u/FayannG

“One of the reasons I retired is so I can make movies that aren’t popular, because in the world we live in - and the system we've created for ourselves, in terms of it's a big industry - you cannot lose money. So the point is that you're forced to make a particular kind of movie. And I used to say this all the time, with people, you know, back when Russia was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and they'd say: "Oh, but aren’t you so glad that you're in America?" And I'd say: "Well, I know a lot of Russian filmmakers and they have a lot more freedom than I have. All they have to do is be careful about criticizing the government. Otherwise, they can do anything they want" - George Lucas 2015.

George Lucas was mostly referring to the late 1960s and early 1970s, specifically when he was making THX 1138 with the help of Francis Ford Coppola within the traditional US studio system. He described the situation as needing to “trick” the studio to get them on board with his vison, but it still didn’t really work out. Ironically, this is how many Soviet artists described their experiences when trying to get projects made within the Soviet state system, from novels to albums to films. A filmmaker like Oliver Stone would never exist in the Soviet Union.

This poor experience led to George Lucas essentially “controlling the means of production” on his later films. He had his own companies, aka full control over the filmmaking.

Do you think George Lucas has a point about US cinema?

The Soviet state was cutting up films like Andrei Rublev (1966) because it may have been indirectly criticizing government policy (Andrei Tarkovsky never considered himself a dissident), but US studios were cutting up films like THX 1138 because they found it too uncommercial or experimental for “mainstream audiences.” You can also say that about a film like Easy Rider (1969), but that still made millions and was critically and culturally acclaimed.

As someone who has worked in the film industry, I joke that once you start working on films “based on a true story,” you have officially achieved the “Hollywood Dream.” You are no longer working on shitty horror films, but rather shitty biopics instead 💪

From a production standpoint, I think Tarantino is correct, but I view it more as “creating easy jobs for ourselves.” But definitely a byproduct is that it results in “lesser” or corrupted cinema. At the same time though, biographies are actually harder to produce because you have to hire lawyers, historians, and PR teams just to ensure no one is angry enough to sue or create controversy.

I believe this is the main reason biopics are such a homogeneous and “safe” genre, because at the end of the day, the people in suits are the ones deciding everything. Eventually, all these films end up becoming and feeling the same.

The German led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia resulted in a quick unconditional surrender of Belgrade. The Axis captured thousands of Yugoslav soldiers.

What ended up happening to these soldiers after the Axis invasion?

The German led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia resulted in a quick unconditional surrender of Belgrade. The Axis captured thousands of Yugoslav soldiers.

What ended up happening to these soldiers after the Axis invasion?

Spike Lee depicts local ethnic relations in contemporary Brooklyn, but leaves the audience to interpret the morality of the characters on “doing the right thing”. But what if we reject that?

Even if the characters in the film have agency, what if we see the events as inevitable? That “doing the right thing” is irrelevant, because no one person can prevent tragedy, they just conform and adapt to the society that already exists.

I see the heatwave as supporting my interpretation from a metaphorical standpoint. You can’t prevent weather, if there’s a storm coming, there’s a storm coming. Spike Lee could have framed the story around an economic downturn (look at 80s Yugoslavia for example) or a time of high crime (film journalists criticized him for turning a Brooklyn ghetto into “sesame street”), but he picked weather.

Buggin Out received his “Mandate of Heaven” when Sal immediately shuts him down on putting Black people on the wall of Italians. Buggin gives his reasons as Black people making up the majority of Sal’s customer base, not for any “solidarity” or coexistence reasons. During the scene, Pino says “don’t start today” implying Buggin probably does this often. He then calls for a boycott of Sals restaurant, and turns himself into some patriot of the neighborhood.

This scene can be a metaphor for African Americans wanting acceptance in mainstream American society, and this desire creating conflict. Owning and maintaining capital is also important in the US. This dynamic is a factor on ethnic coexistence.

I look it as: what made today any different? Everyone is just being themselves… but going back to the heatwave, “God” just sent a tidal wave that will eventually lead to a death and destroyed property. There’s no “brotherhood and unity” but resentment and hatred. Whatever social contract that existed before expired the day it got too hot.

The film isn’t postmodernist, it’s just not the typical anti-racist film of Driving Miss Daisy. It presents a world where both Martin Luther King and Malcom X have a huge influence and need to coexist with each other. There’s things just out of your control.

Therefore, there is no “right” thing to do. What do you think of this analysis?

Allegedly, this is what Stanley Kubrick said about the film: “Think that's about the Holocaust? That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about 6 million people who get killed. Schindler's List is about 600 who don't"

I will point out, the main character in Schindler’s List obviously wasn’t a victim of the Holocaust, he was part of the party and country that perpetuated it. However, the film does ultimately portray the various steps of how Germany committed it: Population displacement and segregation (Ghettos), state confiscation of property (Aryanization), forced labour, death squads (“Bullet Holocaust”), starvation, and gas chambers. This is how 6 million Jews were killed.

I find Kubrick’s take interesting. Do you agree with him?