September 3, 2025 • 64 mins
Spike Lee’s Highest 2 Lowest is bold, stylish, funny, and frustrating all at once. In this episode, Trey and Kelsi explore Spike’s return to the crime thriller with Denzel Washington and Jeffrey Wright grounding the story, and A$AP Rocky stepping in as a surprising antagonist. We dig into how the film tries to channel the social bite of Inside Man, and the moral weight of Kurosawa’s High and Low, but often veers into goofy tangents, uneven tone, and surface-level commentary instead of the sharper critique Spike’s known for. Sign up below on Patreon as a free member to get access to our review of Kurosawa's High and Low.
The Extra Credits YouTube Channel
Send requests, questions, and thoughts to our email: extracreditspod@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:14):
The hello and welcome to the extra credits of Spike Lee's
Highest to Lowest. I'm Trey.
And I'm Kelsey. Feeling a little nasally right
now. Yeah, you, you sounded like
you're getting over your sickness still.
Yeah, it's OK. Yeah, for those who don't know,
didn't listen to our last episode.
We haven't been talking about any movies on the main feed
(00:35):
since Weapons because we startedour jobs.
We work in education back in theclassrooms.
The kids got me sick. I've been out of it for two
weeks at least, so I'm still recovering.
So I apologize for my voice on this episode, but I'm excited
talking with you about movies, coming back with a Spike Lee
film, which is really cool. This is Spike Lee's fifth
collaboration with Denzel Washington, one of our favorite
(00:57):
actors. This is their first movie since
Inside Man back in 2006, which is wild.
That's a movie that we're covering this month alongside Do
the Right Thing on Patreon, which is very, very cool.
Highest to lowest is Spikes reinterpretation of Akira
Kurosawa's masterpiece High and Low from the 60s.
That's a film we actually just reviewed on Patreon in
(01:18):
preparation for this episode today.
And for a limited time right now, we're unlocking that High
and Low episode for free members.
So if you head into the description of this episode, you
can sign up as a free member on our Patreon and listen to that
conversation. I really recommend that episode,
mostly because I think it'll provide some pretty useful
context for our feelings today on Spikes Movie.
(01:38):
Yeah, and I think that's actually a helpful episode,
though, in particular in relationship to highest to
lowest, just because I know thisis not a remake, right?
I think Spike is calling it likea reinterpretation, A
reimagination. I get it.
He's very. Much out there being like, not a
remake. There's a great interview with
Bill Simmons where he's like, it's not a remake.
(02:00):
Yeah, yeah, I get it too. But like, there is a reason why
this movie in particular is worthy of revisiting, right, so
many years later. And that's the the thematic
source text and class commentarythat's so interesting in the
original. And during that conversation,
you know, we talked a lot about that and how it was so like
smart and how we move throughoutthe the world of high and low.
(02:24):
And so I was really pumped, you know, to see like how Spike Lee
was going to to do this and likereimagine this world, obviously,
like with his specific style andfilm language.
But in that episode, we also talked about like, I don't think
he could mess it up. Like there would really only be
one thing that would happen, which is like sympathizing too
much with the wealthy man at thecenter of this and not doing a
(02:49):
maybe a good enough job of like flipping that, as I think high
and low does at the at the end scene there.
And that happens, I mean, which I was kind of surprised about.
Yeah. And, you know, that's not
something that is like a part ofInside Man or Do the Right
Thing, which we'll cover more indepth like on those episodes
(03:11):
about why, you know, those are some of his like best movies.
But I was just surprised to to see that in this movie about
class in 2025. And capitalism through a Western
lens, too. I thought there was a lot of
potential here to do some interesting, like subversive
twists on the kind of village versus villager ethos of those
(03:35):
Kurosawa movies of that period. And especially in that film that
we explored on that episode, I thought it was interesting to
take an American lens to that commentary, to be like, everyone
in the United States wants to bea villager, but nobody wants to
be a part of a village. And really put Denzel
Washington's character at the center of that moral dilemma.
And what would a wealthy kind ofbusiness tycoon person actually
(03:58):
do in that situation in the United States?
And to see where this movie goesto.
And I don't want to hit spoilersquite yet.
I was genuinely shocked by goingto the second act of this film.
So we'll get to all of that because obviously, clearly,
neither of us really loved highsto lowest.
I think there's a lot of, like, stylistic flourishes that we
enjoyed. There's some good comedy, some
really good Denzel, which I'll get to in a second, and some
(04:21):
other good supporting performances.
But was really surprised by the decision to sympathize with who
what you're talking about. Let's start on a positive note.
Yeah, we're always asking why doesn't Hollywood make movies
like Spike Lee's Inside Man? We always ask it on the podcast.
And we know we really want movies like Collateral, Point
(04:43):
Break, Man on Fire, the firm, elevated, propulsive thrillers
made for and directed for adults, about characters or
people on the edge. You know what I mean?
And Nora just won best picture, which is certainly a movie about
people on the edge and being pushed to the edge.
And it is a thriller and it is adark comedy.
It's a blad of tones and genres.And it's pretty fantastically
(05:05):
kind of like ambitious movie following, you know, Ani on that
journey. And I'm using a movie as an
example because I think we're we're entering a new or old
territory, kind of revisiting inthe late 2000s, early kind of
early to late 90s territory of movies directed at adults about
messy people. And I love that.
(05:25):
And Spike Lee is returning us tothat space with highest to
lowest right now in theaters andin the limited theaters, but
going to be on streaming on Apple Plus very soon this
Friday, September 5th. And Darren Aronofsky, who is an
otor in his own right, not to the level of Spike Lee,
obviously, but of the last 15 years, he's a provocateur, you
know, mother. And Black Swan is out with
(05:45):
Austin Butler and Zoe Kravitz's Caught Stealing, which is a
crime thriller, action comedy, kind of another movie that we're
sort of asking for a lot like after hours adjacent meets like
a Coen Brothers kind of energy or trying to be at least.
And neither of these movies really work to me.
High, still lowest and caught Stealing, but I'm happy they
exist. I'm happy that we're returning
(06:07):
to this genre. It makes me feel excited about
finding a balance of studios notjust feeding us like superhero
content, which I do enjoy, but obviously we've been inundated
with it. And it's kind of diluted that
genre to the point where we're all kind of sick of the
stateless universe of superheroes.
And we want movies that are directed at adults that are
dramatic and thrilling and entertaining and, and can be
(06:29):
about messy, complex people. You know, we just watched and
covered Dog Day Afternoon, Sidney Lumet's masterpiece and
Al Pacino's legendary performance on Patreon just the
other day. And we were talking about how
like, who is the Sidney Lumet? And we're like, we don't know
who who our current Sidney Lumetis because studios aren't
funding that person, right? That person is out there wanting
(06:49):
to make movies and they're beingasked to make Captain America
Six, you know what I mean? And that kind of sucks.
And so it is. I'm excited that highest to
lowest exist if that makes sense, even though it is like A
twist on IP. Yeah, I, I like in, in terms of
like the direction we're going, like you're saying, right.
We also talked about like John QA, hugely underrated movie and
(07:09):
Denzel performance. OK.
Shout out our John Q heads out there.
Yeah, which is a a really great commentary on like capitalism
and and the healthcare system inthe United States.
But yeah, like, I, I feel that we are so hungry for these
movies that have something to say but also aren't, I mean, are
(07:30):
also fun but aren't like Ambulance, you know?
And excuse me, LA Ants. And we love Ambulance.
There's a place for the Michael Bay, Jake Gyllenhaal, kind of
like dog whistle movies. Like there's a place for those
films. And I'm happy to have them when
you want them. But it is nice to have movies
that are more elevated, genre pulpy films that are exciting,
(07:53):
entertaining and also can be, like, smart.
Yeah. Exactly.
Yeah, I think that highest to lowest is an interesting example
of like a really interesting like source text of having
something to say and then at thelast like kind of stretch of
this takes a a weird turn. And yeah, I mean, I caught
(08:14):
stealing. Doesn't really have much to say,
but. It tries to have like an
emotionally deep character arc, Frost and Butler, but he's doing
a lot of that work. It's always Zoe Kravitz, but
yeah, it's more of an action comedy route.
I don't know. It's not a very good movie.
Heist to lowest is better than caught stealing in my opinion.
I just wanted to bring up the genre the the kind of movies
(08:37):
made for and package for adults that are kind of messy because I
think we are entering into a newspace and Spike Lee kind of
being on the forefront is very exciting to me, even if I don't
love this movie. It's been reported that Timothy
Chalamet is going to do a bank heist movie with James Mangold
next year, which is insane. Very excited for that.
Marty Supreme feels like a return to Catch Me If You Can
era. Like kind of.
(08:57):
Spielberg, which is making phonecalls from the hotel room.
Yeah. To your girlfriend Gwyneth
Paltrow and Ridley Scott apparently is tackling a speed
Keanu Reeves Sandra Bullock style thriller called Bomb OK
Ridley, which I'm hyped for. Austin Butler and Jeremy Allen
White are coming together to play a kind of Heat.
(09:20):
Yeah, I was going to say character.
Dynamic of a, of a crime guy being chased down by a detective
I don't know who's who so that'sall very exciting I, I, I think
we can be only. People, they're like the Al
Pacino De Niro. That's interesting.
So they're mid budget thrillers making a comeback.
That's all I wanted to say. I think that's very, very cool
(09:40):
and I think people should be excited.
About that and I think, you know, it's actually a really
interesting example to to view something like John Wick Wick,
which I love as like an in between territory of this of
going from the superhero movies into action because it still
feels like John Wick is also superhero adjacent.
Yeah, it feels like action movies and comedy movies were
(10:02):
literally like Co opted by the superhero industry, like Die
Hard or, I don't know, The Hangover turned into like Iron
Man. Do you know what I mean?
It is very confusing, but it does feel like we have balance
in the world. Everything is hopefully becoming
right as we talk about this Apple TV Plus movie.
(10:23):
So some other things that reallywork in this movie.
Obviously Denzel Washington, as always, very magnetic.
Yeah. And I'm going to try to, you
know, Denzel Washington recentlysaid in an interview, I think it
was recently, that his name is actually Denzel Washington.
And he kind of just let tabloidsand people like it at Academy
Awards words ceremony say his name is Denzel and he just ran
(10:43):
with it. So I'm going to go back and
forth between Denzel and Denzel and I.
Apologize in the hopes to say. To recorrect it, Yeah, because I
even hear Spike Lee call him Denzel.
But like, he did an interview with Bill Simmons on The Ringer,
which is an incredible interview.
I recommend people check it out.And he's talking about him as
Denzel and then he'll talk abouthim as Denzel.
And I'm like, I'm probably goingto find myself doing that today.
I'm just putting that out there because I want to get his name
(11:05):
right. He carries this movie,
obviously, but Jeffrey Wright isalso pretty good in this.
A$AP Rocky gets a couple surprising great performance and
stylistically it's Spike Lee andhe's got his DP Matthew
Libertique and their cinematography is pretty
awesome, especially in the way this movie opens in the.
(11:25):
I love the opening here. The shots at the cityscape.
I was so excited when we opened the movie this way.
We have like, oh, what a beautiful morning.
You know, I'm not always on board with the classical music
in Spike Lee movies. I think it works in certain
movies, like like he got game, like.
I think that's an interesting use of.
(11:45):
Like. Different tones, right
happening. And then also I think in Do the
Right Thing, he has some classical.
It's a little bit like more understated in those scenes.
Yeah, I think people think Public Enemy when they think do
the right thing, but there's a lot of, like, dialogue
sequences, whether it be betweenPinot and his dad and the
pizzeria or Spike and Pinot to the side about like how Pinot is
(12:06):
being a racist and they're like playing.
There's like this subtle classical music or jazz music
playing underneath the dialogue that in highest to lowest feels
a little bit more abrasive and kind of in your face.
I think also there's a lot of like pacing things that come
with that. And also I think interesting
conflicts between Jeffrey Wright's character and Denzel's
(12:27):
character that feel off because I start to sense where it's
going thematically that I'm like, wait, now the classical
music feels strange because we're on the side of like this
wealthy person more so. And it's not really looking at
the contradiction. I I thought it was going to, but
then I was like, oh wait, are wenot?
Yeah, I think. Spike has a point of view, and
(12:49):
he's a moralistic filmmaker, forbetter and for worse.
And in this. And so it was like Martin
Scorsese, his peer, They're bothlike that.
Yeah. And so he certainly has a lot of
opinions about what he wants outof, like, successful people in
capitalism today and the kind oflike, class that they represent.
Yeah. So there's a lot to say.
We'll. Talk more about that because
also, like I understand how Spike Lee is coming at like
(13:11):
Denzel's character with the ideaof like a responsibility lens.
But that is I think like, you know, obviously I I I just don't
think that is like a interestingtake completely when you have a
movie about class to this level and it's the main commentary of
your movie. But anyway, yeah, yeah.
So we'll talk about that. But the opening here like gave
(13:32):
me, you know, like such high hopes for this because we have
oh, what a beautiful morning playing.
It's like this really romanticized, beautiful opening,
but yet at the kind of like bottom of the the image or like
the foundation of this image is like the high rise, right?
And the rest of the the city, which is such at the core of
(13:55):
like high and low right of the, the person who we, you know,
meet at the end, who isn't like the main character of the movie,
have this monologue in high and low about like what the, the
physical, you know, like difference of being like high up
(14:15):
right in this high rise verse, like low and forgotten, like,
you know, just in terms of like the actual geography of where
people are living or the physical locations.
The architecture representing the class Immobility.
Exactly. Yeah.
And like I so I was pumped at the at the beginning for this
because like I was like, oh, this is interesting.
I love how it's bright and and Iliked the idea of that kind of
(14:39):
like hiding something. Immediately I thought of, you
know, high and low, obviously, but bondage and host parasite
too, which is also inspired by high and low and using
architecture and geography to represent wealth inequality and
class immobility. And how that can lead to like
make to make people of an underclass or a forgotten class,
a working class to make radical decisions to protect oneself, to
survive, or in some cases just to act out or lash out against
(15:02):
those who have like consolidatedpower and wealth and resources.
So lots to say about that. The production design in this
movie, the cinematography to theproduction design in this movie
is really solid. Washingtons home, I think he
plays a character named King, isa David King who basically is a
massive high rise home and he lives in what feels like a
(15:22):
museum. It's sort of like showcase of
black success. An artist all around him, He's
like speaking to them as if theyare these mythic figures and
asking them for advice throughout the movie as he goes
through his moral dilemma that we'll get into.
And Spike really leans into thatkind of iconographic feel of
these legendary black artists surrounding Washington's
(15:44):
character and what he feels. Going back to your point, his
responsibility is to, to help this missing child or kidnapped
child. And Spike makes some really
interesting choices with the editor to add these symbols in
to the, the kind of pans and thewipes of, of the edits.
And it gives the film a really kind of rhythmic feel.
And I think the film language, the imagery, the, the texture of
(16:07):
the, of the production design and also the architecture that
you're talking about are really powerful because they do speak
to the class commentary that youreally want out of the movie
that you can feel the movie in the screenplay in particular
sort of wrestling with. And we'll come back to that
screenplay because ultimately, Ithink the first hour, basically
first hour and a half of this movie, if we're going to
(16:30):
negatives now, is pretty weightless.
Like it feels kind of stateless even when the moral dilemma is
revealed. And we're going to learn more
into spoilers now. So spoiler warning if you have
not seen the movie, but the first hour and a half to this
film sort of has a streaming movie flatness to me, which I
thought was so disappointing. And it's such a let down after
(16:51):
that great opening of that, thatshot of New York City in
Brooklyn. And I've seen some critics, you
know, forgive that the first hour is kind of boring.
And a lot of critics have projected on a meta commentary
onto the film as they're as they're forgiving that first
hour. And they're saying that, you
know, Spike is making a movie sort of about himself.
(17:11):
And what he feels is his own responsibility is this legendary
black filmmaker in an industry that does not give people of
color many resources to make movies or studio capital to make
movies. And I've seen, you know,
positive reviews of high Solo saying that Spike is critiquing
a a streaming era of art of soulless AI.
(17:32):
But that can all be true. But the first 45 minutes are
still particularly really tough.The dramatic dialogue feels
really stilted to me. The the kind of jazzy classical
background music just doesn't work, as you said we talked
about. But it kind of feels
distracting. The moral dilemma that
Washington's character faces with with Jeffrey Wright's
character son being actually thechild that is kidnapped, the
(17:54):
teenager that's kidnapped and whether or not he should pay
that back and sacrifice him wanting to own back his his, you
know, he wants to buy back his business that he's worked in for
for so long. That's kind of his character
journey of being like, I'm not going to be a kind of tech
musical mogul of this capitalistsociety.
I'm just going to be like a small business capitalist.
That's like his character journey.
I felt like there could have been more interesting shifts
(18:16):
made in the screenplay that justweren't made.
And that's not me saying I don'tlike the movie that I'm
watching. I wish it was a different movie.
I just think the choices that were made were really far less
interesting than what the potential was on screen.
So yeah, I think that first houris just really, really tough to
get through, especially because that that dilemma isn't as
deepened as I thought it could have been.
(18:36):
Yeah. I mean, I think that there's two
issues kind of like going on. One is the pacing in this first
half and kind of really hanging out in the dramatic scenes of
conversations. But you know, the the dilemma is
actually, I feel like being madeto be more than it is in terms
(18:58):
of like cancel culture speeches or like, or some scenes with
Jeffrey Wright's character where, you know, obviously,
like, it is an interesting dilemma.
Like would most people pay, you know, like their life savings
just in general, even if they aren't a millionaire to save
someone else's child? Probably not.
(19:19):
You know, like that is the exactly that's like the bleak
reality and interesting dilemma of the movie and of itself and
in terms of like the commentary on money and capitalism.
Especially in the United States,Yeah, which is more of what the
direction I thought they're going to go in.
Yeah, so, but in terms of like the dilemma, the the dramatic
(19:40):
scenes actually don't hit as hard because it feels like in
retrospect, besides the pacing that we that you kind of touched
on that we're actually followinga story about Denzel's character
trying to like figure out how touse his capital and make things
that matter. And that's interesting, I guess.
(20:05):
But and it's also layered obviously, like in terms of a
movie that is about both race and class in the United States
capitalism. But ultimately this is like a
movie that or or story that is placed within a larger, I think.
A larger comparison, right? Story about class in general.
(20:30):
And so when Denzel's character starts becoming like moralistic
towards A$AP Rocky character right at the end when they like
finally meet face to face, whichI'm I'm sure you know, we'll
talk about in a minute. Yeah.
But he starts like using like kind of language around like if
you you worked hard essentially,right, Like myth of meritocracy
(20:51):
rhetoric. And that is when it becomes like
a movie that is actually really strange to be a story about
Denzel's character making art that is meaningful with his
capital because of the, the comparison to A$AP Rocky
character. And then also retrospectively to
(21:15):
then Jeffrey Wright's character,where Jeffrey Wright is like
this character who is so thankful that Denzel's character
like decided to spend money to to do this.
And like, obviously he knows because he's close to him, like
how much basically that money means.
But also then it becomes a very strange, like class relationship
where Oh yeah, very weird. And, and so, and, and then, you
(21:38):
know, Denzel's character is likekind of like heroic at the end,
which I, I think you could stillhave a movie.
Again, it's not like here's the movie I wanted to see.
No, like I think I'm just like saying here's actually, you
know, totally fair, like balanced critique of the movie
that I actually saw, which is that I don't know that you in a
(22:00):
class in a movie about class want to make like someone who is
the millionaire, you know the. Sympathetic capitalist.
Yeah, yeah. Like the kind of like heroic
character who is telling everyone like, here's how you
can make it to be like me. Do you think it's because Spike
Lee or the screenwriter for thatmatter, I guess, or other
(22:20):
audiences in general? And I think this, I've seen some
of this online as people have been rewatching or watching for
the first time. High and low interpret high and
low to be about a sympathetic millionaire in post war Japan in
the 1960s who is kind of recognized.
Oh, you're saying? Do people misread the original
sources? Did they misunderstand the
source of material? Because I think the biggest
issue with highest to lowest forme is the screenplay.
(22:43):
It's not like I can't even tell what's Spike Lee's vision
honestly verse I see his vision aesthetically, I see the vision
stylistically. I'm not sure thematically
because I've seen him do this, these ideas better in other
movies. So I'm kind of confused while
watching the whole film in termsof his whole career when we're
taking like a meta commentary lens to it.
Totally thought at the end it was going to like flip or
(23:03):
something me. Too right.
Totally. And I think it's more of the
screenplay and I'm not really too familiar with the
screenwriter, but I think it's apretty rough screenplay in
particular in its structure. If you compare to the original
high and low to give you insightinto what makes the original so
effective. Not comparing these two movies
and, and as far as their legacies, but in terms of what
makes the original and it's commentary so effective is that
(23:25):
you know the mate. It makes it clear what the major
mistake of this new movie is really clear, which is that the
this reinterpretation of high and low keeps us basically in
one perspective the entire movie.
And that's through the king character.
That's Washington's character inthat perspective shift to only a
singular perspective of going through the millionaire and how
he views the world and what he is going through and how he
(23:46):
views his relationship to Jeffrey Wright's character.
And and later ASAP's character becomes critical to the movie,
not really working cinematicallyor thematically or emotionally
because Kurosawa's high and low builds tension by shifting
perspectives. You start the movie by being in
the perspective of the wealthy executives to his like group of,
you know, friends, quote UN quote, but people who become
(24:09):
kind of his enemies by the end of the movie, taking his job
from him. And then it shifts perspective
to all of the cops in a main investigator to literally like,
literally like quite literally all of the cops.
Are just major Japanese city. Drop everything that they're
doing to then protect the wealthof this shoe executive to the
mass media coming out in supportof this, you know, shoe
(24:33):
executive. To then the perspective shifting
once again in the third act to being in the lens of this kind
of post war Japanese underclass where we explore poverty and
we're stuck in communities without AC in a crowded urban
decay who have been crushed by poverty and crushed by
addiction. We're literally going through
like alleyways with cops, going through people who are who are
(24:55):
passed out and having to self medicate because of like they're
not being any resources or opportunities.
And they're stuck beneath what looks like beneath the city.
Kind of speaking to the metaphors of Kurosawa's like,
brilliant, you know, project andscreenplay here.
And that's smartly and subtly humanizes that that invisible
class of people that, you know, Bongi and Ho later does a
(25:16):
parasite. And the highest to lowest
screenplay narrows all of those PO VS almost entirely to
Denzel's David King's character,the millionaire.
That's true. I shouldn't realize that.
Yeah. And it changes the entire point
of the the original film and it makes me think that there's just
a misunderstanding of of maybe that original movie.
Yeah. Well, I think the the
interesting thing about like high and low and even highest to
(25:38):
lowest is it's supposed to be kind of like this metaphor,
right? Of quite literally high and low
of like hierarchy, right, class hierarchy.
And so when you like it would be, you know, imagine if we saw
him in the first movie because, you know, there are similar
scenes taking place and it's still like on the same like
thematic thread almost. But imagine we had the
(26:01):
millionaire or like the executive telling the person
who's in poverty and is saying, you know, and this isn't high
and low and a Kurosawa's movie, but this idea of like him saying
like This is why I did it. I basically like have nothing to
live for. And I look up at your high rise
(26:22):
and like I it's not like a jealousy that he's pointing out,
right? Like that's not the point of the
of the movie. And it's not like, oh, I did it
for nothing on this. Like, you know, serial killer
esque, you know, character that maybe it's like in a true crime
movie or something that people are fascinated with, But it's
more so this idea that like my, the the place that I live is
(26:45):
like so different from yours. It's freezing in the winter,
it's burning in the summer, likeI'm feeling the elements of the
world and up there like you haveAC like that's like the whole
kind of thing. And imagine, you know, the the
character in high and low came back at him and was like, well,
you know, have you considered like getting a job?
The millionaire, Yeah. And then also, you know, like,
(27:06):
aren't there other ways that youcould like, no, the the the
movie is a metaphor. So like, I think I don't want
people to take away that, you know, we there can't be a movie
about Denzel's character, you know, like a kind of grappling
with or thinking about like whathis place might mean as this
(27:26):
like wealthy person that that that is also a part of the
original source text. But the difference is, is that
he's not, you know, the the wealthy character is not made to
be this like hero because he's asymbol.
He's not, you know, necessarily a character.
He's a symbol in high and low for wealth.
(27:47):
Right. That's what's wild to me because
curious always high and low is crafted to expose the rich right
to expose the institutions from media to law enforcement to the
judicial system, helping protectthat class of status of people
about how they how they're literally built through like
blueprints of how to drop everything and not even help
(28:08):
people who are like there's a woman in the original high and
low who's dying because she's just been like shot with drugs.
And the cop like goes past her immediately to chase after the
criminal who had stolen the kidnapper, had stolen the money
of this this millionaire just tokind of get that symbolism
across more directly, even though I don't think.
It's like whose lives matter? Right, exactly and how how the
(28:30):
class changes our understanding?Whose justice we're?
Interested in and whose are not and you know that movie reveals
an exploitation and alienation of an underclass where pressure
to act in radical ways. It's not forgiving of like the
kidnappers. Importantly, it's not forgiving
of the the ransom and all of that craziness that unfolds in
that original movie and in this movie.
(28:51):
But the original movie, that kidnapper is making a morally
corrupt decision. But the movie is also
unapologetically anti capitalistversus this highest to lowest
remake is not anti capitalist atall.
It's really just like being likethere are more respectable forms
of capitalism. And that's what makes me kind of
confused about this film because, you know, David King at
(29:13):
the end of this movie and we canget into specifics and I want to
do a plot breakdown in a second,but he turns to making his own
kind of like small business at the end of the movie.
He moves away from wanting to buy back this massive kind of
industry and doesn't want to be this tycoon and doesn't want to
be quote UN quote King anymore. And but and he and he tries to
like hire this woman who is like600 Instagram followers because
now he's like a benevolent guy. And it just feels like after
(29:36):
that, you know, huge conversation with him in ASAP,
which is a really impressively technically well made sequence
where like the mirror the. Performances are so great, so
it's captivating. We'll talk about the same.
It's so judgmental of ASAP's character.
It's so, it's so reductive of quote UN quote, the young felons
of the world. It turns ASAP's character or
(29:56):
what he's supposed to represent in our modern world into a
caricature essentially. Or I thought at least, which was
really surprising because this is it's Spike Lee.
It's a Spike Lee movie, right? And so that's not something I've
ever seen from him, I don't think.
And so the fact that that character is kind of like a
grifter is being criticized as somebody who didn't didn't
really work to become successful.
(30:18):
It's just very strange to me. And I think, you know, there are
critics who love highest to lowest who are saying a lot of
great things about it. Like, I think you could pull
from this movie that it is aboutwhat is the what is the
responsibility of black capitalism and the question of
whether marginalized groups who gain wealth owe something to
those left behind. I think that's an interesting
(30:40):
commentary to project onto this movie.
I think it exists within this film.
And I think Spike, I think people are projecting a lot onto
Spike here. I think they're saying that
Spike is interrogating his own role in that debate through
David King as sort of like an avatar for himself, if that
makes sense, as this kind of legendary filmmaker in Hollywood
and, you know, his own relationship to his followers or
(31:01):
admirers of his legacy he's built.
But then Spike also sneaks in all these other ideas of being
critical of like, AI being soulless, which, yeah, cosigned,
but then also being sort of skeptical of cancel culture.
And I'm like, what? And then looking at like
meritocracy maybe being real. And I'm like, huh.
And then I I just think it's doing too much and it can't find
a coherent through line going towhat you're saying, where it
(31:23):
becomes about. It becomes about a lot of
different ideas and then ultimately movie that feels flat
for me at the end because it kind of vilified characters who
are coming from less means. Yeah, which I found just
shocking. Yeah.
And I think, you know, to be clear to, I don't think either
of us are saying that Denzel's character, like, should be
(31:44):
looked at or treated like withinthe film or the audience as like
having the the same commentary or criticism as like a white
wealthy man, If, if that makes sense, Right.
Like, but at the same time, like, I think there's yeah,
there there's a lot of like weird things where it feels like
someone put in a lot of their own takes about like how the
(32:07):
youth just expects fame and theythink they deserve like, money,
right? Like those kind of like strange
things about deserving, right, fame or wealth that are then
channeled through Denzel's character to A$AP Rocky, like,
and the idea that he does again,like we're playing in the world
(32:29):
we're playing in, right? This, this whole like landscape
of capitalism, again, it's this whole like metaphor.
So that's like the problem. Wasn't there a moment where like
young felon is shown walking into like the court and he and
they're like screaming young felon and he's like saying he
made it or something like that, Like he's become a celebrity or
he's like, no, now wasn't there a moment like that?
I know it just felt really reductive and overly simplified.
(32:52):
And it really felt like, and I mean this from somebody who was
a a massive fan of Spike Lee, and I don't not mean this in any
negative way. And it's also hard to like have
this conversation as like 2 white podcasters being like,
here's this legendary black artist who also made something
that feels kind of problematic. But it does feel like Spike
feels kind of like economically distanced from reality in this
(33:13):
movie. Like I and again, I don't know
if it's the screenplay or his vision thematically, but he
feels kind of like like he lost a little bit of the sauce of
like what people are going through today, if that makes
sense. It feels like somebody who is
sort of like rich and powerful made a movie about class and
that's why it feels a little bitcomplicated.
And I mean that from like a really well intended place.
(33:34):
And I guess I'm open for a conversation on that one.
So people let us know what you think about that in a
constructive way or like constructive feedback or
productive feedback rather. But I'm trying to have
constructive criticism here because it's kind of this is a
tough movie to discuss because so many critics are just like,
this is like one of the great remakes.
They're literally saying that. I've read many reviews that have
said that and listen to podcast about this and are saying that
(33:55):
this is like one of the great Spike Lee movies.
And I just, I think people are projecting so much of their
relationship of Spike Lee onto their relationship with this
film. I don't be reductive of
people's. Experiences.
But it does feel like that. I also think that like maybe
like you're saying, people read the original text differently.
I think it's so I usually like, I'm not as direct as to say like
(34:19):
they are misreading it. But I do think that people are
misreading the original text if they're saying like at the end,
you know, the person finds out that the kidnapper is just like
in insane or there's no reason it's the Joker commentary.
That's not what the movie's about.
(34:40):
And so like, if that's how you see it, then maybe we just like
disagree and are not honestly, Imean this this now sounds like
reductive, but like maybe don't see the world the same way or
have the same like lens towards class like.
Yeah, we could take that personal view on it, but you
could also just go back and listen to Kurosawa, who like had
to come out and he was criticized for being sympathetic
at all to the ransomer back in in post war, kind of like Japan
(35:02):
in the 1960s. And had to like take that
critical backlash and be like, well, I wasn't trying to be
forgiving of this person. But originally he was a little
bit more quote UN quote cartoonishly insane.
And we were like, we want to give him something that feels
more like justifies that. This is such a large kind of
commentary about like this structural classism that is so
clear in the architecture of like how major cities are built.
(35:22):
And he's also making a larger commentary about globalization
and capitalism now invading and infesting countries around the
world and, like, pressuring themto to, you know, sell products
with one another and become basically what America had
already become. And so he was making all these
larger commentaries, but he was really cautious about being too
sympathetic to that figure. So it's kind of ironic if you
(35:43):
might misread it and then be OK with his highest to lowest
interpretation because Kurosawa himself was like hoping people
would not miss out the point on the movie, which is that this
guy would have never kidnapped that person if equality, if
economic equality was more in the forefront of like Japan's
goals at that time, that place in time.
So. Yeah.
(36:05):
I mean, it's just though it's weird because of what we were
talking about, like with Inside Man, you know, being one of the
great heist movies and that I was talking about this too on
Dog Day Afternoon and kind. Of radical and it's class
commentary too. Yeah, that like we don't really,
you know, and that's why I'm excited for this genre to come
back like we were talking about at the beginning, because I
(36:27):
think like bank robbery movies or like heist movies in general
lend themselves to this one's a little bit more complicated.
But in terms of like bank robbery movies, they lend
themselves to this idea of like critiquing institutions through
the vehicle of like an action movie.
And that's interesting always tome.
But Inside Man in particular like takes that a step further
(36:50):
right where we have I won't spoil it for anyone who like
hasn't seen it, although I'm assuming if you're listening to
podcast, probably have that's fine.
You listen to our episode where we talk about it more.
But like Clive Owens character, right?
Robbing the bank for a very specific reason, I guess I'll
just say. Oh, I'll step on it.
Spike Lee's straight up like, yeah, the guy who owns a bank is
a Nazi like, and that's a big deal.
(37:11):
Like he's pushing against stereotypes of like, quote, UN
quote Jews owning banks. And like him speaking and giving
like a platform to Jewish communities who who have been
discriminated against in Americaand being like, actually the guy
who's a fucking Nazi owns wealthand power in New York City.
Like that's powerful. Like, that's a powerful.
And he's being protected becauseof his wealth and he's able to,
like, hide that because of his wealth.
(37:33):
Yeah, OK, so I I was just sayingthat just in case people hadn't
seen it, but. I'm fine, it come from me.
In the DNS it's like how many years later?
Literally 20 years. Old probably seen it and that's
OK because they tell you kind oflike, well, I guess they don't
tell you early on, but that's. A spoiler it.
Doesn't matter, but anyway so like.
There's a big there is a big spoiler.
To have one of the best like heist movies made by Spike Lee
(37:54):
there and to also, you know, have like Spike Lee's long
standing history, like with his films looking at racism really
directly and having this like observant, you know, quality to
a lot of his movies where it feels like he is showing, you
know, the audience like here is what's happening.
(38:16):
You know, it's not like a moral film in terms of how we have
movies about racism. And obviously, like, you know,
we're in the United States and like Hollywood exists and
there's like all these benevolent white characters that
like solve racism and like, you know, the two hours that for the
runtime of the movie. But I feel, you know, I think
(38:38):
that he is like, yeah, it's actually not like complicated
here is like I'm putting racism in front of you to these like
white audiences who are coming to see the movie.
And so when you like are going to see a movie from a a film
maker like Spike Lee, it is justjarring to see then how like he
(39:01):
has portrayed class before in terms of looking at like a a
character, you know, I'm I'm just thinking of do it, do the
right thing right now just because we're about to do it on
Patreon. But like this idea of like a
white character saying myth of meritocracy rhetoric, it's
really strange to see it coming out of like Denzel's, you know,
(39:24):
character in a movie that is like explicitly about.
Clocks. Yeah.
It made me think a lot about Clockers, which is an underrated
Spike Lee movie, and how there is a little bit of a pattern in
how Spike Lee frames class and culture.
Like some parts of Black life inhis movies feels really deeply
(39:45):
humanized. That is not usually platformed
in mass media, especially in movies.
And sometimes he can reduce certain walks of black life for,
quote, UN quote, what's wrong inthe community.
He does this inside man with thevideo game, with the little boys
playing the video game. And it's kind of a moralistic
speechifying going on where Clive Owens, like, I need to
talk to your dad about this. You shouldn't be playing this.
(40:05):
And it's like, I can understand what the intention is there, but
it also feels like very judgmental of a specific walk of
life that might come from a specific background, if that
makes sense. And in Clockers, that's a very
like empathetic film. But there is some somewhat of
that movie and some parts of of Spike's film.
Filmography that is like here's St. crime, here's drugs, even
hip hop culture. And I think he laces all those
(40:26):
things together with young felonin this movie in high to lowest
and he flattens those things. And then certain traditions like
jazz or religion or classical culture are shown with a lot
more warmth that I think there hasn't really been.
I haven't read 1. Actually I read 1 recently.
Bell hooks had a really good criticism of Spike Lee back in
the 90s of Do the Right Thing. That was about this very idea
and about how Spike doesn't get enough Flack from movie critics
(40:50):
who feel kind of like afraid to talk about them more kind of
like classic or sorry classist issue in some of his work that I
think is real, that I think exists, while he also has really
smart commentaries like the one we just addressed with with
Inside Man. So that's kind of like a
contradiction in his work. And some of the great film
makers of his peers also have those contradictions.
Martin. Scorsese I was going to say I
was talking a lot about that with Martin Scorsese and yeah, I
(41:14):
mean, I think I said I'm kind ofgoing to go back on like what I
said a little bit in terms of like moralistic.
I there are sometimes like in both Spike Lee movies and Martin
Scorsese movies, there are like characters who are saying like,
here's the theme of the movie toanother character.
And that sometimes does feel like moral point of view, like
(41:35):
inserted into movie. And sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't. And for both film makers, case,
and I'm saying, you know these two film makers 'cause they're
like super like famous and successful tours that I like
watching their movies, but you know, 2.
Of the most legendary New York City film makers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think we were just
(41:56):
watching like Sidney Lumet's movies though, too.
And those tend to be, and that'sso it's just in my mind, but
those tend to be like more aboutinstitutions and characters
relationships, you know, and, and character studies, but
really in relationship to like institutional inequality and so.
Or state violence. Yeah.
(42:16):
And and so that's like also partof it.
I don't know, it's it's complicated, right?
But this movie is just, I think like a an interesting piece of
Spike Lee's filmography, not onethat I love.
We we can talk a little bit about like the things that I do
(42:36):
love in terms of like how he, yeah, like incorporates the the
parade, right. Yeah.
Let's talk about the last 30 minutes, OK?
At least Like cuz the last 30-40minutes, the movie really moves.
It turns into the thriller that you were kind of promised in the
trailer. And I wasn't angry with the
melodrama in the first hour. I just didn't find it all that
interesting. Exactly.
There is one scene between Denzel, his character, and his
son where they have a very really interesting conversation
(42:59):
about masculinity and power thatI found to be really compelling.
That's where I think Spike Lee really sings.
When he sits on those moments, they feel like you're watching
live theater, you know? And he's really great at that.
He's really good at staging in that way.
But in the last 30 minutes, there's a Puerto Rican parade
sequence that you're referring to that is like one of the most
electric moments of the year. Did I, I don't know if I read
(43:20):
this somewhere or if I heard like Spike Lee talk about it,
but wasn't that like almost a a wonder or they did it?
They did it a couple times like not a wonder but like they, they
did it from like start to finishin terms of like doing the
actual like song and I guess like you know the band playing
the song maybe like 4 times or something and used one of those.
(43:44):
Possibly. It felt like that.
It felt like it was like legitimately some of the best
action that Spike Lee's directedin his entire career.
So it felt very real. So that was a great action
sequence. There are also some like all
caps choices in the last 20 minutes where we get a really
risky semi surreal rap battle with Washington and ASAP, which
(44:05):
is kind of insane and ASAP was talking about in a great
interview between him, Spike, and Denzel Washington.
I think for GQ, I forget who it was, it was like 30 minutes and
Washington is kind of sitting there chilling.
He's like on his phone half the time.
But ASAP is just one of the mostcharismatic people I've heard in
pop culture across all mediums, where he is just like explaining
(44:25):
the significance of Washington to him and his life and how his
mom always compared him to Denzel Washington and how he met
Washington at his house because he's friends with John David
Washington and Spike Lee's listening.
He's like listening like how I'mlistening to it.
He's like, really invest in the story.
And Washington. Denzel was like, we met before.
I don't even like he's so nonchalant about just being this
like very powerful figure in in in culture in general, but
(44:48):
especially obviously like in theblack community.
And in ASAP was talking about how like Washington was rap
battling him on that day. And a lot of that wasn't
scripted. And Spike was saying how that
reminded him when Denzel went against Ray Allen and he got
gaming and scored a few points on it.
And Ray Allen was like, what thefuck, Spike?
Like, I'm going to have to actually play this guy.
So that was pretty cool. It was a little like cheesy, but
(45:12):
it was cool to see the rap battle.
We also get really fun music video flourishes with Spike's
famous the double Dolly shot of ASAP in a music video.
There are some fun comedy gags throughout the movie.
There's some really great Celtics jokes, which is like a
Spike isn't at this point somebody literally looking into
the camera being like fuck you Celtics, which is awesome, or
(45:32):
fuck you Boston. There were some jokes about
State Farm, I guess not about State Farm, but from the State
Farm guy, and I want to be respectful to him.
At least let me get his name. Here, Mayhem himself.
Dean Winters as a detective Higgins who plays a cop with
prejudice who is, I guess, explicitly, you know, prejudice
and racist. But he is the guy from the State
(45:54):
Farm commercials. Yes, Yeah.
And I think they make 3 jokes about state.
Farm in this maybe at least twice.
Yeah. Yeah.
We looked at each other and we were like, is this something
that like Apple insisted on? Is this like an ad?
Yeah. Is this an ad for State Farm?
Was this like a behind the scenes deal of having this guy
(46:16):
in here? And I mean, it still is
possible. I don't know, definitely like
all speculation, but I, I did hear Spike Lee in like 1
interview say something like, ifyou're distracted by him, a
State Farm like, you know, the audience then is like the
problem cuz he's a great actor. And I actually disagree.
I think he's not a good actor and that's not totally his
(46:36):
fault. He is a interesting.
He's broken through the culture of having this like dry bit of
being mayhem in State Farm advertising.
Like, you know, they hit the jackpot in terms of like having
some sort of I iconic image and person or character, right?
(46:56):
Be it's like a Jingle essentially, except it's a
person. And so one like, I just don't
think he's strong. And so then like when he his
being either like classist or racist, like towards Jeffrey
Wright's character, it comes offas like like a bit or something
because of how he delivers it and the audience's relationship
(47:21):
to him. And also he's not just like as a
dramatic actor, not very strong.And so it actually like really
weakened a lot of the moments where we're supposed to see a
contradiction, like, for example, you know, where we have
Denzel's like son who it were like in the kitchen.
And we are seeing the cops who are detectives, like ask, you
(47:45):
know, like, do you remember anything about your friend that
went missing who got kidnapped? And it's after like 5 minutes
and like, oh, he's tired. Like let him take a break.
And in those moments #1 like in High low, in the first one, the
kids are really little. And I thought it was interesting
to like make the kids, teenagershere, especially around the
(48:07):
commentary of like treating black kids, right, as if they're
adults, right? And media.
And and so like, I think that was like an interesting
commentary. That's a good point.
But at the same time, in that specific scene, I was like,
well, he didn't go through like anything super traumatic besides
(48:27):
his like best friend missing. Like he could stick around for
maybe a couple more minutes justto have a lead on any kind of
clues of where the kidnapper like could have taken him or
anything he remembers because like it.
So that felt like very strange because I was like, wait, but I
think he is old enough in in this moment just to talk about
(48:50):
because like he he literally said he like left to go, I think
to another place to get food andsomething like that come back
right. But he like, I mean, obviously
it's a very stressful day, but the but the, the time, the the
clock is ticking in terms of like, you know, we know everyone
knows this from true crime movies that like the first 48
(49:11):
hours are critical like so anyway, but then when we have
like mayhem in those scenes, right, they take away the
emotional stakes is my larger point.
Yes, no, I I agree. I think I wanted more of
ultimately, I wanted more of David's, you know, David King's
(49:31):
characters is like kind of innerwar.
You know, we see Washington shadowboxing alone.
We see him, you know, summoning the ghost of James Brown or Jimi
Hendrix or Aretha Franklin and these kind of surreal Spike
flourishes. It it's really theatrical, but
it works. And I just wish we could have
seen like David really feel the weight of wanting to protect his
(49:52):
empire. Instead, it's just kind of
confusing throughout the movie about what he's really trying to
protect. Is he trying to protect his
image? Is he trying to protect his
image financial or economically,or his image to his own son or
his his wife, his, you know, image to his friend?
Or is he trying to protect, likedoes he feel the responsibility
of actually making it out and becoming this like very powerful
(50:15):
tycoon out of the black community?
Does he feel a responsibility tohelp in any way possible?
It's never really clear. And I just think the screenplay
really suffers and doesn't do Washington's character much
justice. So Denzel has to do so much the
legwork. So by the end of the movie, when
him and Jeffrey Wright are taking matters into their own
hands and they're driving on their way to like, young Felons
recording studio, it's fun and exciting, but it also feels
(50:38):
again, sort of weightless, you know, because even Jeffrey
Wright, who's giving a pretty good performance in this movie,
it's sort of feeling like he's playing the guy that he is
spoofing in American fiction. It isn't not a caricatury
character ultimately, because the writing's pretty poor.
Like, yes, he's an ex-con. Yes, he it seems to be a devout
Muslim and like those are ways to characterize someone, but
(51:01):
he's not deepened in any meaningful way.
And he's like, there are momentswhere he feels maybe like
resentful or like maybe more fully developed as a character
towards, you know, Denzel's likecharacter, but mostly like he is
this like grateful worker of Denzel so.
(51:22):
Yeah, it feels uncomfortable. It feels weird.
And I think it's it's strange. It's why it's been so strange to
read criticism on this movie because like, I'm all for
projecting a meta commentary on this film being like, let's all
go to the Spike Lee movie. We just said this with other
films too, like Materialist being fans of Celine Song or
Eddington with Ari Astor or RyanCoogler with Sinners movies that
(51:44):
I think are all really admirablemovies and execute at different
levels. And I think Sinners being the
most successful out of those three.
But ultimately all those movies have like issues.
But there's so much, there's so much emphasis right now in the
critical world to be very binaryin our reception to either be
like, this is overwhelmingly amazing and we all need to go
see it, or this just doesn't work at all.
(52:05):
And I'm not trying to sound likewe can't just have a
conversation anymore, but it does sort of feel like that with
this movie in particular in our space.
So it kind of feels like that. I feel bad throughout this
episode and I felt bad writing areview for this movie weeks ago
because I feel like if it looks as if we're punching down when
the reality I'm just we're trying to be like constructive
in our criticism, which is what we keep.
(52:25):
Saying, I think, I mean, yeah, we've done that with all
basically every movie this year.Like a lot of movies have been
complicated about class like materialists.
Materials is a good comp for this.
Movie it is actually yeah so andand Eddington in in different
ways that were more like pandemic situated more Internet
(52:47):
situated. But yeah, like, I think that
we've had like similar interestingly issues with movies
that have popped up this year because a lot of movies which we
also asked for a lot like are kind of dealing with
contemporary issues, but at the same time, like don't feel, I
(53:07):
guess like historically maybe completely thought out from the
screen writing perspective. Yes, agreed.
Anything else you want to add about the the plot of the movie?
We didn't really talk about the wife, but I saw some TikTok
reviews from regular people who were like, she's the worst
performance in the movie. And I thought that was rude.
She didn't really get a lot to do.
She kind of was. There is one tough moment where
(53:28):
Washington, his character, findsout that his son's been
kidnapped or seemingly kidnappedand he's outside and we can't
hear young felon on the phone. And it's kind of a medium shot.
And he comes in the house and we're kind of like David Fincher
panning through the home and thewife finds out.
And she doesn't have like the reaction you'd want.
But it felt more like a directorissue, like a the wrong cut to
use the wrong scene to use. It felt like a just a badly
(53:51):
sequel, like kind of staged scene.
I I think so too, yeah. It was like a it was a weird
reaction, I guess. Yeah, like I, I felt that too,
of like, I didn't know if she would like would be more upset,
but also she's in shock like, sothat makes sense.
But the way, yes, I think the way that it was staged was like
strange and didn't serve her performance in that that moment.
(54:13):
I want to note something becauseI like ASAP, you know, as an
artist. I I think I like him more as
like just kind of he's become this like public persona,
obviously with his like relationship, Rihanna icon and
they're both so fucking funny tolisten to, but and I and I just
love listening to ASAP talk about culture at large.
Like he's so interesting. I like a lot of the production
(54:36):
of his music. I like a lot of his beats just
to be very straightforward in this song, Trunks the back out
the trunk from the front to the back.
The the lyrics are are so bad. They're so awful, but the the
beat is insane. Do you know what I mean?
Like the production of the musicis fucking wild and really
(54:59):
elite, but the lyrics are so strange because they're
superficial. I feel like it's purposeful
though. And I was going to ask you, do
you think it's they made the production, the beat, they put
all the money into the production of the song because
they knew it was going to be a mainstream hit.
And it is. It's becoming like a a big hit.
But the lyrics are literally about like the character talking
about baby Mamas and like wanting to become a.
(55:20):
Celebrity. I was going to say the the song
itself feels like similarly how I feel that A$AP Rocky character
was treated in the movie. Which is that like the the
lyrics are reductive, you know, and so is the portrayal of like
A$AP Rocky character. Yeah, and I guess I do.
You think it's more just like Spike's strange relationship to
hip hop, I guess. Like, I don't know, that's all.
(55:42):
I guess that's a whole other conversation.
Yeah, but that's not like, you know, in his filmography, like
he has like he has both jazz andclassical music and like his dad
was a musician, right. But he also does have hip hop
and like and do the right thing.And for for sure, I just think
I'm, I'm saying that I think going back to my clockers point,
I think sometimes Lee uplifts like certain black traditions
(56:04):
while treating others with a little bit of suspicion.
And I think that's where the class observations or like
contradictions land. And that's why I was talking
about the bell hooks point aboutDo the Right Thing, which to me
is like a basically perfect movie, but this.
Movie though, like in particular, it seems like very.
And that's why I was saying thatthe music not only didn't work,
it was like too loud over the dialogue at the beginning with
(56:24):
Jeffrey Wright and Denzel's likecharacter, but it also then felt
like a weird commentary on how it was being paired with wealth
versus like A$AP Rocky character.
And even though, yeah, the song is like good ultimately, yeah.
Felt especially how like, you know, Denzel like kept saying
like, why does she have to be a bitch?
Why does she have to be a bitch?Yeah.
(56:46):
That kind of idea of yeah, anyway, was like so embedded in
the moralizing of like. It almost leaned satire, like I
thought it was going to like bamboozled on us.
Like when it has the dancers? Yeah, I was like, are we going
to? Behind Young Felony and I was
like, is he doing something likekind of borderline satirical
here? Like is he shifting the tone of
the movie? That's interesting.
(57:08):
I don't know. So that was a choice I'd like to
hear from listeners on this movie.
I feel like this has been a complicated conversation.
We I think we tried our best. I wish we talked more about the
humor because there were some funny jokes in this.
Rick, I think Rick Fox is one ofthe coaches of the basketball
team or the head coach, I guess.And the two of the cops that
come and ask him about the ransom, they shoot it in a way
where even though Fox is like hetowers over those cops because
(57:28):
he's like obviously a former, well, I don't know obviously for
you, but a former NBA player. So he's very tall.
And I think the guy, one of the cops goes, you know, Larry Bird,
what does he say? It's something funny like that.
Well, that's like funny because it's Spike nodding to like micro
aggressive, like racist commentsthat people from Boston make.
That's why he has like fuck Boston attitude through laced
(57:49):
throughout so many of his movies.
That was a good moment there. So there's a lot of comedy in
this film that we probably skipped over or some good like
dreamy cinematography that we probably should have gave more
time to. So yeah.
I mean, I think I, it's weird 'cause like, just to close out,
like I really enjoyed being in the world, right?
Like, obviously I love the way that Spike Lee, like, constructs
(58:11):
his films. And obviously I've liked all of
the performances, so, and the chemistry between like all the,
the actors was great too. But again, it was just like, I
mean, we've talked about it at length here now.
So like, again, that was just, yeah, the the the themes, which
is why I'm interested in a movieultimately like kind of fell
(58:33):
flat. I'm excited to talk about Spike
the next two episodes on Patreon.
I mean, this is a, this is one of the most legendary film
makers of the last 50 years. And I think on the Do the Right
Thing episode, we'll talk a lot about how he has, he's just like
not been given the resources historically and consistently to
play in the Hollywood sandbox through his career.
(58:54):
And he's had to really fight forcapital, fight for resources,
spiteful for final cut, sometimes even funding projects
out of his own pocket or taking investments from friends just to
tell stories he wants to tell onhis own terms.
He built 40 acres and a mule, stayed independent, elevated non
white artist. And it's kind of like sacrificed
a lot of mainstream awards and recognition by calling out
(59:15):
racism in Hollywood and classismin Hollywood.
And so the irony of all of that and what we're going to be just
discussing on Do the Right Thingand Inside Man is this movie is
the first film I've watched, I think, in Spike Lee's
filmography. Honestly, that feels like, like,
did I miss something along the way?
Did I not catch something totally?
OK, so extra credits. Oh yes, extra credits so.
(59:38):
Can you go first because I stillI I have mine but I'm thinking
if there's also like an additional 1.
I'll give it to Matthew Libertique.
I believe it's Libertique. I apologize if it's not his
cinematography. Turning New York into that
living metaphor was exactly whatI wanted.
You know, like opening the movielike that, seeing the vertical
lines of the of the the buildings, the staircases, the
(59:58):
subway tunnels. The subway it was.
The subway is a great sequence too.
The different stops too, yeah. Yeah, the story, the original
IP, like kind of the back to thenovel from the United States to
then the the Kurosawa movie, Theobsession with who's on top and
who's trapped below, creating the tension of how major cities
are built in particular across the world and how Spike frames
(01:00:21):
Washington against those skylines and against those glass
towers. And we see the back of young
felon looking up at all these things when he's on the phone
and some kind of funny sequenceswhen they're on the phone with
each other and kind of dropping us into like, shadowy
apartments. And then it's kind of subway
cars. All of that.
Like charting this kind of like descent into maybe the only
reason why this much poverty exists is because Washington is
(01:00:43):
so comfortable in his skyscraper.
Or obviously, more accurately, the more historically dominant
class of wealthy, you know, moguls who are usually, like
white men in those positions whohave had all this power and have
not distributed it back or been forced to.
And so therefore you have like just a lot of storytelling, the
architecture that I really want to give a lot of love to and the
way it shot. Yeah, my one of my extra credits
(01:01:06):
was going to be like how the thecity was shot and like
especially the parade sequence with the money drop off
sequence, like on the subway. And then also the opening, which
I talked about before, but I thought it was a really like
interesting opening. It may be really excited for
like the themes of the movie that we're going to be explored.
But my other extra credit is going to go to A$AP Rocky
(01:01:28):
performance. Like I just want to see him in
more. Yes, I think he he embodied
somebody who like was able to confront somebody like Denzel
Washington, which is pretty wild.
Yeah, that was what was crazy. I think Spike asks him in that
interview that I was talking about earlier, and I'll try,
I'll try to remember to link it.But just look up those three
names and you'll you'll see a 30minute interview.
(01:01:49):
And they're like in this white room with the window behind
them. It's a really cool conversation.
And I think Spike asks ASAP, were you intimidated by Denzel?
And he was like, no, I was excited.
He said something to that effect.
And I was really, I was giddy about that response because most
people, you know, in any position of power would be like,
yeah, it's Denzel Washington. He is really intimidating in
(01:02:09):
real life because he just doesn't fuck around right.
I mean, even if you think about like their the actual real life
story of like how ASAP went to his house, right?
Yeah, I, I think that's so true.And you can feel it like in
their performance, which is pretty wild.
Like he, he does not feel intimidated.
And it, it's really like wild tosee because you're, you know, so
(01:02:33):
interested in also like looking at Denzel's performance too,
like in this stage of his career, like I was talking about
with thinking about like De Niroor write someone who's like this
huge actor and has such a huge presence in in movies.
And so like you're so tuned intohis performance and then you
like finally meet right like A$AP Rocky character and it
(01:02:57):
really feels like a face off like which is is pretty wild
like that he can hold his own with such a an amazing actor
like Denzel. Yeah, shout out, Rihanna.
So, yeah, listeners, let us knowwhat you think of highest to
lowest. That's the extra credits of this
newest movie from Spike Lee. If you enjoyed this episode,
please don't forget to like and subscribe on Spotify, on Apple,
(01:03:18):
wherever you get your podcast. Drop us a five star rating.
Leave us a friendly review on Apple.
If you want to help our show find more people, that really
helps. So it goes a long way.
If you can't join Patreon right now, we totally understand, even
as a free member. But if you want to leave a
review, five stars only, please.But let us know what you think
about the show and what we do over here.
(01:03:39):
We are an independent podcast from Choice and our listeners
support us and your support means the world to us.
Don't forget about Patreon beinga free member and getting access
to High and low. We'll be back on the main feed
pretty soon. What are we talking about next
is. It.
Going to be our Q&A. I guess so.
We got some questions from listeners.
We're going to have AQ and a episode out soon.
We got a Paul Thomas Anderson movie this month.
(01:04:01):
That's so true. We're seeing the new Conjuring
tomorrow night. Yeah, we've been rewatching
Conjuring movies. I have a lot to say.
Me too. I got a lot to say about that
fucking nun. The Conjuring, too.
I got a lot to say about how TheConjuring is really just
superhero movies for Christians.Like, they're basically Veggie
Tales for adults in the horror genre, You know what I mean?
(01:04:22):
And I mean that in the in the nicest way I can mean that.
Does that make? Sense Lorraine's an icon, yeah.
OK, they are. They're both Ed and Lorraine
icons. A lot to say about them.
All right, we'll be back. Peace.
The hello and welcome to the extra credits of Spike Lee's
Highest to Lowest. I'm Trey.
And I'm Kelsey. Feeling a little nasally right
now. Yeah, you, you sounded like
you're getting over your sickness still.
Yeah, it's OK. Yeah, for those who don't know,
didn't listen to our last episode.
We haven't been talking about any movies on the main feed
(00:35):
since Weapons because we startedour jobs.
We work in education back in theclassrooms.
The kids got me sick. I've been out of it for two
weeks at least, so I'm still recovering.
So I apologize for my voice on this episode, but I'm excited
talking with you about movies, coming back with a Spike Lee
film, which is really cool. This is Spike Lee's fifth
collaboration with Denzel Washington, one of our favorite
(00:57):
actors. This is their first movie since
Inside Man back in 2006, which is wild.
That's a movie that we're covering this month alongside Do
the Right Thing on Patreon, which is very, very cool.
Highest to lowest is Spikes reinterpretation of Akira
Kurosawa's masterpiece High and Low from the 60s.
That's a film we actually just reviewed on Patreon in
(01:18):
preparation for this episode today.
And for a limited time right now, we're unlocking that High
and Low episode for free members.
So if you head into the description of this episode, you
can sign up as a free member on our Patreon and listen to that
conversation. I really recommend that episode,
mostly because I think it'll provide some pretty useful
context for our feelings today on Spikes Movie.
(01:38):
Yeah, and I think that's actually a helpful episode,
though, in particular in relationship to highest to
lowest, just because I know thisis not a remake, right?
I think Spike is calling it likea reinterpretation, A
reimagination. I get it.
He's very. Much out there being like, not a
remake. There's a great interview with
Bill Simmons where he's like, it's not a remake.
(02:00):
Yeah, yeah, I get it too. But like, there is a reason why
this movie in particular is worthy of revisiting, right, so
many years later. And that's the the thematic
source text and class commentarythat's so interesting in the
original. And during that conversation,
you know, we talked a lot about that and how it was so like
smart and how we move throughoutthe the world of high and low.
(02:24):
And so I was really pumped, you know, to see like how Spike Lee
was going to to do this and likereimagine this world, obviously,
like with his specific style andfilm language.
But in that episode, we also talked about like, I don't think
he could mess it up. Like there would really only be
one thing that would happen, which is like sympathizing too
much with the wealthy man at thecenter of this and not doing a
(02:49):
maybe a good enough job of like flipping that, as I think high
and low does at the at the end scene there.
And that happens, I mean, which I was kind of surprised about.
Yeah. And, you know, that's not
something that is like a part ofInside Man or Do the Right
Thing, which we'll cover more indepth like on those episodes
(03:11):
about why, you know, those are some of his like best movies.
But I was just surprised to to see that in this movie about
class in 2025. And capitalism through a Western
lens, too. I thought there was a lot of
potential here to do some interesting, like subversive
twists on the kind of village versus villager ethos of those
(03:35):
Kurosawa movies of that period. And especially in that film that
we explored on that episode, I thought it was interesting to
take an American lens to that commentary, to be like, everyone
in the United States wants to bea villager, but nobody wants to
be a part of a village. And really put Denzel
Washington's character at the center of that moral dilemma.
And what would a wealthy kind ofbusiness tycoon person actually
(03:58):
do in that situation in the United States?
And to see where this movie goesto.
And I don't want to hit spoilersquite yet.
I was genuinely shocked by goingto the second act of this film.
So we'll get to all of that because obviously, clearly,
neither of us really loved highsto lowest.
I think there's a lot of, like, stylistic flourishes that we
enjoyed. There's some good comedy, some
really good Denzel, which I'll get to in a second, and some
(04:21):
other good supporting performances.
But was really surprised by the decision to sympathize with who
what you're talking about. Let's start on a positive note.
Yeah, we're always asking why doesn't Hollywood make movies
like Spike Lee's Inside Man? We always ask it on the podcast.
And we know we really want movies like Collateral, Point
(04:43):
Break, Man on Fire, the firm, elevated, propulsive thrillers
made for and directed for adults, about characters or
people on the edge. You know what I mean?
And Nora just won best picture, which is certainly a movie about
people on the edge and being pushed to the edge.
And it is a thriller and it is adark comedy.
It's a blad of tones and genres.And it's pretty fantastically
(05:05):
kind of like ambitious movie following, you know, Ani on that
journey. And I'm using a movie as an
example because I think we're we're entering a new or old
territory, kind of revisiting inthe late 2000s, early kind of
early to late 90s territory of movies directed at adults about
messy people. And I love that.
(05:25):
And Spike Lee is returning us tothat space with highest to
lowest right now in theaters andin the limited theaters, but
going to be on streaming on Apple Plus very soon this
Friday, September 5th. And Darren Aronofsky, who is an
otor in his own right, not to the level of Spike Lee,
obviously, but of the last 15 years, he's a provocateur, you
know, mother. And Black Swan is out with
(05:45):
Austin Butler and Zoe Kravitz's Caught Stealing, which is a
crime thriller, action comedy, kind of another movie that we're
sort of asking for a lot like after hours adjacent meets like
a Coen Brothers kind of energy or trying to be at least.
And neither of these movies really work to me.
High, still lowest and caught Stealing, but I'm happy they
exist. I'm happy that we're returning
(06:07):
to this genre. It makes me feel excited about
finding a balance of studios notjust feeding us like superhero
content, which I do enjoy, but obviously we've been inundated
with it. And it's kind of diluted that
genre to the point where we're all kind of sick of the
stateless universe of superheroes.
And we want movies that are directed at adults that are
dramatic and thrilling and entertaining and, and can be
(06:29):
about messy, complex people. You know, we just watched and
covered Dog Day Afternoon, Sidney Lumet's masterpiece and
Al Pacino's legendary performance on Patreon just the
other day. And we were talking about how
like, who is the Sidney Lumet? And we're like, we don't know
who who our current Sidney Lumetis because studios aren't
funding that person, right? That person is out there wanting
(06:49):
to make movies and they're beingasked to make Captain America
Six, you know what I mean? And that kind of sucks.
And so it is. I'm excited that highest to
lowest exist if that makes sense, even though it is like A
twist on IP. Yeah, I, I like in, in terms of
like the direction we're going, like you're saying, right.
We also talked about like John QA, hugely underrated movie and
(07:09):
Denzel performance. OK.
Shout out our John Q heads out there.
Yeah, which is a a really great commentary on like capitalism
and and the healthcare system inthe United States.
But yeah, like, I, I feel that we are so hungry for these
movies that have something to say but also aren't, I mean, are
(07:30):
also fun but aren't like Ambulance, you know?
And excuse me, LA Ants. And we love Ambulance.
There's a place for the Michael Bay, Jake Gyllenhaal, kind of
like dog whistle movies. Like there's a place for those
films. And I'm happy to have them when
you want them. But it is nice to have movies
that are more elevated, genre pulpy films that are exciting,
(07:53):
entertaining and also can be, like, smart.
Yeah. Exactly.
Yeah, I think that highest to lowest is an interesting example
of like a really interesting like source text of having
something to say and then at thelast like kind of stretch of
this takes a a weird turn. And yeah, I mean, I caught
(08:14):
stealing. Doesn't really have much to say,
but. It tries to have like an
emotionally deep character arc, Frost and Butler, but he's doing
a lot of that work. It's always Zoe Kravitz, but
yeah, it's more of an action comedy route.
I don't know. It's not a very good movie.
Heist to lowest is better than caught stealing in my opinion.
I just wanted to bring up the genre the the kind of movies
(08:37):
made for and package for adults that are kind of messy because I
think we are entering into a newspace and Spike Lee kind of
being on the forefront is very exciting to me, even if I don't
love this movie. It's been reported that Timothy
Chalamet is going to do a bank heist movie with James Mangold
next year, which is insane. Very excited for that.
Marty Supreme feels like a return to Catch Me If You Can
era. Like kind of.
(08:57):
Spielberg, which is making phonecalls from the hotel room.
Yeah. To your girlfriend Gwyneth
Paltrow and Ridley Scott apparently is tackling a speed
Keanu Reeves Sandra Bullock style thriller called Bomb OK
Ridley, which I'm hyped for. Austin Butler and Jeremy Allen
White are coming together to play a kind of Heat.
(09:20):
Yeah, I was going to say character.
Dynamic of a, of a crime guy being chased down by a detective
I don't know who's who so that'sall very exciting I, I, I think
we can be only. People, they're like the Al
Pacino De Niro. That's interesting.
So they're mid budget thrillers making a comeback.
That's all I wanted to say. I think that's very, very cool
(09:40):
and I think people should be excited.
About that and I think, you know, it's actually a really
interesting example to to view something like John Wick Wick,
which I love as like an in between territory of this of
going from the superhero movies into action because it still
feels like John Wick is also superhero adjacent.
Yeah, it feels like action movies and comedy movies were
(10:02):
literally like Co opted by the superhero industry, like Die
Hard or, I don't know, The Hangover turned into like Iron
Man. Do you know what I mean?
It is very confusing, but it does feel like we have balance
in the world. Everything is hopefully becoming
right as we talk about this Apple TV Plus movie.
(10:23):
So some other things that reallywork in this movie.
Obviously Denzel Washington, as always, very magnetic.
Yeah. And I'm going to try to, you
know, Denzel Washington recentlysaid in an interview, I think it
was recently, that his name is actually Denzel Washington.
And he kind of just let tabloidsand people like it at Academy
Awards words ceremony say his name is Denzel and he just ran
(10:43):
with it. So I'm going to go back and
forth between Denzel and Denzel and I.
Apologize in the hopes to say. To recorrect it, Yeah, because I
even hear Spike Lee call him Denzel.
But like, he did an interview with Bill Simmons on The Ringer,
which is an incredible interview.
I recommend people check it out.And he's talking about him as
Denzel and then he'll talk abouthim as Denzel.
And I'm like, I'm probably goingto find myself doing that today.
I'm just putting that out there because I want to get his name
(11:05):
right. He carries this movie,
obviously, but Jeffrey Wright isalso pretty good in this.
A$AP Rocky gets a couple surprising great performance and
stylistically it's Spike Lee andhe's got his DP Matthew
Libertique and their cinematography is pretty
awesome, especially in the way this movie opens in the.
(11:25):
I love the opening here. The shots at the cityscape.
I was so excited when we opened the movie this way.
We have like, oh, what a beautiful morning.
You know, I'm not always on board with the classical music
in Spike Lee movies. I think it works in certain
movies, like like he got game, like.
I think that's an interesting use of.
(11:45):
Like. Different tones, right
happening. And then also I think in Do the
Right Thing, he has some classical.
It's a little bit like more understated in those scenes.
Yeah, I think people think Public Enemy when they think do
the right thing, but there's a lot of, like, dialogue
sequences, whether it be betweenPinot and his dad and the
pizzeria or Spike and Pinot to the side about like how Pinot is
(12:06):
being a racist and they're like playing.
There's like this subtle classical music or jazz music
playing underneath the dialogue that in highest to lowest feels
a little bit more abrasive and kind of in your face.
I think also there's a lot of like pacing things that come
with that. And also I think interesting
conflicts between Jeffrey Wright's character and Denzel's
(12:27):
character that feel off because I start to sense where it's
going thematically that I'm like, wait, now the classical
music feels strange because we're on the side of like this
wealthy person more so. And it's not really looking at
the contradiction. I I thought it was going to, but
then I was like, oh wait, are wenot?
Yeah, I think. Spike has a point of view, and
(12:49):
he's a moralistic filmmaker, forbetter and for worse.
And in this. And so it was like Martin
Scorsese, his peer, They're bothlike that.
Yeah. And so he certainly has a lot of
opinions about what he wants outof, like, successful people in
capitalism today and the kind oflike, class that they represent.
Yeah. So there's a lot to say.
We'll. Talk more about that because
also, like I understand how Spike Lee is coming at like
(13:11):
Denzel's character with the ideaof like a responsibility lens.
But that is I think like, you know, obviously I I I just don't
think that is like a interestingtake completely when you have a
movie about class to this level and it's the main commentary of
your movie. But anyway, yeah, yeah.
So we'll talk about that. But the opening here like gave
(13:32):
me, you know, like such high hopes for this because we have
oh, what a beautiful morning playing.
It's like this really romanticized, beautiful opening,
but yet at the kind of like bottom of the the image or like
the foundation of this image is like the high rise, right?
And the rest of the the city, which is such at the core of
(13:55):
like high and low right of the, the person who we, you know,
meet at the end, who isn't like the main character of the movie,
have this monologue in high and low about like what the, the
physical, you know, like difference of being like high up
(14:15):
right in this high rise verse, like low and forgotten, like,
you know, just in terms of like the actual geography of where
people are living or the physical locations.
The architecture representing the class Immobility.
Exactly. Yeah.
And like I so I was pumped at the at the beginning for this
because like I was like, oh, this is interesting.
I love how it's bright and and Iliked the idea of that kind of
(14:39):
like hiding something. Immediately I thought of, you
know, high and low, obviously, but bondage and host parasite
too, which is also inspired by high and low and using
architecture and geography to represent wealth inequality and
class immobility. And how that can lead to like
make to make people of an underclass or a forgotten class,
a working class to make radical decisions to protect oneself, to
survive, or in some cases just to act out or lash out against
(15:02):
those who have like consolidatedpower and wealth and resources.
So lots to say about that. The production design in this
movie, the cinematography to theproduction design in this movie
is really solid. Washingtons home, I think he
plays a character named King, isa David King who basically is a
massive high rise home and he lives in what feels like a
(15:22):
museum. It's sort of like showcase of
black success. An artist all around him, He's
like speaking to them as if theyare these mythic figures and
asking them for advice throughout the movie as he goes
through his moral dilemma that we'll get into.
And Spike really leans into thatkind of iconographic feel of
these legendary black artists surrounding Washington's
(15:44):
character and what he feels. Going back to your point, his
responsibility is to, to help this missing child or kidnapped
child. And Spike makes some really
interesting choices with the editor to add these symbols in
to the, the kind of pans and thewipes of, of the edits.
And it gives the film a really kind of rhythmic feel.
And I think the film language, the imagery, the, the texture of
(16:07):
the, of the production design and also the architecture that
you're talking about are really powerful because they do speak
to the class commentary that youreally want out of the movie
that you can feel the movie in the screenplay in particular
sort of wrestling with. And we'll come back to that
screenplay because ultimately, Ithink the first hour, basically
first hour and a half of this movie, if we're going to
(16:30):
negatives now, is pretty weightless.
Like it feels kind of stateless even when the moral dilemma is
revealed. And we're going to learn more
into spoilers now. So spoiler warning if you have
not seen the movie, but the first hour and a half to this
film sort of has a streaming movie flatness to me, which I
thought was so disappointing. And it's such a let down after
(16:51):
that great opening of that, thatshot of New York City in
Brooklyn. And I've seen some critics, you
know, forgive that the first hour is kind of boring.
And a lot of critics have projected on a meta commentary
onto the film as they're as they're forgiving that first
hour. And they're saying that, you
know, Spike is making a movie sort of about himself.
(17:11):
And what he feels is his own responsibility is this legendary
black filmmaker in an industry that does not give people of
color many resources to make movies or studio capital to make
movies. And I've seen, you know,
positive reviews of high Solo saying that Spike is critiquing
a a streaming era of art of soulless AI.
(17:32):
But that can all be true. But the first 45 minutes are
still particularly really tough.The dramatic dialogue feels
really stilted to me. The the kind of jazzy classical
background music just doesn't work, as you said we talked
about. But it kind of feels
distracting. The moral dilemma that
Washington's character faces with with Jeffrey Wright's
character son being actually thechild that is kidnapped, the
(17:54):
teenager that's kidnapped and whether or not he should pay
that back and sacrifice him wanting to own back his his, you
know, he wants to buy back his business that he's worked in for
for so long. That's kind of his character
journey of being like, I'm not going to be a kind of tech
musical mogul of this capitalistsociety.
I'm just going to be like a small business capitalist.
That's like his character journey.
I felt like there could have been more interesting shifts
(18:16):
made in the screenplay that justweren't made.
And that's not me saying I don'tlike the movie that I'm
watching. I wish it was a different movie.
I just think the choices that were made were really far less
interesting than what the potential was on screen.
So yeah, I think that first houris just really, really tough to
get through, especially because that that dilemma isn't as
deepened as I thought it could have been.
(18:36):
Yeah. I mean, I think that there's two
issues kind of like going on. One is the pacing in this first
half and kind of really hanging out in the dramatic scenes of
conversations. But you know, the the dilemma is
actually, I feel like being madeto be more than it is in terms
(18:58):
of like cancel culture speeches or like, or some scenes with
Jeffrey Wright's character where, you know, obviously,
like, it is an interesting dilemma.
Like would most people pay, you know, like their life savings
just in general, even if they aren't a millionaire to save
someone else's child? Probably not.
(19:19):
You know, like that is the exactly that's like the bleak
reality and interesting dilemma of the movie and of itself and
in terms of like the commentary on money and capitalism.
Especially in the United States,Yeah, which is more of what the
direction I thought they're going to go in.
Yeah, so, but in terms of like the dilemma, the the dramatic
(19:40):
scenes actually don't hit as hard because it feels like in
retrospect, besides the pacing that we that you kind of touched
on that we're actually followinga story about Denzel's character
trying to like figure out how touse his capital and make things
that matter. And that's interesting, I guess.
(20:05):
But and it's also layered obviously, like in terms of a
movie that is about both race and class in the United States
capitalism. But ultimately this is like a
movie that or or story that is placed within a larger, I think.
A larger comparison, right? Story about class in general.
(20:30):
And so when Denzel's character starts becoming like moralistic
towards A$AP Rocky character right at the end when they like
finally meet face to face, whichI'm I'm sure you know, we'll
talk about in a minute. Yeah.
But he starts like using like kind of language around like if
you you worked hard essentially,right, Like myth of meritocracy
(20:51):
rhetoric. And that is when it becomes like
a movie that is actually really strange to be a story about
Denzel's character making art that is meaningful with his
capital because of the, the comparison to A$AP Rocky
character. And then also retrospectively to
(21:15):
then Jeffrey Wright's character,where Jeffrey Wright is like
this character who is so thankful that Denzel's character
like decided to spend money to to do this.
And like, obviously he knows because he's close to him, like
how much basically that money means.
But also then it becomes a very strange, like class relationship
where Oh yeah, very weird. And, and so, and, and then, you
(21:38):
know, Denzel's character is likekind of like heroic at the end,
which I, I think you could stillhave a movie.
Again, it's not like here's the movie I wanted to see.
No, like I think I'm just like saying here's actually, you
know, totally fair, like balanced critique of the movie
that I actually saw, which is that I don't know that you in a
(22:00):
class in a movie about class want to make like someone who is
the millionaire, you know the. Sympathetic capitalist.
Yeah, yeah. Like the kind of like heroic
character who is telling everyone like, here's how you
can make it to be like me. Do you think it's because Spike
Lee or the screenwriter for thatmatter, I guess, or other
(22:20):
audiences in general? And I think this, I've seen some
of this online as people have been rewatching or watching for
the first time. High and low interpret high and
low to be about a sympathetic millionaire in post war Japan in
the 1960s who is kind of recognized.
Oh, you're saying? Do people misread the original
sources? Did they misunderstand the
source of material? Because I think the biggest
issue with highest to lowest forme is the screenplay.
(22:43):
It's not like I can't even tell what's Spike Lee's vision
honestly verse I see his vision aesthetically, I see the vision
stylistically. I'm not sure thematically
because I've seen him do this, these ideas better in other
movies. So I'm kind of confused while
watching the whole film in termsof his whole career when we're
taking like a meta commentary lens to it.
Totally thought at the end it was going to like flip or
(23:03):
something me. Too right.
Totally. And I think it's more of the
screenplay and I'm not really too familiar with the
screenwriter, but I think it's apretty rough screenplay in
particular in its structure. If you compare to the original
high and low to give you insightinto what makes the original so
effective. Not comparing these two movies
and, and as far as their legacies, but in terms of what
makes the original and it's commentary so effective is that
(23:25):
you know the mate. It makes it clear what the major
mistake of this new movie is really clear, which is that the
this reinterpretation of high and low keeps us basically in
one perspective the entire movie.
And that's through the king character.
That's Washington's character inthat perspective shift to only a
singular perspective of going through the millionaire and how
he views the world and what he is going through and how he
(23:46):
views his relationship to Jeffrey Wright's character.
And and later ASAP's character becomes critical to the movie,
not really working cinematicallyor thematically or emotionally
because Kurosawa's high and low builds tension by shifting
perspectives. You start the movie by being in
the perspective of the wealthy executives to his like group of,
you know, friends, quote UN quote, but people who become
(24:09):
kind of his enemies by the end of the movie, taking his job
from him. And then it shifts perspective
to all of the cops in a main investigator to literally like,
literally like quite literally all of the cops.
Are just major Japanese city. Drop everything that they're
doing to then protect the wealthof this shoe executive to the
mass media coming out in supportof this, you know, shoe
(24:33):
executive. To then the perspective shifting
once again in the third act to being in the lens of this kind
of post war Japanese underclass where we explore poverty and
we're stuck in communities without AC in a crowded urban
decay who have been crushed by poverty and crushed by
addiction. We're literally going through
like alleyways with cops, going through people who are who are
(24:55):
passed out and having to self medicate because of like they're
not being any resources or opportunities.
And they're stuck beneath what looks like beneath the city.
Kind of speaking to the metaphors of Kurosawa's like,
brilliant, you know, project andscreenplay here.
And that's smartly and subtly humanizes that that invisible
class of people that, you know, Bongi and Ho later does a
(25:16):
parasite. And the highest to lowest
screenplay narrows all of those PO VS almost entirely to
Denzel's David King's character,the millionaire.
That's true. I shouldn't realize that.
Yeah. And it changes the entire point
of the the original film and it makes me think that there's just
a misunderstanding of of maybe that original movie.
Yeah. Well, I think the the
interesting thing about like high and low and even highest to
(25:38):
lowest is it's supposed to be kind of like this metaphor,
right? Of quite literally high and low
of like hierarchy, right, class hierarchy.
And so when you like it would be, you know, imagine if we saw
him in the first movie because, you know, there are similar
scenes taking place and it's still like on the same like
thematic thread almost. But imagine we had the
(26:01):
millionaire or like the executive telling the person
who's in poverty and is saying, you know, and this isn't high
and low and a Kurosawa's movie, but this idea of like him saying
like This is why I did it. I basically like have nothing to
live for. And I look up at your high rise
(26:22):
and like I it's not like a jealousy that he's pointing out,
right? Like that's not the point of the
of the movie. And it's not like, oh, I did it
for nothing on this. Like, you know, serial killer
esque, you know, character that maybe it's like in a true crime
movie or something that people are fascinated with, But it's
more so this idea that like my, the the place that I live is
(26:45):
like so different from yours. It's freezing in the winter,
it's burning in the summer, likeI'm feeling the elements of the
world and up there like you haveAC like that's like the whole
kind of thing. And imagine, you know, the the
character in high and low came back at him and was like, well,
you know, have you considered like getting a job?
The millionaire, Yeah. And then also, you know, like,
(27:06):
aren't there other ways that youcould like, no, the the the
movie is a metaphor. So like, I think I don't want
people to take away that, you know, we there can't be a movie
about Denzel's character, you know, like a kind of grappling
with or thinking about like whathis place might mean as this
(27:26):
like wealthy person that that that is also a part of the
original source text. But the difference is, is that
he's not, you know, the the wealthy character is not made to
be this like hero because he's asymbol.
He's not, you know, necessarily a character.
He's a symbol in high and low for wealth.
(27:47):
Right. That's what's wild to me because
curious always high and low is crafted to expose the rich right
to expose the institutions from media to law enforcement to the
judicial system, helping protectthat class of status of people
about how they how they're literally built through like
blueprints of how to drop everything and not even help
(28:08):
people who are like there's a woman in the original high and
low who's dying because she's just been like shot with drugs.
And the cop like goes past her immediately to chase after the
criminal who had stolen the kidnapper, had stolen the money
of this this millionaire just tokind of get that symbolism
across more directly, even though I don't think.
It's like whose lives matter? Right, exactly and how how the
(28:30):
class changes our understanding?Whose justice we're?
Interested in and whose are not and you know that movie reveals
an exploitation and alienation of an underclass where pressure
to act in radical ways. It's not forgiving of like the
kidnappers. Importantly, it's not forgiving
of the the ransom and all of that craziness that unfolds in
that original movie and in this movie.
(28:51):
But the original movie, that kidnapper is making a morally
corrupt decision. But the movie is also
unapologetically anti capitalistversus this highest to lowest
remake is not anti capitalist atall.
It's really just like being likethere are more respectable forms
of capitalism. And that's what makes me kind of
confused about this film because, you know, David King at
(29:13):
the end of this movie and we canget into specifics and I want to
do a plot breakdown in a second,but he turns to making his own
kind of like small business at the end of the movie.
He moves away from wanting to buy back this massive kind of
industry and doesn't want to be this tycoon and doesn't want to
be quote UN quote King anymore. And but and he and he tries to
like hire this woman who is like600 Instagram followers because
now he's like a benevolent guy. And it just feels like after
(29:36):
that, you know, huge conversation with him in ASAP,
which is a really impressively technically well made sequence
where like the mirror the. Performances are so great, so
it's captivating. We'll talk about the same.
It's so judgmental of ASAP's character.
It's so, it's so reductive of quote UN quote, the young felons
of the world. It turns ASAP's character or
(29:56):
what he's supposed to represent in our modern world into a
caricature essentially. Or I thought at least, which was
really surprising because this is it's Spike Lee.
It's a Spike Lee movie, right? And so that's not something I've
ever seen from him, I don't think.
And so the fact that that character is kind of like a
grifter is being criticized as somebody who didn't didn't
really work to become successful.
(30:18):
It's just very strange to me. And I think, you know, there are
critics who love highest to lowest who are saying a lot of
great things about it. Like, I think you could pull
from this movie that it is aboutwhat is the what is the
responsibility of black capitalism and the question of
whether marginalized groups who gain wealth owe something to
those left behind. I think that's an interesting
(30:40):
commentary to project onto this movie.
I think it exists within this film.
And I think Spike, I think people are projecting a lot onto
Spike here. I think they're saying that
Spike is interrogating his own role in that debate through
David King as sort of like an avatar for himself, if that
makes sense, as this kind of legendary filmmaker in Hollywood
and, you know, his own relationship to his followers or
(31:01):
admirers of his legacy he's built.
But then Spike also sneaks in all these other ideas of being
critical of like, AI being soulless, which, yeah, cosigned,
but then also being sort of skeptical of cancel culture.
And I'm like, what? And then looking at like
meritocracy maybe being real. And I'm like, huh.
And then I I just think it's doing too much and it can't find
a coherent through line going towhat you're saying, where it
(31:23):
becomes about. It becomes about a lot of
different ideas and then ultimately movie that feels flat
for me at the end because it kind of vilified characters who
are coming from less means. Yeah, which I found just
shocking. Yeah.
And I think, you know, to be clear to, I don't think either
of us are saying that Denzel's character, like, should be
(31:44):
looked at or treated like withinthe film or the audience as like
having the the same commentary or criticism as like a white
wealthy man, If, if that makes sense, Right.
Like, but at the same time, like, I think there's yeah,
there there's a lot of like weird things where it feels like
someone put in a lot of their own takes about like how the
(32:07):
youth just expects fame and theythink they deserve like, money,
right? Like those kind of like strange
things about deserving, right, fame or wealth that are then
channeled through Denzel's character to A$AP Rocky, like,
and the idea that he does again,like we're playing in the world
(32:29):
we're playing in, right? This, this whole like landscape
of capitalism, again, it's this whole like metaphor.
So that's like the problem. Wasn't there a moment where like
young felon is shown walking into like the court and he and
they're like screaming young felon and he's like saying he
made it or something like that, Like he's become a celebrity or
he's like, no, now wasn't there a moment like that?
I know it just felt really reductive and overly simplified.
(32:52):
And it really felt like, and I mean this from somebody who was
a a massive fan of Spike Lee, and I don't not mean this in any
negative way. And it's also hard to like have
this conversation as like 2 white podcasters being like,
here's this legendary black artist who also made something
that feels kind of problematic. But it does feel like Spike
feels kind of like economically distanced from reality in this
(33:13):
movie. Like I and again, I don't know
if it's the screenplay or his vision thematically, but he
feels kind of like like he lost a little bit of the sauce of
like what people are going through today, if that makes
sense. It feels like somebody who is
sort of like rich and powerful made a movie about class and
that's why it feels a little bitcomplicated.
And I mean that from like a really well intended place.
(33:34):
And I guess I'm open for a conversation on that one.
So people let us know what you think about that in a
constructive way or like constructive feedback or
productive feedback rather. But I'm trying to have
constructive criticism here because it's kind of this is a
tough movie to discuss because so many critics are just like,
this is like one of the great remakes.
They're literally saying that. I've read many reviews that have
said that and listen to podcast about this and are saying that
(33:55):
this is like one of the great Spike Lee movies.
And I just, I think people are projecting so much of their
relationship of Spike Lee onto their relationship with this
film. I don't be reductive of
people's. Experiences.
But it does feel like that. I also think that like maybe
like you're saying, people read the original text differently.
I think it's so I usually like, I'm not as direct as to say like
(34:19):
they are misreading it. But I do think that people are
misreading the original text if they're saying like at the end,
you know, the person finds out that the kidnapper is just like
in insane or there's no reason it's the Joker commentary.
That's not what the movie's about.
(34:40):
And so like, if that's how you see it, then maybe we just like
disagree and are not honestly, Imean this this now sounds like
reductive, but like maybe don't see the world the same way or
have the same like lens towards class like.
Yeah, we could take that personal view on it, but you
could also just go back and listen to Kurosawa, who like had
to come out and he was criticized for being sympathetic
at all to the ransomer back in in post war, kind of like Japan
(35:02):
in the 1960s. And had to like take that
critical backlash and be like, well, I wasn't trying to be
forgiving of this person. But originally he was a little
bit more quote UN quote cartoonishly insane.
And we were like, we want to give him something that feels
more like justifies that. This is such a large kind of
commentary about like this structural classism that is so
clear in the architecture of like how major cities are built.
(35:22):
And he's also making a larger commentary about globalization
and capitalism now invading and infesting countries around the
world and, like, pressuring themto to, you know, sell products
with one another and become basically what America had
already become. And so he was making all these
larger commentaries, but he was really cautious about being too
sympathetic to that figure. So it's kind of ironic if you
(35:43):
might misread it and then be OK with his highest to lowest
interpretation because Kurosawa himself was like hoping people
would not miss out the point on the movie, which is that this
guy would have never kidnapped that person if equality, if
economic equality was more in the forefront of like Japan's
goals at that time, that place in time.
So. Yeah.
(36:05):
I mean, it's just though it's weird because of what we were
talking about, like with Inside Man, you know, being one of the
great heist movies and that I was talking about this too on
Dog Day Afternoon and kind. Of radical and it's class
commentary too. Yeah, that like we don't really,
you know, and that's why I'm excited for this genre to come
back like we were talking about at the beginning, because I
(36:27):
think like bank robbery movies or like heist movies in general
lend themselves to this one's a little bit more complicated.
But in terms of like bank robbery movies, they lend
themselves to this idea of like critiquing institutions through
the vehicle of like an action movie.
And that's interesting always tome.
But Inside Man in particular like takes that a step further
(36:50):
right where we have I won't spoil it for anyone who like
hasn't seen it, although I'm assuming if you're listening to
podcast, probably have that's fine.
You listen to our episode where we talk about it more.
But like Clive Owens character, right?
Robbing the bank for a very specific reason, I guess I'll
just say. Oh, I'll step on it.
Spike Lee's straight up like, yeah, the guy who owns a bank is
a Nazi like, and that's a big deal.
(37:11):
Like he's pushing against stereotypes of like, quote, UN
quote Jews owning banks. And like him speaking and giving
like a platform to Jewish communities who who have been
discriminated against in Americaand being like, actually the guy
who's a fucking Nazi owns wealthand power in New York City.
Like that's powerful. Like, that's a powerful.
And he's being protected becauseof his wealth and he's able to,
like, hide that because of his wealth.
(37:33):
Yeah, OK, so I I was just sayingthat just in case people hadn't
seen it, but. I'm fine, it come from me.
In the DNS it's like how many years later?
Literally 20 years. Old probably seen it and that's
OK because they tell you kind oflike, well, I guess they don't
tell you early on, but that's. A spoiler it.
Doesn't matter, but anyway so like.
There's a big there is a big spoiler.
To have one of the best like heist movies made by Spike Lee
(37:54):
there and to also, you know, have like Spike Lee's long
standing history, like with his films looking at racism really
directly and having this like observant, you know, quality to
a lot of his movies where it feels like he is showing, you
know, the audience like here is what's happening.
(38:16):
You know, it's not like a moral film in terms of how we have
movies about racism. And obviously, like, you know,
we're in the United States and like Hollywood exists and
there's like all these benevolent white characters that
like solve racism and like, you know, the two hours that for the
runtime of the movie. But I feel, you know, I think
(38:38):
that he is like, yeah, it's actually not like complicated
here is like I'm putting racism in front of you to these like
white audiences who are coming to see the movie.
And so when you like are going to see a movie from a a film
maker like Spike Lee, it is justjarring to see then how like he
(39:01):
has portrayed class before in terms of looking at like a a
character, you know, I'm I'm just thinking of do it, do the
right thing right now just because we're about to do it on
Patreon. But like this idea of like a
white character saying myth of meritocracy rhetoric, it's
really strange to see it coming out of like Denzel's, you know,
(39:24):
character in a movie that is like explicitly about.
Clocks. Yeah.
It made me think a lot about Clockers, which is an underrated
Spike Lee movie, and how there is a little bit of a pattern in
how Spike Lee frames class and culture.
Like some parts of Black life inhis movies feels really deeply
(39:45):
humanized. That is not usually platformed
in mass media, especially in movies.
And sometimes he can reduce certain walks of black life for,
quote, UN quote, what's wrong inthe community.
He does this inside man with thevideo game, with the little boys
playing the video game. And it's kind of a moralistic
speechifying going on where Clive Owens, like, I need to
talk to your dad about this. You shouldn't be playing this.
(40:05):
And it's like, I can understand what the intention is there, but
it also feels like very judgmental of a specific walk of
life that might come from a specific background, if that
makes sense. And in Clockers, that's a very
like empathetic film. But there is some somewhat of
that movie and some parts of of Spike's film.
Filmography that is like here's St. crime, here's drugs, even
hip hop culture. And I think he laces all those
(40:26):
things together with young felonin this movie in high to lowest
and he flattens those things. And then certain traditions like
jazz or religion or classical culture are shown with a lot
more warmth that I think there hasn't really been.
I haven't read 1. Actually I read 1 recently.
Bell hooks had a really good criticism of Spike Lee back in
the 90s of Do the Right Thing. That was about this very idea
and about how Spike doesn't get enough Flack from movie critics
(40:50):
who feel kind of like afraid to talk about them more kind of
like classic or sorry classist issue in some of his work that I
think is real, that I think exists, while he also has really
smart commentaries like the one we just addressed with with
Inside Man. So that's kind of like a
contradiction in his work. And some of the great film
makers of his peers also have those contradictions.
Martin. Scorsese I was going to say I
was talking a lot about that with Martin Scorsese and yeah, I
(41:14):
mean, I think I said I'm kind ofgoing to go back on like what I
said a little bit in terms of like moralistic.
I there are sometimes like in both Spike Lee movies and Martin
Scorsese movies, there are like characters who are saying like,
here's the theme of the movie toanother character.
And that sometimes does feel like moral point of view, like
(41:35):
inserted into movie. And sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't. And for both film makers, case,
and I'm saying, you know these two film makers 'cause they're
like super like famous and successful tours that I like
watching their movies, but you know, 2.
Of the most legendary New York City film makers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think we were just
(41:56):
watching like Sidney Lumet's movies though, too.
And those tend to be, and that'sso it's just in my mind, but
those tend to be like more aboutinstitutions and characters
relationships, you know, and, and character studies, but
really in relationship to like institutional inequality and so.
Or state violence. Yeah.
(42:16):
And and so that's like also partof it.
I don't know, it's it's complicated, right?
But this movie is just, I think like a an interesting piece of
Spike Lee's filmography, not onethat I love.
We we can talk a little bit about like the things that I do
(42:36):
love in terms of like how he, yeah, like incorporates the the
parade, right. Yeah.
Let's talk about the last 30 minutes, OK?
At least Like cuz the last 30-40minutes, the movie really moves.
It turns into the thriller that you were kind of promised in the
trailer. And I wasn't angry with the
melodrama in the first hour. I just didn't find it all that
interesting. Exactly.
There is one scene between Denzel, his character, and his
son where they have a very really interesting conversation
(42:59):
about masculinity and power thatI found to be really compelling.
That's where I think Spike Lee really sings.
When he sits on those moments, they feel like you're watching
live theater, you know? And he's really great at that.
He's really good at staging in that way.
But in the last 30 minutes, there's a Puerto Rican parade
sequence that you're referring to that is like one of the most
electric moments of the year. Did I, I don't know if I read
(43:20):
this somewhere or if I heard like Spike Lee talk about it,
but wasn't that like almost a a wonder or they did it?
They did it a couple times like not a wonder but like they, they
did it from like start to finishin terms of like doing the
actual like song and I guess like you know the band playing
the song maybe like 4 times or something and used one of those.
(43:44):
Possibly. It felt like that.
It felt like it was like legitimately some of the best
action that Spike Lee's directedin his entire career.
So it felt very real. So that was a great action
sequence. There are also some like all
caps choices in the last 20 minutes where we get a really
risky semi surreal rap battle with Washington and ASAP, which
(44:05):
is kind of insane and ASAP was talking about in a great
interview between him, Spike, and Denzel Washington.
I think for GQ, I forget who it was, it was like 30 minutes and
Washington is kind of sitting there chilling.
He's like on his phone half the time.
But ASAP is just one of the mostcharismatic people I've heard in
pop culture across all mediums, where he is just like explaining
(44:25):
the significance of Washington to him and his life and how his
mom always compared him to Denzel Washington and how he met
Washington at his house because he's friends with John David
Washington and Spike Lee's listening.
He's like listening like how I'mlistening to it.
He's like, really invest in the story.
And Washington. Denzel was like, we met before.
I don't even like he's so nonchalant about just being this
like very powerful figure in in in culture in general, but
(44:48):
especially obviously like in theblack community.
And in ASAP was talking about how like Washington was rap
battling him on that day. And a lot of that wasn't
scripted. And Spike was saying how that
reminded him when Denzel went against Ray Allen and he got
gaming and scored a few points on it.
And Ray Allen was like, what thefuck, Spike?
Like, I'm going to have to actually play this guy.
So that was pretty cool. It was a little like cheesy, but
(45:12):
it was cool to see the rap battle.
We also get really fun music video flourishes with Spike's
famous the double Dolly shot of ASAP in a music video.
There are some fun comedy gags throughout the movie.
There's some really great Celtics jokes, which is like a
Spike isn't at this point somebody literally looking into
the camera being like fuck you Celtics, which is awesome, or
(45:32):
fuck you Boston. There were some jokes about
State Farm, I guess not about State Farm, but from the State
Farm guy, and I want to be respectful to him.
At least let me get his name. Here, Mayhem himself.
Dean Winters as a detective Higgins who plays a cop with
prejudice who is, I guess, explicitly, you know, prejudice
and racist. But he is the guy from the State
(45:54):
Farm commercials. Yes, Yeah.
And I think they make 3 jokes about state.
Farm in this maybe at least twice.
Yeah. Yeah.
We looked at each other and we were like, is this something
that like Apple insisted on? Is this like an ad?
Yeah. Is this an ad for State Farm?
Was this like a behind the scenes deal of having this guy
(46:16):
in here? And I mean, it still is
possible. I don't know, definitely like
all speculation, but I, I did hear Spike Lee in like 1
interview say something like, ifyou're distracted by him, a
State Farm like, you know, the audience then is like the
problem cuz he's a great actor. And I actually disagree.
I think he's not a good actor and that's not totally his
(46:36):
fault. He is a interesting.
He's broken through the culture of having this like dry bit of
being mayhem in State Farm advertising.
Like, you know, they hit the jackpot in terms of like having
some sort of I iconic image and person or character, right?
(46:56):
Be it's like a Jingle essentially, except it's a
person. And so one like, I just don't
think he's strong. And so then like when he his
being either like classist or racist, like towards Jeffrey
Wright's character, it comes offas like like a bit or something
because of how he delivers it and the audience's relationship
(47:21):
to him. And also he's not just like as a
dramatic actor, not very strong.And so it actually like really
weakened a lot of the moments where we're supposed to see a
contradiction, like, for example, you know, where we have
Denzel's like son who it were like in the kitchen.
And we are seeing the cops who are detectives, like ask, you
(47:45):
know, like, do you remember anything about your friend that
went missing who got kidnapped? And it's after like 5 minutes
and like, oh, he's tired. Like let him take a break.
And in those moments #1 like in High low, in the first one, the
kids are really little. And I thought it was interesting
to like make the kids, teenagershere, especially around the
(48:07):
commentary of like treating black kids, right, as if they're
adults, right? And media.
And and so like, I think that was like an interesting
commentary. That's a good point.
But at the same time, in that specific scene, I was like,
well, he didn't go through like anything super traumatic besides
(48:27):
his like best friend missing. Like he could stick around for
maybe a couple more minutes justto have a lead on any kind of
clues of where the kidnapper like could have taken him or
anything he remembers because like it.
So that felt like very strange because I was like, wait, but I
think he is old enough in in this moment just to talk about
(48:50):
because like he he literally said he like left to go, I think
to another place to get food andsomething like that come back
right. But he like, I mean, obviously
it's a very stressful day, but the but the, the time, the the
clock is ticking in terms of like, you know, we know everyone
knows this from true crime movies that like the first 48
(49:11):
hours are critical like so anyway, but then when we have
like mayhem in those scenes, right, they take away the
emotional stakes is my larger point.
Yes, no, I I agree. I think I wanted more of
ultimately, I wanted more of David's, you know, David King's
(49:31):
characters is like kind of innerwar.
You know, we see Washington shadowboxing alone.
We see him, you know, summoning the ghost of James Brown or Jimi
Hendrix or Aretha Franklin and these kind of surreal Spike
flourishes. It it's really theatrical, but
it works. And I just wish we could have
seen like David really feel the weight of wanting to protect his
(49:52):
empire. Instead, it's just kind of
confusing throughout the movie about what he's really trying to
protect. Is he trying to protect his
image? Is he trying to protect his
image financial or economically,or his image to his own son or
his his wife, his, you know, image to his friend?
Or is he trying to protect, likedoes he feel the responsibility
of actually making it out and becoming this like very powerful
(50:15):
tycoon out of the black community?
Does he feel a responsibility tohelp in any way possible?
It's never really clear. And I just think the screenplay
really suffers and doesn't do Washington's character much
justice. So Denzel has to do so much the
legwork. So by the end of the movie, when
him and Jeffrey Wright are taking matters into their own
hands and they're driving on their way to like, young Felons
recording studio, it's fun and exciting, but it also feels
(50:38):
again, sort of weightless, you know, because even Jeffrey
Wright, who's giving a pretty good performance in this movie,
it's sort of feeling like he's playing the guy that he is
spoofing in American fiction. It isn't not a caricatury
character ultimately, because the writing's pretty poor.
Like, yes, he's an ex-con. Yes, he it seems to be a devout
Muslim and like those are ways to characterize someone, but
(51:01):
he's not deepened in any meaningful way.
And he's like, there are momentswhere he feels maybe like
resentful or like maybe more fully developed as a character
towards, you know, Denzel's likecharacter, but mostly like he is
this like grateful worker of Denzel so.
(51:22):
Yeah, it feels uncomfortable. It feels weird.
And I think it's it's strange. It's why it's been so strange to
read criticism on this movie because like, I'm all for
projecting a meta commentary on this film being like, let's all
go to the Spike Lee movie. We just said this with other
films too, like Materialist being fans of Celine Song or
Eddington with Ari Astor or RyanCoogler with Sinners movies that
(51:44):
I think are all really admirablemovies and execute at different
levels. And I think Sinners being the
most successful out of those three.
But ultimately all those movies have like issues.
But there's so much, there's so much emphasis right now in the
critical world to be very binaryin our reception to either be
like, this is overwhelmingly amazing and we all need to go
see it, or this just doesn't work at all.
(52:05):
And I'm not trying to sound likewe can't just have a
conversation anymore, but it does sort of feel like that with
this movie in particular in our space.
So it kind of feels like that. I feel bad throughout this
episode and I felt bad writing areview for this movie weeks ago
because I feel like if it looks as if we're punching down when
the reality I'm just we're trying to be like constructive
in our criticism, which is what we keep.
(52:25):
Saying, I think, I mean, yeah, we've done that with all
basically every movie this year.Like a lot of movies have been
complicated about class like materialists.
Materials is a good comp for this.
Movie it is actually yeah so andand Eddington in in different
ways that were more like pandemic situated more Internet
(52:47):
situated. But yeah, like, I think that
we've had like similar interestingly issues with movies
that have popped up this year because a lot of movies which we
also asked for a lot like are kind of dealing with
contemporary issues, but at the same time, like don't feel, I
(53:07):
guess like historically maybe completely thought out from the
screen writing perspective. Yes, agreed.
Anything else you want to add about the the plot of the movie?
We didn't really talk about the wife, but I saw some TikTok
reviews from regular people who were like, she's the worst
performance in the movie. And I thought that was rude.
She didn't really get a lot to do.
She kind of was. There is one tough moment where
(53:28):
Washington, his character, findsout that his son's been
kidnapped or seemingly kidnappedand he's outside and we can't
hear young felon on the phone. And it's kind of a medium shot.
And he comes in the house and we're kind of like David Fincher
panning through the home and thewife finds out.
And she doesn't have like the reaction you'd want.
But it felt more like a directorissue, like a the wrong cut to
use the wrong scene to use. It felt like a just a badly
(53:51):
sequel, like kind of staged scene.
I I think so too, yeah. It was like a it was a weird
reaction, I guess. Yeah, like I, I felt that too,
of like, I didn't know if she would like would be more upset,
but also she's in shock like, sothat makes sense.
But the way, yes, I think the way that it was staged was like
strange and didn't serve her performance in that that moment.
(54:13):
I want to note something becauseI like ASAP, you know, as an
artist. I I think I like him more as
like just kind of he's become this like public persona,
obviously with his like relationship, Rihanna icon and
they're both so fucking funny tolisten to, but and I and I just
love listening to ASAP talk about culture at large.
Like he's so interesting. I like a lot of the production
(54:36):
of his music. I like a lot of his beats just
to be very straightforward in this song, Trunks the back out
the trunk from the front to the back.
The the lyrics are are so bad. They're so awful, but the the
beat is insane. Do you know what I mean?
Like the production of the musicis fucking wild and really
(54:59):
elite, but the lyrics are so strange because they're
superficial. I feel like it's purposeful
though. And I was going to ask you, do
you think it's they made the production, the beat, they put
all the money into the production of the song because
they knew it was going to be a mainstream hit.
And it is. It's becoming like a a big hit.
But the lyrics are literally about like the character talking
about baby Mamas and like wanting to become a.
(55:20):
Celebrity. I was going to say the the song
itself feels like similarly how I feel that A$AP Rocky character
was treated in the movie. Which is that like the the
lyrics are reductive, you know, and so is the portrayal of like
A$AP Rocky character. Yeah, and I guess I do.
You think it's more just like Spike's strange relationship to
hip hop, I guess. Like, I don't know, that's all.
(55:42):
I guess that's a whole other conversation.
Yeah, but that's not like, you know, in his filmography, like
he has like he has both jazz andclassical music and like his dad
was a musician, right. But he also does have hip hop
and like and do the right thing.And for for sure, I just think
I'm, I'm saying that I think going back to my clockers point,
I think sometimes Lee uplifts like certain black traditions
(56:04):
while treating others with a little bit of suspicion.
And I think that's where the class observations or like
contradictions land. And that's why I was talking
about the bell hooks point aboutDo the Right Thing, which to me
is like a basically perfect movie, but this.
Movie though, like in particular, it seems like very.
And that's why I was saying thatthe music not only didn't work,
it was like too loud over the dialogue at the beginning with
(56:24):
Jeffrey Wright and Denzel's likecharacter, but it also then felt
like a weird commentary on how it was being paired with wealth
versus like A$AP Rocky character.
And even though, yeah, the song is like good ultimately, yeah.
Felt especially how like, you know, Denzel like kept saying
like, why does she have to be a bitch?
Why does she have to be a bitch?Yeah.
(56:46):
That kind of idea of yeah, anyway, was like so embedded in
the moralizing of like. It almost leaned satire, like I
thought it was going to like bamboozled on us.
Like when it has the dancers? Yeah, I was like, are we going
to? Behind Young Felony and I was
like, is he doing something likekind of borderline satirical
here? Like is he shifting the tone of
the movie? That's interesting.
(57:08):
I don't know. So that was a choice I'd like to
hear from listeners on this movie.
I feel like this has been a complicated conversation.
We I think we tried our best. I wish we talked more about the
humor because there were some funny jokes in this.
Rick, I think Rick Fox is one ofthe coaches of the basketball
team or the head coach, I guess.And the two of the cops that
come and ask him about the ransom, they shoot it in a way
where even though Fox is like hetowers over those cops because
(57:28):
he's like obviously a former, well, I don't know obviously for
you, but a former NBA player. So he's very tall.
And I think the guy, one of the cops goes, you know, Larry Bird,
what does he say? It's something funny like that.
Well, that's like funny because it's Spike nodding to like micro
aggressive, like racist commentsthat people from Boston make.
That's why he has like fuck Boston attitude through laced
(57:49):
throughout so many of his movies.
That was a good moment there. So there's a lot of comedy in
this film that we probably skipped over or some good like
dreamy cinematography that we probably should have gave more
time to. So yeah.
I mean, I think I, it's weird 'cause like, just to close out,
like I really enjoyed being in the world, right?
Like, obviously I love the way that Spike Lee, like, constructs
(58:11):
his films. And obviously I've liked all of
the performances, so, and the chemistry between like all the,
the actors was great too. But again, it was just like, I
mean, we've talked about it at length here now.
So like, again, that was just, yeah, the the the themes, which
is why I'm interested in a movieultimately like kind of fell
(58:33):
flat. I'm excited to talk about Spike
the next two episodes on Patreon.
I mean, this is a, this is one of the most legendary film
makers of the last 50 years. And I think on the Do the Right
Thing episode, we'll talk a lot about how he has, he's just like
not been given the resources historically and consistently to
play in the Hollywood sandbox through his career.
(58:54):
And he's had to really fight forcapital, fight for resources,
spiteful for final cut, sometimes even funding projects
out of his own pocket or taking investments from friends just to
tell stories he wants to tell onhis own terms.
He built 40 acres and a mule, stayed independent, elevated non
white artist. And it's kind of like sacrificed
a lot of mainstream awards and recognition by calling out
(59:15):
racism in Hollywood and classismin Hollywood.
And so the irony of all of that and what we're going to be just
discussing on Do the Right Thingand Inside Man is this movie is
the first film I've watched, I think, in Spike Lee's
filmography. Honestly, that feels like, like,
did I miss something along the way?
Did I not catch something totally?
OK, so extra credits. Oh yes, extra credits so.
(59:38):
Can you go first because I stillI I have mine but I'm thinking
if there's also like an additional 1.
I'll give it to Matthew Libertique.
I believe it's Libertique. I apologize if it's not his
cinematography. Turning New York into that
living metaphor was exactly whatI wanted.
You know, like opening the movielike that, seeing the vertical
lines of the of the the buildings, the staircases, the
(59:58):
subway tunnels. The subway it was.
The subway is a great sequence too.
The different stops too, yeah. Yeah, the story, the original
IP, like kind of the back to thenovel from the United States to
then the the Kurosawa movie, Theobsession with who's on top and
who's trapped below, creating the tension of how major cities
are built in particular across the world and how Spike frames
(01:00:21):
Washington against those skylines and against those glass
towers. And we see the back of young
felon looking up at all these things when he's on the phone
and some kind of funny sequenceswhen they're on the phone with
each other and kind of dropping us into like, shadowy
apartments. And then it's kind of subway
cars. All of that.
Like charting this kind of like descent into maybe the only
reason why this much poverty exists is because Washington is
(01:00:43):
so comfortable in his skyscraper.
Or obviously, more accurately, the more historically dominant
class of wealthy, you know, moguls who are usually, like
white men in those positions whohave had all this power and have
not distributed it back or been forced to.
And so therefore you have like just a lot of storytelling, the
architecture that I really want to give a lot of love to and the
way it shot. Yeah, my one of my extra credits
(01:01:06):
was going to be like how the thecity was shot and like
especially the parade sequence with the money drop off
sequence, like on the subway. And then also the opening, which
I talked about before, but I thought it was a really like
interesting opening. It may be really excited for
like the themes of the movie that we're going to be explored.
But my other extra credit is going to go to A$AP Rocky
(01:01:28):
performance. Like I just want to see him in
more. Yes, I think he he embodied
somebody who like was able to confront somebody like Denzel
Washington, which is pretty wild.
Yeah, that was what was crazy. I think Spike asks him in that
interview that I was talking about earlier, and I'll try,
I'll try to remember to link it.But just look up those three
names and you'll you'll see a 30minute interview.
(01:01:49):
And they're like in this white room with the window behind
them. It's a really cool conversation.
And I think Spike asks ASAP, were you intimidated by Denzel?
And he was like, no, I was excited.
He said something to that effect.
And I was really, I was giddy about that response because most
people, you know, in any position of power would be like,
yeah, it's Denzel Washington. He is really intimidating in
(01:02:09):
real life because he just doesn't fuck around right.
I mean, even if you think about like their the actual real life
story of like how ASAP went to his house, right?
Yeah, I, I think that's so true.And you can feel it like in
their performance, which is pretty wild.
Like he, he does not feel intimidated.
And it, it's really like wild tosee because you're, you know, so
(01:02:33):
interested in also like looking at Denzel's performance too,
like in this stage of his career, like I was talking about
with thinking about like De Niroor write someone who's like this
huge actor and has such a huge presence in in movies.
And so like you're so tuned intohis performance and then you
like finally meet right like A$AP Rocky character and it
(01:02:57):
really feels like a face off like which is is pretty wild
like that he can hold his own with such a an amazing actor
like Denzel. Yeah, shout out, Rihanna.
So, yeah, listeners, let us knowwhat you think of highest to
lowest. That's the extra credits of this
newest movie from Spike Lee. If you enjoyed this episode,
please don't forget to like and subscribe on Spotify, on Apple,
(01:03:18):
wherever you get your podcast. Drop us a five star rating.
Leave us a friendly review on Apple.
If you want to help our show find more people, that really
helps. So it goes a long way.
If you can't join Patreon right now, we totally understand, even
as a free member. But if you want to leave a
review, five stars only, please.But let us know what you think
about the show and what we do over here.
(01:03:39):
We are an independent podcast from Choice and our listeners
support us and your support means the world to us.
Don't forget about Patreon beinga free member and getting access
to High and low. We'll be back on the main feed
pretty soon. What are we talking about next
is. It.
Going to be our Q&A. I guess so.
We got some questions from listeners.
We're going to have AQ and a episode out soon.
We got a Paul Thomas Anderson movie this month.
(01:04:01):
That's so true. We're seeing the new Conjuring
tomorrow night. Yeah, we've been rewatching
Conjuring movies. I have a lot to say.
Me too. I got a lot to say about that
fucking nun. The Conjuring, too.
I got a lot to say about how TheConjuring is really just
superhero movies for Christians.Like, they're basically Veggie
Tales for adults in the horror genre, You know what I mean?
(01:04:22):
And I mean that in the in the nicest way I can mean that.
Does that make? Sense Lorraine's an icon, yeah.
OK, they are. They're both Ed and Lorraine
icons. A lot to say about them.
All right, we'll be back. Peace.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.