Chi-Raq

While the movie touches on many problems that Chicago faces, in my opinion it misses the most important one: THE WAR on DRUGS. You can blame gun shows, the NRA, lack of education, etc, all you want, but the fact of the matter is and will remain that the violence isn't because of guns...the huge incarceration rate is not because of guns...it all stems back to the war on drugs. Guns don't kill people, violent gangs do and they do it because of the money associated with the black market drug trade.

Violence, gangs and turf wars are the direct result of the drug trade. Drug dealers rule the streets because the economic opportunities are terrible in the inner-city and because so much can be made from the drug trade. Poor youth see more opportunity in that criminal world than in going to school.

So will eliminating the war on drugs solve the problem? Probably not, but it would be a big step and do a lot to take the power away from the gangs and it would keep the police from arresting black males in epidemic rates.

I could go on and on about how terrible the War on Drugs is for the black community but this is simply a review and I wanted to convey my disappointment that this is not brought up as a substantial issue.

First for the "haters" negative Nancy crowd: I'm bright white, don't love or hate Lee and don't know squat about Chicago.

I thought this was pretty solid. All the valid intelligent criticism I've seen involves elements tying this to Aristophanes work.

I get it,gangsta's and Aristophanes are not things that are closely associated but darn it fruity arty farty reviewers should have read a freaking Greek play at least once or twice in life.

I think Lee did an awesome job here. I gave a s*** about Chicago. The use of Aristophanes Lysistrata was a brilliant way to illustrate how long humanity has been doing this dumb crap. It's a fantastic way to illustrate just how universal this nonsense is.He managed to tie a modern day cultural issue's to ancient Greece. It's real daggum difficult to call Lysistrata "a black thing" or blame "thugs".

Kiddies, that "weird stuff" and "sing song" is the classic Greek comedy influences. Chi-Raq is a melding of modern culture and ancient Greek comedy. Now, Disney's Hercules ya'll have seen and loved that movie. The muses that sing all the songs you love? Zero to Hero 'member? You 'member...same thing. Keep that in mind when you're watching Chi-Raq.

It's fine if you hate it, not everyone digs it. Not everyone loves Broadway either, but at least judge it for what it is. Don't condemn it because of or due to ignorance.

Literature is history,we've got to remember that and teach the kids better. This is just depressing. Kind of adds to Lee's point/message though doesn't it?

Ah well, at least nobody is screaming about Lee being a bastid patriarch co opting Lysistrata and perverting it for his male needs...yet.

As for me, it was different, interesting in a good way and funny. It had raunchy humor mixed with some higher brow stuff. It was thought provoking and chees-ily preachy at times. There's thought in this. There's concern.

I think what's best,for me anyway, was that somebody left the box FINALLY and looked at this from an entirely new perspective. It's not the same boxed up thugs and gangsta garbage. It's not classic men vs women tropes. I loved it for it's oddities. I loved it for the new angles on age old problems.

Chi-Raq (2015)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

When a woman's (Jennifer Hudson) daughter is killed by a stray bullet, Lysistrata (Teyonah Parris) begins to rethink the situation in Chicago. Her boyfriend is the gangster/rapper Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon) and she wants him to put down the weapons. The town's other big gangster (Wesley Snipes) doesn't see the point so soon the mothers decide to team up and battle the gangsters themselves. How they going to bring peace? By refusing sex.

Spike Lee's CHI-RAQ contains some really, really great moments and things but at the same time I honestly can't remember such a serious subject being tackled in such a rather silly way. After I was done viewing the movie I went and read several reviews on it and they were extremely mixed to say the least. Some called it a masterpiece. Some said it was one of the worst movies of the year. Others said people were misunderstanding the tone of the picture because it was meant to be a black comedy. A comedy? Really?

I will start off with the great stuff. For starters, Lee does a tremendous job in the directing duties as he certainly handles the material in a terrific way and I'd argue he did a remarkable job considering the time and budget that he was working with. I'd also add that the cinematography was flawless and the soundtrack was great as well. The real shock for me was the excellent performance by Cannon who really does give a "movie star" performance here. I mean, I was really shocked at how wonderful he was in this role and he made the character rather fearful yet when it came time to show the heart, the actor did a fabulous job. John Cusack was also strong in his role as was Snipes, Parris and Angela Bassett. Samuel L. Jackson is also good playing Dolmedes.

Now, for the flaws. For the life of me I couldn't understand why the Lysistrata and Dolmedes thing was used. Yes, it turns the material into a musical and it gives the subject a rather fresh and original take but why was it needed? The film is a very political one and it really does beat the viewer over the head with the subject matter of blacks killing blacks but is this a way to get through to anyone? The film takes on a dark subject but I just couldn't help but think that it took an easy way out by not really giving any real answers. With holding sex? Really? I wish the screenplay had been done in a different fashion and the political message also got way off track and really derailed the film towards the end.

CHI-RAQ is a film that I greatly admired at times but at other times I really thought it was a misfire. Lee deserves credit for tackling the subject and he deserves credit for trying to tell the story in a different way but in the end the two things just didn't mix too well.

This one is definitely not without its flaws. The editing and pacing of it is messy, sometimes very uneven. I wasn't familiar with the source material from which this is inspired by, but I found it to be really addictive in its ability to grasp one's attention. I think the ensemble cast works well, even if the tone of the film requires them to be very loud and over-the-top, to the point that the film itself becomes a little exhausting. Some of the performers aren't as good as others, and sometimes it becomes very evident. However, it's also one of those films that is kind of difficult to resist. If you let it sort of wash over you, it will work in splendid, even magical ways, I just wish it was more consistent as a whole.

I give it a C+ or ** (2 stars) PROS: Strong acting performances of the leads and supporting cast. All worked well in flow with cameos of celebs sprinkled throughout the film. Compelling visual cinematography that captures the tone of the Windy City. Well-thought out production design of scene selections that provided a depth of realism to the narrative. The colors of the scenes and costume design worked well in the symbolism of the divisiveness of gang violence and the battle-of-the-sexes theme that propped up the film's storyline. The use of rap lyrics in communicating Chicago's plight and connecting the film's characters. This film was vintage Spike Lee from his slow dolly shots, multiple-person narrative, symbolic cinematography in vintage snap shots of the community, pretentiously didactic and preachy in dialogue, usage of colors in visual storytelling (Spike Lee is masterful with colors), the assemblage of music overtones, and film storytelling covering various angles on a variety of social issues. As an unapologetic artist Spike Lee proves to out-stand himself an auteur in his own right--staying on top of the plight of Black America and delivering a film revelation one after the other prompting conversation and new appeal for solutions. Everything short of an activist-charge, Spike Lee has been rather consistent in his pursuit of pressing current affairs in his filmography. Like him or not he remains relevant and cannot be ignored. Chi-Raq is a great Spike Lee film. Not necessarily a great film.

CONS: Weak film story delivery in dialogue, character-build, and theme. This film misfired at all elements to a given genre. It worked poorly as a comedy, worked poorly as a satire, and worked poorly as a drama. Thus, the film worked poorly as multi-varied genre of the three. This polemic of a film was carried by an uneven, sporadic plot that was crowded with characters and subplots making for a perplexing flow throughout the movie. The use of rhyming dialogue that sporadically popped up in the script seemed a bad blend with the attempt to parallel the Lysistrata play, the classic Greek comedy by Aristophanes. Unless, of course, Lee was attempting for a parody of the timeless, ancient Athenian play. The insertion of Samuel L. Jackson's character as a well-dressed funnyman to set the stage of the next scene and add perspective of a universal moralism was a consistent miss. At times I felt like I was watching a Capital One® commercial. With slapstick humor that came off mostly bland with a few highlighted moments, comedy continues to prove to be Spike Lee's weakest working genre in filmmaking--not to confuse the brilliancy of timed humor in his earlier works. The battle-of-sex prologue that set the tone of the film which later extended in a jumble of social issues only to get back to it was executed rather shoddy and distractedly.

ADD'L NOTES: The attempt at provoking his audience as an element in entertainment is vintage Spike Lee. Lee's style is to take his audience on an emotional roller coaster in an entertaining fashion. His tendency to probe at the core of human feelings works well for him in embellishment and performance in visual-spatial form. My real issue with Chi-Raq were essential two things--one, the lack of feel for the city--Chicago was one Lee never fully grasped, and two, a misdirection and misappropriation of his audience--who exactly was this film made for and why?