debunkingwhite: Spike Lee Calls Out Clint Eastwood.CANNE

The Athiest Atheist Who Ever...um...Atheisted. (

captain_brad) wrote in

debunkingwhite,
@ 2008-05-21 09:02:00

Spike Lee Calls Out Clint Eastwood.

CANNES, France — Spike Lee is slamming Clint Eastwood over his two recent Iwo Jima movies, saying the filmmaker overlooked the role of black soldiers during World War II.

Lee _ whose next film is this fall's "Miracle at St. Anna," the story of an all-black U.S. division fighting in Italy during the war _ said Eastwood's 2006 movies "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima" were whites-only affairs.

"He did two films about Iwo Jima back to back and there was not one black soldier in both of those films," Lee said Tuesday at the Cannes Film Festival, where he was a judge in an online short-film competition.

"Many veterans, African-Americans, who survived that war are upset at Clint Eastwood. In his vision of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist. Simple as that. I have a different version," Lee said.

Eastwood was in Cannes for his missing-child drama "Changeling," starring Angelina Jolie. At a news conference for the film, a reporter tried to ask for his reaction to Lee's criticism, but the moderator cut her off and told journalists to limit questions to Eastwood's own movie.

Due in U.S. theaters in October, "Miracle at St. Anna" centers on four Americans _ played by Derek Luke, Michael Ealy, Laz Alonso and Omar Benson Miller _ in the Buffalo Soldiers division in Tuscany.

(Post a new comment)

	shesanightowl 2008-05-21 05:29 pm UTC (link)
	I think this might be my favorite part: Eastwood was in Cannes for his missing-child drama "Changeling," starring Angelina Jolie. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	leperfriend 2008-05-22 02:47 pm UTC (link)
	wow! i'm glad you pointed that out for me (Reply to this)(Parent)

	aasin 2008-05-21 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	Discussing racial issues in America wasn't really the point of Flags of our Fathers to begin with really. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	captain_brad 2008-05-21 06:16 pm UTC (link)
	No, but to omit the presence of SOC (soldiers of color) is intellectually dishonest at best. (Reply to this)(Parent)

hammerinmyhand
2008-05-21 08:07 pm UTC (link)

No, but it is historically inaccurate to not depict a black presence in the American military force at Iwo Jima since nearly a thousand black troops were there in the thick of it. Including a depiction of the black presence would not change the focus of the film to a discussion of racial issues in America; the decision of the film makers to not depict the black presence demands a discussion of racial issues in American cinema. In a country where military service in WW2 is lauded as one of the best things a man could have done, in which veterans of that war are lionized, in which that war has become a key element of the national mythos, the participation of black soldiers is consistently eft out of cinematic depictions. That's important.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	the_living_end 2008-05-21 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	very well put. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	aasin 2008-05-21 09:31 pm UTC (link)
	Eastwood did however portray a Native American in the film so it can't be said that he did this on purpose and malice and if anything, Native Americans do not get as much attention for racial issues as African-Americans (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phoam909 2008-05-21 10:39 pm UTC (link)
	Of course he probably didn't do it on purpose. But he still did it, regardless of intent, which is why it needs to be pointed out. (Reply to this)(Parent)

eriktrips
2008-05-22 01:14 am UTC (link)

whether he meant to do it or not doesn't matter; his artistic choices still have consequences, even if unintended. and they also have causes--even when unintended--and I think it might be worthwhile to ask why an iconic white filmmaker "forgot" to put black soldiers in his film.

it may well be good that he portrayed an indigenous american in the film, depending on how he did it, but one productive action plus one neglectful action equals one productive, one neglectful. no reason not to call him out for the neglectful one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	gendertrouble 2008-05-22 01:30 am UTC (link)
	it is actually the lack of black soldiers in the movie that shifts the focus to racial issues. (Reply to this)(Parent)

eternal_llama
2008-05-23 02:26 am UTC (link)

But then if you skim through some of the comments there are people that say a handful of black soldiers were shown:

There were no black Marines depicted in "Flags of Our Fathers"?

1. Rent a copy of "Flags of Our Fathers".
2. Place the DVD in a DVD player.
3. Fast Forward to approx. 16:40 into the film.

You will see black Marines listening to a briefing on the landing.

Does that count, even if it's brief?

I noticed that in some of the comments people didn't even want to consider the invisibility of (American)POC. How do you respond to arguments where people say that they can't depict everybody?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ultimateairn 2008-05-21 07:05 pm UTC (link)
	ICOOOOOOOOOON! (Reply to this)

	eternal_llama 2008-05-23 02:00 am UTC (link)
	I was just thinking about this the other day while watching Dogfights on the History Channel and wishing with all my heart that they'd feature a dogfight with the Tuskegee Airmen. There's only two WWII movies I can think of which involve POC and that's Tuskegee Airmen(African-Americans) and Windtalkers(Navajo). The white-washing is pretty disturbing. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…