list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Malcolm X on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Malcolm_X/21554/default.aspx Title: Malcolm X
Year: 1992
Director: Spike Lee
Plot: Writer-director Spike Lee's epic portrayal of the life and times of the slain civil rights leader Malcolm X begins with the cross-cut imagery of the police beating of black motorist Rodney King juxtaposed with an American flag burning into the shape of the letter X. When the film's narrative begins moments later, it jumps back to World War II-era Boston, where Malcolm Little (Denzel Washington) is making his living as a hustler. The son of a Baptist preacher who was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, Little was raised by foster parents after his mother was deemed clinically insane; as an adult, he turned to a life of crime, which leads to his imprisonment on burglary charges. In jail, Little receives epiphany in the form of an introduction to Islam; he is especially taken with the lessons of Elijah Mohammed, who comes to him in a vision. Adopting the name 'Malcolm X' as a rejection of the 'Little' surname (given his family by white slave owners), he meets the real Elijah Mohammed (Al Freeman, Jr.) upon exiting prison, and begins work as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam. Marriage to a Muslim nurse named Betty Shabazz (Angela Bassett) follows, after which X spearheads a well-attended march on a Harlem hospital housing a Muslim recovering from an episode of police brutality. The march's success helps elevate X to the position of Islam's national spokesperson. There is dissension in the ranks, however, and soon X is targeted for assassination by other Nation leaders; even Elijah Mohammed fears Malcolm's growing influence. After getting wind of the murder plot, X leaves the Nation of Islam, embarking on a pilgrimage to Mecca that proves revelatory; renouncing his separatist beliefs, his oratories begin embracing all races and cultures. During a 1965 speech, Malcolm X is shot and killed, reportedly by Nation of Islam members. ~ Jason Ankeny, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 10
Number of Lists: 21
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:01:12 GMTMalcolm X1992Spike LeeWriter-director Spike Lee's epic portrayal of the life and times of the slain civil rights leader Malcolm X begins with the cross-cut imagery of the police beating of black motorist Rodney King juxtaposed with an American flag burning into the shape of the letter X. When the film's narrative begins moments later, it jumps back to World War II-era Boston, where Malcolm Little (<a href="/players/P____74843/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Denzel Washington</a>) is making his living as a hustler. The son of a Baptist preacher who was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, Little was raised by foster parents after his mother was deemed clinically insane; as an adult, he turned to a life of crime, which leads to his imprisonment on burglary charges. In jail, Little receives epiphany in the form of an introduction to Islam; he is especially taken with the lessons of Elijah Mohammed, who comes to him in a vision. Adopting the name 'Malcolm X' as a rejection of the 'Little' surname (given his family by white slave owners), he meets the real Elijah Mohammed (Al Freeman, Jr.) upon exiting prison, and begins work as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam. Marriage to a Muslim nurse named Betty Shabazz (<a href="/players/P_____4466/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Angela Bassett</a>) follows, after which X spearheads a well-attended march on a Harlem hospital housing a Muslim recovering from an episode of police brutality. The march's success helps elevate X to the position of Islam's national spokesperson. There is dissension in the ranks, however, and soon X is targeted for assassination by other Nation leaders; even Elijah Mohammed fears Malcolm's growing influence. After getting wind of the murder plot, X leaves the Nation of Islam, embarking on a pilgrimage to Mecca that proves revelatory; renouncing his separatist beliefs, his oratories begin embracing all races and cultures. During a 1965 speech, Malcolm X is shot and killed, reportedly by Nation of Islam members. ~ Jason Ankeny, All Movie Guide10Taggedy Taggged (6-10)2133http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t52337pvwcn.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Malcolm_X/21554/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/14/36308.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/14/2008 5:01:12 PM
Body: Oliver Stone has long been synonymous with political passion projects, but his latest film, W., may be his most ambitious effort yet, if only because of how quickly the thing came together and got made. Now the serio-comic biopic about our sitting president is about to hit theaters, less than ten months after anyone had heard of its inception, and it’s getting a number of favorable reviews, will possibly rule the box office this weekend, and could even garner an Oscar nomination for Josh Brolin, who portrays the man with the titular initial, George W. Bush. But not all political passion projects are quite as successful as W. is expected to be. Some such films have been banned, while some have simply failed to acquire an audience on more democratic grounds, whether in terms of box office, critical or awards recognition. Yet regardless of the reception of a political passion project, either at the time of release (or intended release) or decades later, it may be regarded as an achievement merely for being made, because it can be a difficult task for a filmmaker, no matter how famous or powerful, to completely, without compromise, express his or her politics using such a collaborative and populist form of art as cinema. We’ve put together a list of 10 political passion projects that were (and are) successful on both levels. They’ve been embraced by a wide audience, a majority of critics and/or the Academy, and they also manage to be as uncompromising in their political passion as is possible in Hollywood. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) For his first “talkie”, Chaplin took on Hitler and the Nazis when it was still taboo for American media to do so. And it became his biggest hit ever in spite of its controversial subject matter. Considering one of the major problems with W. is reportedly Oliver Stone’s inability to mix the serious scenes with the comic, he might have benefitted from looking again at this film, one of the greatest political satires of all time. Meet John Doe (Frank Capra, 1941) Capra had already made a number of greater films with political subject matter, but this was pretty much his ultimate passion project, a culmination of themes he’d worked with on similar films like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But as successful as those films were in terms of Capra’s political expression, and as free as the filmmaker seemed to be throughout his illustrious career at Columbia Pictures, he always felt at least a little stifled by studio head Harry Cohn, and so with this, his first semi-independent project (co-produced and distributed by Warner Bros.), he had the most creative control yet. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t nearly as popular as his past films and the film is also not nearly as tight a work. However, more than 65 years later, it’s still one of the best displays of a filmmaker attempting to work out and express his political ideals in a mainstream film. Wilson (Henry King, 1944) Long before Oliver Stone and political documentarians made it more common and acceptable to make a movie about disliked politicians, producer and 20th Century Fox founder Darryl F. Zanuck developed this passion project about his favorite president, Woodrow Wilson. And the result would seem to have been a great success based on its reception by critics and the Academy Awards (nominated for 10, it won 5 Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay), yet it was a terrible, terrible flop at the box office, apparently because the public didn’t like or care about Wilson as much as Zanuck did. And legend has it that Zanuck was so embarrassed by the failure that he forbade his staff to ever mention its title again. Despite it’s Oscar success, it is unfortunately unavailable on DVD. The Green Berets (Ray Kellogg, John Wayne, John Gaddis and Mervyn LeRoy, 1968) Regardless of whether or not you agree with John Wayne’s politics, you have to give the guy some respect for making a stand with this film, which displays his support for the Vietnam War. It was a bold move for anybody, even one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, to dare go up against the zeitgeist of the times. And of course it was and is very much hated because of its heavy handed pro-war message. Reds (Warren Beatty, 1981) Beatty had already shown himself to be something of a politically minded celebrity, and he would go on to a greater reputation for being a liberal actor/filmmaker, but here with his first solo directing effort, he made an ambitious epic about the American communist John Reed and released it in a year that ushered in the most conservatively materialistic decade of the 20th century. Despite the political climate of the country, though, it was relatively successful at the box office, and it went on to recieve 12 Oscar nominations, of which it won 3, including a Best Director trophy for Beatty. Malcolm X (Spike Lee, 1992) Whether or not you believe it should have been nominated for more Oscars or if it was politically and racially ignored, the success of Malcolm X, both financially and culturally, was a terrific achievement for Spike Lee, who had made and has made less ambitious political passion projects before and since, some even arguably better than this one. Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins, 1995) Robbins had already begun making political statement films a few years earlier with Bob Roberts, but this film, which he also produced, is the greater passion project. It may occasionally put off supporters of the death penalty, but those performances by Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar) simply can not be ignored. The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004) You can’t think about passion projects without this film immediately coming to mind –– and not just because it has the word passion right there in the title. As for the political part, as much as some of us would prefer not to think of religion as being a part of politics, it certainly is, and both the marketing and reception of Gibson’s film were very much from political perspectives, possibly even more so than from straight religious perspectives. Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005) Perhaps the best cinematic celebration of journalism since All the President’s Men, Clooney’s film is also possibly the classiest political passion project since guys like Beatty, Robbins and Clooney decided to go behind the camera and express their ideals. Darfur Now (Ted Braun, 2007) At a time when famous people like George Clooney and the double duty of “Brangelina” get equal respect and flak for being so political, it’s refreshing to see this documentary defend celebrity action while also examining the film’s specific cause. Produced by and featuring Don Cheadle (and also featuring Clooney), the doc is not technically the actor’s project as much as it is Braun’s, yet due to Cheadle’s passionate interest in the Darfur issue and his involvement with and in the film, and because he’s the biggest name on the production, it can certainly be accepted as equally his political effort. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:01:12 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/14/2008 5:01:12 PMOliver Stone has long been synonymous with political passion projects, but his latest film, W., may be his most ambitious effort yet, if only because of how quickly the thing came together and got made. Now the serio-comic biopic about our sitting president is about to hit theaters, less than ten months after anyone had heard of its inception, and it’s getting a number of favorable reviews, will possibly rule the box office this weekend, and could even garner an Oscar nomination for Josh Brolin, who portrays the man with the titular initial, George W. Bush. But not all political passion projects are quite as successful as W. is expected to be. Some such films have been banned, while some have simply failed to acquire an audience on more democratic grounds, whether in terms of box office, critical or awards recognition. Yet regardless of the reception of a political passion project, either at the time of release (or intended release) or decades later, it may be regarded as an achievement merely for being made, because it can be a difficult task for a filmmaker, no matter how famous or powerful, to completely, without compromise, express his or her politics using such a collaborative and populist form of art as cinema. We’ve put together a list of 10 political passion projects that were (and are) successful on both levels. They’ve been embraced by a wide audience, a majority of critics and/or the Academy, and they also manage to be as uncompromising in their political passion as is possible in Hollywood. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) For his first “talkie”, Chaplin took on Hitler and the Nazis when it was still taboo for American media to do so. And it became his biggest hit ever in spite of its controversial subject matter. Considering one of the major problems with W. is reportedly Oliver Stone’s inability to mix the serious scenes with the comic, he might have benefitted from looking again at this film, one of the greatest political satires of all time. Meet John Doe (Frank Capra, 1941) Capra had already made a number of greater films with political subject matter, but this was pretty much his ultimate passion project, a culmination of themes he’d worked with on similar films like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But as successful as those films were in terms of Capra’s political expression, and as free as the filmmaker seemed to be throughout his illustrious career at Columbia Pictures, he always felt at least a little stifled by studio head Harry Cohn, and so with this, his first semi-independent project (co-produced and distributed by Warner Bros.), he had the most creative control yet. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t nearly as popular as his past films and the film is also not nearly as tight a work. However, more than 65 years later, it’s still one of the best displays of a filmmaker attempting to work out and express his political ideals in a mainstream film. Wilson (Henry King, 1944) Long before Oliver Stone and political documentarians made it more common and acceptable to make a movie about disliked politicians, producer and 20th Century Fox founder Darryl F. Zanuck developed this passion project about his favorite president, Woodrow Wilson. And the result would seem to have been a great success based on its reception by critics and the Academy Awards (nominated for 10, it won 5 Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay), yet it was a terrible, terrible flop at the box office, apparently because the public didn’t like or care about Wilson as much as Zanuck did. And legend has it that Zanuck was so embarrassed by the failure that he forbade his staff to ever mention its title again. Despite it’s Oscar success, it is unfortunately unavailable on DVD. The Green Berets (Ray Kellogg, John Wayne, John Gaddis and Mervyn LeRoy, 1968) Regardless of whether or not you agree with John Wayne’s politics, you have to give the guy some respect for making a stand with this film, which displays his support for the Vietnam War. It was a bold move for anybody, even one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, to dare go up against the zeitgeist of the times. And of course it was and is very much hated because of its heavy handed pro-war message. Reds (Warren Beatty, 1981) Beatty had already shown himself to be something of a politically minded celebrity, and he would go on to a greater reputation for being a liberal actor/filmmaker, but here with his first solo directing effort, he made an ambitious epic about the American communist John Reed and released it in a year that ushered in the most conservatively materialistic decade of the 20th century. Despite the political climate of the country, though, it was relatively successful at the box office, and it went on to recieve 12 Oscar nominations, of which it won 3, including a Best Director trophy for Beatty. Malcolm X (Spike Lee, 1992) Whether or not you believe it should have been nominated for more Oscars or if it was politically and racially ignored, the success of Malcolm X, both financially and culturally, was a terrific achievement for Spike Lee, who had made and has made less ambitious political passion projects before and since, some even arguably better than this one. Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins, 1995) Robbins had already begun making political statement films a few years earlier with Bob Roberts, but this film, which he also produced, is the greater passion project. It may occasionally put off supporters of the death penalty, but those performances by Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar) simply can not be ignored. The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004) You can’t think about passion projects without this film immediately coming to mind –– and not just because it has the word passion right there in the title. As for the political part, as much as some of us would prefer not to think of religion as being a part of politics, it certainly is, and both the marketing and reception of Gibson’s film were very much from political perspectives, possibly even more so than from straight religious perspectives. Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005) Perhaps the best cinematic celebration of journalism since All the President’s Men, Clooney’s film is also possibly the classiest political passion project since guys like Beatty, Robbins and Clooney decided to go behind the camera and express their ideals. Darfur Now (Ted Braun, 2007) At a time when famous people like George Clooney and the double duty of “Brangelina” get equal respect and flak for being so political, it’s refreshing to see this documentary defend celebrity action while also examining the film’s specific cause. Produced by and featuring Don Cheadle (and also featuring Clooney), the doc is not technically the actor’s project as much as it is Braun’s, yet due to Cheadle’s passionate interest in the Darfur issue and his involvement with and in the film, and because he’s the biggest name on the production, it can certainly be accepted as equally his political effort. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/rik_tod/archive/2008/8/5/33600.aspx Post By: rik_tod
Post To: The Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost
Post Date: 8/5/2008 11:00:35 PM
Body: Those with Netflix will know instantly to what I am referring here. Ever log on to Netflix and check out your Recommendations page? I normally don't. I try to use a more intuitive and organic approach to discovering films, and enjoy making it more of a "found item" journey than one in which one corporation tries to force-feed me the goods of another corporation. But every once in a while, I like to check the Recommendations page out, mainly because its a quick and simple way to add more ratings to Netflix (which I am, now that I think of it, unsure of why I even do that since, ultimately, the only real reason to do that is to get things recommended to you -- which I don't like...)Most of the time Netflix makes some sort of sense with their recommendations. Take, for instance, the fact they are recommending Madea's Family Reunion to me because I highly rated both Malcolm X and The Color Purple. Recommending Futurama Season 3 to me because I loved The Simpsons Movie, Futurama Season 1 and The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror is a no-brainer. I get that, even though they should probably figure that if I am that far into the Groening oeuvre, then I am probably hip to Season 3 of Futurama already.But then, Netflix produces some amazing whoppers. I am reminded of the Patton Oswalt bit about his first experience with TiVo, where he watches The Man from Laramie, a classic Anthony Mann western, and the next morning, TiVo has completely filled up with "horsie shows," a phrase Oswalt speaks in TiVo's voice, which most of us would recognize to be that of a stereotypical mentally disabled person. TiVo throws a fit trying to defend its decision, and Oswalt moans "Thank god, you don't have retard strength, TiVo..."Hopefully, Netflix doesn't either, because I am launching a new series here, in which I will give any of my readers out there the title of the films that Netflix uses as the basis of its recommendation, and then a couple of days from now, I will let you know the actual title of the movie it actually thought would be a decent match to the previous set of films. I will even give you some capsule hints to each "enjoyed" film so that you can see just how far-ranging Netflix has gone to suggest something to me. If you can actually match my answer, I will try to come up with some sort of prize. I will be completely honest, but I can almost guarantee you, there is not a single chance in all of the Chinese hells (the Chinese have a lot of hells, you know) that you will guess it. If you do guess it, then you are probably a drone recommendation program for Netflix...NETFLUXXED QUIZ #1Because you enjoyed:1. Seven Chances (1925, directed by Buster Keaton, silent, black and white comedy, Buster runs down a mountain chased by a zillion women who want to marry him to get to his fortune)2. The Duellists (1977, Ridley Scott's directorial debut, based on a Joseph Conrad story, Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel are soldier rivals who duel with swords throughout the Napoleonic age)3. Jeeves and Wooster: Season Three (1992, classic British TV comedy, P.G. Wodehouse, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie doing what they do best... make Jen and I laugh uproariously)Based on these choices, can you guess what Netflix recommended? The answer on Friday...
]]>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:00:35 GMTrik_todThe Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost8/5/2008 11:00:35 PMThose with Netflix will know instantly to what I am referring here. Ever log on to Netflix and check out your Recommendations page? I normally don't. I try to use a more intuitive and organic approach to discovering films, and enjoy making it more of a "found item" journey than one in which one corporation tries to force-feed me the goods of another corporation. But every once in a while, I like to check the Recommendations page out, mainly because its a quick and simple way to add more ratings to Netflix (which I am, now that I think of it, unsure of why I even do that since, ultimately, the only real reason to do that is to get things recommended to you -- which I don't like...)Most of the time Netflix makes some sort of sense with their recommendations. Take, for instance, the fact they are recommending Madea's Family Reunion to me because I highly rated both Malcolm X and The Color Purple. Recommending Futurama Season 3 to me because I loved The Simpsons Movie, Futurama Season 1 and The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror is a no-brainer. I get that, even though they should probably figure that if I am that far into the Groening oeuvre, then I am probably hip to Season 3 of Futurama already.But then, Netflix produces some amazing whoppers. I am reminded of the Patton Oswalt bit about his first experience with TiVo, where he watches The Man from Laramie, a classic Anthony Mann western, and the next morning, TiVo has completely filled up with "horsie shows," a phrase Oswalt speaks in TiVo's voice, which most of us would recognize to be that of a stereotypical mentally disabled person. TiVo throws a fit trying to defend its decision, and Oswalt moans "Thank god, you don't have retard strength, TiVo..."Hopefully, Netflix doesn't either, because I am launching a new series here, in which I will give any of my readers out there the title of the films that Netflix uses as the basis of its recommendation, and then a couple of days from now, I will let you know the actual title of the movie it actually thought would be a decent match to the previous set of films. I will even give you some capsule hints to each "enjoyed" film so that you can see just how far-ranging Netflix has gone to suggest something to me. If you can actually match my answer, I will try to come up with some sort of prize. I will be completely honest, but I can almost guarantee you, there is not a single chance in all of the Chinese hells (the Chinese have a lot of hells, you know) that you will guess it. If you do guess it, then you are probably a drone recommendation program for Netflix...NETFLUXXED QUIZ #1Because you enjoyed:1. Seven Chances (1925, directed by Buster Keaton, silent, black and white comedy, Buster runs down a mountain chased by a zillion women who want to marry him to get to his fortune)2. The Duellists (1977, Ridley Scott's directorial debut, based on a Joseph Conrad story, Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel are soldier rivals who duel with swords throughout the Napoleonic age)3. Jeeves and Wooster: Season Three (1992, classic British TV comedy, P.G. Wodehouse, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie doing what they do best... make Jen and I laugh uproariously)Based on these choices, can you guess what Netflix recommended? The answer on Friday... http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/4/29/27974.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2008 5:53:16 PM
Body: I preface this review by saying that my criticism is of the movie (art) made by renowned filmmaker Spike Lee and is in no way meant to undermine the importance of Malcolm X as a person or important historical figure. Spike Lee’s critically acclaimed “masterpiece” chronicles the life of Malcolm X by closely following the text that Malcolm X himself dictated in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which I have read. Spike Lee, a prominent voice for black people in American cinema, again shows the oppression that his race has undergone with movie Malcolm X (see Do the Right Thing, Bamboozled, etc.). No one should undermine the importance of Malcolm X and his contributions to equality. The philosophies that Malcolm X expresses may be inflammatory, controversial, profound, just, moral, name it for yourself, but they should not be overlooked. My criticism of the movie lies not in its message but in the averageness of the portrayal of an importance historical figure. This movie falls among the standard bio-pics Ray, Walk the Line, Control, Alexander, and Ghandi (to name a few). What do all standard bio-pics have in common? Good performances. Denzel Washington as Malcolm X is no exception. Not only does he capture the mannerisms, he even looks like Malcolm X. Do accurate performances make a good movie? No. The book, spoken directly by Malcolm X, offers critical personal testimony, clear authenticity, and insight into the mind and philosophies of a highly influential figure. The book is quite an achievement. It eloquently communicates the different stages of Malcolm X’s life- why he thought what he did and how he went about putting his ideas into practice. The movie adds nothing, and in fact, takes away from the complexity of his character. The movie is a simplification of a person (as most bio-pics are), a person that clearly the filmmaker admires and wants understood. The movie simplifies Malcolm X’s life by showing easily dismissible stages of his life. At first, Malcolm X tries to be white by conking his hair, sleeping with a white woman, doing white drugs, and stealing (living like an animal), which he later learns is all part of white oppression. He has been taught to think that white is better and passively accepted this idea for the younger part of his life. In jail, he finds Allah and learns of freedom. Strictly following the book, Spike Lee creates scene after scene. What he looses is the insight into the mind and what I found most enlightening about the book- Islamic religion. Malcolm X, in his autobiography, tells what is it like to participate in this religion and how it led him to maturity. The book is a religious confession as well as black advocacy. The movie, on the other hand, shows Malcolm’s evolution but it fails to enter into Malcolm X’s mind in the way that the book does. This is one difference between cinema and books. Word can express inner thoughts better than images. If this were not the case, why are voice-overs so often used? And why hasn’t there been a stream-of-consciousness movie as inward and meandering as Ulysses (James Joyce)? Images restrict to the specific visual aspect, which can be an advantage or disadvantage. A picture of a dog shows a specific, individual dog, whereas the word dog summons up a different image in each individual’s mind, again showing the difference between words and images. I would not compare the movie to the book as much as I do if the ultimate aim of each work differed. But Spike Lee does not deviate from the text. Undoubtedly, Spike Lee has an opinion on Malcolm X (he shows that he admires Malcolm X with the tribute at the end). But in the movie he does not consider even one of the many dimensions of Malcolm X. At one point, a police officer comments about Malcolm X saying, “that’s too much power for one man to have”. What power does he really have in an oppressive society? Has he really found the way to freedom? And aren’t these interesting elements to explore? An outsider like Spike Lee can make observations about Malcolm X that Malcolm X himself could not have made, such as his impact on society, or the similarities between Christian and Muslim beliefs (do these two groups really believe the same thing?). There are many missed opportunities because the filmmaker failed to insert his own ideas about Malcolm X (and ultimately about race) rather to create an accurate representation (which is not as accurate as the autobiography). I would rather get my facts from Malcolm X himself. Spike Lee overlooks the most interesting elements of the movie. Black people shoot Malcolm X. Why would the black people do this? Doesn’t Lee have any speculations on this matter? The one point where Lee gives his own opinions, the tribute at the end, all the black children at school stand up and say “I am Malcolm X”. What commonalities do they have? Isn’t this an area to explore? I would like to know his opinion. A good artist will insert herself into her art. And thought Spike Lee literally inserts himself into the movie by playing a minor character, he does not use this to his advantage by showing the interplay of filmmaker and film character. There are so many missed opportunities. But that happens when you create a standard bio-pic. Most ideas and, for that matter, most dimensions of a person are thrown out. Malcolm X is no exception. Its only merit is that it accurately shows the events of Malcolm X’s life. ~Kristen Gorlitz
]]>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:53:16 GMTkristenkristen Blog4/29/2008 5:53:16 PM I preface this review by saying that my criticism is of the movie (art) made by renowned filmmaker Spike Lee and is in no way meant to undermine the importance of Malcolm X as a person or important historical figure. Spike Lee&rsquo;s critically acclaimed &ldquo;masterpiece&rdquo; chronicles the life of Malcolm X by closely following the text that Malcolm X himself dictated in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which I have read. Spike Lee, a prominent voice for black people in American cinema, again shows the oppression that his race has undergone with movie Malcolm X (see Do the Right Thing, Bamboozled, etc.). No one should undermine the importance of Malcolm X and his contributions to equality. The philosophies that Malcolm X expresses may be inflammatory, controversial, profound, just, moral, name it for yourself, but they should not be overlooked. My criticism of the movie lies not in its message but in the averageness of the portrayal of an importance historical figure. This movie falls among the standard bio-pics Ray, Walk the Line, Control, Alexander, and Ghandi (to name a few). What do all standard bio-pics have in common? Good performances. Denzel Washington as Malcolm X is no exception. Not only does he capture the mannerisms, he even looks like Malcolm X. Do accurate performances make a good movie? No. The book, spoken directly by Malcolm X, offers critical personal testimony, clear authenticity, and insight into the mind and philosophies of a highly influential figure. The book is quite an achievement. It eloquently communicates the different stages of Malcolm X&rsquo;s life- why he thought what he did and how he went about putting his ideas into practice. The movie adds nothing, and in fact, takes away from the complexity of his character. The movie is a simplification of a person (as most bio-pics are), a person that clearly the filmmaker admires and wants understood. The movie simplifies Malcolm X&rsquo;s life by showing easily dismissible stages of his life. At first, Malcolm X tries to be white by conking his hair, sleeping with a white woman, doing white drugs, and stealing (living like an animal), which he later learns is all part of white oppression. He has been taught to think that white is better and passively accepted this idea for the younger part of his life. In jail, he finds Allah and learns of freedom. Strictly following the book, Spike Lee creates scene after scene. What he looses is the insight into the mind and what I found most enlightening about the book- Islamic religion. Malcolm X, in his autobiography, tells what is it like to participate in this religion and how it led him to maturity. The book is a religious confession as well as black advocacy. The movie, on the other hand, shows Malcolm&rsquo;s evolution but it fails to enter into Malcolm X&rsquo;s mind in the way that the book does. This is one difference between cinema and books. Word can express inner thoughts better than images. If this were not the case, why are voice-overs so often used? And why hasn&rsquo;t there been a stream-of-consciousness movie as inward and meandering as Ulysses (James Joyce)? Images restrict to the specific visual aspect, which can be an advantage or disadvantage. A picture of a dog shows a specific, individual dog, whereas the word dog summons up a different image in each individual&rsquo;s mind, again showing the difference between words and images. I would not compare the movie to the book as much as I do if the ultimate aim of each work differed. But Spike Lee does not deviate from the text. Undoubtedly, Spike Lee has an opinion on Malcolm X (he shows that he admires Malcolm X with the tribute at the end). But in the movie he does not consider even one of the many dimensions of Malcolm X. At one point, a police officer comments about Malcolm X saying, &ldquo;that&rsquo;s too much power for one man to have&rdquo;. What power does he really have in an oppressive society? Has he really found the way to freedom? And aren&rsquo;t these interesting elements to explore? An outsider like Spike Lee can make observations about Malcolm X that Malcolm X himself could not have made, such as his impact on society, or the similarities between Christian and Muslim beliefs (do these two groups really believe the same thing?). There are many missed opportunities because the filmmaker failed to insert his own ideas about Malcolm X (and ultimately about race) rather to create an accurate representation (which is not as accurate as the autobiography). I would rather get my facts from Malcolm X himself. Spike Lee overlooks the most interesting elements of the movie. Black people shoot Malcolm X. Why would the black people do this? Doesn&rsquo;t Lee have any speculations on this matter? The one point where Lee gives his own opinions, the tribute at the end, all the black children at school stand up and say &ldquo;I am Malcolm X&rdquo;. What commonalities do they have? Isn&rsquo;t this an area to explore? I would like to know his opinion. A good artist will insert herself into her art. And thought Spike Lee literally inserts himself into the movie by playing a minor character, he does not use this to his advantage by showing the interplay of filmmaker and film character. There are so many missed opportunities. But that happens when you create a standard bio-pic. Most ideas and, for that matter, most dimensions of a person are thrown out. Malcolm X is no exception. Its only merit is that it accurately shows the events of Malcolm X&rsquo;s life. ~Kristen Gorlitz http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gangster/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangster
Number of films tagged: 4065

Number of people who tagged: 60

Number of times used: 145

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:37:08 GMT406560145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/redemption/MemberTagFilms.aspxredemption
Number of films tagged: 626

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 117

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:18:53 GMT62653117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/political/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitical
Number of films tagged: 51

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 65

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:21:55 GMT512965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criminal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriminal
Number of films tagged: 3388

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 56

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33882756Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/activism/MemberTagFilms.aspxactivism
Number of films tagged: 651

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 27

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6511727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/biopic/MemberTagFilms.aspxbiopic
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 41

]]>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:31 GMT271741Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ghetto/MemberTagFilms.aspxghetto
Number of films tagged: 221

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 19 May 2009 13:05:22 GMT22178Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/racerelations/MemberTagFilms.aspxracerelations
Number of films tagged: 144

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:08:15 GMT14444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/black-race/MemberTagFilms.aspxblack-race
Number of films tagged: 480

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT48033Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/great-performance/MemberTagFilms.aspxgreat-performance
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:44:52 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/peterboyle/MemberTagFilms.aspxpeterboyle
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 9

]]>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:47:56 GMT919Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wishithadbeenadocumentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxwishithadbeenadocumentary
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:58:26 GMT111Tag