>>>>Huh? I don't know how you misled when Spike made the
>>>movie.
>>>
>>>My point was that I don't think it was Lee's intention to
>>>mislead people. He's an "artist" and produced art/his
>>>interpretation.
>>>
>>
>>Where did he mislead the people?
>
>The misleading part is where he casually and not so subtley
>(sp?) allowed the finger to pointed at other Black ppl as
>being responsible for the murder of MX. This contributes more
>to the old divide and conquer tactic.
>

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...".

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


>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.

>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.

>
>>
>>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?

>
>>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

>
>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.

>>
>>
>

<--- we've got bush!