The Spook Who Sat by the Door

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

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).

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.

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.

A big surprise! I wasn't expecting anything as intelligent or exciting as this. More craft than one would expect of a low budget outing from largely first timers and it barely puts a foot wrong. None of the glam of the more obvious candidates for best black film, this just gets on and does it's job. This being the film's theme in many ways - just do it! There are many, like the writer on the DVD interview, who wonder why so little has been achieved in the US by this community and this marvellous movie is certainly food for thought for many around the world whether they be the oppressed or the oppressor who cannot figure out how the balance of power never seems to change. A really must see film.