>
>No it doesn't it all. You are fishing. Did you notice the
>people following him when he travelled overseas in the movie?
>Or were they just two arbitrary white guys sent by NOI? Come
>on. Or how about the phone tapping of his phones by these 2
>white guys in the movie? Or the part where Malcolm says "its
>more than just the Nation...".
>
Yes, I noticed those guys following MX and who can forget the agents listening in to MX speak to his wife and comment that he's a saint compared to King.

So what????? Indicating that the CIA may've been following Malcolm and showing that the FBI was listening to his phone conversations does not reveal the extent to which U.S. Intelligence agencies were involved in Malcolm's murder. It doesn't even come close to disclosing their involvement. It just makes them look like some nosey motherfuckers, akin to Mrs. Cravitts on Bewitched, instead low-down, deceitful murdering sons-of-bitches. Anyone who walks away with the former view of the CIA and FBI in Malcolm's death as opposed to the latter view is a problem to me. But if you have no problem with it, that's on you.


>Divide and conquer? Did the Nation *not* want Malcolm dead?
>Answer that question? Did Elijah Muhammad junior *no* say he
>want to cut out Malcolm's toungue and send it to his father?
>Was the FBI, NYPD, CIA involved? Yes. John Ali was an
>informant. But they exploited an already existing relationship
>in which the Nation wanted Malcolm dead.

I can't speak to individuals, but I know that the official word from Elijah Muhammad was to leave Malcolm alone. It is well known that the organization had more than its fair share of zealots who were unhappy with Malcolm, viewed him as a traitor, and thought that he should be dealt with, but that doesn't speak to the head of the organization, because the official word was to leave him alone.


They made attempts on
>his life and firebombed his house all over nothing but
>jealousy.

Who are you saying bombed his house? The NOI? How do you know this? If you know for certain who bombed his house, I'd like for you to go one better for me and Inbox me the next big pay Lotto numbers.


Who contributed more to the old divide and conquer,
>brother? The "gubment" or blacks themeselves. That is what
>Spike was getting at. Its why he chose to leave that quote of
>Malcolm in the movie of "n*ggas ruined it". Were there outside
>forces? Yes. But the heart of the problem existed within the
>Nation. Not outside of it. THAT is what Spike chose to focus
>on. The crux of the matter.

We are a flawed people with many, many problems and anytime we attempt to get together on anything, there is a destructive mechanism that tends to take place (some identify it as the "Willie Lynch chip") that blocks us from gelling completely and often things turn out to be a total mess. I don't deny that we, as a people, have problems; but I also realize that this is not something that is inherent in us. It is the result of centuries of outside forces conditioning us and influencing us. I acknowledge that.

At the same time, I can not turn a blind eye and ignore when we have been deliberately and blatantly been fucked with. Malcolm's murder was the result one of these instances of us being deliberately and blatantly being fucked with by outsiders who obviously did not and do not have our best interest at heart.


>
>
>>Its a 3 hour movie. Malcolm X
>>>lived several lifetimes in 39 1/2 years. There were always
>>>going to be things missing that aren't in the movie. I
>don't
>>>understand that criticism.
>>
>>Agreed. And he could've cut down on some of the non-sense
>>jitterbug time at the beginning and inserted a strong
>>implication (at the very least) that imperialist interests
>>were threatened by MX and his vision and ultimate goal and
>>that US Intelligence along with other like agencies in other
>>nations were making serious moves to eliminate him.
>>
>
>Right, and if he did that, critics would say why did he just
>cover the latter part of his life? Why did he just cover that
>aspect? Warner Brothers didn't even want him to give a 3 hr
>limit? Come on now, you are fishing for straws.
>
First of all dude, I don't fish. If you enjoyed the movie for it's entertainment value, that's fine, but don't try to make it seem like this was all that great of an adaptation of MX's life, because IMO, it wasn't. No doubt, Malcolm's life was complex and there was a lot that can still be told no matter what all is included, but to focus and shucking and jiving and partying and bullshitting as much as he chose to was ridiculous and disappointing.


>>Instead, Spike leaves the viewer with the impression of this
>>being just simply another case of Black on Black violence.
>>And MX's murder was much bigger than that.
>>
>
>
>Yes it was. But it doesn't ingnore the fact that his own
>brothers wanted him canceled for no reason but their own
>jealousy of his power.
>

Some may've wanted him dead, I'll give you that; but that doesn't mean that they killed him. What makes you think that the hostility towards Malcolm was purely jealousy and envy as if there were no other issues involved? You've been watching this comfounded movie too much.

>>
>>>
>>>This is a great movie to capture Malcolm and his life. Its
>>not
>>>going to cover every minute detail. It encourages you to
>>seek
>>>more about Malcolm and learn more about him.
>>>
>>No doubt. But unfortunately, for the masses, more indepth
>>research is not going to occur. So this movie, for all it's
>>worth, is going to be their education on and impression of
>MX.
>> This is the sad reality.
>>
>
>Is that Spike's fault or the masses?

The intellectual laziness of the masses is not Spikes fault and I never claimed that it was. I feel that if Spike is going to make a movie on a man like Malcolm, who means so many things to so many people, he should be responsible and represent Malcolm's image properly and intelligently, because for many, if they don't get that at this movie, they're not gonna get it at all, ever.

>
>>
>>>Spike can't win with the critics.
>>
>>When you take on a project like this that involves an ICONIC
>>figure like MX, you'd better expect some criticism. I mean,
>>it comes with the territory.
>>
>
>Really? No matter how great that movie is? I see. lol
>

Yes, criticism comes with the territory, especially when you do a theatrical reflection of Malcolm, so expect it. Honestly, it's one of those things where you just can't please everybody. And "great" is relative and completely subjective. And even if a movie is considered "great" as a general concensus, that doesn't keep it from being a thing that can be critiqued and criticized.




>>
>>Thats what makes Malcolm X
>>>the movie even more special. It can't be denied because its
>>so
>>>good. Sure, the critics will find flaws and nitpick. But
>>deep
>>>in their hearts they know its a masterpiece. And they can't
>>>stand it. lol
>>>
>>It was a good piece of entertainment that was BASED ON the
>>life and times and death of Malcolm X. No more, no less.
>>
>
>When did Spike or the marketing department say otherwise. It
>says right on the DVD package as such.

Agreed. Good entertainment is all the movie really was when it comes down to it. And I guess that's where I differ with you and most: If given a choice between watching this movie or watching a documentary on Malcom, I will ALWAYS select the documentary.

>
>>>
>>>
>>
>