

Do you feel lucky, punk?

[mhampton]

Perhaps Mr. Lee should have paid more attention to his history lessons before opening his big mouth.

[Pithecanthropus]

Spike Lee should just shut up. Or maybe he should make his own Iwo Jima movie.

[rev]

I never have, and never will, watch a Spike Lee movie. Why would I want to see something made by a rabid little man with delusions of adequacy? The only way this idiot gets any press is by being a racist. Eastwood made 'Bird' while Lee was out filming crap about homies. Lee is an inconsequential twit who's trying to get press for his garbage films by promoting racial hate... he must have learned that little trick from the Republicans.

[Workaday Oakdale Brother]

I'm disappointed with Spike in this particular case, but if you have a chance to see it for free, I respectfully urge you to see one of his movies, "25th Hour", starring Edward Norton. It was an excellent movie and had very little to do with race.

rev wrote:

I never have, and never will, watch a Spike Lee movie. Why would I want to see something made by a rabid little man with delusions of adequacy? The only way this idiot gets any press is by being a racist. Eastwood made 'Bird' while Lee was out filming crap about homies. Lee is an inconsequential twit who's trying to get press for his garbage films by promoting racial hate... he must have learned that little trick from the Republicans.

[smitty]

rev wrote:

I never have, and never will, watch a Spike Lee movie. Why would I want to see something made by a rabid little man with delusions of adequacy? The only way this idiot gets any press is by being a racist. Eastwood made 'Bird' while Lee was out filming crap about homies. Lee is an inconsequential twit who's trying to get press for his garbage films by promoting racial hate... he must have learned that little trick from the Republicans.

but if you never saw spikes movies how would you know they are promoting racial hate? If anything most of his movies show the opposite.

[Mel Jass]

Have seen most.
He's an over-rated, anti-US with a hair trigger temper and a huge "Victim" agenda. The last thing Af-Ams need to represent them.

[Observer]

smitty wrote:

<quoted text>
but if you never saw spikes movies how would you know they are promoting racial hate?

Because he's African-American, and makes films that discuss racial issues. If you read enough of the postings here, you will realize that it's the white male smoker who is the true victim of injustice in our society. "Promoting racial hate" means, around here, "any suggestion that people of color have rights, too."

[BTH]

mhampton wrote:

Perhaps Mr. Lee should have paid more attention to his history lessons before opening his big mouth.

My thoughts exactly. The military didn't integrate until after WWII. Eastwood would've cheapened his movie by adding a token black soldier/marine; and would've been ripped hard by all sides for including a token black soldier/marine when, given the time period, they didn't serve with white soldiers/marines. And just a question to Spike. Why would anyone add a black soldier/marine to "Letter's from Iwo Jima" when its told from the Japanese perspective? If memory serves me correctly, Japan didn't have too many soldiers of African descent, and if there were any Japanese of African descent, I highly doubt they would've allowed him to fight along ethnic Japanese given their racial attitudes and beliefs were in line with the Nazis. In keeping with the movie's historical accuracy, which Eastwood does value, how does the actual historical account of the Battle of Iwo Jima be adjusted to fit your narrow view of race in 21st century America? Kinda tough to reconcile the two. His opinion in this is sooo far off its indefensible.

[Jeri Sparkles]

I like that song "clint eastwood" by the gorrilaz.

[BTH]

Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Because he's African-American, and makes films that discuss racial issues. If you read enough of the postings here, you will realize that it's the white male smoker who is the true victim of injustice in our society. "Promoting racial hate" means, around here, "any suggestion that people of color have rights, too."

I agree with Smitty here. Spike likes to open the can-o-worms, stroke the temper flames, and decries the injustice. The one thing he doesn't offer is a possible solution; "how do we make it better, here is my idea." Its part of drama. There is a conflict and a resolution. He doesn't discuss how to improve the situation. He offers no resolution instead. I'll agree with you regarding many posters here, however, Spike is not the guy to defend here. He has the ability and position of offer solutions, yet he only bemoans the problem. He is part of the problem because he is not part of the solution.

[wtf]

Spike Lee will never be happy until every movie role is played by an African American.

[smitty]

Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Because he's African-American, and makes films that discuss racial issues. If you read enough of the postings here, you will realize that it's the white male smoker who is the true victim of injustice in our society. "Promoting racial hate" means, around here, "any suggestion that people of color have rights, too."

oh please, have you even watched ANY of this movies? if so you wouldnt say such a stupid thing, here is a list that deal with nothing you just said, get a clue and stop speaking on stuff you have no idea about:

she's gotta have it
mo betta blues.
school daze,
Crooklyn
girl 6
he got game
freak
summer of sam
25th hour,
she hate me
inside man.

matter of fact 25th hour had a mostly WHITE cast. do your reasearch before you say such silly things.

[smitty]

BTH wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with Smitty here. Spike likes to open the can-o-worms, stroke the temper flames, and decries the injustice. The one thing he doesn't offer is a possible solution; "how do we make it better, here is my idea." Its part of drama. There is a conflict and a resolution. He doesn't discuss how to improve the situation. He offers no resolution instead. I'll agree with you regarding many posters here, however, Spike is not the guy to defend here. He has the ability and position of offer solutions, yet he only bemoans the problem. He is part of the problem because he is not part of the solution.

BUT he has offered a solution. He is going to do a movie about the untold story of the blacks who fought in WWII. He was just making a point to clint. I think it really is a personal thing with them two.

[Publius]

Spike needs to change his approach and act like a man. Right now he is a whiney be-hach, and has already been be-hach-slapped once by dirty harry.

My guess is that spike's last comments were so asinine that clint will simply not respond and leave the field of battle a winner.

[Alex]

BTH wrote:

<quoted text>
My thoughts exactly. The military didn't integrate until after WWII. Eastwood would've cheapened his movie by adding a token black soldier/marine; and would've been ripped hard by all sides for including a token black soldier/marine when, given the time period, they didn't serve with white soldiers/marines. And just a question to Spike. Why would anyone add a black soldier/marine to "Letter's from Iwo Jima" when its told from the Japanese perspective? If memory serves me correctly, Japan didn't have too many soldiers of African descent, and if there were any Japanese of African descent, I highly doubt they would've allowed him to fight along ethnic Japanese given their racial attitudes and beliefs were in line with the Nazis. In keeping with the movie's historical accuracy, which Eastwood does value, how does the actual historical account of the Battle of Iwo Jima be adjusted to fit your narrow view of race in 21st century America? Kinda tough to reconcile the two. His opinion in this is sooo far off its indefensible.

HBO just did a special about John Adams. They did not use a Black actor for the John Adams role! RACISTS!! oh, wait, John Adams was white. I wonder if Spike was mad about that one too?