Skip to main content

the movies, mr. lee and me

does this man need your money?
so i've posted a whole series of comparisons to people who are also writers, or active in fields where i
like to play. normally, the point of this is for me to give myself a pat on the back and reassure myself that i am better than newt gingrich, dick cheney or rob ford. and i believe that. but i can't start this post that way, because i can't just come out and say "i am better than spike lee". because i don't actually believe that, certainly not in the way i believe i'm better than those other doorknobs.

but i do have something i want to say to spike lee and it does come from a rather self-righteous part of my brain. i might not believe i'm better, but in this one particular instance, i think i have a legitimate argument.

for those of you who might not know [and that's probably a majority who don't follow film like it's a religion], spike lee has turned to kickstarter, the online fundraising site, to raise money for his next film. on the surface, it's an interesting proposition: avoid the controlling hands of big studios by going directly to the people for the funds. make the film that you want to make and then worry about getting distribution, which probably won't be difficult, since lee has the name to draw interest from distributors. increasingly, i think that filmmakers are going to be able to turn to these sorts of avenues in order to be able to make films that are outside the big-money visual field of the studio system. and i think that this is how new filmmakers will break into the public imagination- by making films on their own terms that will resonate with people desperate to see something different than what they get from the local multiplex.

but let's do a reality check here: spike lee describes himself [see link above] as a "hybrid", making studio pictures and indie pictures and i agree with him. the thing is, rather than asking the moviegoing public to put up $1.25 million for his new project, why not just pony up some of the cash he's gotten from his other ventures to fund it himself? fine, if he wants to ask other successful filmmakers like stephen sodebergh, who donated $10 000 to the project, that's one thing, but why do his fans owe him their money? this is a man who is a multi-millionaire in his own right, who has garnered big hollywood salaries for projects such as the american remake of "oldboy" and who is more than capable of finding financing on his own. yes, there are filmgoers [me included] who would love to see him return to his indie roots and do something that comes 100% from his heart. but why does he need us to pay for it?

john cassavettes routinely took money that he made from acting in big-budget pictures to fund his directorial passion projects. he mortgaged his house and begged from friends [including actor peter falk] to make "a woman under the influence". lee has multiple houses he could mortgage [in higher rent areas than cassavettes'] and, evidently, lots of friends he could ask. why is he asking us to pay?

i do have a bit of a personal gripe here. as you've likely read on the blog recently, i do have some filmmaking experience. dom and i really wanted to make a movie and so we did. and we didn't get studio backing, nor did we ask for kickstarter money. because it was our thing. we wanted to do it our way and that meant that we should be putting up our own money to do it. it was important to us to be able to make the film that we wanted [and we did]. that meant that we had to be willing to pay the bills ourselves [and we did]. we put every available cent into the production because it was really important to us to be able to do things our way and because we desperately wanted to see the project through. there were real risks involved and real sacrifices. that's what being passionate about something does to you.

i believe that spike lee was at one point passionate about film. his early films are still breathtaking and "do the right thing" is a film that i really believe changed my life and my perspective on race and race relations.

but what he's doing now isn't going back to his roots. it's cynically exploiting people who remember that his name on a film used to mean something, that it wasn't just a hollow exercise in branding.

as a fan, i'm insulted that lee seems to think that he is owed funding. as a filmmaker, i'm offended that, despite his success, he wants to play like there's no difference between what he's doing and the work of someone who is skipping a few meals a week to save up for the camera to make their first feature.

lee has a lot to say- much of it very true- about the subject of race. but perhaps he needs to think a little more about the issues of financial inequality, which are increasingly defining what people can and can't do, what dreams they can have and what legacy they will be able to offer. turning to crowd sourced funding may be trendy, but having a heavyweight like him involved is also going to distract attention and dollars from the people who legitimately need it. lee can get funding for his new project without turning to kickstarter. it's time he did the right thing.

you can buy a copy of our film conversion here.

you can give money to spike lee's kickstarter program here.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …