Da 5 Bloods (Spike Lee, 2020)

[Never Cursed]

Per Wikipedia, the film was written in 2013 (and then revised by Kevin Willmott and Lee in 2016), so I think that specific issue was present in the source. It certainly didn’t bother me, though, given how little the ages of the characters in question matter to the film as a whole

[therewillbeblus]

And especially with Lee not being a stranger to implementing tweakings of realism in his work, these kinds of 'flaws' feel in step with his own brand of looseness to serve a greater purpose.

[senseabove]

I mean, no, they don't really matter to the narrative events, but the kind of poignant intent and lazy thinking-through evinced by the age inconsistencies feels about par for the movie... Like, why the hell would that character hold onto that letter for his entire trip home, from the climactic final scene all the way back to the US, and then open that letter at his work of all places? Because that's the only thing we know about that character's life in the US? Why the hell would you have Isiah Whitlock deliver his most famous line? To get the absolute cheapest laugh in the whole movie?

As much as I do admire some elements—it's an interesting take on the treasure-hunt genre! the acting is pretty good! the way it situates distant, recent, and contemporary history is effective!—I don't think they can rinse the taste of just how bad things get once we get to that laboriously foreshadowed first landmine. I mean, that light-through-the-trees revelation scene is just awful...

I'm happy to let things get a little sloppy on the way to a greater purpose, and Lee surely had some great purposes here, but the movie lets 'em all fish flop for some MOR pablum. Lee gestures toward structural change and historical awareness yet chose to end the movie on...

SpoilerShow

millionaire philanthropy?

[black&huge]

Certainly not the worst thing but not very good in fact I think this may be on the same level as Miracle at St. Anna.

SpoilerShow

Both are just too similar. Basic plot: riches are found and are attempted to be carried back home. In between are VERY basic attempts to develop comraderie/brotherhood both on its own and in the face of racism.

I don't think anything's been spoken publicly but I do feel it's obvious now Lee wanted to redo St. Anna since that movie was very ill received but he ended up doing the same movie almost in every aspect in the story structure. The big push here is that in light of recent events this movie is getting overlooked for several flaws and championed as a strong message but it simply is not. We get like a minute of BLM supporters getting that donation.... that is just such a cop out. That doesn't mean anything the only substance we get is with the main group repeating things that Norman said to help the black struggle and it culminates in that one small scene?

Otherwise I mean this is a very basic movie. Hate to keep using that word but this is something that was made for anyone to direct. Also can we comment on how weird the Treasure of the Sierra Madre references were? From the "stinkin badges" line (forget if the vietnamese man said something other than badges) to how Lindo's character wraps up.... it was just odd.

I just don't think war movies are Lee's thing.

[therewillbeblus]

Lee gestures toward structural change and historical awareness yet chose to end the movie on...

SpoilerShow

millionaire philanthropy?

I think some of your points are very fair (this is a problematic movie), though I'm pretty sure Isiah Whitlock has delivered that accentuated word in every one of Lee's movies that he's been in, so it's an in-joke that isn't new or going away anytime soon. I figured best to just accept that one, it's in place with Lee's universe (like his floating dolly shots) and would be weird if he didn't slide it in.

I'm curious about your issue with the ending

SpoilerShow

Did you really read it as superficially "millionaire philanthropy?" I felt that the strongest thematic asset to the film was Lee's ability to hold two conflicting attitudes of blackness in America: the 'Me and Mine' driven by anger (America has used me so fuck America or groups or culture, time to think about Me and getting Mine), and the liberal utilitarian driven by love (support the people, embrace the culture, feed the movement with empathy). So repurposing the cash for the latter purpose winning out (even secretly with Lindo as he forgives himself via embracing his fate after he does Norman's ghost) is symbolic of choosing Love over Hate, going back to the dichotomy in Do the Right Thing, where Lee validates both sides, just like he does the varying stances of MLK and Malcolm X. He ends with an unsettling reality that MLK was killed a year after he delivered the speech encouraging black people in choosing that latter path, further acknowledging the difficult morally relative space that defines his interpretation of American blackness, but the "millionaire philanthropy" is a tangible gesture that these people can make in step with their beliefs, and represents that hope toward the principles of compassionate service- as well as the reality that we all can choose to do more.

The money doesn't matter, it's the act of giving- money, time, caring gestures, etc. (the French woman's efforts to support her own cause is no more or less right than giving money to BlackLivesMatter) that defines this position. I don't think Lee's choice here to use that as a symbol is any different than his symbol in BlackKklansman of the stringer movement of 'let's all get along' -white and black cops getting the bad guy together solving racism- before pulling the rug out from under us. He's showing us a fantasy that is possible to move toward, but in no way the whole pie. One could probably argue that the letter to the son is another example of Lee's magical realism, but I'm less interested in defending that one..

There could be something about money itself, in a capitalist world- especially regarding American capitalism- being taken and channeled into social assistance; some kind of half-utopian utilitarianism within the American system using the tools of America, but I think it works just fine as a broader symbol.

[Persona]

Spike's movies are always going to have some awkwardly constructed scenes, lax editing, on the nose dialogue. I think this movie worked for the most part. Delroy Lindo is incredible and he has a couple monologues that obliterate the fourth wall and send chills through the screen. I have mixed feelings about the plot (a lot of contrivances and a lot of Apocalypse Now and Treasure of Sierra Madre riffing... along with a weird Blazing Saddles reference, ha) and sometimes the film just sort of dawdles.

Blanchard's score is getting praise but it was a bit too shmaltzy for me. However, the soundtrack features of Marvin Gaye work sooo well, What's Going On is one of my favorite albums and Spike really had a vision for it (also a classic Curtis Mayfield track). You get a sense of what the film could have been if the music had been more like that throughout and the film had cut back on some of the dialogue.

It is definitely a film of moments. Like a lot of Spike's work, it is very messy, but I do think the powerful polemic hits (the opening montage, the closing MLK speech, and how that stuff is woven into the film) and Lindo's incendiary, captivating rendition of a complex character make it worth a watch. It's one of those films where I completely understand both the effusive reactions and the reactions declaring it shoddy. I just think Lindo and Gaye kind of carried the whole thing for me.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm pretty sure Isiah Whitlock has delivered that accentuated word in every one of Lee's movies that he's been in, so it's an in-joke that isn't new or going away anytime soon.

He said it in 25th Hour, which was released about six months after The Wire first aired.

[therewillbeblus]

I recall him saying it in Red Hook Summer and BlackKklansman, and although my memory isn't great on Chi-Raq and She Hate Me, I'm almost positive he did in them as well.

[smccolgan]

I recall him saying it in Red Hook Summer and BlackKklansman, and although my memory isn't great on Chi-Raq and She Hate Me, I'm almost positive he did in them as well.

He also said it in Cedar Rapids (not a Spike Lee joint), as well as claiming he did a pretty good impression of Omar from The Wire.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah I remember that, he's done it in work outside Spike Lee too- but regardless, this all supports evidence that expressing confusion over why he would deliver this line is.. confusing. Lee in particular loves it, as evidenced by having Whitlock fit it in all their collabs, so this film wasn't going to be the exception. I like it actually - it’s a caring gesture to the actor to let him flaunt his signature vocal staple.

[knives]

Whitlock has actually talked about this.

[therewillbeblus]

Well there ya go, I love his explanation too: “if it makes you feel good..” why not?

[Never Cursed]

Da 5 Bloods is a perplexing film and I can entirely understand why anyone here or elsewhere would find it unbearable in all its didactic length - I liked it, but good lord do its component pieces vacillate between working and failing in a way that Lee's better movies do not (though perhaps that's more a result of the fragmented nature of its scripting than anything else). Delroy Lindo's Paul is fantastic, and the film is at its best when it is picking his brain apart and turning the real and imagined dangers (things as benign as conversations with the locals or as thuddingly obvious as active landmines) of post-war Vietnam into brutal metaphorical reminders of the interlocking systems and coincidences that broke him.

SpoilerShow

As fits his take on the Bogart character, his last scene is truly pathetic, and it's disquieting to see Lee dispose of him so callously after spending a lot of time practically forcing the audience to empathize with his behavior, especially after the false hope of Boseman's imagined exoneration of Lindo. That latter scene is especially impressive in that placing it in almost any other context would make the twist of its fakeness almost insulting, but given where it is and how it happens, it is a perfect moment of almost religious hope, enlightenment, and acceptance.

Unfortunately, we cannot be with Lindo the whole film, and this is an issue - the other modern-period characters are just not compelling or sketched-in on the level of Lindo's character. They all take turns being the straight-man to Lindo (Clarke Peters doing the most in this department) and bringing up the social and emotional issues that they face due to the war and its causes, but they cannot hold a candle to Lindo's total embodiment of the traumas they all deal with. I like TWBB's reading of these characters as representing attitudes within black America opposed to Lindo's a lot, and I'm not saying there isn't anything to them, but surely there must have been time in this very long movie for them to give as passionate a single argument for utilitarian love as Lindo gives for self-interested hate. The only thing we get close to that is the flashback scene with MLK's death, by no coincidence the best scene in the film not driven by Lindo. At least Peters and Mélanie Thierry are given connections to their host country and reasons to passionately oppose Lindo's worldviews. Norm Lewis and Jasper Pääkkönen's characters are only barely connected to the larger message of the film

SpoilerShow

before they die in two identical fart noises of violence - I get why that suddenness was necessary, but would it not have been more affecting if they had left behind more unresolved problems than none at all? It is not a good sign that one could combine the Pääkkönen and Paul Walter Hauser (whose role is by far the most thankless in the film) characters without losing any actions of relevance from either.

And speaking of death, hoo boy do I not understand what Lee is even trying to say with the climax of this film. My heart sank when Jean Reno and the hired guns pulled up to the temple and I realized that this was going to have a "Tarantino ending" (as my dad so accurately put it) involving a shootout resolution, and then it sank even further when Reno put on the pilfered MAGA hat and the film equated his previous cold greed with contempt for the struggles of our leads. Of course he dies an ignominious death, but only after a tiring inevitable firefight that resembles any number of jingoistic flicks that a better section of the film duly criticized. I actually really like the note this film closed on, with the use of the money in large part as a form of reparations towards injustices both historical and contemporary (and incidentally, the complaint upthread about these donations being "philanthropy" is absurd and misses the weight, both thematic and historical, that rightly rests on the way those resources are used to right wrongs), but I can't help but temper my enthusiasm for the spirit of this ending given what immediately preceded it was a final vicious act of violence.

Looking back on what I've written, I'm worried I sound too down on the film - I think the good and well-articulated in it outweighs the more messy and nebulous parts, and Lee continues to be an utterly fascinating director with unmatched timeliness and a real specificity in his satirical targets. I just wish this movie was less knotted up - not shorter, necessarily, but definitely with a more discerning eye for diversions.

[senseabove]

I'll preface digging this hole further by saying that maybe when I've seen more Lee—this is only my fourth, and I wasn't crazy about BK either, though I liked it well enough and more than this—I'll trust that he knows what he's doing here more.

As for the now hotly-debated "sheeeeeeit," in that moment, for me, it felt incongruous to the scene and detrimental to the characterization. Maybe that'll change when seeing all the other instances of Whitlock saying that line in Lee's movies has polished it into a comfortable in-joke, and then if I watch Da 5 Bloods again I'll think "haha that was good and funny." But... I didn't this time? Like I expect it is for the great majority of viewers, for me it's a meme with a life outside the expanded Spike Lee universe—even if it originated there, as that clip seems to imply—and to pretend it isn't... well... pride cometh before a fall... But if it helps, I happily concede that point and we can move on to the many other things I think don't work about the movie, such aaaaaaas:

I'm curious about your issue with the ending

SpoilerShow

Did you really read it as superficially "millionaire philanthropy?" I felt that the strongest thematic asset to the film was Lee's ability to hold two conflicting attitudes of blackness in America: (America has used me so fuck America or groups or culture, time to think about Me and getting Mine), and the liberal utilitarian driven by love (support the people, embrace the culture, feed the movement with empathy). So repurposing the cash for the latter purpose winning out (even secretly with Lindo as he forgives himself via embracing his fate after he does Norman's ghost) is symbolic of choosing Love over Hate, going back to the dichotomy in Do the Right Thing, where Lee validates both sides, just like he does the varying stances of MLK and Malcolm X. He ends with an unsettling reality that MLK was killed a year after he delivered the speech encouraging black people in choosing that latter path, further acknowledging the difficult morally relative space that defines his interpretation of American blackness, but the "millionaire philanthropy" is a tangible gesture that these people can make in step with their beliefs, and represents that hope toward the principles of compassionate service- as well as the reality that we all can choose to do more.

The money doesn't matter, it's the act of giving- money, time, caring gestures, etc. (the French woman's efforts to support her own cause is no more or less right than giving money to BlackLivesMatter) that defines this position. I don't think Lee's choice here to use that as a symbol is any different than his symbol in BlackKklansman of the stringer movement of 'let's all get along' -white and black cops getting the bad guy together solving racism- before pulling the rug out from under us. He's showing us a fantasy that is possible to move toward, but in no way the whole pie. One could probably argue that the letter to the son is another example of Lee's magical realism, but I'm less interested in defending that one..

There could be something about money itself, in a capitalist world- especially regarding American capitalism- being taken and channeled into social assistance; some kind of half-utopian utilitarianism within the American system using the tools of America, but I think it works just fine as a broader symbol.

I agree that the way it sets up those contrasting attitudes you describe is interesting, but I think it flubs the contrast. So to clarify that point, no, I didn't read it nor did I think Lee is presenting it "as superficially as [just] millionaire philanthropy". It's not so much the ending itself as how the ending's presentation seems significant of everything I think doesn't work in the back half. The way Paul is handled

SpoilerShow

once he snaps just didn't work for me. He becomes a flat agent of chaos for devolving the party into infighting and death; not an aggrieved man or an avatar for the aforementioned oppositional attitude, but a caricature, comprised entirely of erratic paranoia and resentment instead of motivated by them. His climactic monologue is great but the character development that gets him from arguing about whether he has PTSD to monologuing himself into enlightenment feels too flimsy, because he's been too busy getting shoehorned into being The Irrational Thing That Destroys The Group. Cap it with the resolution to his narrative being the false revelation that he shot Norman and the twist that it was a clumsy accident (then smother it in an overbearing score) and, within the world of the movie, that "conflicting view" becomes itself something incredibly flimsy and sentimental, with a Lifetime-quality straight line to "this is why you're broken and now you're fixed! but oh no it's too late!" To pathologize that "'Me and Mine' driven by anger" attitude so simply and matter-of-factly is not engaging with it honestly or interestingly. It's just self-satisfied choir preaching that these fools just need to get right. As you say, "even a Trump supporter has valid reasons" at the start, but by this point, the validity of those reasons is obviated by narrative contrivance and the formal and stylistic excess of its presentation. Paul's attitude is something that I, as a viewer, would of course like to see him resolve, but the movie was, finally, flatly dismissive of that attitude. It sets up a well-drawn outline, then fills it with straw and knocks it over, rather than "holding in conflict" the two concretized opposing views, and I found that frustrating and disappointing.

Especially when the wrap-up is a sentimental montage of a bunch of checks. Yes, I get that Lee is showing people "using resources to right wrongs," and I'm not saying "philanthropy is dumb" or that if Spike Lee can't blueprint systemic solutions to all of America's deeply-rooted "I got mine" problems then he shouldn't invoke them. But the structural justification Lee very powerfully sets up for that attitude's manifestation in the individual character of Paul didn't evaporate because of Paul's come-to-Jesus meeting with a ghost, and it didn't evaporate because a bunch of excellent, well-intentioned organizations and promising young folks got some checks that they'll put to very good, very important, very well-intentioned, very effective use.

In the end, the part I thought was most interesting got left behind for a bunch of parts I found unsatisfactory. The ending was simply an uninteresting resolution to the story, and one that glossed over what it had jettisoned, with a resolution that I thought was unearned, as too complicated to handle.

If the Paul-meets-Norman scene worked for you, like it sounds like it did for both you and Never Cursed, I can certainly see why the ending felt more satisfactory. But Paul's character didn't work for me from the hostage-taking on, outside of the monologue's tour-de-force delivery. His revelation of forgiveness was unconvincing, and so the ending felt unearned and insufficient, a big vat of Neosporin after the landmine.

[flyonthewall2983]

With all the back and forth as far as aspect ratio goes, this almost feels more perfect for Netflix than it does a more traditional theatrical release.

[jazzo]

Without having the time to articulate why right now, I find myself in the I loved some of this, more that liked quite a bit more of it, and had a few issues with other aspects.

But this was an absolute delight: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CBTFUJzjJy ... hare_sheet

[therewillbeblus]

SpoilerShow

Yes, I get that Lee is showing people "using resources to right wrongs," and I'm not saying "philanthropy is dumb" or that if Spike Lee can't blueprint systemic solutions to all of America's deeply-rooted "I got mine" problems then he shouldn't invoke them. But the structural justification Lee very powerfully sets up for that attitude's manifestation in the individual character of Paul didn't evaporate because of Paul's come-to-Jesus meeting with a ghost, and it didn't evaporate because a bunch of excellent, well-intentioned organizations and promising young folks got some checks that they'll put to very good, very important, very well-intentioned, very effective use.

In the end, the part I thought was most interesting got left behind for a bunch of parts I found unsatisfactory. The ending was simply an uninteresting resolution to the story, and one that glossed over what it had jettisoned, with a resolution that I thought was unearned, as too complicated to handle.

If the Paul-meets-Norman scene worked for you, like it sounds like it did for both you and Never Cursed, I can certainly see why the ending felt more satisfactory. But Paul's character didn't work for me from the hostage-taking on, outside of the monologue's tour-de-force delivery. His revelation of forgiveness was unconvincing, and so the ending felt unearned and insufficient, a big vat of Neosporin after the landmine.

SpoilerShow

I actually think your criticism, which is very fair, is also an intentional choice by Lee. I didn’t feel overwhelming catharsis for Lindo’s moment of forgiveness- at least not in the way I expected- and he’s deprived of any big sendoff (no closure with his friends and family- aside from that letter; killed singing to himself have-crazed, not in a blaze of glory). Lee knows that whatever spiritual experience he had doesn’t undo or propel his character into a different state of nirvana to disrupt reality, just like he knows that these philanthropy scenes aren’t going to fix the world and be the kind of compassionate gestures that will shed tears and bring anyone closure beyond maybe a fleeting breeze (however, perhaps the accumulation of these small gestures into a movement can instill more permanent change). I think Lee’s filmography is in many ways about this complex grey space that refuses to “evaporate” anything, and his films often feature these endings that function as cinematically unsatisfactory “big vats of Neosporin after the landmine.” That’s a great analogy for Lee’s messy worldview that he refuses to fully compromise in his filmmaking, so while I read your entire well-argued writeup and nod to basically everything, it’s still in step with Lee’s style- and what you see as flaws I see as maybe-flaws but also commendable obstruction of normative cinema. It's ‘business as usual’ and intended for a purpose that doesn’t follow the rules by which we watch most films.

For the record, this falls into the category of 80% of Lee’s output that I respect a lot more than I like, because I see the same issues. I wouldn’t say that these scenes “work for me” as a viewer of cinema. I’m just looking at what didn’t work under the lens that.. it’s not necessarily supposed to “work” in the ways you’re saying, because that’s kinda the point. So if I flex my perspective to the world of Spike Lee, who doesn’t believe in the kind of catharsis I’m looking for and has repetitively made this clear across his filmography, I respect what he’s doing even if I don’t personally “like” all of it.

As others have said, this is a movie I fully understand criticism for, and have plenty of issues with it myself. The final shootout which on many levels just irks me, also mirrors the idealist sacrifice that defeats the Me and Mine culture, most obviously when Whitlock jumps on the grenade after saying he won't. But the film is still interesting in the context of his entire body of work, and while some may not care if these issues are intentional or not (and on a few of them I'm with the masses), it's important to recognize that their intentions are important to Lee's auteurist ethos - and not necessarily in the ways that are obvious, which is maybe difficult to see in a film that wears so many of its ideas -sometimes deceptively- on its sleeves.

[Nasir007]

I'd have expected more discussion about this film. I will watch it over the weekend and join the dialog. Am I mistaken or is this the biggest film released so far this year? Biggest in the sense a follow-up by a major director likely to feature in year-end conversations.

Anne Thompson of Indiewire implies Lee might be the favorite to win the directing oscar and says the films might compete in the following categories - Best Original Screenplay, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor x2, Best Cinematography and Best Score, though she fails to mention Best Picture which I will assume to be a given at this point.

She says - the largely liberal Academy voters ... are going to lean into movies about the Black experience this year.

I don't know if that will be a factor but I think this has to be one of the major motion pictures of the year that will last deep into the fall and beyond. I though Blackkklansman was very good, so looking forward to this one!

[therewillbeblus]

There’s been more forum discussion on this film than any other 2020 release, or close to it, and it just came out a week ago.

[Jack Kubrick]

Delroy Lindo placement is the question mark-if Netflix decides to put him in lead I could see a nomination in his way, just a matter of the Academy responding to the performance enough that it's not framed into supporting for an easy win. Every wise correction should be that Lindo is placed in Lead and becomes the third black actor to win the Leading statue after Denzel and Sidney, though there's buzz on Hopkins and Hanks that could overshadow Lindo performance, that it's going to just settle into an nomination. I trust the critics to follow suit and brazed him with statue after statue coming this award ceremony.

[domino harvey]

Only white Supporting Actors get nommed for Spike Lee films, silly! Finally, justice 4 Jean Reno

[Nasir007]

Delroy Lindo placement is the question mark-if Netflix decides to put him in lead I could see a nomination in his way, just a matter of the Academy responding to the performance enough that it's not framed into supporting for an easy win. Every wise correction should be that Lindo is placed in Lead and becomes the third black actor to win the Leading statue after Denzel and Sidney, though there's buzz on Hopkins and Hanks that could overshadow Lindo performance, that it's going to just settle into an nomination. I trust the critics to follow suit and brazed him with statue after statue coming this award ceremony.

This tweet says he features in more than 50% of the film. So they might be reluctant to commit category fraud to demote a black actor into a supporting category.

I have zero interest in Green Book and will probably never see it but even there some of my friends said Ali was a leading actor.

I agree it would be lovely to see another black man win the leading oscar.

[domino harvey]

Ali wanted to run in Supporting because he knew he could win there

[therewillbeblus]

Lindo is good and should be nominated somewhere but I doubt this film will be competing seriously for many big awards. I also expect that Best Actor will be Phoenix’s award to lose again if the Mills film drops as expected this fall, and I base that entirely on my own wish fulfillment.

[Never Cursed]

One can read the screenplay for this (with some quite characteristic author's notes) here