Good points, but I just wish ?uest had time to clarify his comments on the experience of making the film. As described, I think Spike was on the same type power trip as the Manray character in the dance class. I'd just like to know if that's how it really was, and why people felt it was worthwhile to subject themselves to that sort of treatment.

>Greetings from L.A.,
>
>i mean--does it really
>>matter? he seems to think
>>so. he says since major
>>studio's ixnayed his 80 million
>>jackie robinson idea he's become
>>somewhat bitter/angrier

This is one of the problems I had with Bambozled. Spike made no bones about the coming from a place of anger when he came up with this movie. I think that's a bad place from which to write. He had a chip on his shoulder (several, in fact) and decided to lash out. That contributed to the scattershot theme(s). He would have been better served to narrow the focus.

>which
>>needless to say was humiliating.
>>at first it was cool.
>>sheeeit i'm in a spike
>>lee joint.
>
>You'd go through something humiliating just
>to be in a Spike
>Lee film? Sounds like what
>Mantan did.
>
>but soon afterwards.
>>shit just became....too painful.
>
>I could see if he was
>prepping you for the part.
>If you had lines. To
>make someone without lines go
>through that seems weird to
>me.

Yeah this is the part I had the most questions about. If Spike wants to "educate" the public on what performers had to do in the days of blackface, that's one thing. But did he have to do that to his performers? And was it really worth it to be in a Spike movie? The point I keep making about people doing stereotypical work today is that now you do have a choice about how much you allow yourself to be degraded and belittle for a role. You don't HAVE to subject yourself to that sort of treatment just to be in a movie.

>>i felt that spike is
>>the only person who could
>>make this happen.
>
>Only because he didn't get his
>Jackie movie? He got Malcolm
>X and it flopped. Hollywood
>is not in the business
>of losing money. He's also
>not known as a good
>writer. How do we know
>the Jackie Robinson script just
>didn't bite? What if it
>was horrible? "That's just Spike's
>style" doesn't mean everyone understands
>it, thus, it doesn't mean
>it will make money. The
>theatre was empty when I
>went to see Bamboozled. Who
>is to blame? Who should
>Spike really be mad at?
>If we all went to
>Bamboozled in droves, you can
>bet somehow his Jackie idea
>would be tightened and put
>on screen.

i think ?uest's comment was more to say most black directors wouldn't get a chance to make a Bamboozled, not that none would have the balls or the vision to make it. Spike is the only one really allowed to make "controversial" stuff. And on that, I'd have to agree.

Still, i see your point. If this shit made millions, they'd be trotting out the Jackie Robinson script. Oh well. The question is who is the director who can get THAT made. It's apparently not Spike.

RED

Signatures are soooo last millennium.