The Spook Who Sat by the Door

Dan Freeman (played by Lawrence Cook) is a token black CIA operative. Trained in all sorts of espionage, he is relegated to working in the copying department as a "showcase" employee of integration. As the title suggests, he's placed by the door of the office so he's the first person everyone sees. Incensed by his mistreatment (and the racial stereotyping of his superiors), he resigns to his native Chicago as a social services worker.

Secretly, he is training a street gang into a guerrilla army to be the vanguard in a race war, using all of his training by "the man" against "the man".

The details are impressive. Freeman explains how to establish a hierarchy in an underground movement, how to recruit new members, living on the street, and forming new cells. He also details how racial stereotypes can be used to one's advantage, citing how no one ever notices a smiling black man in an office carrying a mop.

The film is a faithful adaptation of Sam Greenlee's controversial novel of the same title, and a haunting look at what MIGHT have (and maybe damned near) happened in the USA during that turbulent period of history. The film was quickly followed by a long line of "blaxploitation" films, often made with little regard for content and style. But "Spook", shot on a small budget, has a powerful message: Never underestimate anyone! Not even "the spook who sat by the door"!

As a motion picture, it does have technical weaknesses, but the drama is well-played, the plot is very tight and the characters are believable. The language, however, is very harsh. A white man (like myself) may find the diatribes against "whitey" shocking, but this film was made during a time of great racial strife, and it echos those times.

Made in 1973, it still packs a punch, and is worth tracking down and buying (Do a web-search! That's how I got my copy!).

A ground-breaking film! (Does anyone but me catch the irony of the main character's name? "Free Man"?)

The Spook Who Sat by the Door is a cult classic and named one of the most influential black films of the 70s (by Torriano Berry and Venise Berry in their book The 50 most influential black films). This film holds this title with good reason. The film begins with a senator facing the prospect of losing an election without the pivotal black vote. To win favor he decided to charge the CIA with racism since they have no black agents. The CIA agrees, although those in charge of the training do all that is possible to kick all of the recruits out. Only one survives, Dan Freeman. Freeman finds himself the token black, he is often called to show visitors what progress the CIA is making in race relations, before continuing his menial tasks of copying papers and giving tours. Though he plays his role, one gets the impression he is planning something big. After a few years of service with the CIA he returns home to Chicago and in his capacity as a social worker he organizes local gangs using his knowledge and training from the CIA. Without spoiling the rest of the film there is the classic struggle about how to approach change through the system or to over throw? This is represented by Freeman and a former friend who is now police chief in Chicago. Included is some of the socio-political issues that made the 60s and 70s what it was, making this film one that stands out in a decade of films high on action and low on plot. Taking budget issues into consideration and what director Ivan Dixon had to do to get the film made, it is well worth watching (even again).

I have seen this film on several occasions ( though not lately), have spoken to its author , and have known several of its cast members, the most notable of which would be Lawrence Cook and Paula Kelly. For a time the film was withdrawn from circulation, though it was briefly brought back in a limited release in the late 1980s. It was made on a shoestring budget. The subject matter was so controversial that the then Mayor of Chicago would not allow it to be filmed in the city, which is where Greenlee had sought to film it. Gary, Indiana had to be the stage, instead. Despite the obvious budget ( and therefore technical) limitations--not to mention the dearth of then well known names--the film is highly effective. Many a movie patron who sat through it went home feeling somewhat--perhaps considerably--less secure about himself and the world around him. I loved the film.

This interesting drama hits dead on point for those of who dream of a better government and a better America .In the film ,a racist politician losing in the polls and fearing the loss of the so-called Negro vote decides to give the people a few crumbs off the table by allowing some black men to be recruited into the CIA. Certain under handed deals are made to insure none of these men will succeed ,however one guy makes it through all the rigorous training and educating. And in an incredible graduation scene (see it to believe it!)is congratulated for being the 1st of his race into the CIA. The films budgetary restraints are apparent throughout, but the entire cast deliver good performances most convincingly the main character.I won't spoil it suffice to say the guy gets to put all the training to very good use,as he resigns from the racist system and sets out to make real change for his community. I would give this 15*s

Of course the first thing people talk about is this film's politics- and they are some of the most militant in any film to ever get fairly mainstream, American distribution. I think it could only have played mainstream cinemas in the early 1970s. But the politics are far from the only thing that is remarkable about this work. I don't know how to label it with the vocabulary of genre- its a thing unto itself. A completely unique narrative tone that oscillates between satire, legitimate, hard-nosed agit-prop and even moments of (I think) self-deprecation. Its at once assertive and yet it questions everything, even its own place as an object of the culture industry. As legitimate as its Nationalist message is, its still only a message, and in this way the work is as much an exploitation of Black Rage as it is a vehicle for it. I think the filmmakers understand this, and want to live up to it. Because it is not ultimately a Messianic narrative. The protagonist only brings a message of unity and revolt and suggests, through the narrative, a possible course of study and action. The protagonist does not replace, or even lead, the masses. He is left to narrative space, and he can only toast the potential revolutionary actors, the audience.