Aren’t you glad you have me to fire up the ol’ Way-back Machine?

I don’t give Spike kudos on this for two reasons :

1. As star of many a Nike commercial that fed the beast he is now intent on slaying much more atonement is necessary. Donating money to charity made from the Nike ads plus interest for lo these many years past would be a good start.

2. Where was he ( or anyone else for that matter ) until Bill Cosby spoke? Answer : they were busy cashing in on being part of the problem. Now that it is “hip” to be square ( with many apologies to Huey Lewis and the News ), born-again believers in morality appear to be coming out of the woodwork.

It is said the measure of a man’s character is what he does when no one is looking. Well, with Spike we were looking, and he was part of the problem. When were weren’t looking, he was laughing all the way to the bank. I find it to be ironic he is complaining about his handiwork now, not praise-worthy.

I guess I am more apt to praise someone who may not have been doing the best before but then starts to make good moves.  Just as I have a problem with someone who used to do what I think is right and is now doing the opposite.

I guess I just don’t feel like people have to be slaves to their past.

Maybe it did take the Cos to bring people out of the woodwork, but that doesn’t reduce the importance of having influencers speaking out and condemning what is truly dispicable.

I have to admit that I don’t really understand what Spike Lee’s Nike commercials have to do with his beef with gangster rap.  He’s criticizing the record industry and not shoe manufacturers or their advertising methods.  There would be a problem here if he was going after the practices of big business, but I don’t see the connection Buster’s making. 

Lee (is in my humble opinion) one of the great contemporary film directors and he has always been outspoken about racial issues and identity.  I see these comments consistent with some of the points in his previous films.

For example, in Lee’s 2000 satire, Bamboozled, a black film executive desperate to be fired by his network pitches the worst idea he can possibly come up with—“Mantan’s New Millennium Minstrel Show” complete with blackface and coon jokes.  Much to his amazement, the minstrel show is a massive hit and one jaw dropping scene depicts a multiracial audience painted in blackface yelling, “I’m a N---er.”

Lee makes the point in the film that some of the things that pass for black culture these days are a kind of “blackface” that plays up to certain stereotypes about blacks.  He doesn’t specifically target gangster rap, but he does compare the stereotypes that the music espouses with blackface. 

The wrinkle in all of this (something that Lee doesn’t explicitly explore in Bamboozled) is that gangster rap is intended not for black urban audiences, but for suburban white youth (which incidentally, is what also happened to jazz).  While I believe the best of rap and hip hop is a reflection of the urban Black experience, much of what passes for gangster rap is not intended for Blacks and I would argue is disconnected from the community’s experience.

Other excellent Lee films include 1989’s Do the Right Thing about the clash between Italians, African-Americans and Koreans during one day in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood.  One scene features individuals reciting a litany of epithets for other racial groups (Lee’s attacking racism from all groups).  And of course there his magnificentMalcolm X (1992) which is a kind of epic journey of Black experience during the middle of last century.  A film, by the way, that is not only critical of Whites, but also the Nation of Islam.

Lee has been a man with his own message unafraid to court controversy long before Cosby spoke out.

Thanks for the history lesson.  I admit my ignorance as far as Spike Lee goes (again, aside from the silly lawsuit a year back and his behavior at Knicks games).

Ummm… so Spike made those commercials to get basketball players buying more Nikes… right?

Buster,

Are you criticizing Spike Lee for the content of these Nike commercials? Did these commercials have offensive content in them?

Or, are you critizing him for making commercials for Nike in the first place?

What exactly is the link between Nike and gangster rap that would cause Spike Lee to be some kind of hypocrite?

It was a simple friggin’ question -

Spike made the commercials to get basketball players to buy more Nikes, right?

Well, probably not professional basketball players – they typically get their shoes for free from the manufacturers as product endorsements.  The advertisements for Air Jordans were targeted to the general public, which of course is the entire point of advertising in a capitalist society.  However, I still don’t see what any of this has to do with obscenity in gangster rap.

It’s reasonable to assume based on your comments that you are accusing Lee of contributing to the obscenity in gangster rap through his Nike commercials.  Otherwise, what does he have to “atone” for that bears any relevance to his criticism? It appears at this point that you are dismissing his comments today because of unrelated advertising he did ten years ago that you for some reason find objectionable.

The only connection I could possibly see is that some gangster rappers wear basketball paraphernalia and shoes.  But that still doesn’t mean that Lee’s advertisements contributed in any way to the obscenity, unless the commercials featured and promoted obscene content.  Other than their price (and perhaps Nike’s problematic labor practices), there isn’t anything categorically obscene about their shoes.

What exactly is the link you’re making between the two?

Point #1 : The thrust of the story was the image of the “gansta” culture. Spike Lee did his dead-level best to promote this culture when he made commercials for Nike, and in trading on his “streed cred” to make money. It rings hollow to condemn that which he made money from not that long ago.

Point #2 : At no point in the story does Spike condemn “obscenity”, he condems the imagery of the “gansta” culture. Note that he wants to make unsupervised watching of TV by children a crime, not listening to rap music.

Point #3 : If you want to fixate on obscenity, fine. Here is the world’s shortest list : G-rated Movies I’ve Directed by Spike Lee.

Point #4 : The movies listed as currently in production at IMDB showing Spike as director do not look to be G-rated family fare either.

Conclusion : Spike ain’t walkin’ the walk. Spike is what he is condemning.

When you raised the issue of the Nike commercials, I didn’t see the connection that you were making between the two.  I brought up the obscenity because that’s usually the most notorious aspect of Gangster Rap and I assumed that’s what you were objecting to.  Thanks for the clarification.

However, it’s pretty obvious that you haven’t actually seen any of Spike Lee’s films and so your criticisms are not really based on his main body of work.

One of Lee’s major contributions is that he is one of the few minority filmmakers today presenting an accurate view of contemporary urban black experience.  Any kind of accurate depiction of this particular group of people will use Rap and Hip Hop imagery because of the dominance of those cultural and artisic forms within the community.  However, you’re lumping Lee into the same category as the “‘ho” and “bitch” spouting Gangster Rappers, and that is not an accurate appraisal of his work. 

Gangster Rap is a particular sub-genre of the Rap and Hip Hop field and while they share some common haracteristics, Gangster Rap has some of its own traits, particularly the extreme denegration of women and graphic depictions of violence.  One can use the Rap artistic forms without advocating the worst parts of Gangster Rap.  They’re not all the same thing.

As I stated before, Lee’s film Bamboozled takes to task the stereotypes of Black culture within the broader pop culture by comparing it to the blackface minstrel shows.  And just like there were African-Americans who wore blackface in these shows, the disemination of these stereotypes today also often has Black participants. 

It’s a bit strange that you are attacking Lee for making money off his own culture.  White people do this all the time—how many Country music artists wear cowboy hats on stage and in photographs? Would you consider them exploiting their “Southern creds” in the pursuit of profit? So Nike hired Spike Lee to make some commercials and he had the audacity to deposit his pay check.  Now that Martin Scorcese is making commercials for American Express trading on his reputation as a filmmaker and New Yorker, is he also a traitor to his race or at least New York?

There exists a double standard that assumes that minority artists must be “pure” from all profit motive.  We don’t expect it from Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorcese, why should we expect it from Spike Lee?

Spike Lee makes films for adults.  It’s okay for there to exist films and entertainment not suitable for small children.  There is content in his films not suitable for children, but his films are not marketed towards kids, in the way that Gangster Rap is marketed to suburban white youth.  I doubt that there are many 12 year olds chomping at the bit to see a lenghty, slow-paced drama on interacial relationships.

Furthermore, Lee’s films often combat stereotypes of African-Americans.  Mo’ Better Blues features Jazz musicians who do not abuse drugs, Crooklyn depicts a positive, stable African-American family; and Jungle Fever centers around a relationship between a successful African-Amercian architect and his white, blue collar secretary.

Spike Lee made the deliberate decision after Malcolm X to concentrate on low-budget art films because of the preassures from the major studios to make his films more commercially viable.  The budget for Bamboozled was only $10 million.  He spent a chunk of his own money plus contributions from prominent African-Americans like Bill Cosby and Micheal Jordan to mae Malcolm X since Warner Brothers refused to budget enough for the type of movie Lee wanted to make.  That’s hardly whoring for profits.

[Offensive content removed - Ed]

If ol’ Marty made “Gangs of New York” then ran all over the landscape condemning violence, I would be all over his ass too. The problem is he hasn’t that I have been able to tell, so I am not. If it comes to light he has, then I will cast the first boulder.

Likewise, you make a very big blunder when you say “gansta” stuff is marketed to white youth. Then where is the problem? The problem is this stuff may be marketed to white youth, but black youth can generally be said to be picking it up and running with it to an unhealthy degree. Remember, Spike didn’t object to the content of the “gansta” culture, he objected to the imagery.

He cannot do that and continue to make “R"-rated movies. That contributes directly to the imagery that he claims to be against, no matter how noble the subject matter of the movie. I fail to see how the objectives he claims to be for are furthered by R-rated movies of any type at all. An R-rated remake of Captain Kangaroo is still an R-rated movie, no matter how noble your intentions.

One need not shove a camera into the birth canal to have an accurate film about child birth. Your “accurate but ok” argument just doesn’t hold water. It only proves my point about Lee being part of the problem. To me, it testifies to his limitations and inabilities as a film maker. After all, John Ford make an excellent depiction of Ireland in The Quiet Man, but the cast wasn’t falling down drunk on camera. Hitchcock could do more with the power of suggestion than anyone else has been able to do with reality.

And since you brought his name into it, Spielberg is the biggest hypocrite in Hollywood. He is the most avid anti-gunner in the state of California, but by all accounts has the largest private gun collection in the state.

Your comments are all over the map, Buster. Ignoring all of off-topic stuff you interjected there, the point you seem to be making is that Lee has no business criticizing Gangsta rap because in the past he has made movies carring an R rating.

If the content in those movies is the same content that he is criticizing in the music, then his actions would be hypocritical.  However there are multiple reasons why a movie may carry an R rating.

Even if something my seem hypocritical to you, doesn’t necessarily make it so. 

Example: suppose Mr. Lee included an artistic sex scene in his movie (again - never saw any of them) between two people who ‘love’ each other.  Definitely not my cup of tea (Sex is not a spectator sport) but there is no doubt in my mind that a portrail like that is vastly different than the pimp/ho dynamic that is portrayed over and over in the music in question.

You may see them as equivalent, which you are free to do.  But you are not judge and jury in the court of public opinion.  Others may not agree with you.

Ah yes, back to the name calling.  Why is it Brother Buster, that whenever you and I get into discussions you resort to insulting me?

It would bolster your argument if you could give specific instances in which Spike Lee promoted Gangsta Rap or Culture.  Your basic argument is that Lee is a hypocrite for criticizing the imagery of Gangsta Rap because he promoted it (or at least elements of it) when he appeared on the Nike commercials

Okay, but how? Was it the commercial’s rap soundtrack? Was it his slang? Was it his baggy pants? What specific elements and instances in Lee’s films and advertisements promote a “culture” that romaticizes criminal and denigrates women? What has he done in any of his work that would be a link to the Gangsta culture?

I assume that any kind of link would include a glorification of violence, crime and drugs.  Yet in none of Lee’s films that I have seen, has he glorified any of this.  His black characters are mostly professionals—architects, jazz musicians, preachers, students, teachers, television executives, etc.  Some of them have a hip hop style or sensibility about them, but I maintain that an African-American in baggy clothing is not automatically an endorsement of Gangsta Rap.

The depictions of crime and drug use in Lee’s films are negative with grave consequences.  Samuel Jackson plays a heroin addict in Jungle Fever who preys on his family for drug money, at one point stealing the television from his elderly parents.  Jackson’s character is contrasted with Wesley Snipes, who plays his successful, middle class architect brother.  That’s hardly a positive re-enforcement of the drug life.

A race riot in Do The Right Thing causes the destruction of a local pizza parlor owned by Italians, but since this is the only restaurant in the entire neighborhood, Lee makes the point that this kind of mob violence is self-destructive when they burn down their own communities.  Hardly the glorification of violence.

Malcolm X depicts the young Malcolm as a small time crook on the streets of Boston but is then transformed in prison by the Nation of Islam sect out of a life of crime.  Malcolm later breaks with the NOI and their racist ideology after worshipping with White Muslims on his Mecca Pilgrimage.  Religion is a vehicle that transforms Malcolm from a hood into a leader.  Not really an endorsement of the Gangsta life.

But you suggest at this point that Spike Lee contributed to Gangsta Culture just by appearing on these advertisements and being himself.  Does that mean ANY African-American who appears in the media with hip hop sensibilities endorses Gangsta Culture? What then constitutes an acceptable appearence of an African-American? Should they all look, act and sound like Bill Cosby?

I brought up Martin Scorsese as a direct response to one of your comments.  You wrote:

Spike Lee did his dead-level best to promote this culture when he made commercials for Nike, and in trading on his “streed cred” to make money (emphasis mine).

My point was that White entertainers and artists basically do the same kind of thing.  Scorcese’s AMEX commercials trade in on his reputation as a film maker in order to peddle AMEX cards.  Presumably, Scorcese got a nice chunk of change for that.  If Scorcese can trade in his “creds” to make money, why can’t Spike Lee? 

I don’t know Scorcese’s views on violence, but that wasn’t my point. 

Filmmakers have the right to make the films they want to.  They have the right to tell stories the way they want to.  I don’t agree with Mel Gibson’s theology and have issues with The Passion but he had every right to make the film as he felt he had to.  Ratings are not a judgement call about a film—they are a self-imposed scale to warn parents about material that is inappropriate for children.  At least that was the original intention of the MPAA (but that’s a whole different topic).

Often older films that we today see as rather harmless were incredibly objectionable.  You mentioned Hitchcock.  In 1960, Psycho was not considered family fare.  It was one of the first Hollywood films to include an extra-marital affair and transvestite.  There is also final scene in which Hitchcock superimposed a skull over Anthony Perkins and of course the famous shower scene which was considered pretty brutal back then.  Hitchcock had to fund most of the film himself, because Universal got squeamish and it was a battle to get the film past the censors. 

Actually, the DVD of the film still carries an R rating. 

Good art pushes boundaries (though that’s not the only critieria for “good” art).

One more thing:

You wrote:

Likewise, you make a very big blunder when you say “gansta” stuff is marketed to white youth. Then where is the problem?
The problem is this stuff may be marketed to white youth, but black youth can generally be said to be picking it up and running with it to an unhealthy degree.

That’s a perculiar comment to make after Columbine when two White surburban youth certainly took something to “an unhealthy degree.”

It indicates a few interesting things about your biases that you make an exception for White but not Black youth.  Why is it that Black youth needed to be shielded more from media violence than White youth? Why do you have a double standard here?