In The
Washington Post’s review, Desson Howe states, “But director Lee, with
pluralistic panache, keeps things open to wide interpretation -- though his
viewpoint reveals radical colors from time to time. But whatever the ultimate
truth (and there really isn't one), it's clear that everyone in the movie could
use a cold moral shower by the end of the day.” I completely agree with this
statement. Lee does leave things open to wide interpretation. He doesn’t
manipulate the move to get a certain reaction from the viewer. You just see
what happens completely objectively. Each viewer could feel differently about
the ending. Like Howe says though, I believe everyone in this movie could take
a step back and realize what the right thing could have been. Everyone could
interpret this film differently and feel differently toward different
characters.
In
Emerson’s review, he writes, “There are no uncompromised heroes, no clear-cut
villains here or in any of Lee's movies. And some viewers may find this
frustrating, confusing, even infuriating. But it's that space between right and
wrong, justice and retribution, reason and outrage, that Spike Lee wants to
urge his audiences to explore for themselves.” After watching the movie, I was
a little frustrated and confused myself. After reading this line in Emerson’
review I realized why I was confused/frustrated. Most movies that I watch have
a hero and a villain; a good guy and a bad guy. But in this case, the movie
showed how even the good people can have some bad in them. Take Sal for
example; the whole movie I believed him to be one of the best characters
because he seemed really good-hearted. At the end of the film, he smashed Radio
Raheem’s radio, and was shouting racist things. I still believe that Sal didn’t
deserve to have his pizza shop burnt down. After all it was one slip up after
25 years of being nice to everyone who came into the place. Not to mention
Radio Raheem and Buggin’ Out were incredibly out of line and just downright
annoying. Anyway, I believe this movie did make the audience realize that there
isn’t a clear bad and good, and you had to see what was right and wrong
yourself.
In
Ebert’s review, he says, “I believe that any good-hearted person, white
or black, will come out of this movie with sympathy for all of the characters.
Lee does not ask us to forgive them, or even to understand everything they do,
but he wants us to identify with their fears and frustrations.” Audiences may
have had different reactions to this movie, but hopefully everyone did come out
feeling sorry for all of the characters. I couldn’t see a character that was
purely evil or purely good. Even though Sal broke the radio and yelled
inappropriate things, he didn’t deserve to get his store destroyed. Even though
Radio Raheem was out of line by choking Sal, he didn’t deserve to be murdered
by a police officer. So, I don’t believe that Lee is making us take sides or
trying to force us to understand what’s going on in their heads, but I do think
he has a way of helping us feel for each character.
One
thing I think contributed to the film is something Dr. Permenter mentioned in
her commentary. Rarely do we see oblique angles in films, but in this
formalistic film, we see many of these angles, as well as other extreme angles.
The oblique angles make us feel like something is off. Even if you haven’t had
film analysis and don’t realize what the angle does, it does its purpose by
making the viewer feel uneasy or like something is wrong. I think the editing
really helps move the story along. It makes one scene move smoothly into the
next. For example, the film cuts from Radio Raheem walking out of the fruit and
vegetable store to Da Mayor walking over to the flowers, all watched by Sal
from inside the pizza shop. Then it cuts closer to Da Mayor so you can see what
he is doing. Each cut serves a specific purpose in this movie. I also believe
the colors in this film to contribute to the meaning. Oranges and reds seem to
be a theme of this film, which represents heat. Heat is also a metaphor for the
tension piling up throughout this film. Also, red, white, and blue can be seen
throughout the film. This is a metaphor for political views.
The
scene where Pino and Sal are sitting in front of the window and Pino is trying
to talk Sal into moving the pizzeria starts with seeing them and most of the
pizzeria. You can also see the fruits and vegetable store owned by the Koreans
in the background. As their conversation gets more serious, the camera zooms in
closer. The mise en scene shows them across the table talking about the people
in the neighborhood, while the people in the neighborhood walk by the window
and go about their day. Still with the camera in the same place, you see Smiley
come up to the window trying to sell his picture. Then you see Pino go around
outside and start yelling at him. In the mise en scene, you get to see Pino and
Smiley, which is the central action, but you also get to see Sal’s reaction. As
other people in the street come up and start to also yell at Pino, Sal puts his
head in his hands in disgust. Then, finally you see Sal get up and go out into
the street to try and calm Smiley down. The camera stays at the same angle the
whole time, no extreme angles. I think this shot really shows the personality
of Sal, and you feel like he is a really good guy. The mise en scene lets you
see everything that is happening. You can even see Sonny, the Korean store
owner, standing in his door watching over the disturbance. This is a lengthy
shot, and there are no cuts during any of it.
Sources:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/do-the-right-thing-1989
http://cinepad.com/reviews/doright.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/dotherightthingrhowe_a0b222.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment