it’s only art when you’re cutting all over the place and jumbling up the chronology for no reason except for because you can? well, then you should be loving Tarantino then!

(actually, even his fragmented chronology usually serves a purpose. i should say that you love… um… what’s that damn movie called? the one by the director of Y Tu Mama Tambien and starring Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro?)

besides, One False Move’s plot is just as fractured… only it doesn’t employ flashbacks.

i know that’s not what you meant, btw… but i still have a problem with you saying “Spike Lee explores film as an artform.” whenever i hear someone appealing to a filmmaker’s “artfulness” or “experimentalism” it’s usually the beginning of an apology for poor storytelling skills.

Hitchcock explored film as an artform more than almost anybody else and he ALWAYS told a straightforward story with a beginning, middle and end. to me, this is the most basic tenet of narrative filmmaking and if Spike is not good at that, it’s a problem. it’s NOT about “exploring film as an artform.”

>I neve rhad a problem following Spike's stories....my only
>consistent complaint with him is sometimes he overloads his
>films with characters, some who aren't necessary....

and you say this as if it’s just a **small** problem

>Im still tryintg to understand why the whistleblowing bother
>you guys so much...
>
>its BACKstory....its explains how the character got in the
>stituation he's in....

you know what? i’m glad you brought that up, because i actually wanted to say something about that.

initially, i LOVED the whistleblowing thing, even when i knew it was just a set-up for what would presumably be the “real” plot of the story. i liked the fact that Spike took the time to construct this elaborate story because the average Hollywood film would usually try to get us to the meat as fast as possible and just perfunctorily show us the protagonist losing his job at the beginning with no explanation for it.

the problem is that the story resurfaced again after being ignored for 5 hours and it was distracting. and the more i think about, Spike should not have even included it in the first place.

if he wanted to tell a story about a dude impregnating lesbians or trying to win back his nouveau lesbo ex, then THAT is the story he should have told and saved the rest of that other bullshit for a different film.

Mamet always says that you should get right into the heart of your story as quickly as possible, and give the audience JUST enough information needed to understand the basic situation. it’s like when you’re telling a joke, you start it “a black guy, a white guy and a Chinaman walk into a bar…”

you don’t start the joke with when the white guy woke up, and the Asian guy got into a fight with his wife and the black guy’s dog ran away so they all decided separately that they needed a drink, so the Asian gentleman got into his car but stopped at the mechanic’s first and the white dude got into a taxi and told the driver "take me to the bat!" and the black guy…

none of that "back story" is gonna make the joke funnier or easier to understand. so we leave it the fuck out.

and this is a problem that Spike has, and this is the same problem you talk about when you say Spike includes too many characters. and no, this is NOT a small problem. it is a big problem. it is a major misunderstanding of how a story works.

granted, there’s more than one way to tell a story, of course… and i applaud Spike or anybody else who tries something new. but if it’s not working, i’m not necessarily gonna give you props for just trying. what’s the use of being “experimental” when the end product isn’t “good”?