I’ll admit it: I don’t read the art coverage on Slate so I’m unfamiliar with the rest of Lee Siegel’s work. I also am not a huge Spike Lee fan. I think he’s made a few great movies, a large number of incredibly mediocre ones, and he hasn’t really changed much as a director all the way back to She’s Gotta Have It and Do the Right Thing, always utilizing the same kind of low tracking shots and vaguely similar jazz-influenced music. I’ve also often been bothered by Spike’s rhetoric, especially the kind grounded in his consistent premise that African-Americans can’t be racist because how their race has been treated. Meanwhile, he has no problem regularly making comments about other groups, especially Jews, that could easily be construed and prejudiced, even if he disagrees.
I just finished reading this conversation on Slate between Siegel and Lee, and just loved this little exchange:
Slate: Of course, I was particularly interested in what you have to say about the situation of blacks in Hollywood. But also in your statements about the Holocaust. You pretty much said that any movie about the Holocaust is going to carry all the prizes.
Lee: Whoa, whoa! What I was speaking of specifically was the feature-length documentary branch of the academy. I mean, there was a time—you could do the research, I don’t have the chart in front of me—but for a period of over 10 years, almost every film that won best feature-length documentary was about the Holocaust.
Slate: That is an issue, right? It’s followed you throughout your career, the relationship between blacks and Jews.
Lee: It’s not an issue for me.
Slate: No, it’s an issue for everyone else.
Lee: I have nothing to do with that. But I remember thinking when we were nominated for 4 Little Girls and then finding out that a rabbi was a producer for the other one: We’re not gonna win.
The film Lee is talking about is the documentary The Long Way Home, and while Lee did, in fact, make a moving and insightful film with 4 Little Girls, to insinuate that a primary reason The Long Way Home took home the Oscar is because a rabbi was one of the producers is not only stupid but indicative of never seeing this sweeping and beautiful film about the trials Holocaust survivors went through on their way from Eastern Europe to making new lives in Israel. That doesn’t even take into account his argument that over 10 years, every best feature-length doc winner was a Holocaust film. Following our the last 10 feature documentary winners:
-
2004: Born Into Brothels about children of prostitutes in the ghettos of Calcutta;
-
2003: The Fog of War, Errol Morris’s fascinating study of Lyndon Johnson’s defense secretary Robert McNamara and the lessons he learned because of his actions during and before the Vietnam War;
-
2002: Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore’s film before Fahrenheit 9/11 which happened to beat Prisoner of Paradise which told the story of the unique Holocaust concentration camp Theresienstadt;
-
2001: Murder on a Sunday Morning which depicts the story of a 15-year-old African-American teenager wrongfully accused of murder in Jacksonville, FL. A great film, Murder on a Sunday Morning beat out the equally remarkable Promises which, while not a Holocaust doc, focused on three years in the lives of a group of Israeli and Palestinian children growing-up within the current conflict;
-
2000: Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport — OK, he got me. five years a documentary about how British families saved a bunch of Jewish children from Eastern Europe did in fact win the Oscar.
And two years before that in 1998, The Last Days did win as it told the stories of five Hungarian Holocaust survivors. And in between, 1999’s One Day in September had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but was about how a bunch of Palestinian terrorists took hostage and killed members of the Israeli team at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and sure, Munich is in Germany. And then there was Spike’s year of defeat, which was preceded with 1996’s Anne Frank Remembered. So maybe he’s not 100% off. I mean, sure … no Holocaust documentaries won from 1990-1995, but 1996-2000 did see four of the five documentary winners be Holocaust films. But it still doesn’t qualify as “almost every film” — it doesn’t even count as “the majority” — and it’s Lee’s hyperbole which is so disturbing because he’s obviously not a stupid guy. I also don’t think Lee is even anti-Semitic, regardless of how his rhetoric sometimes sounds. For one thing, I don’t understand how an anti-Semitic African-American filmmaker would regularly work so closely in his own production with Jewish people, as Lee has.
Meanwhile, my problem with this interview isn’t even with Lee at all. At least not Spike Lee. If anything, I think he acquits himself relatively well while being confronted with one of the dumbest, most sycophantic collection of questions I’ve ever read. The only way Lee Siegel could get any further up Spike’s ass is if the director was taller. And in trying to be friendly and supportive and on Lee’s side, he gets stuff flat-out wrong. That excerpt above even shows this as he at first mischaracterizes Spike’s argument forcing the filmmaker to start his answer with “Whoa, whoa!” That’s only the first of many times Siegel makes a statement in order to lead Lee into a direction that isn’t exactly where he wants to go, and Lee has to keep correcting him. For example, later in the interview:
Slate: I think you’ve remarked on the fact that black filmmakers like the Hughes brothers, and John Singleton, and Matty Rich all end up being pushed into the crime-action genre.
Lee: I wouldn’t put Matty Rich in that category.
Slate: Well, the other guys.
Hell, would anyone put Matty Rich into any category? The guy hasn’t made a film in over a decade, and he only made two as it is. And what kind of interviewing is that — to state a premise that your subject has supposedly floated and just to lump any black filmmaker you can think of into it? Or this exchange at the end in which I think Lee’s point is completely valid, but it takes a while to get there because Siegel doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about and seems to just want to prove to that he’s on the filmmaker’s side, even if he doesn’t know what side that is:
Slate: To come back to this, I have to say, I really don’t like these movies like Barbershop and Beauty Shop. I just don’t. I think of what you were doing—yet you made these films possible, right?
Lee: Don’t put that on me.
Slate: No, but you created an open field for black filmmakers.
Lee: Yeah, but it morphed into something else. But no, you can’t put Barbershop on me.
Slate: Still, don’t you find it ironic that you created the atmosphere that made these films possible, and now they’re more popular than more serious movies?
Lee: I never said that those films should not be made. I just think that they shouldn’t be the only type of films that are made. But I’d take Barbershop over Get Rich or Die Tryin’. In Barbershop, you’re not trying to kill anybody.
Look, I’m not saying Siegel should have intentionally been antagonistic — although Lee certainly has put himself out there enough for any interviewer or film critic to challenge and debate him on any number of subjects, social and cinematic — but this interview was a waste of space, even for the web. It’s nice that Siegel apparently wants to help Lee sell his recently released autobiography, “Spike Lee: That’s My Story and I’m Sticking to It” (although the author credit reads “As told to Kaleem Aftab”), but couldn’t he have saved us some time and simply said: “Director Spike Lee has a new book out. I think he’s the smartest, most socially filmmaker ever. I love him. You should read his book because then you’ll be a better person. Besides, I wasn’t going to ask him anything interesting or not in the book already anyway, and since I don’t read very carefully, I would probably misunderstand much of what he has to say. $17.13 at Amazon. Go. Now. He’ll like you and won’t think you’re a racist.”
Come on Slate. You’re way better than this.
Out of Focus 
I was definitely thinking that was one of the crappiest reviews ever, but I felt it came Spike come across incredibly smug. I love the Lee, but he just seemed like an ass. After reading your thoughts, I agree that the reviewer was sub-par, but Lee could have given a little slack and been less curt. One thing is clear, these two will never be BFF.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with you that Spike came off (and usually comes off) as smug, I just, in this instance, blame it more on the crap interview than on him. I’m neither a Spike Lee fan nor a hater, although I do think he’s talented. But I think he almost always comes off as an ass in interviews. I just don’t blame him this time.
LikeLike
Siegel’s questions were often pretty hostile. I think he might have been peeved (quite rightfully) abot Lee’s Holocaust comments, but to say “I don’t like this film you didn’t make (Barbershop), so let’s blame you for it” is just silly.
LikeLike
for someone who thought this the “dumbest interview,” you sure do go and on, and on, and on about it.
LikeLike
The Holocaust Doc thing wasn’t exactly an uncommon view; if Best Picture had gone four out of five years (with noms in five of seven years) to a Holocaust feature, had Life is Beautiful and Pianist won top prize in addition to Schindler’s… people wouldn’t be shy in complaining about it.
The movies should, of course, be judged on their own merit… and numerous civil rights docs (Hoop Dreams – the sort of oversight that might have given oomph to Lee’s self-victimization – aside) have won/been nominated. But for a while, there, it was your obvious Oscar Pool choice: Pick This Year’s Holocaust Flick. Which doesn’t only display a perception of a narrowminded Academy… it also degrades the film.
Of course, the Academy overhauled the whole doc voting procedure before the 2002 awards, so examples from then on are moot.
LikeLike
J — I don’t disagree with you at all. My argument was against Spike’s hyperbole, and I think I say as much, but if I wasn’t clear, that was my mistake. The problem is that Spike never recognizes that the criticisms people make about him are generally self-inflicted because of his own lack of caution and accuracy in making statements. But I think it’s also arguable that for those five years there just happened to be a string of incredibly well-made Holocaust films, and to say any of them one solely due to their subject is unfair. And his comment was specifically about “for about 10 years” so whether you go five years before or after, he was simply wrong. But will most people who — whether or not they like Spike — look into it? No. Will they choose to believe him? Probably.
And “siegel” — If this is really Lee Siegel, work on your comebacks because that one was as lame as your interview. I went on-and-on because I was offended that Slate would even publish such tripe, and I thought rather than just say the piece would crap, I would actually explain why and support it with evidence, unlike many of the inaccuracies in the questioning. Oh, and if it isn’t Lee Siegel … whatever. Good one. Or not. You are welcome to not read my “on, and on, and on.”
LikeLike
you sound so defensive, so envious and resentful. so angry. does it bother you that siegel is a successful writer and you’re not?
LikeLike
wait a minute.lee siegel is a national magazine award winner, the book critic for The Nation, the tv critic for the New Republic, the art critic for Slate,and he’s written for magazines and papers from the new yorker and harper’s and the atlantic to the new york time and l.a. times. i looked you up–you have a pathetic (suck-up) interview with a film director on a blog called Gothamist. have some respect–and dignity–when you write about your betters. you pathetic loser.
LikeLike
I love how people choose to come to my blog and in apparently disagreeing with my opinion feel like making some sort of personal attack on me by saying I’m not a successful writer or I’m a “pathetic loser” means anything. To take the time to leave such meaningless lame comments is way more pathetic.
Lee Siegel is not my “betters” simply because he has been doing what he’s been doing for however long. There are plenty of writers and film critics who have managed to make a living, and I personally find them to be awful writers. There are others who I love. Lee Siegel being as “accomplished” as you describe him, Rick, should only mean that he should be even more embarrassed to publish such a crappy interview.
And if you really want to put me down, debate what I wrote rather than simply calling me names. I don’t ever criticize Siegel personally (aside from saying he’s sucking-up to Lee, and that’s about the work; or the above comment which I don’t actually believe to be from Siegel anyway); I don’t even criticize the breadth of any of his other work, of which I am not intimately familiar. I criticized one pathetic piece of journalism (in my opinion). I would apologize for apparently offending your sensibilities, except I’m more entertained than sorry.
LikeLike
oh okay, i will. you haven’t proved anything about siegel’s interview besides insulting it. i read it. it’s provocative and subtle and about as far from fawning as can be. provocative? yeah, “aaron,” provocative. proof? you spent hundreds of words responding to it. anybody can lash out on a blog, pal. try getting into a respectable publication. loser.
LikeLike
Harrison, Are you waiting here, refreshing my page for me to comment or something? Seriously, feel absolutely free not to visit my blog. I won’t mind. But I’m fascinated by your appearance with a comment within minutes of my response. Seriously, go do something else. If I’m such a loser, I’m certainly not this important.
LikeLike
So harrison and rick (both of whom possess an adversity to captialization and proper punctuation much like the previous poster siegel…coincidence?) believe that criticism of some holier than thou Slate critic is unacceptible. Well, by your standards, “rick,” you are unqualified to criticize Aaron because he has a greater body of work than you (and it’s earthlink.net, not .com, moron). On top of which, he uses proper grammar. Finally, if Aaron upsets you so much, you should probably seek your media criticism elsewhere. How pathetic is it to create three identities on a blog to flame its author?
LikeLike
p.s. matty rich made (“directed”) a combat video game called 187 Ride or Die. maybe that typically sorry fate of many black movie directors was what siegel was getting at? i profile people for the new yorker and vanity fair. (harrison isn’t my real name.) you lead people into questions by knocking them off balance. as siegel did. why don’t you learn from other people isn’t of insulting them? that way you won’t remain a jealous mediocrity all your life.
LikeLike
Harrison, I’m not going to get in a pissing match with you. If you have nothing to contribute here (which you don’t seem to), just feel free to stay away. I was talking about films and Matty Rich directing one video game in over a decade does not refute my point, nor was I even putting down Matty Rich. Your ability to read and comprehend seems to be as poor as your ability to refute or debate. Fine. If you have enough time to sit here refreshing this page looking for my responses, you obviously are not getting enough work from the New Yorker nor Vanity Fair. You have no idea what my background is (unless you’ve been reading my blog for a long time which I doubt) and you have no idea the length or breadth of my experience, professional and otherwise. Not everything is on the web, you know.
I’m also not going to respond to you further unless you have something interesting to say. I won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
Does the New Yorker and Vanity Fair usually accept work without capitals, “harrison”? An accomplished writer such as yourself must have a natural inclination to hit the “shift” key every now and again. And why begin your post with a “p.s.”? Are you writing a letter? I’d like to read one of your “profiles”. Who have you profiled? Own your claims. I can claim that I directed “Jaws”. Does that make me Spielberg? Obviously MercuryX23 is not my real name, but I make no obnoxious claims that seem to be there to make flames somehow more legitimate.
LikeLike
you’re a sad, angry person with no actual life, aren’t you? well, i’m off to a REAL LITERARY PARTY. happy blogging.
loser.
LikeLike
rotfl I need to get to some real literary parties, too.
I can even type in capitals without my caplock.
LikeLike
i don’t even know who this siegel person is but he really needs to regulate his loyal drones’ medication a bit more carefully.
LikeLike
aaron do you have any stats of what won best doc for years prior to the ones you have listed? i only ask because i worked with susan steinberg here at harvard, who worked with ricky leacock and initiated the push to get the academy to change its procedures for the doc category, and part of her reasoning was to eliminate the tendency for holocaust docs to always win.
LikeLike
i should add–not specifically to crowd out holocaust pics, but to change the procedures for voting so that it would no longer be the case that the only people who were able to vote were a certain small group who happened to be predisposed to choosing the holocaust flicks.
LikeLike
I got all my information from the Oscars website at oscars.org. They have an awards database that lists all the nominees and winners for every year of the awards, and their internal search engine seems pretty flexible. It’s interesting to note that apparently a documentary award was first established for the 16th awards honoring 1943 and the all the officially nominated films were of government issue: either the US Army or War Department or the British Ministry of Information. Anyway, you can get all the title information from that site and then I suppose you’d need to look up those titles on IMDb or whatever to figure out their actual subjects.
LikeLike