Spike Lee's film "Do the Right Thing" is a daring, risky piece that looks at the serious social issues of race relations and violence. Unfortunately, Lee chose to tackle these issues in only his fourth ever film...his first for a major studio. Lee's inexperience shows. While the film is visually stunning, it lacks a cohesive story or a coherent plot.
"Do the Right Thing" is set in the Bedford-Stuyvesant (Bed-Stuy) neighborhood of Brooklyn on the hottest day of the summer. Production designer Wynn Thomas and Cinematographer Ernest R. Dickerson evoke the heat of the day visually with the use of various hues of red in costuming, lighting and scene painting. Particularly stunning is the bright red wall in front of which three neighborhood men sit all day and complain. The perceived temperature is driven up at least five degrees just through that use of color. It also provides a visual connection to the dissatisfaction and hate these men continually vent.
It would have been nice to see the amount of red on the screen change as time passes. By constantly bombarding the viewer with bright red, Thomas keeps the heat level constant. The only shot in the movie that increases the perceived temperature after the first five minutes is a shot of random people on the street with heat waves rising in front of the camera. Had the use of red been tempered early in the film and then allowed to grow as the day gets hotter, the audience would more clearly see the heat increasing and have a more visually fulfilling experience.
The film also has trouble establishing a coherent theme. The film's climax is particularly rich in contradictions. As the riot ensues Lee uses canted angles; fast, hard cuts; and alternates long shot and tight medium shot to make the viewer feel uncomfortable watching the violent acts that are taking place. The viewer can find no frame of reference from which to observe the action. This causes the viewer to be unsettled. Ordinarily this technique is employed to convey the idea that the action on the screen is wrong.
(minor spoiler)
As the riot comes to a close, however, the character Smiley walks into the pizzeria and hangs a picture of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. on the wall. As he does so, he is shot at eye-level in a medium close-up. Behind him, flames billow up creating a halo around his head, ennobling him. Smiley was one of the people who started the riot. By ennobling him, Lee ennobles the violence Smiley advocates. Is the viewer supposed to approve of the violence or disapprove? The film's conclusion is no help there. Conflicting quotes from Dr. King and Malcolm X provide the same contradiction. Is violence an acceptable means of dealing with racism? What is the viewer supposed to believe as a result of seeing the film?
A film that strongly conveys a viewpoint must be consistent. It is permissible for films to be ambiguous thematically, but when they are, they must be truly ambiguous to succeed. By conveying anti-violent and pro-violence ideas both effectively, Lee only causes the audience to be confused. Perhaps if he had more experience as a storyteller, his effort would have been more successful.
"Do the Right Thing" is set in the Bedford-Stuyvesant (Bed-Stuy) neighborhood of Brooklyn on the hottest day of the summer. Production designer Wynn Thomas and Cinematographer Ernest R. Dickerson evoke the heat of the day visually with the use of various hues of red in costuming, lighting and scene painting. Particularly stunning is the bright red wall in front of which three neighborhood men sit all day and complain. The perceived temperature is driven up at least five degrees just through that use of color. It also provides a visual connection to the dissatisfaction and hate these men continually vent.
It would have been nice to see the amount of red on the screen change as time passes. By constantly bombarding the viewer with bright red, Thomas keeps the heat level constant. The only shot in the movie that increases the perceived temperature after the first five minutes is a shot of random people on the street with heat waves rising in front of the camera. Had the use of red been tempered early in the film and then allowed to grow as the day gets hotter, the audience would more clearly see the heat increasing and have a more visually fulfilling experience.
The film also has trouble establishing a coherent theme. The film's climax is particularly rich in contradictions. As the riot ensues Lee uses canted angles; fast, hard cuts; and alternates long shot and tight medium shot to make the viewer feel uncomfortable watching the violent acts that are taking place. The viewer can find no frame of reference from which to observe the action. This causes the viewer to be unsettled. Ordinarily this technique is employed to convey the idea that the action on the screen is wrong.
(minor spoiler)
As the riot comes to a close, however, the character Smiley walks into the pizzeria and hangs a picture of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. on the wall. As he does so, he is shot at eye-level in a medium close-up. Behind him, flames billow up creating a halo around his head, ennobling him. Smiley was one of the people who started the riot. By ennobling him, Lee ennobles the violence Smiley advocates. Is the viewer supposed to approve of the violence or disapprove? The film's conclusion is no help there. Conflicting quotes from Dr. King and Malcolm X provide the same contradiction. Is violence an acceptable means of dealing with racism? What is the viewer supposed to believe as a result of seeing the film?
A film that strongly conveys a viewpoint must be consistent. It is permissible for films to be ambiguous thematically, but when they are, they must be truly ambiguous to succeed. By conveying anti-violent and pro-violence ideas both effectively, Lee only causes the audience to be confused. Perhaps if he had more experience as a storyteller, his effort would have been more successful.