(no subject)
Dear Spike Lee:
I have a bachelor's in History. And as such, I feel that I have a right to raise a ruckus when someone blantantly rewrites history to suit their own needs or bastardizes an event to make it "more interesting." This isn't always true. I understand in many cases when history is presented in another format- such as the historical fantasy turn in the movie 300 or the cover up of Marion Fox's racist and anti-Indian attitude in The Patriot. The latter I understand, it being an assurance that they will not bomb at the box office.
The Miracle at St. Anna sounds like a perfectly lovely film and I think I would have enjoyed it, but to slam Clint Eastwood and claim he "omitted blacks in combat" in his movies, which you claim were an all white affair is you being a big baby.
Let's discuss, shall we?
First point:
I wonder if you knew about the segretation policy of the military? Until Truman signed the law to change it, all branches of the military had segregated divisions. The Korean War was the first war where it was illegal to have these kinds of units, but we would not see (sucess)fully integrated units until the Vietnam War.
This does not mean that black and white units didn't fight side by side. It is indeed there are plenty of source that indicate there are instances where blacks fought along side whites . However, units themselves would rarely interact unless they were in a combat situation that required them to work together. Additionally, the units that lead the storming of Iwo Jima and that raised the flags were indeed white. As this was the focus for Flags of Our Fathers, the movie would be historically accurate in its portrayal.
Second point:
I wonder if you had actually took the time to watch Letters from Iwo Jima. As the sister compaion to FooF, it was to tell the story of Iwo Jima from the point of view of the Japanese. Last time I checked. . . the Japanese weren't white . In fact, it was filmed entirely in Japanese and is shown to English speaking audiences with subtitles. While it was nominated for the foreign film category for an Oscar, it is indeed the among the rare movies backed by a major Hollywood studio to use a language other than English. I've seen Letters and I felt it was vindication for the Japanese to see THEIR history shown and not only shown, but portrayed in an accurate light. I think its time we talk about Japan in WW2 and how the people of Japan felt, thought, and believed. It is a very underesearched topic (in MY opinion) in history classes today.
Third point:
History is not politically correct. Nor should it ever be viewed in that light. We, of the contemporary age, often forget what we feel and how we see things are drastically different that how things were actually viewed and seen by people of the time period. And it burns me to no end to see people like you try to claim it to be one thing or another. History just IS and it was written by the people who lived it and could write about it. The old adage that the winner's write history is true part of the time, but the losers aren't lost forever. We are seeing a movement in history to explore events in various viewpoints- winners, losers, men, women, etc. History isn't just women or men, black or white. Instead, GOOD history takes all viewpoints into consideration and present all sides of the story.
I don't think people can ever fully grasp what it was to be white, black, Asian, soldier, etc in a time period where politics and beliefs were different. I don't think the mental, physical and emotional aspects of a time period can every be fully captured by us because we didn't live it to know it. Being a war bride now is different than being a war bride in WWII or even the Vietnam War. I am a believer that all history should be told, but it makes me angry when people like you demand PC perfection. History wasn't and shouldn't be forced as such.
Fourth point:
I don't think I get why, two years after they were first released, you are now slamming Eastwood. How convienent it is that your new movie is set to be out at some point this year. Additionally, I want to know why you would attack Eastwood and not every other WW2 filmmaker in the last thirty years for "omitting black troops." I don't see you attacking Spielburg for Saving Private Ryan. In fact, given that your movie is set in Europe, it would make more sense to be attacking those particular films for "omitting black soldiers." I don't see Japanese Americans getting all huffy that Japanese Americans are not storming Iwo Jima (and that's because they KNOW Asians of ANY decent weren't allowe to fight in the Pacific theater).
Reading the article in the paper has made me lose a lot of respect for you. If you had said, "I'm making a movie about the black experience of WWII and the double V campaign, blah blah blah." I think I would respect you more. But to slam others for "not including these people" is just plain stupidity and I hope you learn a valuable lesson. Ultimately Mr. Lee, you've gone a step too far and I think you'd be better making your film and adding another view point to the story of World War II than opening your mouth and subtly accusing Clint Eastwood of racism. I belive in a total history narrative and I don't think a white man could understand what it was like to be a black man during the 1940s, let alone war. So YOU tell that story, Mr. Lee and leave Mr. Eastwood out of it.
Sincerely yours,
Me