Toning It Down
After the draining process of filming Malcolm X and his previous films, Lee settled down a bit and 1994’s Crooklyn was based on his own experiences growing up. The comic look at a young girl and her family didn’t resonate overly well with audiences and is rather forgettable, save for its great soundtrack. Crooklyn was followed by Clockers, Girl 6, and Get on the Bus. Each film was different, but none of them gathered much by way of accolades or acclaim.
Lee Splits the Critics
Spike Lee’s next series of films would split the critics and provide even more controversy to an already contentious career. With 4 Little Girls, Lee tackled a documentary about the racially motivated bombing of a Birmingham, Alabama church that killed four pre-teens in 1963. He Got Game was next, which was a look inside the world of high school basketball.
1999’s Summer of Sam split the critics again, with many of them hating his look at the Son of Sam and others loving the style. Bamboozled did the same, as many critics found the satire a bit too raw and unfunny. 25th Hour and She Hate Me were similar in terms of response, as critics again divided over Lee’s work. His films in the 1990s and 2000s were often controversial and troublesome, but they were also always fascinating.
When the Levees Broke
After the excellent crime drama Inside Man, Spike Lee tackled another documentary. In When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, the gifted filmmaker surveys the damage of Hurricane Katrina and questions the government response. The film is powerful and is as good a documentary as I’ve seen. Clocking in at four hours, the movie ran in two parts on HBO.
Why Spike Lee Matters
Spike Lee is often equated with racism. Many might even call him a racist. But his movies deal with life and all of the elements in it. Sure, Lee is angry at times, but his antagonism and rage is justified in most cases and fuels his creativity in many profound ways. Without his feeling and emotion in some of his best projects, Lee is just another filmmaker. It’s because he is so controversial, angry, and so damn interesting that his films stand the test of time.
Article comments
1 - Dan Schneider
'With Spike Lee, you either love him or you hate him. You either find beauty in his films or you don’t. There’s not much room for middle ground with him.'
Lee is a one dimensional filmmaker w no understanding of narrative nor characterization. He would have been far better as a cinematographer, and let most of the scripting duties fall to competent screenwriters.
And, his direction of actors is not good at all. He coaxes the most facile performances possible- be it actors like Wesley Snipes or John Turturro.
In that sense, he's akin to Steven Spielberg- another filmmaker w a great visual sense, but utterly bankrupt of storytelling powers. Whereas Spielberg goes saccharine, Lee goes moralistic. Either way, w either one, though, the experience after the film is always a disappointment.
So, that's middle ground, and why Spike Lee- save for his status as a black filmmaker, won't be studied in film schools fifty years from now.
2 - bliffle
I agree with Dan. I just reprised "Clockers" last week and while I found it interesting to watch, and thought the Harvey Keitel characterization was interesting, I just couldn't get involved with any of the characters or plots.