The Consequences of Fighting the Power

Although all the characters in Do the Right Thing had their fair share of influence, Radio Raheem stands out the most in my opinion. He rocks his own neighborhood's t-shirt. He lets Public Enemy do the talking for him. And that boom box...when a ghetto blaster is the catalyst for a race riot, that tends to signify an unprecedented force. Yet, despite all his badass persona, Radio Raheem also represents hypocracy at its finest.
Take, for instance, his Love vs. Hate speech:

Let me tell you the story of "Right Hand, Left Hand." It's a tale of good and evil. Hate: It was with this hand that Cane iced his brother. Love: These five fingers, they go straight to the soul of man. The right hand: the hand of love. The story of life is this: Static. One hand is always fighting the other hand; and the left hand is kicking much ass. I mean, it looks like the right hand, Love, is finished. But, hold on, stop the presses, the right hand is coming back. Yeah, he got the left hand on the ropes, now, that's right. Ooh, it's the devastating right and Hate is hurt, he's down. Left-Hand Hate K.O.ed by Love.

Irony ensues. This has probably got to be my favorite soliloquy in a movie to date, but it also raises an interesting question. How can Radio Raheem preach love but express dislike and prejudice against different races? The fact that he fights racism with racism is too bizarre to even begin to justify. In order to fight the power (in hopes of restoring a balance) you have to fight. Consequently, more hatred is created and the effort becomes very cyclical and very unproductive.
Even Radio Raheem's death is an unfortunate result of the race crusade.
Total understanding will never exist (except for inside an idealist's mind), just like racism will always exist. However, there needs to be some kind of a reform and a general movement towards tolerance if we expect any hope for mankind.

On a lighter note, here's a Sesame Street remix of Do the Right Thing. Enjoy.

The Battle of Algiers

Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers is by no means an extraordinarily revolutionary film stylistically. Sure, it has a documentary-esque feel to express realism and puts the viewer in the action of the scene, but that had been done before with Battleship Potemkin (the one with the baby carriage falling down the stairs). And yes, the score was done by Ennio Morricone, a badass composer. But why is this movie part of the Criterion Collection? Why is there all this hubbub about a foreign, black-and-white, no-gore-no-sex, unprofessional-acting film? It's all about the timelessness, baby.

Peter Rainer of the New York Times Magazine writes:

"What reveals Pontecorvo as an artist, and not simply a propagandist of genius,
is the sorrow he tries to stifle but that comes flooding through anyway—the
sense that all sides in this conflict have lost their souls, and that all men
are carrion."

It is clear that Pontecorvo's purposes were not to side with either the French or the Algerians, but in doing so, he demonstrated that both sides were at fault, and both sides represent the innate self-preservation of man. The fact that this is a fundamental problem allows for many generations to see a piece of themselves in the film. For instance, it be applied as a reflection of the decline of European imperialism and how perhaps colonization and occupation may not be the best solution (cough cough ahem). It has been deemed an allegory for the Vietnam War. Both the Black Panthers AND the Pentagon have screened it for training purposes. The film truly does transcend the apparent differences in people and the eras they live in. And that, consequently, defines an unparalleled artistry.