Clockers

There is no denying it that this is a good and well made movie but at the same time I also still had loads of problems with it!

The way I see it, this is being a pretty good portrayal of live on the streets in the '90's. It picks a mostly realistic approach but still I just can't really 'feel' this movie. I never felt involved with any of the characters in it or to any of the dramatic events and developments. It doesn't make this movie bad but it does indeed make this movie a bit of a one dimensional experience.

And remember, this is an 1995 movie. So everything that was considered to be hip and 'thug life' might seem a bit ridicules and less cool in today's perspective. The whole attitude and way of talking and the way everyone dresses makes this movie really a product of its time. In that regard this movie also really reminded me of "Kids", which coincidentally or not, got made in the same year as this movie. It makes this movie less relevant to watch now days but really, it's nothing I was holding against the movie.

I would had most definitely preferred it if this movie was using a more straightforward style of storytelling. The movie as it is seems to be wanting to focus on far too many different characters and tries to do and tell too much. It also really has its own style to it, when it comes down to its storytelling, which was nice and helped to give this movie an unique feeling but at the same time it also made the movie unnecessary hard and not all that pleasant to follow at times.

Another thing I also disliked about this movie was its pick of music. The movie mad some bad music choices, in which the music often would swell and become melodramatic at moments that really were uncalled for. It absolutely distracted and most of the time didn't suit what was happening on the screen at the time.

But really, I though this movie still had some hints of a great movie in it as well. One thing was its already earlier mentioned unique and distinctive style. Spike Lee always has had an unique and distinctive style of his own and he manages to put a lot of that in this movie successfully. There are some interesting moments in this movie, from a more technical and movie-making perspective. There was some good camera-work for instance and also very little wrong with the movie its editing and pacing.

The movie its story in essence also really seemed to be a solid one but I do feel that they perhaps should had picked some different perspectives to keep- and make things a bit more interesting and effective. Wouldn't this movie for instance had been better and more interesting if it told things more from the Harvey Keitel's character perspective? Who knows and it's not like the movie bad or interesting as it is right now but while watching this movie it constantly gave me the feeling it had more potential and things could had been done better.

I don't know, perhaps the movie was also being a bit stuck between being a gangster movie and a more realistic one. It never felt like a true gangster flick and it never felt like a true realistic movie neither. Producer Martin Scorsese perhaps should had stepped in a bit more often, since he definitely is a kind of director who can more successfully blend realism with tough and tense gangster/crime movies.

Not trying to sound too negative. The movie is good enough as it is but it doesn't ever reaches its full potential.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This movie is very misunderstood. I've heard people call it stereotypical, but this is only because they missed the obvious. The stereotypical aspect people see is all part of the story. The white police stereotypically harassing the street dealers is only stereotypical because society so commonly commits the very same actions. The movie is all about blame, who society blames, who society would like to blame, and sometimes whomever can be blamed. In actuality the movie has an extremely tense message about accepting ones own blame, while all throughout the movie blame is wrongly placed on nearly everyone. To avoid spoiling the movie I won't be overly specific but by the end of the movie Spike Lee had painted Injustice onto the screen.

In 1995 I considered Spike Lee's gritty CLOCKERS one of the year's best films; recently I spotted its video in a clearance bin and picked it up. Upon re-viewing, I am struck again by its complexity. It is the first urban drama to depict inner-city race relations with the intricacy such a pervasive cultural issue demands. On the surface it resembles a whodunit, but its main concern is how drugs and violence contaminate entire communities, dramatized in the collapse of one African-American youth's life. (He chokes up blood the way some of us sweat.) This process is observed by a predominantly white police force that makes hollow attempts to keep order, and refuses to intervene with the community's gradual decline.

Instead of characters with overt prejudices and plain racial allegiances-characters that are sterile symbols of bigotry rather than credible humans guilty of it-Lee gives us characters of casual racism. Most representative of this is Harvey Keitel's Rocco Klein, a white detective who cannot understand the culture surrounding him, which is a culture of narcotics, violence, and black-on-black crime. On his beat, drugs are less a problem than a lifestyle, murder resolves the tiniest of disagreements, and young mothers valiantly but vainly battle the influence young dealers have on their sons. Klein views the inner-city with contempt, but deep down he knows all the whores and dealers are human beings, too.

Klein is introduced at the scene of a homicide, where the police handle the gruesome death with a clinical sense of detachment, cracking bad jokes and asking the bloodied corpse questions. Is it just a job, or is it racism? For Klein, it's both: he needs the gallows humor to psychologically deal with this culture of depravity. What's fascinating about CLOCKERS is Lee's willingness-and guts-to present Klein, despite his prejudice, as the film's hero. Lee understands that casual racism is simply endemic and inescapable in American culture. What he appreciates is Klein's ability to transcend his own prejudice and finally do the right thing.

It angers me how overlooked this film is.

It is not an easy film. It is bleak and at times very off-putting. Actually, if you are a thinking, caring person, this is movie is overall heart-breaking.

But it is brilliant and, for the person who truly tries to understand it, a compelling, insightful look at the problems killing black America today. The only reason for the film's lack of recognition I can imagine is that its subject matter had been examined a number of times before. But the inescapable fact is that this one of the best examinations of the subject matter there has been on screen - on par with "Boyz N The Hood".

And it is FAR from uncreative. In fact, on one level, it is not a "hood" movie, but a whodunit. The mystery aspect of the plot is very interesting. But there are other, more important layers. It is the story of the confusion and crisis of a young man's life. Most importantly, it is a brutal look at drugs, guns, and life in the projects. It is a movie asking why so many young black men are dying in the streets.

The lead character Strike has a stomach problem. It might be an ulcer or something like that. I believe it is a metaphor. Just as heat represented racial tension in Lee's masterpiece "Do The Right Thing", Strike's sickness represents the illnesses plaguing the ghetto: drugs, guns, liquor.

Like DTRT, this film looks at community. The mothers, the cops, the young people, the kids, the men trying to make a living - there is eloquent commentary in "Clockers" on the situations of all. In Spike's movies, paying a little attention is rewarding. A good essay could be written on what I call the Spike Summarization technique. This is when Spike compresses a serious debate or concern in the black community into a few expressive moments of action or dialogue. There are better examples in other movies, but it manifests in "Clockers" a few times. A bunch of kids are sitting in front of Rodney's (Delroy Lindo) shop; one of the kids is rapping while the others pay attention. The two sides to the coin: we feel the artistry and skill of the moment, the continuation of a rich tradition of oral art; we're also struck by the cruelty and coldness in the kid's violent lyrics, and we think about where that comes from.

Stylistically, this movie is a huge success. The cinematography is amazing, and I wonder what must be wrong with my tastes when I'm floored by a film like this and find visually bland a more oft-praised classic. The projects become blinding panoramas, landscapes which add tons of meaning to the poignant ending (I won't reveal it here). The sound is great; many films of this nature use hip hop in the soundtrack to produce certain effects, but "Clockers" does it in a more methodical way which jars some people, but contributes to the film's meaning.

I could say more about the film, but I encourage you to just see it, along with the rest of Spike's oeuvre. He's not a perfect filmmaker, and some of his best films are marred by elements that don't work, but I feel his consistency in terms of delivering brilliance is not below most of the cinema's most celebrated auteurs.

I tend to enjoy films like Clockers; films that open up ideas about several things at once; films that make you think about the world in which they're set, the people in which inhabit them and the choices they must face – some of which are unfortunate through being mandatory. Spike Lee is no fool and a lot of his early work on recent viewings seem to revolve around someone stuck in a situation that is a mere result of their emotional drive and the world they are living in: She's Gotta Have it; Jungle Fever and Clockers are good examples of protagonists committing an action they really shouldn't have (and probably didn't want to but buckled under either temptation or peer pressure) and now must face the consequences. But these consequences will affect more than merely the hero.

Lee does not hang around in presenting or perhaps delivering his subject matter as a whole. The thing that amazes me with Lee is that he can write so many different types of characters: low grade African-Americans, educated and seemingly decent African-Americans; white cops; women of different ethnicity and a few others. In Clockers, the opening scene which integrates with the credits is of a somewhat crude and humiliating public autopsy during which a couple of white cops examine a dead black man in front of a watching black crowd. Two of these detectives are Rocco Klein (Keitel) and Larry Mazilli (Turturro) but the scene acts as one final act of humiliation to an already dead black man as they search his carcase for clues and bullet holes.

But the film has more than one current flowing throughout it. Strike (Phifer) plays a neighbourhood African-American who speaks and acts just like all his drug dealing friends, even hanging with them when they act out their drug selling routine to customers in a staged manner. But Strike is different and Lee wants us to create an alternate profile of the man by giving him milkshakes to drinks and trains to collect, set up in his apartment, maintain and run. The others laugh at this hobby but Strike maintains most of them too have hobbies: collecting welfare cheques. But this is the greatness of a character like Strike; we are led to believe he is a bad influence through the dialogue of a police man named Andre the Giant (David) but this is perhaps just another cop's point of view and opinion on another African American kid.

Andre believes Strike to be a bad influence on Tyrone (Love) but what Andre fails to notice is that there are higher, more criminal minds badly influencing Strike and that is more of a problem than Strike talking to Tyrone. The film is about a seemingly nice and somewhat moral 'gangstar' who is put in a situation where murder is the only way out, and we go through the narrative with the emphasis on this moral gangstar that he is actually a cold blooded killer in an excellent and very effective piece of atmosphere. But this is a slow burner and it slowly burns away at our opinion because there is a scene in Strike's apartment when he talks to Tyrone all about drugs and guns, apparently Tyrone should stay away from taking drugs but selling them will bring him a nice chunk of change; however guns are something that Tyrone should seriously consider getting into. To top this scene off, Tyrone is told that mathematics is also a very good thing. Already, Lee is trying to manipulate and force us to change out minds as to weather we like Strike. Is he a killer? Does he know drugs should be completely avoided? Why does he suggest Tyrone get a gun one day? Or is it just a misguided fool repeating what he once heard and saying what he thinks is right. Interesting how later on Tyrone repeats train information to another person after sort of adopting a 'Strike' figure.

But the film has some more strong points. Rodney Little (Lindo) thinks that just because he has had a shotgun in the mouth and was manipulated into murder, he can do it to others. Little himself asks Strike "How are you so smart and so stupid?" in a scene that actually has someone echo Strike's personality to his face. Little's background in presented in a nasty and somewhat disturbing fashion via flashback to the days when he was younger with Errol Barnes (Byrd), the resident 'hood psychopath-come-criminal who seems to have some distorted views to do with religion. With all this in the melting plot, it's no wonder the film does a good job in maintain interest and quality delivery. Lee does not fail to focus on his subject matter like he does in Summer of Sam when tackling the psychological development of a serial killer and a love triangle at the same time became messy. Instead, he does not get sidetracked with any unnecessary sub-plots and keeps the delivery sharp, realistic and intriguing when the final act comes to an end.