Quentin vs. Spike

I offer the following for your consideration. Per the article, Lee seems to see Sal as racist where Danny Aiello seems to see the character he played your way. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think Lee intended to communicate that Sal is indeed a racist. Of course, Lee may have created a more subtle artwork than he intended. The downside of his technique is that if you create sympathetic villain, some will sympathize with him (e.g., Thanos).

As is BlacKKKlansman.

Dave Chappelle did it better tho...

I'm not surprised that Kelli Marshall, author of that article, takes that interpretation. And yeah through many interviews Spike Lee tends to lean toward Sal being racist and that Mookie did the right thing, but that don't make it so given the portrayal of the character and what we seen on screen. Either interpretation could be valid, provided backing with what's on the screen.

Human behavior is an interesting thing and in making observations of behavior in real life and then in creating great work which "holds a mirror up to nature" as Shakespeare would say, sometimes artists create work that even their own interpretation of their creation might not be reflective of the real motivations and reasoning behind that which they recreated through art. That's why art is interesting because it can be subjective and yes, this gets into literary criticism theory too. Based on Danny Aiello's portrayal of the character, I think the actor is correct, and also there's too much of a tendency to see life through lens of race too (part of the interesting thing for me is that I see the film not as an indictment on racism, but rather the fact that human beings can't get beyond seeing race in every single thing), so if his character says something racist, it's more indicative of his character being angry and using the one thing/insult that will stick, as opposed to the Spike Lee and the CRT viewpoint that it's just his subconscious racism coming to the surface. God knows people don't need to be racist nor a have a lack of racism to be shitty to each other.

I usually try avoid dichotomies too, so in the article's question of is Sal a racist or not... it's largely irrelevant because he was acting like an ass toward the end and being stubborn without even being willing to consider alternative reasons why he should have "brothas on the wall." Radio Raheem was acting like an ass by being obnoxious and playing his radio intrusively to make his point in a way that would just agitate Sal, AND Mookie acted like an ass by destroying property and inciting a riot AND the cops panicked and made a shit decision that killed a person. But if we're framing the subject, as is often done, in terms or racist or not racist... no he's not any more racist than we could argue Radio Raheem is racist or Mookie is racist against whites for making an assumption that because a character is white, they are inherently racist, which is... yep, you guessed it, racist. Sal had a right to have who he wanted on the wall and Radio Raheem and Buggin' Out had a right not to be customers there and refuse to give Sal their money. The fact is all the characters are to blame, because... yeah, human beings kind of suck and do awful things to each other and look for ridiculous differences like race, gender, or whatever to either demean and hate against someone or conversely to wear victimhood like a badge of honor and use it as a cudgel, and so on.

Again, a reason, one of many, Do the Right Thing is so great is because the film itself doesn't preach or tell you what or how to believe and it's an "equal opportunity offender" in showing that one race doesn't have a monopoly on either racism or victimhood.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Lee created a work more subtle than his own stance? Sure, I can buy that. That's the danger of a subtle rhetorical strategy, you lose control over the interpretation as you invite more people in.

And don't get me wrong, I like your interpretation better. Moreover, the degree to which I am forced to respect Lee's work is in that space he creates for alterity. Where QT gives Calvin Candies, Lee gives us Sals (at least, he used to). And even if you wind up siding with Lee, you don't necessarily feel good about it.

I used to pay close attention to Lee, because he created these compelling, but ambivalent artworks. I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing his point. In part, I take the artwork to be a communication from the filmmaker to the audience, so I have an interest in the intended message as well as the achievement, or lack thereof, on the screen. And the more I listened, the more I became convinced that Lee is a bit racist, or on-tilt about race. For example, he collects racist ephemera (e.g., Sambo figurines) as a sort of proof of the dark soul of America. It doesn't help, for all the reflexivity in his films, that he publicly takes stances arguing that black people can't be racist, insisting on asymmetry of judgment where his films offer duality. No, I suspect that if this medicine man were to every truly master his medicine it would be the most subtle and insidious cocktail for division imaginable (Birth of a Nation, a Spike Lee Joint). I respect him, but I don't trust him .