NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/movies/36436

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 5.2 KB | 115 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!gmark
From: [e-mail] (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: TOP TEN MOVIES, as of 23 December 1993
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:02:46 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 104

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Mohler) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>I think, however, that the failure of X to perfrom well is
>>a surprise to a lot of people (myself included, actually).
>
>Not to me. About half of the people I've talked to about X said
>they didn't want to watch "three hours of being told how evil
>white men are."
>
>I think that is insensitive, and downright stupid myself, but

Certainly "insensitive" and "stupid" sound very "correct" when dealing
with social issues, but for people who were around when Malcolm was
alive, much of what they heard from him was exactly that "white people
are evil."  You can lay that blame on Malcolm, or the press or whatever,
but that's the message they received.  If anything is "insensitive" and
"stupid", it's not realizing that comunication does not necessarily
improve when slander and general name-calling constitutes a significant
portion of it.

Secondly, Spike Lee, in my opinion, makes well-balanced movies, but his
personal antics, esp. with regard to the press, make him out rather
childish and more than not, smacking of racist attitudes.  Again,
you can lay blame for that wherever, and it's hard to believe that
a guy that puts out his films really "is" the personna he projects.
But if it's his way of sparking controversy, it may well have back-
fired on him this time.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Malcolm X enjoys a more sustained
viewership in video than most films due to word of mouth.  Those that
were UN- OR MIS-INFORMED (NOT STUPID AND INSENSITIVE) to think X is only
telling "white people how evil they are" may hear that it is really an
enjoyable film for many people.

It's an effective PC cop-out to call anyone that disagrees with you
"insensitive", but it is just a cop-out, and may very be an example of
what folks that give Lee problems over budget have reacted to.  And
that knee-jerk action and reaction does little good in the long run.

Lastly, I expect Spike Lee will be claiming racism as the reason
for poor box-office showing as part of his usual antics, but frankly,
I don't think he's got nearly as much to worry about as he would have
in those pre-video years.

I did think it was amusing his claim that his movie "needed the boxoffice
more" than another movie (Aladdin, I think?).  Certainly that's very
constructive.  I can imagine the theater owners or folks at Disney:

"Hey, let's not even look at those stubs.  Just put them in the 'X'
pile.  Spike NEEDS US!"

>I don't doubt that these attitudes have a fairly strong hold
>on a large portion of the movie-going audience.

Not wanting to be criticized?  Yes, that would be true of most people.
Rather insensitive not to realize that.

>
>The movie X may or may not have been three hours of telling white
>men how evil they are, but prejudging the movie based on a
>non-existent knowledge of what Malcolm X said and did (at least
>in the people I talked to) is pretty stupid.

You have discretionary income and choose to use it to see a movie
that you have more information about, and judge to be a "better
bet" for a nice evening?  Incredibly presumptuous, I think, to
tell people what movie to see, and call them stupid if they
disagree.  After all, liking a movie is somewhat subjective.
>
>Not to bring in a conspiracy or anything, but when I went to
>see X, it had been out for only two weeks, but had already been
>moved to the smallest screen in the theater. I wondered if
>perhaps the theater-owners had pegged the movie as a
>"minority" film. If this is true, perhaps there are some theater
>owners who decided not to show X, thinking it would not have
>a wide appeal.

It's possible.  But it's also possible that theater owners would like
to maximize their income, and that X only required a small screen
due to its draw at that particular theater.

Usher:  "Hey, look at all those people standing outside the 'X'
screen.  It's sold out all the time!  And Aladdin has lots of seats
empty!  What do you suppose we should do?"

Theater Manager:  "I don't know...   But you know, I'd rather turn
those people away than let them see a 'minority' picture.  I just
don't want their money to see a movie about how evil white people are!"

Usher:  "Good call, boss.  I see why you're the manager."

I saw X (do you realize that our use of "X" will screw up hypothetical
movie examples from now on?) as soon as I could, in a complex with 14 screens,
three of the largest of which were devoted to X.  I had to go twice,
driving over 40 miles to see it, as it was sold out for two shows the
first time.  And when I did see it, there were NO more seats available.

But then, that's only my personal anecdotal sample, and worth very
little to prove anything, note.

>My random thoughts
>Tim

GMS