Clint Eastwood lashes back at Spike Lee

Tools    





It takes a certain something to pick a fight with Dirty Harry. Apparently, Spike Lee has it.

At the Cannes Film Festival in May, Lee, whose next film, "Miracle at St. Anna," is about an all-black U.S. division fighting in Italy during the war, slammed Clint Eastwood over his 2006 Iwo Jima movies, "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima," saying the filmmaker overlooked the role of black soldiers during World War II.

"He did two films about Iwo Jima back to back and there was not one black soldier in both of those films," Lee told reporters at Cannes. "Many veterans, African-Americans, who survived that war are upset at Clint Eastwood. In his vision of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist. Simple as that. I have a different version."

Now, Eastwood's throwing some punches of his own. In an interview to promote his latest film, "Changeling," Eastwood said Lee should "shut his face."

"Has he ever studied the history?," Eastwood growled to British paper The Guardian, who published the interview today. Regarding "Flags of Our Fathers," Eastwood admitted there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima, "but they didn't raise the flag. The story is 'Flags of Our Fathers,' the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."

Eastwood added that Lee's got another thing coming if he complains about the lack of black actors in "Changeling." The film is set in Los Angeles during the Depression, before the city had a significant black population.

"What are you going to do, you gonna tell a f*****' story about that?" Eastwood ranted. "Make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I'm not in that game. I'm playing it the way I read it historically, and that's the way it is. When I do a picture and it's 90 percent black, like 'Bird,' [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker] I use 90 percent black people."

He finished his roast with a simple, harsh directive:

"A guy like him should shut his face," Eastwood said.

Doubtful. ABCNEWS.com's request to Lee to comment was not immediately returned, but considering this isn't his first war of words with Eastwood, it's unlikely the outspoken director will stay silent for long.

Spike Strikes Back: Clint's 'an Angry Old Man'

Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood are in a war of words over their WWII movies.

After Eastwood told him to "shut his face" and stop criticizing him about not including African-Americans in his 2006 Iwo Jima movies, "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima," Lee's lashing out.

"First of all, the man is not my father and we're not on a plantation either," he told ABCNEWS.com. "He's a great director. He makes his films, I make my films. 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."

Lee has a proposal for Eastwood:

"If he wishes, I could assemble African-American men who fought at Iwo Jima and I'd like him to tell these guys that what they did was insignificant and they did not exist," he said. "I'm not making this up. I know history. I'm a student of history. And I know the history of Hollywood and its omission of the one million African-American men and women who contributed to World War II."
"Not everything was John Wayne, baby," Lee added.

For weeks, Lee and Eastwood have been battling over the inclusion of African-Americans in their WWII films. At the Cannes Film Festival in May, Lee, whose next film, "Miracle at St. Anna," is about an all-black U.S. division fighting in Italy, slammed Eastwood, saying the filmmaker overlooked the role of black soldiers during World War II.

"He did two films about Iwo Jima back to back and there was not one black soldier in both of those films," Lee told reporters at Cannes. "Many veterans, African-Americans, who survived that war are upset at Clint Eastwood. In his vision of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist. Simple as that. I have a different version."

Then, Eastwood threw some punches of his own. In an interview to promote his latest film, "Changeling," Eastwood said Lee should "shut his face."

"Has he ever studied the history?" Eastwood growled to British paper The Guardian, which published the interview today. Regarding "Flags of Our Fathers," Eastwood admitted there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima, "but they didn't raise the flag. The story is 'Flags of Our Fathers,' the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."

Lee's response to Eastwood's claim?

"I never said he should show one of the other guys holding up the flag as black. I said that African-Americans played a significant part in Iwo Jima," he said. "For him to insinuate that I'm rewriting history and have one of the four guys with the flag be black … no one said that. It's just that there's not one black in either film. And because I know my history, that's why I made that observation."
Lee also pointed to a 2006 Guardian article about African-American veterans' dismay that their experience wasn't covered in "Flags of Our Fathers."

In his interview, Eastwood added that Lee's got another thing coming if he complains about the lack of black actors in "Changeling." The film is set in Los Angeles during the Depression, before the city had a significant black population.

"What are you going to do, you gonna tell a f*****' story about that?" Eastwood ranted. "Make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I'm not in that game. I'm playing it the way I read it historically, and that's the way it is. When I do a picture and it's 90 percent black, like 'Bird,' [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker] I use 90 percent black people."

He finished his roast with a simple, harsh directive:

"A guy like him should shut his face," Eastwood said.

Lee's last words took a different tone.


"Even though he's trying to have a Dirty Harry flashback, I'm going to take the Obama high road and end it right here," he told ABCNEWS.com. "Peace and love."

"Damn!" at the plantation comment. Was that **** necessary? Anyhow, Lee is still wrong in my opinion, and lol @ Eastwood getting his Dirty Harry on.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I think it's a legit opinion, but every movie cannot withstand similar complaints about their inclusiveness and their verisimilitude. I realize that I'm on the side of the oppressors here, but I don't really belive that anybody should tell anybody else what to put in a film. I often find the racist card one of the most ridicu;lous and unsubstantiated cards out there. It basically tells you that there is no reason to consider certain "works of art" as valid because they never included everyone who may have been involved. Most films are about specifics and not generalities, but once again, I say, let Spike Lee or anyone else, "correct" all the flaws they see. Maybe Lee can go back and correct all the BS in his Summer of Sam flick, but I don't expect that from him or others. You go, Spike, and Clint, tell him what's up. HA!
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Seems like a case of a man (Lee) who just needed to check his facts a little better. Eastwood isn't some hack and neither is Lee for that matter. So perhaps he (Lee) is mostly just trying to get a little free pub for his upcoming movie.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



I take it back... Eastwood is a racist hack and we should force him to make movies only with all black casts from now on.


I'm only being slightly facetious there...

EDIT: Why are we talking about a 2 year old story? Is it news that there may in fact be some racism still in America?



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
It's not only Spike Lee raising that point tho is it? What about the soldiers that were there?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006...1/usa.filmnews
They made mention to that article in the first article Rawkus quoted....
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



Just judging on the entire story as a whole here I think that both of the men have their right. I thought it was a brilliant tribute to the soldiers who gave their lives at Iwo Jima, but Lee is correct in his plight by saying that Eastwood did not include blacks, regardless of the fact that it would be historically accurate to do so. Lee may be overstepping his boundaries, but Eastwood has no right to exclude the men that were actually there and fought when making his film, even if they were not the ones who lifted the flag.

I'm not trying to go to any extreme and say that Eastwood needs to be putting blacks all over his films now to suck up, but since Spike Lee comes to mention it, even if it did not bother some before, he has a right to say for his own good that he felt that people were left out, and if he needs get 'revenge' in his film.


Why are we talking about a 2 year old story? Is it news that there may in fact be some racism still in America?
Hope you're not implying that Eastwood did this on the basis of voluntary racism.
__________________
"It's not the destination, but the things you learn on the way there"



Just judging on the entire story as a whole here I think that both of the men have their right. I thought it was a brilliant tribute to the soldiers who gave their lives at Iwo Jima, but Lee is correct in his plight by saying that Eastwood did not include blacks, regardless of the fact that it would be historically accurate to do so. Lee may be overstepping his boundaries, but Eastwood has no right to exclude the men that were actually there and fought when making his film, even if they were not the ones who lifted the flag.
Personally, I think they're both wrong in fighting over this, regardless of the historic facts. Who cares about a spitting contest between 2 ill-mannered directors?

Lee's right about some 900 black troops being on Iwo Jima. That's 900 out of 30,000 Marines who landed there, so one can see how the black troops might have gotten overlooked. Reminds me of the title of a book by a activist black writer back in the 1960s: Fly in the Buttermilk.

Blacks no doubt outnumbered the Puma Indians who were on Iwo, but one of those Indians, Ira Hayes, participated in the flag raising. One of the sources cited a story by a black trooper that he handed the first group of flag raisers the piece of pipe to which the first flag was attached. If he did so at the base of the hill and if Eastwood were filming that scene, he would have been wrong historically not to have had that black man represented. But several eyewitness accounts by the participants and photographer and other witnesses to the second more famous flag raising have testified that they attached the second larger flag to a large piece of pipe from a Japanese-installed water system found there on the mountain top. The people who were on the mountain top at the time of the flag-raising are well documented, and I've never seen historic evidence that a black man was among them. And that's the scene that Eastwood filmed. But just because he was historically correct was no reason for Eastwood to prove himself a grumpy old man.

On the other hand, a scene in Saving Pvt Ryan shows a black man where no black man could have been during the Normandy invasion--among the wounded paratroopers who jumped into France ahead of the invasion. Oh, we had black paratroopers during WWII. But combat units were segregated then with black soldiers fighting in all-black units under white commanders. And to the best of my knowledge, no black paratrooper unit ever jumped into combat in Europe. As far as I know, only one black unit ever made a combat jump at all, and that was on just one occasion in the Pacific theater. Even though they had trained as paratroopers, the bulk of those black soldiers were never used in that manner. Black soldiers and sailors were used primarily to transport ammunition, equipment, and white replacements from the rear to the front lines. One movie was made about this: The Red Ball Express, a black transportation unit that kept Patton's tanks supplied with gasoline as they moved forward. But even Patton's army expressed their prejudice against those black soldiers until Patton--who had his own prejudices--stepped in when it started interferring with his ability to fight the enemy.

Now the bitter truth is that the US Marine Corps was the last holdout against admitting blacks into the Corps during WWII. There were a few black Marines, but the rest of the Corps didn't consider them to be "real" Marines and relegated them to supply positions. In fact, most Marines's attitude toward blacks in the 1940s were about the same as in 1917 when Marines and blacks came together in France during WWII. This subject was addressed in A Soldier's Story when the veteran black sergent told of the competition between Marines and blacks for French women during R&R breaks from the front lines. There's documented evidence that both Marines and black soldiers would ambush lone opponents and cut their throats. In fact, white American soldiers in general were so opposed to black American soldiers during WWI that black units were assigned to and fought with the French Army instead of under the American flag.

Black soldiers were treated so badly by white soldiers and civilians during the two World Wars that I'm surprised any of them volunteered to fight for this country at all.