Do The Right Thing: A Masterclass in Historical Subjectivity

Spike Lee exhibits the simple manipulation of truth in a less than three minute sequence in Do The Right Thing (Lee, 1989) that barely stands out in a film rich in commentary on American race relations. The scene unfolds as a young boy runs in front of a car excited for ice cream, and Da Mayor jumps out to save him, toppling both the child and himself. What the boy’s mother and other viewers of the incident see is the drunk mayor attacking a small child, and when the mother asks her son what happened, he does not want to admit that he ran in front of a car, so he lies and allows the belief that he was attacked to ensue. Da Mayor defends himself, and to his luck the mother believes him, but this simple scene represents exactly what historians, or anyone listening to a story for that matter, have to grapple with when understanding the past. The third party viewer, the mother, has to examine the evidence given to her, one that is true and one that is not, and determine what she believes to be true. If she believed her son, than that would be known as the perceived truth, regardless of what the actual truth of the story was.

Da Mayor in Do The Right Thing

This filmed is filled with examples of stories that can be easily manipulated, and have been. Each character’s perception, biases, and lived experiences influence how their outlook on society is. This is why Lee so urgently addresses throughout the film that the notion of a monolithic African American experience is not true, and that the idea of the “right thing” to do varies in generation, gender, class, age, and relation to those around you. It can be argued that many of the actions throughout this film were not the correct thing to do, because of what they led up to, but it can very well be argued with the contextualization of their singular perspective that they did the only “right” thing that they could in that moment.

Furthermore, Spike Lee shows the manipulation of truth and justice through music, physical objects, and celebrities in media. The distinct differences in how characters view the world around them, both contrasted between races and within races, highlights how stereotypes are harmfully used to categorize groups, while remaining inaccurate. One person cannot represent all stereotypes at once. Still, this film is brimming with a multitude of themes and representation. There are moments of action and tension coupled with moments of connection and romance. This display of African American representation in film is still rare in today’s standards, and incredibly rare at the time of this film’s release. Lee is able to “fight the power” in his own medium, film, by directly addressing the large extent of experiences and attitudes held by communities in this neighborhood.

My questions while watching this film were: what do you think the public reaction to this film was after its initial release, and how do you think that it translates to today’s society? Do you think that watching this film a second time would lead to a different perspective or clearer understanding on the character’s internal motivations, especially regarding the incidents leading up to the riot at the end? When do you know something in history is a complete objective truth, and when does this film feel like a commentary on the objective truths of its time and subjective truths of its time?

Comments

One response to “Do The Right Thing: A Masterclass in Historical Subjectivity”

  1. John Cross Avatar
    John Cross

    This is so well-written, Kate! You do a great job of diving into the community and their own attitudes being projected onto smaller encounters. I also agree with the stress on context in this movie. You can’t take one “objective” lens of morality to view this story, as the whole thing is purposefully circumstantial, and that’s meant to discomfort the viewer. This movie’s concept of objective truth is certainly muddy. You bringing it up made me immediately think of history textbooks. A historical retelling of this movie would absolutely depend on the perspective and beliefs of the person producing it—it could either become really bigoted and censorship-y or it could tell the truth from multiple different characters in the story. I’m sure this carried into audience reactions a lot. Were people more upset at the crowd burning Sal’s down, or were they more upset at Sal’s constant use of epithets and racist ideology to put down the community he’s meant to serve? Each character would tell the story different, and I think Spike Lee knows that each viewer is just the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *