Q: Any films you’ve seen lately that are inspiring you?
Spike Lee: Well, you know, Scorsese, that’s my guy. “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a great film. That Native American woman, Lily Gladstone, she’s winning an Oscar. And I don’t think that’s a supporting role. I think that’s a leading role. She’s got my vote.
Q: She’s actually submitted herself for lead actress.
A: Good! She should not go for the okey-doke.
And Chris Nolan with “Oppenheimer,” you know, he’s a massive filmmaker. Great film. I showed [“Dunkirk”] in my class. And this is not a criticism. It’s a comment. How long was that film [“Oppenheimer”]?
Q: Three hours.
A: If it’s three hours, I would like to add some more minutes about what happened to the Japanese people. People got vaporized. Many years later, people are radioactive. It’s not like he didn’t have power. He tells studios what to do. I would have loved to have the end of the film maybe show what it did, dropping those two nuclear bombs on Japan. Understand, this is all love. And I bet he could tell me some things he would change about “Do the Right Thing” and “Malcolm X.”
Full quote
I'm cool with Spike's comments, though I do think that that says something about their differing approaches to movies like this. If Spike had done a film like this, for sure we would have gotten real footage of what he's talking about. He's definitely the kind of filmmaker that very much likes to show the audience what they have to be thinking about directly. Hell, Malcom X ends with 3 mins of archive footage and narration all about the greatness of it's title person after presenting a complete, mostly clear and complex portrayal of him. Even Nelson Mandela shows up!
Nolan in his two historical based films has totally avoided that, I think just cause he focuses purely on ending the films on these montage like moments that build to a cut to black/credits, but also because I think the real historical angle is left up to the viewers more so. I did think about how he wasn't a huge fan of the Biopic term and I think this makes it clear because he's not using the typical "What happened next" title cards that a lot of true story films use. He's ending like it wasn't one of those.
Q: Any films you’ve seen lately that are inspiring you?
Spike Lee: Well, you know, Scorsese, that’s my guy. “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a great film. That Native American woman, Lily Gladstone, she’s winning an Oscar. And I don’t think that’s a supporting role. I think that’s a leading role. She’s got my vote.
Q: She’s actually submitted herself for lead actress.
A: Good! She should not go for the okey-doke.
And Chris Nolan with “Oppenheimer,” you know, he’s a massive filmmaker. Great film. I showed [“Dunkirk”] in my class. And this is not a criticism. It’s a comment. How long was that film [“Oppenheimer”]?
Q: Three hours.
A: If it’s three hours, I would like to add some more minutes about what happened to the Japanese people. People got vaporized. Many years later, people are radioactive. It’s not like he didn’t have power. He tells studios what to do. I would have loved to have the end of the film maybe show what it did, dropping those two nuclear bombs on Japan. Understand, this is all love. And I bet he could tell me some things he would change about “Do the Right Thing” and “Malcolm X.”
Full quote
I'm cool with Spike's comments, though I do think that that says something about their differing approaches to movies like this. If Spike had done a film like this, for sure we would have gotten real footage of what he's talking about. He's definitely the kind of filmmaker that very much likes to show the audience what they have to be thinking about directly. Hell, Malcom X ends with 3 mins of archive footage and narration all about the greatness of it's title person after presenting a complete, mostly clear and complex portrayal of him. Even Nelson Mandela shows up!
Nolan in his two historical based films has totally avoided that, I think just cause he focuses purely on ending the films on these montage like moments that build to a cut to black/credits, but also because I think the real historical angle is left up to the viewers more so. I did think about how he wasn't a huge fan of the Biopic term and I think this makes it clear because he's not using the typical "What happened next" title cards that a lot of true story films use. He's ending like it wasn't one of those.
the ending of BlackKkKlansman is very poignant too, its very strong and gut wrenching, its activist cinema at its best, Chris on the other hand is a subjective pov filmmaker through and through, you could have shown the bombings, but it wouldnt have been a Chris Nolan film, if anything and if this inspires more stories form the victims of those bombings to be told by the people closest to the subject matter then all the better, then movie (Oppenheimer) did its job, because we are conversing about it and would be conversing about it through cinema, perhaps a movie about hiroshima could emerge, and i would rather it be a Japanese filmmaker that brings it to life, not saying that no one else form elsewhere shouldnt, but i feel that kind of story is best told by as close to the 1st hand possible.
