Comments

1. LaSmartOne wrote:

   racismreview (dotcom) recently featured a blog post about this issue. Historical truth is not so “strange to discern” when you remember that one million black soldiers fought in WWII, some of whom are still alive today. To exclude their contributions to the war is nothing short of continued propaganda for the “white racial frame” (i.e. white supremism in the media) to quote Joe Feagin. Spike Lee didn’t say that the flag raisers were black, (as if this particular historical moment was the totality of the war effort), but that there were black soldiers in Iwo Jima and that they are to be respected and recognized.

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 6:13 am ¶

2. Paul wrote:

   Eastwood’s more right than Spike on this one. The vast majority of combat troops in the Pacific Theater were white and since the Armed Forces were still segregated, many black troops occupied logistical roles. If you’re making a histroical film and want it not to be a joke (see Mann’s Last of the Mohicans), then you have to pay attention to the objective facts.

   If Eastwood made a film about the Exodusters and cast solely white people, then Spike might have a point.

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 7:15 am ¶

3. Keith wrote:

   Latoya said “Eastwood did not provide a justification for the second majority white movie set in the same period.”

   Isn’t “Letters from Iwo Jima” actually a majority Japanese film?

   I usually agree with Spike, but I think he picked an odd fight on this front. For all intents and purposes, “Letters” is probably the most sympathetic depiction of Japanese WWII soldiers in the history of Hollywood.

   And honestly, I don’t know who’s right in this debate. On the one hand, Clint’s got a point that the movie is about the flag-raisers–one of whom was actually Native American, and I’m pretty sure this character has a central role in the film. So as far as POC representation goes, these movies aren’t as lily white as this “controversy” implies.

   On the other hand, Spike is right to point out that there could have been more black actors cast, but that’s true of most Hollywood films. So why pick on these two (other than the fact that Spike has his own WWII movie coming out soon)?

   And to be completely honest, Spike’s own track record of inaccurately depicting historical periods in his films ain’t too pristine either. “Malcolm X” is one of my Top 5 movies ever, but I was, and still am, disappointed that Yuri Kochiyama–who held Malcolm’s head in her lap as he laid dying in the Audobon ballroom–was completely excised from the scene. I mean, would it have hurt to cast an Asian American actress–even in a non-speaking cameo–to at least acknowledge Kochiyama’s presence at the seminal moment in history?

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 7:36 am ¶

4. blackstarr wrote:

   I must disagree with Paul’s statement that Eastwood is more right than Spike. Yvonne Latty, an NYU prof, wrote a book entitled “We Were There: Voices Of African-American Veterans”. She wrote to Eastwood and the producers, pleading that they include the portrayal of Black soldiers in the film. The publishers of the book sent a copy to the director, but, never heard from anyone regarding the subject. Many Black soldiers fought at Iwo Jima, not just served up ammo. Christopher Moore, who wrote “Fighting for America: Black Soldiers – the Unsung Heroes of WWII”, says “They (Black soldiers) weren’t in the background at all”.

   “A guy like him (Lee) should shut his face” ????? “Like” as in what? Spike Lee is one of the most respected filmmakers in the business. Eastwood is little more than Wayne in a new flesh. Black soldiers did not touch the flag or the pole, but, without them, that flag may have never been raised at all. Peace.

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 8:05 am ¶

5. WestEndGirl wrote:

   I was wondering when this was going to hit racialicious and what people would have to say about it, because this row has been rumbling on in the Guardian and other UK media for about two weeks. See:
   http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/cannes/article3972316.ece

   In general, I think that Spike Lee has a hugely valid point to make vis-a-vis WW2 films and the absence of black, POC and other minorities in the most war films. I’m always intrigued when a native Englander says to me – my Grandad fought to save your lot (I’m Jewish) from Hitler – when in fact, apart from those too old to serve, all my male Jewish relatives were in the armed forces and about half were in combat roles. But you will never, ever, see a Jewish Londoner in a WW2 film showing a London battalion etc…. and that’s just a tiny example!

   But in specific, i.e. as it related to Clint Eastwood’s two films about Iwo Jima the particular event – i.e. the story of the flagraisers (one of whom was Native American and who was represented as such in the film) and the story from the perspective of the Japanese – I feel Lee was off base.

   There were just under 1,000 black soldiers at Iwo Jima in any capacity. Out of 70,000 mostly soldiers taking part. And according to my bloke who’s seen Flags of our Fathers, there are black actors in the invasion briefing scene and definitely some in the other moview but can’t remember which part, which would be historically accurate.

   And Clint Eastwood goes out of his way to ensure that things are historically accurate in his movies. And, he has always bucked the trend to make movies that have chosen diverse subject matters and feature a diverse range of actors.

   So from my perspective, on balance, I think that on this one Spike has got it wrong. If he had made a wider point that not enough films are made like his new one that features the African-Contribution to war efforts. If he had said, I really want Clint Eastwood to make another war movie, this time from the African-American experience in addition to those two, I would be standing on my chair supporting him. But he didn’t, and an attack on those specific two films doesn’t make sense to me.

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 8:42 am ¶

6. london wrote:

   clint alluded to spike having a problem with him making bird…
   spike may just still be bitter…

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 8:45 am ¶

7. RoslynHolcomb wrote:

   We have to recall that most of the sailors and Marines in WW2 were limited to munitions (See the Port Chicago incident. The Navy had a very racist policy of limiting blacks to the dangerous munitions jobs with little training and very poor safety measures. The job was deemed ‘too dangerous for a white man.)

   Very few, if any black men were in combat roles. Presumably most of the fighting on Iwo Jima and most of the Pacific was done my sailors and Marines, thus it would be historically inaccurate to include black people.

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:04 am ¶

8. LaSmartOne wrote:

   Regarding the Native American character
   From racismreview:

   “The fact that Eastwood chooses to tell this particular story – the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima – is a response to the white perspective on which stories are honorable, valuable and worth telling (photo credit: Wild About Movies). Eastwood chooses to re-tell a story that is primarily about whiteness. (Indeed, the one character that is not white, played by Adam Beach, is a Native American soldier who is a tragic figure that is the personification of the stereotype of a “drunk Indian,” further valorizing the white soldiers who are his comrades.)”

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:18 am ¶

9. Abu Sinan wrote:

   Lee was off base about this particular movie, of that there is no doubt. He would have been better off questioning why there are not more movies that specifically deal with African Americans and their role in WW2 than wondering why Eastwood did not manufacture roles for the movie that would not have been historically accurate for the movie.

   Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:19 am ¶

10. Philly Phil wrote:

    Both “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima” came out in 2006. I’m not entirely sure when Spike Lee decided to raise a stink over the ethnic make-up of both films, but this argument is too close to the release of his own WWII movie and thus, makes it seem opportunistic of Spike to pick a fight for publicity. I haven’t seen the trailer to this flick yet but I was already planning to see this WWII movie, mostly because the WIRE’s Michael K. Williams and Jamie Hector will be in it.

    @blackstarr: “A guy like him (Lee) should shut his face”. Critical acclaim and artistic respect aside, Clint wasn’t responding to Spike’s resume but Spike the sh!t-talker. A lot more people are interested in his upcoming movie now, that’s for certain.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:37 am ¶

11. Antonio wrote:

    To me, Spike Lee is too much of a hothead and too eager to cast things in a “white vs. black” light to be taken seriously. His response to Clint’s “shut his face” comment was:

    ‘First of all, the man is not my father and we’re not on a plantation,’ Lee told ABCNEWS.com. ‘The thing about it though, I didn’t personally attack him. And a comment like “a guy like that should shut his face” – come on Clint, come on. He sounds like an angry old man right there.’ [emphasis added]

    as if to say Clint didn’t want him speaking up because Clint is white and Lee is black.

    If WestEndGirl’s statistic is accurate, then only 1 in 70 soldiers were black and shoehorning a black character into the film would be blatant pandering IMO. Black soldiers deserve recognition for their contributions to WW2, but this isn’t the way to do that.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:45 am ¶

12. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    good ol’ Clint needs to calm the hell down. He’s living up to the reputation of an angry old white man. I still like his movies, though.

    To be honest I am sick, sick, SICCCKKKKK of WW2 movies. We have wayyy too many of these, so I’m not gonna side with Clint or Spike on this one.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:16 am ¶

13. cacy forgenie wrote:

    I give Spike props for calling BS on Eastwood and his ahisorical take on Iwo Jima. Spike’s not saying black men should have been included in raising of the flag, which was a staged photograph anyway. He’s saying that black men, who were on the island building runways, among other things, should have been acknowledged for their work. How would a few extras of color diminish or alter the story? 4 seconds of a shot of black dudes moving isht in the background….

    For too long contributions by people of color, hell BLACK PEOPLE, have been wiped from American history and world history. Spike’s right on this and Eastwood was wrong to command that Spike should shut his face. WTF? When did EastWood and his movies become untouchable? He needs to stop and ask himself some serious questions, questions like: was it because of guilt he made films with blacks actors in the 80′ s and 90’s? Cuz he did murder hundreds of us in the 70’s and no one said a word.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:22 am ¶

14. cacy forgenie wrote:

    Spike, at that same conference, also talked about the Wachowski brother’s, how their approach to filmmaking appeared to be anti-life. No one’s talking about that part of his statement, how Spike values and celebrates life in his films.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:31 am ¶

15. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    @ cacy forgenie:

    yeah I remember hearing a quote by Spike Lee a few weeks ago. He said something about how he looks at murders/violence differently from the Coen Brothers, because the Coen Brothers think violence and murders are funny, evidently due to movies like Fargo and No Country for Old Men.

    I’d be interested in hearing more explaination abotu that quote. I wonder if it has to do with race and being black (probably).

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:43 am ¶

16. Sarah wrote:

    I can understand why Lee had a complaint. He wasn’t saying they should have changed the race of any of the main characters just to be more PC. He was saying that Black soldiers made important contributions to the war effort, and it would be nice to have that acknowledged by having POC at least in the background of some of the scenes.

    But ultimately, it is Eastwood’s film, and he shot what he felt were historically accurate scenes.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:29 am ¶

17. WestEndGirl wrote:

    I have an idea. And this partly relates to the new thread re: the OJ Simpson test as the argument of the commentators does seem to concern the general/specific issue that I raised above. Generally is Spike Lee right about representation? And specifically relating to these films is he right?

    And trying to answer those questions, it strikes me that none of us here have actually seen the movies in person! My boyfriend has and said he did see black actors in Flags of our Fathers (as I said this argument has been ongoing in the UK media for some weeks now!!), but since I didn’t see it myself, that’s just second hand.

    Wouldn’t it make sense to get someone to get them on DVD today/tonight and watch then super carefully to see if black actors are in any of the background of the scenes* in a proportion representative of their historic numbers and actual role of participation in the battle of Iwo Jima…?

    So, for example, if there are significant numbers of scenes featuring munitions soldiers (which I undertand the vast majority of African American Iwo Jima soliders were) as well as the main combat story, then there should be some black actors in those scenes, if only a few.

    If there aren’t those kind of scenes and given military segregation of the times and the fact that 69,100 out of 70,000 of the Iwo Soldiers were white, it does seem a bit unreasonable for Lee to attack Eastwood for this.

    * I’m say in the background of the scenes because of the narrow historic focus of one film on the flag raisers and the other is from the Japanese perspective, not because black actors/characters should be relegated to the background!

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶

18. Philly Phil wrote:

    @ LaSmartOne:

    i take issue with that quote’s perspective. “Eastwood chooses to re-tell a story that is primarily about whiteness.” What Clint did was tell a story about war, in particular, how the public perceived the marines who raised the flag in iwo jima. how something so iconic changed the lives of the men involved.

    “Indeed, the one character that is not white, played by Adam Beach, is a Native American soldier who is a tragic figure that is the personification of the stereotype of a ‘drunk Indian’” — Ira Hayes, the character played by adam beach was based on a real life native american marine who, after the war, suffered from PTSD and turned to alcholism to cope. He accumulated something like 50 arrests for drunkeness.

    All of this is documented in the book “Flags of Our Fathers” which was the basis of the movie.

    Ira Hayes was a real man with real problems and not some sterotype used for the purpose of filling some minority quota in a movie. Instead of researching the real people involved in the raising of the flag in iwo jima, the author of that blog ignorantly decided he was a stereotype because he was “drunk” and “indian”.

    so in this case, who’s the racist?

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶

19. Tony wrote:

    As Eastwood said the movie was more about the flag raisers than the battle itself.
    As Eastwood said, when he does things that call for lots of black actors, he uses black actors, it’s not like he’s avoiding doing any projects that require non-whites.

    Spikes little “plantation” quip just makes him look like a moron who cries out racism at everything.

    Honestly it’s just childish and only makes things worse.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶

20. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Keith -

    Correct on both counts. I have not seen the movies, so I went off the (apparently incorrect) information presented with the articles surrounding the controversy. I’ll edit that.

    And yes, Lee was wrong to leave out Yuri Kochiyama.

    @PhillyPhil – Ira Hayes was a real man with real problems and not some sterotype used for the purpose of filling some minority quota in a movie. Instead of researching the real people involved in the raising of the flag in iwo jima, the author of that blog ignorantly decided he was a stereotype because he was “drunk” and “indian”.

    Good point. History has the strange quality of being based on real, complex people.

    @WestEndGirl –

    For my money –

    1. Spike Lee is right, broadly speaking. There is a trend to whitewash historical dramas, based in the whitewashing of history. That’s not new.

    2. He *may* be wrong about these two films. As you point out, many of us haven’t seen the films. My DVD queue is locked up for about a month – any volunteers to watch and report back? Or anyone who has watched, what’s your perspective?

    @Cacy – Will investigate.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:57 pm ¶

21. LaSmartOne wrote:

    I think that the writer on racismreview was pointing to why Clint Eastwood chose to tell this particular story, with these particular characters. Also, as someone has pointed out in one of the above comments, the iconic photo was a staged event. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶

22. Cara wrote:

    well….it’s all “historical evokation”….it can’t be completely accurate b/c we weren’t there. the question is, “where the squads and units involved in the Iwa Jima flag raising (and all those present on the Island) “all white?”

    I found a great article that may help answer this question at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812972,00.html?imw=Y, entitled “Were African-Americans at Iwo Jima?” By Alex Altman.

    It turns out that there were at least 700-900 black marines/navymen present in non-combat roles (b/c they were not allowed to participate in combate during that time). Most of which came from my home state of North Caroline ).

    My grandfather was a WWII vet, he wasn’t allowed to serve in the infantry, therefore he was a “messman”….a cook for all you civilians ). But he was present at the bombing of Pearl Harbor (i don’t know about I.J). It was one of the things he always remembered from his two years of service. He also remembered the treatment black sailors received during that time…..

    But back to our discussion…..Eastwood was set to tell the story of the individuals that rose the flag….so I think that inserting blacks into their narrative would be kind of like tokenism. I think films of historical evokation should be honest most of all. If these men were surrounded by whites mostly (which was actullay the case until after 1948, when the military desegregated) then tell “their” story. I don’t think he should have to put in a black marine (who may not have a significant role/part in the narrative) just to appease his peers. It would attract a broader audience to the file, but I don’t see how a small (insignificant) role in the film would rightfully honor those African American servicemen of WWII. Don’t give these men a “shout out” give them an entire film! So maybe Lee’s film will be the avenue to tell these black marines’ stories.

    It’s b/c of the lack of historical reference to Blacks in military genre film “over-all”, that this is even an issue. But….I look forward to the day when Eastwood will direct an all-black “Miracle at Saint Anna” and Lee can direct an all-white “Flags of our Father’s” type film without any expectations of why they were chosen to do the film or how they chose to represent history on the screen. BUT THAT BRINGS UP A BIGGER ISSUE…..I hear Eastwood will direct a Nelson Mandela bio pic with a mostly black cast. We will see if this will be marketable (even with Morgan Freeman taped as the lead). And equally, the future will tell if a Spike Lee mostly-white film (i.e. 25th hour, summer of sam, inside man, etc.) will have continued box office success.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:06 pm ¶

23. Philly Phil wrote:

    I’m curious to know if anyone here had a problem with Clint directing the Charlie Parker movie and why?

    Has Spike ever elaborated as to why he himself had a problem with it?

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶

24. Lynn wrote:

    So here’s a question:

    Why is it soooooooo imperative to be historically accurate in film with respect to portrayals of events centered around white people and sooooooooo optional with respect to portrayals of events centered around people of color?

    Perhaps this isn’t a fair comparison, but the most immediate example that comes to mind is “21″. The race of the students was a key factor in their success, but there were not these meticulous attempts at historical accuracy for THAT movie.

    I can’t weigh in specifically on Clint Eastwood’s movies because I haven’t seen them. But is it really too much to ask that some Black extras be tossed in the mix?

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶

25. Philly Phil wrote:

    @ LaSmartOne

    “Also, as someone has pointed out in one of the above comments, the iconic photo was a staged event. That, in itself, speaks volumes.”

    This was also prominent in Clint’s movie. The American government’s propaganda machine and how they basically used these specific marines as their wartime spokesmodels is one of the reasons why Ira Hayes turned to alcholism. During Hayes’ visit to the White House, a reporter asked him how he liked all the pomp and circumstance, Hayes responded “I don’t.”

    Maybe we should ALL watch the movie and report back to Racialicious with our reviews and our better-formed opinions.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶

26. YamYam wrote:

    I don’t think this was meant to be the polemic that it turned out. I think it was an off the cuff comment by Spike that got sucked into the celebrity media reputation vortex. However, apparently Spike was wrong in saying so, but not in bringing up what he was getting to meaning: if the movie is called “Flags of our Fathers” and there is black presence in the movie, there are no black forefathers to lay our tributes down for. This is what Spike intuited, I believe.

    Another thing I believe, is that Clint Eastwood reacted disrespectfully, but no one is calling him out on it because no one tries to uphold a public sentiment of gratitude for the black WWII Army veterans, especially if it comes at truly important moments in the development of the United States success during WWII.

    The Media only wants to hear about the Tuskegee experiment.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:29 pm ¶

27. LaSmartOne wrote:

    Fair enough Philly Phil.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:48 pm ¶

28. Andrea Rodriguez wrote:

    I think a lot of people are missing a huge big fat point: this is based on a book, a book Eastwood decided to make into a movie because it touched him in some way. I just finished reading the book today actually. So, if Lee has any quarrel, it should be with Bradly (the author and son of one of the last surviving flag raisers) not Eastwood.
    I’m going to have to agree with Eastwood on this one. I have not done my research on this (although it is a subject of interest) as to how many African-Americans served in Iwo Jima but if as someone mentioned, 1-70, thats quite a few and to try to divide that up into the 6 different lifes that the flag raisers insected, the probabilities are quite low.
    The book/movie was about the flagraisers and their lives before and after. Unfortunately, I do not believe there was a mention of any African-American friends at the time. Not becuase they were ignored, but because there were none in those particular flagraisers’ lifes’.
    I will say that I agree completely with Cara, but I will disagree with LaSmartOne for saying the picture was staged, that actually got a whole chapter in the book entitled “Myths”. Its started out innocently enough. There were two photographers, one for color film, one black and white as well as a videographer. After the first flag raising (which was also photographed) , a lieutenant wanted the smaller flag as a souvenir, so asked a few people to take it down, and put up a bigger replacement flag. That was The Photograph. The color photographer was at one angle, the videographer in the front, and Rosenthal, the black and white photographer, to another angle, nearly missing the “staged shot”, which it was not. He was not even ready when the flag went up, he just clicked the camera and hoped for the best. Fearing that photo had not come out, the called on for more soldiers to pose (stage) for another photo in front of the already raised flag. When Rosenthal was asked about how great the photo was (without yet seeing the results as it was developed in the states and Rosenthal was in Guam) , they asked him if it was staged. He obviously assumed the photo with the group and replied, yes it was.
    *That’s* where the inaccuracy lied.

    Sorry, that got long but if we’re trying to be correct in this thread, I had to speak up.

    Maybe, I’ll go rent the movie tonight then.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:08 pm ¶

29. cacy forgenie wrote:

    @ DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!!

    Thanks for the correction! It was the Coen Brothers, not the Wachowski’s. I Didn’t have time to double check my memory AND do a google search for the original article.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:46 pm ¶

30. Bq wrote:

    West End Girl,

    How would you be able to tell if the people in the WWII movies are Jewish or Christian?

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶

31. WestEndGirl wrote:

    Bq
    I’m not sure how many English WW2 movies you’ve watched, but I have, quite a few. And when they feature various regiments from London and at the basic level there are:
    - no soldiers featured who are explicitly Jewish when there soldiers featured who are explicitly Irish, Welsh etc
    - no soldiers featured who have any name vaguely of the Cohen, -berg, -stein, variety
    - no soldiers featured who are even vaguely Semitic looking

    …then it’s pretty easy to tell that they are not featuring Jewish characters or using Jewish actors.

    And I’m actually rather intrigued as to why you would ask the question and frame it in that manner (Jew v. Christian) rather than appreciate that being Jewish has ethnic, racial, religious and cultural components.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 4:51 pm ¶

32. Vodalus wrote:

    Bq: probably the same way they show you which ones are Catholic.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶

33. A. wrote:

    When black people are included in a historical film, even when there is documented information to show that they were there, and if it is in a role that isn’t subservient or related to being someone’s maid or helpless negro, it’s political correctness.

    When it’s white for days, with evidence showing to the contrary that it is all white people there, it’s “historical accuracy.”

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 5:12 pm ¶

34. Mickey wrote:

    I’m glad this is being discussed. I recently took a trip to Washington DC and had a chance to see the African-American Civil War Memorial.

    I am 25 years old and I never knew such a thing EXISTED. I had been taught in school that slaves were simply waiting around to be freed; that Black men never took an active part in gaining their freedom.

    It motivated me to learn more about African Americans and our contrubutions to the armed forces.

    Oh, and this visit I took? NOT included in with the million and 1 musems and memorials we were REQUIRED visited that week.

    

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 7:08 pm ¶

35. Mickey wrote:

    @Andrea Rodriguez

    You do make some really good points. And I never got a real answer on if the flag raising was staged, so thanks for the info!

    But I have to disagree with you on blaming the author. Lots of books get made into movies. The director/studio get to take creative license with the content of that book.

    So while the book may not have spoken about Black soldiers directly (I take from your post the book mainly focused on the guys in the photo), it doesn’t discount the fact that they were there fighting right along with everyone else.

    But regardless of creative license, I think if a movie is about a true life event, it needs to be accurate.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 7:21 pm ¶

36. Paul wrote:

    Mickey,
    You might want to read a book of Civil War letters entitled, “On the Altar of Freedom.” It’s the actual letters of a black Union soldier.

    As to historical accuracy, I wonder where Spike was when “Glory” took major liberties with history? The real story of the unit was far more fascinating than the Hollywood portrayal. Rather than telling the story of real men, it trafficked in steretypes, i.e. the angry black man, the noble black man, the educated yet somewhat effeminate black man.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 7:32 pm ¶

37. Ratrace wrote:

    Here’s a challenge to any of Clint’s detractors. See the movie, download it off mininova if you don’t want to give him royalties. Then, point out where in any scenes Black soldiers should have been inserted. Point out any scenes where there might have been white-washing. I doubt you’ll find any without being completely historically inaccurate.
    As for Ira, he was no stereotypical drunk Indian. He was in many ways the most complex and sympathetic character in the whole movie. His story touches on segregation and racism on the homefront and a lot of the disgust at the way they were being used stems from his anger and feelings of disenfranchisement.
    This is a fine film and Spike (who has a history of racism in his own films especially against Asians) needs to shut his face.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:31 pm ¶

38. Aquarianbrass wrote:

    Ratrace,
    Exactly how has Spike Lee been racist against asians in his movies? Give us some examples before you throw out such accusations.
    And the whole idea of “historically accurate” is subjective because historians argue and fight over what really happened all the time and when one writes a book or makes a movie based off a book or historical event they are ultimately choosing one vision from out of many.
    And if you think that there were no black combat units in WWII or that even “non-combat” units saw no action that you need to bone up on your WWII chops.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:52 pm ¶

39. bdsista wrote:

    Ratrace, being Native and Black you do yourself and all of us a disservice to mimic the rudeness of Eastwood. My grandfather died from injuries he sustained in the Port Chicago explosion dying when my father was 16. My father entered WWII at the end of it, and never left the US, but served in Korea. I have seen both films twice being a WWII buff and sharing that love of history with my father and Lee is right. There were plenty of battle scenes like in Saving Private Ryan, where Black actors could have been cast. They could have been cast in Letters from IWo Jima as well. To say the film was solely about the three flag raisers indicates that you haven’t seen it. A huge chunk of it is the battle up the beach, up the hill, around the island. Lots of time to show some black actors getting shot along with everyone else. Certainly time to show them on the ship on the way over and then maybe creating a character that we will sympathise about when he gets killed. Eastwood, created many characters and enabled them to be characters you felt for. The absence of black characters not only whitewashes history, it dehumanizes those who died for our freedom. My grandfather died in service to his country, Eastwood should respect and honor that as much as anyone else, and particularly on film. Spike is right, I am glad someone has the guts to confront those who perpetuate the racism of invisibility.
    Oh and I am sick of the Flags vs. Bird, two totally different films and is Eastwoods thing to segregrate via film? ?Bird had white people in the film. Most notably his wife/woman.

    Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:15 pm ¶

40. Mickey wrote:

    @ Paul

    Thanks for the book tip. I’ll add it to the summer reading list.

    I saw Glory when it first came out. At that time I had no real knowledge of the Civil War and Black history, so I may need to see it with ‘grown up” eyes.

    Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 10:09 am ¶

41. squidfly wrote:

    This argument is sad, Spike’s comments are something that I would have expected him to have made twenty years ago. Spike should be attacking the institution of Hollywood and the History Channel, not Clint Eastwood.
    This has more to do with Spike Lee as a Director and his lack of an Academy Award than it does with Historical accuracy.
    Spike chooses his targets based on convenience: point in case, the whole Nigger complaint/attack on Tarrantino. Yet Spike has never called Scorsese out for using Nigger freely in his flicks, actually there’s always a Nigger moment for a white Scorsese character Spike has chosen to give Scorsese a free pass. I can’t get on Spike’s moral bandwagon, which in this case is more like selective targeting on this one, since he left “Band of Brother’s, Saving Private Ryan and a multitude of smaller WW II movies produced in the last fifteen years, with no Black representation. Oliver Stone’s 9-11 Opus lacked any Black characters when it was commonly known that many of the Port Authority Cop’s were Black. Self promotion is part of the Hollywood huckster, but under the guise of berating other Artists and race muscle flexing, it renders as a non argument on the National “Back of the Bus” meter. And I think it’s perfectly credible for the Bird argument to be raised, since this shows a legacy of Clint Eastwoods casting of Black Male/Women performers. How many Black’s/POC’s have you counted in the last Spielberg or Scorsese offerings? I became a little suspicious of Scorese’s New York New York with Liza Minnelli and De Niro as Jazz man and singer, with no Black male/Female characters. The plot was a roughly hewn sketch of Lady Day and Prez aka Lester Young, even though they were not romantically linked. If anything this movie, and calling itself New York, New York! Is as much of a travesty of racial distortion, yet Spike has given this man-Scorcese a free pass. Spike needs to look at his own record of omiting Asian Americans from his street scenes. Even the best of us have Black/White worlds.
    Glass Houses?…

    Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 11:27 am ¶

42. Andrea Rodriguez wrote:

    @ Mikey, Thanks. I do agree with you that directors do have some degree of responsibility, especially since they can cast whoever as extras.

    I also agree with what someone else said, “historical accuracy” *is* subjective, (not sure if’ I’m contradicting myself at all) and that is why I love history. It can tell so many stories from so many people’s perspectives on one single event, and that should be embraced.

    Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 1:34 pm ¶

43. Jeff Lew wrote:

    Spike Lee really does need to shut his mouth! He complains about Eastwood leaving out black soldiers in “Flags of our Fathers” but leaves out a key Asian American activist who was present at Malcom X’s death. Also, in “Do the Right Thing”, Koreans are depicted as rude and inhuman characters who “deserve” their mistreatment from black thugs. What a hypocrite.

    Also, somebody compared Eastwood to John Wayne, which is absolutely ridiculous because Eastwood was responsible for the introspective approach to the western which heavily de-romanticizes the genera. If anything, Eastwood is the post-modern, deconstructing of John Wayne.

    Finally, the fact that Eastwood even bothered to make “Letters from Iwo Jima” speaks volumes about his attempt at reconciliation and humanizing the Japanese enemy of WWII. Until Spike Lee does the same, he really needs to shut the hell up!

    Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶

44. katherine wrote:

    It’s important to note Spike Lee didn’t just “leave out” a key Asian American activist. Yuri Kochiyama cradled Malcolm X’s head as he died in real life. Of course no mention or appearance of her in the film version.

    Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 5:15 pm ¶

45. squidfly wrote:

    Spike is morphing into Katherine Heigl.

    Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 11:00 pm ¶

46. Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

    Spike Lee needs to STFU! Not only did start this stupid issue, When Eastwood told him to “shut his face” he had the nerve to say “I’m going to take the Obama high road!!? Obama wouldn’t have started the stupid argument to begin with! Eastwood’s the last person to pick a fight with about the diversity in his films. Spike’s lucky Clint didn’t ride into town on his ass! It’s embarrassing when a 78 year old man beats the crap out of you!

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 10:41 pm ¶

47. slappy wrote:

    @ bdsista
    “Oh and I am sick of the Flags vs. Bird, two totally different films and is Eastwoods thing to segregrate via film? ?Bird had white people in the film. Most notably his wife/woman.”

    Eastwood’s ‘thing’ is more about accuracy and not segregation.
    ‘Bird’ is a biopic about Charlie Parker. His wife, Chan, was white and the script for Bird was based on her book.
    Bird jammed with white cats like Stan Getz and Benny Goodman as well as managed by Ross Russell.

    Bird Lives!

    Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:52 pm ¶

48. Mort wrote:

    For all the probably “educated” people on this “blog”, there are a lot of opinions put forth without even giving Mr. Eastwood the courtesy of at least viewing the movie first. There WERE SEVERAL BLACK ACTORS IN THE MOVIE ” FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS” and they were apparently going to be combat soldiers, as they were being briefed as same.
    Spike Lee has some skeletons in his closet to answer to before he starts pointing to others mistakes of omission. I.E., omitting the Asian girl as previously noted in Malcolm X, and also, the blatant racism visa vie the Koreans’ in “Do the Right Thing” as also noted previously.
    Yet an old , is it 78 yr.s old already, white guy, probably should’nt go around telling a younger fella to “shut his face”. Its not good for neighborhood relations. But then we should probably give him a break considering the likelyhood of senileity setting in.
    One other point- that picture on Iwo was not staged. Any one stating so does those veterans a Great Diservice, and you better not say it within earshot of me, buddy. Those Men fought and died for his Country, and maybe you should take a trip to a local VA Hospital, a have a GOOD LOOK AROUND. Then Maybe, you will Wake Up.
    PEACE.

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 10:39 am ¶