Do the Right Thing

One thing which makes Spike Lee’s movie, Do the Right Thing, a great movie is not only the conflicts which arise throughout the film but specifically the depths of those conflicts. This movie passed the normal black/white conflict and reaches into conflicts between multiple characters in the film. This is much different from the blaxploitation films we watched in class which had a more concrete view on race.

Engaging Cinema states that this film “explores what it feels like to experience, with visceral force, a complex web of tensions and contradictions from multiple perspectives”. This idea of the different multiple perspectives is what gives this movie so much depth and I think is what makes the viewer so intrigued with the storyline in the film. It is not just a conflict between white and black people but instead a conflict between Asian people and black people, Italian people and black people, and even black people against black people. With the combination of all these different concepts, the viewer gets a different perspective in each different situation that takes place in the film.

Roger Ebert brings up a good point in his review about how the ending is left completely open. He says, “Since Lee does not tell you what to think about it, and deliberately provides surprising twists for some of the characters, this movie is more open-ended than most. It requires you to decide what you think about it”.  I think this is an interesting topic to look at because the movie truly lets the audience decide for themselves what to think. It makes people aware of the different conflicts taking place but never once says which ones are justified and which ones are not justified.

The entire film comes together at the end when the two quotes by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X scroll across the screen. There is an interesting duality represented in the quotes because MLK Jr. is talking about the importance of non-violence while Malcolm X says that violence is acceptable when used as self-defense. It again offers an open-endedness to the viewer by having both quotes. If Lee used only one quote at the end it would have put one idea or the other in the mind of the viewers instead of letting them decide on their own.

Shaft (2000)

The "black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks" is back in this sequel directed by John Singleton. It follows John Shaft's nephew who seems to have much of the same characteristics as his uncle while at the same time not quite measuring up to what the original Shaft was like. These two films have both similarities and differences which are both important to understanding what the director was trying to portray when it comes to topics such as racism.

John Shaft in the 2000 version of the film had some of the same characteristics of his uncle while at the same time not being as great. He did things his way, never missed a shot and got the girls but this time the audience didn't really get the "I want to be him" kind of attitude. What differed in this respect is that he starts out in the film as a detective whereas in the 1971 version Shaft is not connected to any type of law enforcement. As for his ability to get women, there was a scene which deliberately showed he could not match up to his uncle. The scene at his surprise party showed John Shaft leaving with two women and not just one. Also, the cheesy lines he used on women made us laugh at him rather than envy his charm. The original Shaft would never say "It's my duty to please that booty". Also, as Roger Ebert talks about in his review, the sexual aspect is not as prevalent in this film as it was in the original. The opening credits start out with this idea but it is not really carried out much in the film. Ebert says "One thing modern about the movie is its low sexual quotient. Blaxploitation came along at a time when American movies were sexy, with lots of nudity and bedroom time. Modern action pictures seem prudish by comparison; like "Gone in 60 Seconds" and "M:I2," this one prefers action to sex". I agree that this movie focused more on the action scenes than the sex scenes and this may be a reflection on the times it was filmed. It was more acceptable in the 1970's than in 2000.

One thing which I think is important to think about when talking about the issue of racism in these two films is the context in which they were made. The original Shaft was made at a time when race was a bigger issue and it was important for this film to make a deeper statement about it. The Shaft that was made in 2000 did not need to work as hard at making a statement because the times had changed immenselely from when the first one was filmed. It seemed to me as though the purpose of the original Shaft was to comment on certain ideologies of the time whereas this Shaft was for more entertainment purposes.

I don't think you can really compare the two when deciding which film is better. It seems to me that they were made at different times and for different reasons which chages the ideas of the viewer. I think the 1971 version was good for the time it was in and the 2000 version was typical for the time period it was made in.

Shaft

Blaxploitation films entered into the film industry in the 1970's and Shaft was one of those films to change the role of black people in movies. It was one of the first films to have a black man be the main character and also the hero of the film. This film in some way breaks through the stereotypical role of black people while also perpetuating some of them

John Shaft is the perfect example of what Engaging Cinema  calls the Buck. He is a ruthless character who is portrayed as very masculine and powerful. He somewhat breaks the typical barriers because he has both black and white allies. It is as if race does not matter to Shaft but it is a bigger deal that he himself is a strong and influential black man. I saw somewhat of a duality when it comes to Shaft's character. He is the main hero in the film which changes what the typical "hero" was at the time this film was made. While this is happening changing the views, other things about the film are perpetuating some of the stereotypes that already exist. A lot of the men Shaft encounters are black men which stills puts them in the role of the "bad guys". Also, Shaft is a womanizer which puts him in a bad light and aims at the stereotype that black men do not treat their wives right. I was a little confused as to why this movie tried to break barriers when it comes to black stereotypes but at the same time was going along with other ones.

One thing which Glenn Erickson brings up in his review that is interesting is that the writer of this film was actually a white man. Ernest Tidyman wrote the screenplay for this movie and in 1971 this would not have been publicized. During the time the movie came out, people might not have gone to the movie if they found it was written by a white man. The fact that the movie focused on the life of a black man was the draw for a lot of people and so they did not really play up the fact that it was written by Ernest. Something interesting also is that Ernest Tidyman won a NAACP Image Award for this movie and was one of the few white men to do so.

Another idea from the review which is interesting is how this movie was different in the sense that it was a "tell it like it is" kind of film. It really did not hold anything back when it comes to language and the development of the characters. It also did not hide the fact that it was aimed at the African American population. That is risky for a film company because it limits its audience but despite that fact Shaft was a successful movie.

Faat Kine

Faat Kine is a film that touches on many deep themes which reflect and also challenge our perceptions of African life for people in Senegal. Themes such as mixed marriages, opportunities for women, and socio-economic status are all present in this film and create the main struggles for the characters. In most cases these struggles go along with the ideology of the past but in some cases the ideology is challenged.

Engaging Cinema defines dominant ideology as "The view of the world that tends to prevail ina given time an dplace, upholding the existing relations of power and hierarchy". This definition is important to Faat Kine because, well atleast for me personally, this movie broke many of the ideologies I had about life for people in Africa. This can be seen greatly when looking at the character Faat Kine. She is a very strong woman who supports herself and her family without the help of a man in her life. She has a job outside of raising her children which was more progressive than I would have thought for a family living in Africa. I guess I do not know how true this story is in comparison to how people actually live in Senegal but if it is a reflection on their life then I had a completely different view in mind.

On the other hand, something which went along with ideology is the idea of having children out of wedlock. I don't want to sound too critical but it seems as though that happens more often in countries that are not so well off. Along with that is the fact that the father of those children is usually not in the children's life. Now, where Faat Kine is different is that she has a success story with how she overcame the obstacles and supported her family without help from their father's.

The New York Times review written by Elvis Mitchell states, "Because he (the director) is uninterested in melodrama simply for its own sake, he uses Kine's relationship to family and work to investigate the social and political intrigues that are always a part of his purview." This is important to recognize because it is through the interactions of Kine and her family and also to her coworkers that the themes are portrayed. These interactions reveal the deeper ideologies which may still be present or in some cases it reveals the ideas that are challenged by this film.