Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Director John Hughes RIP
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
AirTreesWaterAnimals



Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 2987
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:
Travadone wrote:
Sarcasto I have this covered. There's no room on here.


Fixed.


Was there a recent influx of ignorant white dudes on this forum? I don't understand where how/when this fan club developed, but it's annoying. I don't want to have to wade through pages of idiots disagreeing with everything you say strictly out of principle.

And I'm not referring to Trav's "genuine" commentary, I get that. Who are these other people?
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11289
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

They are fans of Strange Famous Records and its artists. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
eddiehaskill



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 413
Location: Bustaflow, NY www.myspace.com/ eddiehaskill
 Reply with quote  

The "Nothing burps like bacon....You're water looked tasty" line from Dutch is a classic along with "Ma...Ma...Maybe you have a Ma. I have a Mother". That shit is too funny

Everyone stop beign so stupid on here and start talking more about the John Hughes legacy. I've never seen one of his movies scenes that really made me question racial intentions.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:58 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:


This. I think it's a strange reflexive thing that causes many white people to be suspicious about claims of racism by white people but believe that anti-white racism is just as prevalent or as relevant. Spike Lee and John Hughes are incomparable as filmmakers. Spike Lee has made a career largely making films that attempt to address some of the realities of race in America and has actually done so in a largely delicate way that has resisted stereotyping on precisely racial lines. Even in, say, Do The Right Thing — his most racialized film — the conflict is racial and it seems so natural but it also seems to be far beyond the characters that precipitate it. Can you really say that any of the characters, even someone like the represented an unadulterated racial stereotype? Sal? No. Vito? Fuck no. Pino? How could he be a stereotype when his own father and brother are differentiated, precisely, against him? This is ridiculous.



I only saw Do The Right Thing once, and maybe need to watch it again. My memory of it is the white characters were racist and the black characters were lazy and got into arguments about scuffing one another's sneakers. Even so, I applaud it for not being a simple movie where blacks are victims and whites are oppressors. My issue with Spike comes with what he said about the movie:


Quote:

One of many questions at the end of the film is whether Mookie 'does the right thing' when he throws the garbage can through the window, thus inciting the riot that destroys Sal's pizzeria. The question is directly raised by the contradictory quotations that end the film, one advocating non-violence, the other advocating violent self-defense in response to oppression. Spike Lee himself, however, has stated that only white viewers ask this question. Lee believes the key point is that Mookie was angry at the death of Radio Raheem, and that viewers who question the riot's justification are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man.[7] Mookie tells Sal to "Motherfuck a window. Radio Raheem is dead". However, some of the other characters in the film, such as Da Mayor, Mother Sister and Mister Señor, disapproved of the riot
--wikipedia

Only a white person would question the riot's justification? I doubt MLK would have thrown the trash can through the window.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:22 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Obviously MLK was a white man.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11289
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

Even so, I applaud it for not being a simple movie where blacks are victims and whites are oppressors.


Hm. It should be clear that the characters, of all races, are particularly rounded and have distinctive and unique relationships to the racial powder keg they sit on. But it's simply not the case, as I believe you're implying, that the film depicts a world in which the anxiety and anger on either side does not disproportionately, negatively, and institutionally redound on the black people. Maybe I'm reading too much into your comments but it seems to me that, at the end of the day, blacks are victims (differentiated, unique victims) and some of the whites (i.e. the white cops) are oppressors, full stop, while partially sympathetic white characters both benefit from the racism (and on the money and labor of the black people who are most victimized by it) while remaining allergic to any notion of responsibility for this situation, to their own statuses as agents, and to the notion that they should acknowledge (or work to change) that situation.

I mean, really, all they were asking for, at first, was a picture of a black person on the fucking wall. Sal resisted on two grounds: 1) to elevate a black person to the status of his Italian heroes would, to him, diminish those heroes and 2) to respond to those demands would be to accept that he and his shop were at all accountable to the people responsible for his livelihood. To him, his shop and its resilience was a testament to the ingenuity and perseverance of Italian Americans, as such and this ingenuity/perseverance contrasted with the inability of the black folk to either get their own shop or to produce individuals worthy of his wall.

This really is the brilliance of that film — that it deals with racism while mostly relying on flawed and complex characters to do so. It's a very tall order and it's incredible to me that such a young director (he was probably like 30 when it came out) was able to do this so well.

And, yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "only a white person" would question Mookie's windowbreaking but only someone with a really abstract relationship with racism in general or to police brutality would consider this such an important question. A man was killed by police, just seconds before but "black man murdered by cops" is such a natural thing while black resistance is such an underexamined thing that the latter, rather than the former, scandalized so many white liberals and conservatives alike. It's fucking incredible. I don't think that Mookie's revolt, and the events that transpired afterwards would have been principal to, say, MLK's response to the film. Why was that the spectacle there? I think that's one of the more fascinating things about that film.
Damn. I have to go.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

AirTreesWaterAnimals wrote:
icarus502 wrote:
Travadone wrote:
Sarcasto I have this covered. There's no room on here.


Fixed.


Was there a recent influx of ignorant white dudes on this forum? I don't understand where how/when this fan club developed, but it's annoying. I don't want to have to wade through pages of idiots disagreeing with everything you say strictly out of principle.

And I'm not referring to Trav's "genuine" commentary, I get that. Who are these other people?


Its not an influx of ignorant white dudes, it is the reigning racial ideology of "colorblindness" -the claim that skin color doesn't matter, that discussing race is divisive, that "reverse racism," if there is such a thing, carries the same protracted violence as a white power structure- that, when challenged (usually by people of color) results in defensive refusal that racism is embedded in all of our social relations, and is not, as the colorblind theory supposes, an aberration of the norm.


I can't blame a white guy for making a movie about white people. as a white guy, having the luxury of not acknowledging the racial difference in film is the same privilege taking place in real life. This board is not immune from that social relation, and some times it comes out passive and reactionary, and in other cases it is extremely violent and disgusting. To what extent it makes any sense to intervene is an ongoing question.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21574
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:
They are fans of Strange Famous Records and its artists. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.


And that is very unique to SFR.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11289
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
icarus502 wrote:
They are fans of Strange Famous Records and its artists. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.


And that is very unique to SFR.


It's a big tent.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:

Quote:

Even so, I applaud it for not being a simple movie where blacks are victims and whites are oppressors.


Hm. It should be clear that the characters, of all races, are particularly rounded and have distinctive and unique relationships to the racial powder keg they sit on. But it's simply not the case, as I believe you're implying, that the film depicts a world in which the anxiety and anger on either side does not disproportionately, negatively, and institutionally redound on the black people. Maybe I'm reading too much into your comments but it seems to me that, at the end of the day, blacks are victims (differentiated, unique victims) and some of the whites (i.e. the white cops) are oppressors, full stop, while partially sympathetic white characters both benefit from the racism (and on the money and labor of the black people who are most victimized by it) while remaining allergic to any notion of responsibility for this situation, to their own statuses as agents, and to the notion that they should acknowledge (or work to change) that situation.

I mean, really, all they were asking for, at first, was a picture of a black person on the fucking wall. Sal resisted on two grounds: 1) to elevate a black person to the status of his Italian heroes would, to him, diminish those heroes and 2) to respond to those demands would be to accept that he and his shop were at all accountable to the people responsible for his livelihood. To him, his shop and its resilience was a testament to the ingenuity and perseverance of Italian Americans, as such and this ingenuity/perseverance contrasted with the inability of the black folk to either get their own shop or to produce individuals worthy of his wall.

This really is the brilliance of that film — that it deals with racism while mostly relying on flawed and complex characters to do so. It's a very tall order and it's incredible to me that such a young director (he was probably like 30 when it came out) was able to do this so well.

And, yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "only a white person" would question Mookie's windowbreaking but only someone with a really abstract relationship with racism in general or to police brutality would consider this such an important question. A man was killed by police, just seconds before but "black man murdered by cops" is such a natural thing while black resistance is such an underexamined thing that the latter, rather than the former, scandalized so many white liberals and conservatives alike. It's fucking incredible. I don't think that Mookie's revolt, and the events that transpired afterwards would have been principal to, say, MLK's response to the film. Why was that the spectacle there? I think that's one of the more fascinating things about that film.
Damn. I have to go.


I only saw it once, years ago. I'll have to watch it again. You're definitely reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into my comments. I probably should have said that it doesn't make blacks heroes and whites villains, or that it doesn't portray blacks as noble and flawless, and whites as evil incarnate.
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:
Sage Francis wrote:
icarus502 wrote:
They are fans of Strange Famous Records and its artists. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.


And that is very unique to SFR.


It's a big tent.


Which may be why we get so many stray juggalos. *ba dum, ching*
Post Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:02 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon