Do The Right Thing (1989) Review

“It’s our home!”

Do The Right Thing is a fascinating film about the subtle but impactful effect racism has on environments, even if they have almost no white people present. Much of the film just depicts various characters getting into little encounters that address the themes and seem designed for ample discussion in a film class. They also serve to create a sense of mundanity. Despite this, every character is sufficiently fleshed out, sometimes with scenes clearly dedicated to both showing us who they are and communicating the street smart and high energy tone of the film. This is suggested in the first scene after the opening credits where Samuel L. Jackson as Mister Señor Love Daddy speaks of the blazing heat, which of course is known to agitate, while having a very collected and well spoken voice, as if saying that’s the proper way to be acting. This is immediately contrasted with Roger Guenveur Smith as Smiley, who has a somber tone discussing the deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as if the two had died recently. He is also anything but well spoken, having a strong stutter that often is irritating to the other characters.

Any scene you pick says something about the culture of the times, which often features a near-eternal human struggle of the stress of community and heritage in all its shapes and forms, especially by even subtle influences like media. “Fight the Power” introduces the film like it’s a rallying cry. Many of the characters live by this principle, trying to fight perceived injustices, even if they’re obviously not fighting those with significant power over them. Numerous scenes deal with characters getting into minor altercations with someone else, as if trying to exert dominance. A joke where Mookie, played by Spike Lee, is called gay could be intended to suggest that the various male characters are all trying to be perceived as manly. Pizzeria workers and brothers Pino and Vito rough house and many male characters are egged on to act boldly. Mookie’s arc concerns his girlfriend wanting him to be a better father. This “masculine” energy is shown to have a mix of positive and negative, like Raheem discussed. This leads to many of the film’s most gruesome moments, but it also leads to characters being bold enough to stand up for themselves and calm a situation down, like with some roles at the end.

Whether or not this is a negative can depend on perspective, but sometimes the messaging is on the nose. An early example of this is Mother Sister, played by Ruby Dee, saying she “always watches”, suggesting a wise elder status. You’d think that there would be no reason for her to say this in-universe because everyone would already know, so this line is clearly present for the audience. Da Mayor, played by Ossie Davis, insists that he loves everybody and will get Mother Sister to be nice to him, showcasing a blatant contrast with him earlier being insensitive to someone else and also telling us that their dynamic will at some point come into prominence as an important center of the film. Admittedly, the latter element is probably going to be noticeable to a classic film fan because of the wandering tramp tropes. In another scene, Da Mayor refuses to cooperate with the police, with this scene here to tell the audience why a black person, especially that would’ve been around during the 60s, would not want to give information to the police. This is also paid off by one of the more famous scenes of the climax, if a viewer needed a textual reason to understand his perspective. Due to the negative effect subtlety can sometimes have, it is understandable that writer and director Spike Lee may want to make things as unambiguous as possible, this in turn makes for a style. Characters that spiritually break the fourth wall become walking messages, as if chosen to represent the main themes of the story as people instead of as just an action or idea.

Sal, played by Danny Aiello, at one point monologues about his restaurant being his and as respect for his own culture will only include Italian-Americans. This is in fact the same logic that some black characters use. They’re very protective over their own culture, which sometimes is based on very arbitrary standards. As an example, many look at Sal’s pizza as part of their community and culture. Those that don’t like him are by contrast very cold to him. This war of cultures only ever divides people in the story and emphasizes the absurdity of anyone to treat the other people as if they are inherently lesser. After an argument between Sal and Buggin’ Out, played by Giancarlo Esposito, Sal and Mookie discuss the matter with different philosophies. Mookie thinks Buggin’ Out had the freedom to act out while Sal says there is no freedom and he’s the boss. Despite the apparent differences, both are essentially making the same point.

Sal’s tribe from his perspective is himself, his sons, his restaurant, and maybe Mookie. Mookie’s is shown to be a much wider scope of people, possibly all of the black characters he is shown to have positive interactions with, but also probably not his Italian coworkers. Mookie doesn’t show much respect for Sal and especially his older son Pino, played by John Turturro. The reasons why each party excludes others is apparently based on race and also culture. Some of the characters feel embarrassed to be associated with other races. In fact, one saying they should stay in their own neighborhood reeks of the view racists have that different skin colors cannot coexist. While Sal’s temperament and subtle racist values probably come from his fish out of water status, Buggin’ Out’s similar behavior seems driven by a severe lack of intelligence, but otherwise a need to have some arbitrary sense of control, not that these traits are limited to just him. Sal on the other hand already feels in control and isn’t searching for more.

Not just does the film detail the worst of a colorful Brooklyn neighborhood, but it starts on the opposite note. The opening showcases how stylish the film can be, with a black woman dancing and wearing revealing clothing, as if to boldly criticize the notion of women needing to be modest and that black people shouldn’t be loud and imposing. The sequence is very colorful, while still having a dark mood, setting the tone for a story filled with colorful personalities and lots of conflict. Despite this, the film does not stick to one style. Said style changes depending on what character or situation is being shown. Scenes of the older Da Mayor are shot with this slightly red hue, as if to evoke a 1950s film. His distress over some of the events of the story come with it this pain and reminder of the past. Scenes of conflict tend to feature handheld camerawork, like even the movie is becoming as unhinged as the roles are. This is personified with Bill Nunn as Radio Raheem.

One of the most attention-grabbing scenes is when Raheem shows his brass knuckles to Mookie. One hand says “Love” and the other “Hate”. He discusses the battle between the two throughout history. Despite the fairly simplistic messaging, almost to a fault, it is depicted with this powerful conviction by Nunn. The point of the scene is very clearly to just tell us that this is what the movie is about, with a stylistic lack of subtlety. Specifically, many of the movie’s specific struggles don’t concern what Raheem said, hate doing a number on love, which then strikes back. Arguably, the opposite happens. Sal wants to defend his heritage by only having Italians on his wall, other characters want to defend their black heritage, but this causes them to become hateful and intolerant of those outside their bubble. As a whole, it is debatable if this message applies. This mirroring of “love” and “hate” is reflected by the photo Smiley carries of Martin Luther King Jr shaking hands with Malcolm X, personifications of those that feel violence is never the answer vs it is to at least a degree acceptable. At one point, Smiley tries to give said picture to Mookie while the latter is telling Vito to hit his brother, essentially as if a reminder to take a more nuanced approach to the situation.

Raheem is an extremely simple character who doesn’t have many scenes. He doesn’t distinguish himself much from the others, notably in a scene where he’s racially insensitive to the Korean couple, just like many other characters. He walks away as one of the more memorable characters for a few reasons. Mainly it’s a strong scene with him near the end, but also his habit of walking around just playing “Fight the Power”. We never hear him play anything else, not even another song by Public Enemy (“Party for Your Right to Fight” and “911 Is a Joke” would not have been bad choices for songs to have been played as well). By doing this thing that you’d think no real person would have the time or patience for, Raheem stops being a character and becomes a message. In universe and out, it seems he might be intending to tell everyone he comes across to fight the power, even though the music won’t always be there, like when his radio runs out of batteries. Matching him with the name of the film, “doing the right thing” is to fight the power and to consider the balance of love and hate, which helps in discerning certain moments of the film on whether we’re supposed to be supporting any given character’s actions. Spike Lee said he wanted the movie to start a conversation and those two points are ideal centerpieces for discussion.

Despite the many distinct characters, the protagonist is still Mookie. While scenes of general racial disharmony among the residents of the street provide necessary texture to the story, Mookie is often at the heart of the tale. One example is that although Mookie in many ways is selfish and disinterested in responsibility, he is very protective of his sister, frustrating those around him in his unwillingness to respect her and her choice. This plot point is not resolved, which could be looked at as commentary on how such a thing is not likely to change or more likely it’s simply a plot hole. Mookie has disdain for non-English speaking people, like how he dislikes the non-American qualities of his girlfriend. Someone telling him to leave after he says something bigoted shows how even a reasonable choice, like wanting a racist to leave you alone, does still reinforce separation of cultures and thus increases tension. Mookie also drives many big moments in the film.

Some favorite scenes include numerous black characters opening a fire hydrant and having fun in the water. These shots evoke police brutalizing black people by spraying them in the 60s. One person even playfully gets another one wet, as if reclaiming and making your own something originally used to oppress. Later, various characters break the fourth wall to spew insults to the audience, which is open for interpretation, but could be seen as a tense metaphorical point where one’s worse biases come out. Smiley and later Sal’s last scenes of the film are excellently symbolic.

SPOILERS

More favorite scenes are when Pino confesses to being “sick of n*****s” and calling the area they’re in “Planet of the Apes”. The moody and dark lighting makes it seem like a confession, as if acknowledging this is something to hide. Adding onto the theme of “family”, Pino is giving all this to his father, as if he thinks he’s the only one who won’t fight back hard at his racism. Maybe he even senses Sal’s prejudices? His view of family is extremely restrictive as that suits him. Pino also supports self-imposed segregation, which is not beneficial for society in the long term. Buggin’ Out tries to get Mookie’s sister Jade, played by Joie Lee, to help in his boycott of Sal’s, seemingly assuming she’d be down for it. Him just before telling Mookie to “stay black” implies he’s trying to take advantage of Mookie’s idea of family, as if all the black people in the area should be supporting him because they’re family in a sense. When Da Mayor saves Eddie Lovell, played by Richard Parnell Habersham, who then lies to his mom to avoid getting in trouble, she finds out and hits him. “Family” here doesn’t save him from what he was probably trying to avoid in the first place, a beating. This also helps to articulate Da Mayor’s character growth. When the mother dislikes Da Mayor advising she not hit her son, he says she’s right, either showing signs of his developing non-confrontational attitude or because he thinks violence is acceptable in some circumstances. For those that might not be aware of the hosing of people back in the height of the Civil Rights movement, wisely there’s a shot of rioters getting viciously hosed at the end. Within the text of the film a comparison can be drawn between the two similar scenes.

Many of the black characters are portrayed as stupid or selfish. An early example is when Da Mayor is extremely insensitive to a Korean couple who own a convenience store for not having the beer he likes. The line that this isn’t “Korea or China or wherever you come from” is reminiscent of white racists that act like every black person is African, without any regard for the fact that not all people of one skin color come from the same place. The full ramble also suggests that Asians are inherently backwards and should be more accommodating to him. He says they’re “asking” a lot of him by “making” him change his beer, reading an aggressive action in what is at most a misunderstanding. The point of this might be to suggest that inane actions or lack thereof can be read as aggressive by people prone to assuming the worst. While various black characters are prone to violence, the Korean characters are not. One character, Buggin’ Out, is pushed by his inability to control his grudge and recruits more people to start a completely pointless conflict. This snowballs into a crowd of people destroying Sal’s restaurant.

None of the characters of any race are exempt from nasty behavior, but with other cases there is some sort of justification included in the film (with one exception). The Korean couple do not seem very hot headed, but yell at someone being racist to them. While the Italians clearly harbor racism already, they only act racist in response to a black person bothering them, with the ill conceived idea that a black person is inherently villainous. Many of the actual black characters do bad things for no real reason, sometimes picking fights. Thus, the message Spike Lee is trying to make is muddled. This demeaning view of black people is shown even in smaller scenes, like when Smiley tries to sell his photos to people. Some pay him just so he’ll leave them alone. Him saying to Mookie “Thank you, black man” suggests Smiley sees Mookie as a demographic. Admittedly, some of this is essentially what Sal does, treating black people as just a group that has money he can appeal to. Another example is when Sal lets some people in past closing because he’s in a good mood and they “love his pizza”, Mookie argues with him and the customers. When those black customers come in they’re loud and slightly disruptive.

After Buggin’ Out’s shoes are accidentally scraped by a white man’s bicycle, other black characters urge Buggin’ Out to start trouble. However, he claims to be too righteous to fight him. The intention of this scene is unclear, especially because this character was a pointless troublemaker in his previous scene. Considering he usually wants to egg people on, here he is not egging on the cyclist, but his friends by not doing anything. Another interpretation is that it is clear the cyclist is looked at as an outsider to the street, so if he was beaten up that could draw unwanted attention from the police, who might look at the incident as worse than just another Brooklyn black person attacking their own. Adding to the earlier scene of a clash between Mookie and Sal’s view of who is in their respected and protected circle, Buggin’ Out and his friends seem resistant to outsiders, as we saw earlier, so after falsely assuming this person is from a whiter area when in fact he’s from Brooklyn like him, they are disappointed due to having to accept that this foreign face is really not so foreign. Their treatment of the cyclist is frankly racist and harsh in a way similar to black people beaten for perceived offenses. Once more this film is turning the tables on something that has victimized black people, like it’s being reclaimed in a twisted way.

Despite the idea that “having your own tribe or family” should in theory be an objective and unwavering thing, it is shown to many times. Pino appears to want to be black, and sometimes is respectful to Mookie, but he still distances himself from black people when needed, even calling them racial slurs in private. It appears the way he’s able to balance this is by saying certain black people he likes are not really black, which doesn’t make sense, but emphasizes the changing “family”. In another example, after Pino yells at Smiley, Sal tries to make things right. He also is very forgiving of the shortcomings of Mookie, who does not respect him. However, all that goes out the window in the ending, with Sal calling Buggin’ Out the n-word for no reason other than anger. While Sal seems to have considered his restaurant and neighborhood his tribe, that doesn’t show when it counts, with his kindness probably subconsciously being a facade. Him giving some pizza to some people before Raheem and Buggin’ Out come in showcases how even when he’s been nice, his racism is close to the surface. He calls the music Raheem plays “jungle music” and says they’re “not in Africa”, which is a much more insulting and unproductive comment than if he hypothetically just called them black or that he would call the cops, which also might cause similar rage.

Despite probably Sal and definitely Pino judging those looting their store, Sal did also destroy Raheem’s property and metaphorically tried to stop his message of “fighting the power”, which makes him the spiritual villain here even if it’s at worse only a little worse than some of the other characters. Sal’s racism appears to be so intense that after Raheem’s murder, he’s unable to empathize with him and says, “You do what you gotta do”, suggesting he means that sometimes the state just has to commit a completely pointless murder because of an adrenaline rush? This strong hatred blinds him from any reason and makes him look like the bad guy, despite Raheem representing some of the worst traits of the characters. He tried to kill Sal and even in general silences discussion due to his loud music. He was essentially forcing everyone to shout and get more agitated. Him letting himself be riled up by Buggin’ Out makes him look idiotic. Raheem acts like he always cared about the lack of black people on Sal’s wall of fame, but he was never previously shown to care. Sal going too far by excusing his graphic and inhumane death makes the issue appear one sided, as often happens with real world conflict. Raheem in turn continues to be what he always was, a message. The boombox being destroyed proves futile due to Sal being so outnumbered, and his death riles up everyone. Raheem being mentioned on the radio the next day suggests he will continue on, though this sense of everything backfiring on Sal would be stronger if Raheem’s message was a bad one. Despite his actions, fighting the power is the right thing to do, so it’s a shame the film ends with an attack and attempted attack on two low stakes stores, one of which is fueled by racism towards another group, instead of some sort of attack on the police, something like the Stonewall riot. Someone even says they’re not going to stand for the police anymore, yet we never see anyone doing anything against those actual aggressors.

While it is the great detriment to our society to claim that people should be separated by race, either legally or informally, and the riot at the end might be seen as a claim that coexisting would lead to these violent outbursts, in fact what this really shows is that this tribalistic view of your own community is both harmful to the continuing of society and even not sincere on its face. Plenty of black characters take issue with others for a variety of reasons. The Italian Pino and Vito also not only constantly are at each other, despite literally being brothers, and don’t ever seem to come together. In fact, Pino at one point citing himself as Vito’s brother seems to be used as his own justification for being so disrespectful to him. Vito is given little recourse in a way of escaping this, other than possibly to do as Mookie said and hit him. Thus, it is the underlying bigotries of the people that is the issue. There are even suggestions that the racial tension will only increase. Earlier on Sal says he doesn’t make mistakes. At another point he scoffs at Pino wanting them to move away from a black neighborhood. Pino’s bigotries are affirmed to himself when the riot occurs, which lightly implies Sal might come to Pino’s point of view.

When Sonny, played by Steve Park, is under threat of his shop being destroyed, he claims to be black. He doesn’t otherwise show an identity with being black, so he probably is using his status as a POC to try to avoid losing his store. He is trying to appeal to the cultural sense of “family”, but once more it doesn’t really seem to matter. The rioters don’t care and only seem to leave him alone after a black person tells them not to. This logic of identity can seemingly be applied to Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Someone that didn’t know who they were while watching the film might find the most significant moments related to them being the photo of them in unison possessed by Smiley, getting along in a captured moment. However, once the movie ends, there’s two quotes by each of them with different ideologies on how to deal with their oppression. Put painfully simply, King is always opposed to violence and X is not. Only taking the contents of the film into consideration, the two Civil Rights leaders seem primarily connected by their skin color as opposed to ideological similarities. This is of course a huge generalization, but works to treat them as representatives, just like characters like Raheem and his “Love” and “Hate” knuckles. While there is justification in the idea of trusting in those that have gone through your hardships, and that they are the ones that will be more reliable in your life, such tribalism also sows division with others. Ending the film on the two leaders thus could be seen as reinforcing this mindset. There is a more optimistic interpretation, though.

The relative calmness of the ending suggests that the air has settled enough for there to be some realization of the brutality of what occurred to those depicted after the fact. Mookie, finally seeming to be more available for his girlfriend and son, mirrors an earlier scene of Ahmad, played by Steve White, yelling at Da Mayor for being a bum. Ahmad says that he would provide for his family. Considering the climax, Mookie would be inclined to “do the right thing” and support his child, for risk of becoming as jaded as Da Mayor and unhinged as the various rioters. Mookie is improving on the bigotries seen by his more loving approach to his son, suggesting an increased acceptance of his non-American identity. Wisely this is not made explicit and is open to interpretation. Mookie’s possible change is foreshadowed by the scene of him rubbing an ice cube on his girlfriend’s naked body. He celebrates each individual part of her body. While he does celebrate her breasts, it is not in a sexualized or exploitative way. The scene acknowledges the inherent beauty of the human body, describing characteristics that are not limited to just one culture or skin color. The depiction of a woman is symbolic for the vessel that continues the human race through pregnancy and that we should celebrate that continual process, which will probably produce a generation with a way of thinking different from the previous. Mookie wants to be part of the future and not the past that Da Mayor knows.

Just like how a real person is unlikely to consciously realize and immediately change their racism, this increased bonding between Mookie and his son, the community over Raheem (as represented by Love Daddy), and Sal giving Mookie his paycheck are just little things that might be a sign of a hopeful future, but could also dissipate into nothing. They’re not conscious, as seen in a powerful moment of Sal reflecting on Mookie and the two parting with mild comradery. Still, the confrontational attitude of Sal and Mookie in the ending and Mookie cursing at his girlfriend in front of their child, among other moments suggest no improvement. The picture of King and X in this light means that even those that disagree ideologically can come together and bond. Anyone can find anyone and have something in common. Even on just a level of oppression, the Korean couple has surely faced racism from the government. Any working person has also faced poor treatment, even if not always on racial lines. Regardless, the ending is stronger with less certainty as to what will happen next. Raheem saying that love will make a comeback essentially spoils that things will get better at least in the movie, despite the claim that the days will get hotter. Then again, you could also look at this message dying with him or being invalid due to that character’s many flaws.

The journey from hate to accepting love, and how they balance, is shown in the dynamic of Da Mayor and Mother Sister. Some scenes of them clearly make use of their older perspectives. Mother Sister finally being more respectful of Da Mayor and thanking him is scored with romantic music that you might see in a 50s film where a young man is shown to have a shot with a love interest. Thus, it’s a shame that their connection could be seen a mile away. The climactic scene of Raheem being murdered by the police and its aftermath are filmed with especially detailed filmic coloring and razor edge focus, having a more attractive visual aesthetic. Us seeing all the characters stand in shock and disbelief over the killing, particularly Mookie’s reaction, are so intense because of how un-intense it is. After a lot of yelling and fighting, now we’re in relative silence. Now the movie has caught up to the older characters, everyone is experiencing the world as they’ve had to feel it, cruelly old fashioned. Da Mayor’s learned non-confrontational attitude is challenged when he becomes confrontational in the end in his attempt to stop the conflict. He then manages to gain affection from Mother Sister, with them both connected by a shared past of hardship. Both also seem enlightened visually, in how they are shot, like at the end where rosy colors light their bodies surrounded by darkness. They also are culturally in how they do not appear as prejudiced as most, with Da Mayor defending another skin color. This point would have been better made if Da Mayor was not racist earlier, but there is the effect of “If he can develop and grow, as can Mother Sister in her disdain for him, then anyone can.”

When violence is committed in the film, it is typically in a way where at least one type of person could see it as justifiable. The most bigoted might even say that black people deserve their treatment from the police, even when fatal, no matter how misguided that would seem to normal people. Even a more mild individual may support breaking someone’s property or yelling due to being aggravated or it being healthy to hit your family. The very ending, where Mookie finally decides to do something selfless and Sal puts aside his prejudice, is a call to look away from those supposed justifications and emotions and just be kind. It’s like they’re so tired of hating, what else is there to do other than be decent?

OVERVIEW

Do The Right Thing really succeeds due to these excellent vignettes about the misadventures and conversations of people living their day. The fact some of those people are caricatures could hold the film back, such as the depiction of black people and some of the insensitive or inconsistent messaging, but it works when you look at the movie as a representation of ideas instead of as completely honest. You basically have to when considering the stylistic depiction of roles like Radio Raheem. This off-kilter tone is demonstrated by phenomenal acting and visual aesthetic, with changes in color palette and angles emphasizing the little flavors of life within.

As an aside, you know that if this film was made today, there wouldn’t have been a cop yelling that they were too aggressive. They have to stick to their own.

The Byrds – Sweetheart of the Rodeo (1968) Review – What is a Byrds album?

The great ode to America.

Sweetheart of the Rodeo is the sixth album by rock band the Byrds… officially. The Byrds are a group that tests the limits of what a band is and how it’s defined. If you follow membership as detailing what a band “is”, specifically by a mostly consistent lineup, then the Byrds definitely fail to remain the same throughout. However, when they lose their Byrd credibility is open to debate. The first lineup of the group was Gene Clark, Roger McGuinn, and David Crosby; all guitarists and singers. Originally they recorded under a different name, the Beefeaters. You could argue that bassist Chris Hillman is an original member of the Byrds due to only missing out being in the band on the Beefeaters single, but in fact he’s not on the first single credited to the Byrds either, the famous “Mr. Tambourine Man”. Hillman and drummer Michael Clarke were indeed members at that point, but did not play on the record. For the first two albums, clearly the central characters of the group were McGuinn and Clark. They were the primary singers and songwriters. No other Byrd got a songwriting credit on those first two LPs. This seemingly only changed because in early 1966 Gene Clark left the outfit.

Considering that Clark was the main songwriter, you could claim that the Byrds end here, in their place a new slightly different group, but the band can generally be given a pass due to still having four essentially original members. The third album by the band, Fifth Dimension, has six compositions from David Crosby (who the others didn’t really like), though three of those were written by all four members. Crosby’s fortunes would soon change. The fourth LP Younger Than Yesterday saw Hillman, who had never before had a song he wrote solo make an album, now gets four out of eleven tracks all to himself. Crosby only fairs a little worse. McGuinn gets less than either, so now neither of the original prominent songwriters are still very central. Shortly into sessions for the fifth album The Notorious Byrd Brothers, Clarke quit and shortly after Crosby’s fired. Gene Clark of all people was brought into the fold once again, but he would be gone in a flash. At most, he managed two backing vocals and one co-credit for writing. The album’s sessions would continue with just McGuinn and Hillman before Clarke rejoined and would too only serve a very brief second tenure, still never really being a songwriter. It is funny that of these five albums, all except the fourth feature all five members, but they also feel so distinct in their own ways. The first band heads were Clark, Crosby, and McGuinn, which changed to Clark and McGuinn, then McGuinn, Crosby, and Hillman, then McGuinn took a backseat for a hot second, and eventually McGuinn and Hillman. Even if you are to claim that all of this is constant enough to constitute the same band, then stylistic and personnel differences are about to stretch credulity to breaking point.

The reason why the group’s number six is loved or hated is because of the Floridian invasion of the Californian Byrds, Gram Parsons. Determined to popularize what is simply called “country rock” or “progressive country”, but he called “Cosmic American Music”, Parsons created a variety of bands and debatably his first classic album with the International Submarine Band called Safe At Home. That album was recorded in 1967, at basically the same time as Byrd Brothers. Parsons’ plan was to popularize his genre and the opportunity came when he met Hillman. Hillman would prove to be a mostly consistent ally of Parson and he was invited in the band after the Crosby-shaped vacancy. Clearly McGuinn was showing some level of interest in country, due to wanting the next album to cover the history of American popular music, featuring bluegrass, country, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock, and finally electronic. Perhaps this is why Parsons showed interest in the Byrds and the Byrds in him? While there are certainly nuances that are not included in the history books, the story goes that in order to get his way, Parsons claimed that country fans would flock to the music if they turned full country and got Hillman excited in the prospect. Parsons’ imposing would not stop, as he managed to record six lead vocals of the eleven songs on the album. He only wrote two songs, but the other members provided zero. While the Byrds did in fact record a lot of covers, this marks a turning point considering that at best you only get two songs written by a Byrd. However, at the time Parsons was not signed as an official member of the band, which has often been called a “hired gun”. Even if you say he is an official member, in the informal annals of history he’s not been counted. It’s like saying Pete Best is one of the Beatles. Sure, he was a member for a brief point, but he isn’t included in the cultural perception and main canon of music. Thus, in an informal sense, we only have two Byrds here. This would not be the first or last record to feature two Byrds, but in other cases the album isn’t credited as such.

While the Byrds’ original material sometimes leans on the syrupy side of folk rock, Parsons adds a sense of edge in the removal of 60s-pop riffs and inclusion of warm and romantic vocals, among many other factors. He seemed to care more for the impression he’s making on record rather than live, seeing as he was sometimes very flakey. At one point he refused to do a tour, suspected to be because he wanted to hangout with the Rolling Stones. Thus, the country image of the Byrds would be more minimal. Yet on record, he even transforms common Byrds tropes. A signature of their albums are covers of Bob Dylan songs. The two chosen for this album, opener “You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere” and closer “Nothing Was Delivered”, feature the band’s signature vocal of Roger McGuinn and the group harmonizing, but now those harmonies are moved to the foreground. To contrast with a track like “Mr. Tambourine Man”, the background singers only seem to be enhancing the lead. Now, they stand up at the front for the chorus. The lead track also starts with a decidedly un-rocking and moody country riff, setting the tone perfectly. The use of an organ by Gram Parsons and pedal steel by Lloyd Green also create distinctions. Note that neither of those instruments are on “Mr. Tambourine Man”. What is on that original single is a piano, and what McGuinn was looking for after firing David Crosby was a jazz pianist. Gram has instead used an instrument more common in country music. Amusingly, in Parsons’ next band, he would cover a Dylan song, possibly being inspired by the Byrds!

Despite both Dylan songs being written recently at the time of recording, there are several much older songs that inspired some members. One notable example is the Louvin Brothers’ “The Christian Life”, which features the sorts of subject matter that the Byrds’ audience, and the Byrds themselves, would probably not subscribe to. It’s an admonishment of sinful behavior and celebrates living a virtuous lifestyle, yet Gram Parsons was a person who partook in partying and drugs. This even applies to one of the song’s writers, Ira Louvin, who died young from his alcoholism. Regardless, the unpretentious and passionate performances of the Louvins clearly had an effect on Parsons. By extension, many of the tracks on the record present deal with seedy behavior and even full on criminality, while featuring some sort of virtuous quality, such as an affinity for Christianity. “You’re Still On My Mind” covers a man who drinks his problems away, who is especially humanized with lines like, “Alone and forsaken, so blue I could cry.” “One Hundred Years From Now” suggests a societal failure to escape from judgmental and destructive behavior.

The fiddle solo on “I Am A Pilgrim” is a favorite element, being an early statement not to expect straight rock and roll. Hillman’s singing makes for a sobering contrast to the much rougher voice of Parsons. McGuinn’s voice works well on certain tracks, but his comparative lack of interest in this music shows. On “The Christian Life”, he has a southern drawl that sounds fake and overly stressed. This overemphasis can similarly be heard on “You Don’t Miss Your Water”. Despite being written by Parsons, “One Hundred Years From Now” also feels very Byrd-y, mainly in its vocals, strangely performed by McGuinn and Hillman. This is mainly in the harmonies’ folk style. The socially conscious and subtle lyrics are by contrast more forward thinking and representative of Gram and his Americana heroes. The song could be interpreted as addressing opponents of the Civil Rights movement, asking how they’ll be perceived in the future. These three mentioned McGuinn-sung songs were infamously previously recorded by Parsons and then replaced. Parsons’ versions are much more soulful and effortful. While the best version possible of this record would include those Parsons efforts, it is understandable why they were replaced. This is labeled a Byrds album and if Gram got six vocals on the LP, it would barely even be identifiable as the same band.

A personal favorite track is “Pretty Boy Floyd”. Epitomizing many themes of the album, the protagonist is an outlaw who despite killing someone, receives a sympathetic portrayal. It respects the Woody Guthrie original in its celebration of those that are apparently unfairly treated by the government. The opening lyrics being someone saying they are telling a story with a clean vocal suggests that this song and tale are a piece of history that should be repeated, even to the audience. “Well gather round me children, a story I will tell.” The track opens with a banjo to get in the mood and includes many instruments you wouldn’t see in straight rock and roll, like a mandolin. Chris Hillman’s first instrument he got serious with was a mandolin. The two recorded bands Hillman was in prior to the Byrds feature him on the instrument. The acoustic symphony stands opposed to the electric guitars more prominent in the band’s earlier work. Note the brief solos which are dominated by the banjo, with a fiddle and double bass to the side backing it.

While Guthrie is not a conventional singer, his layman vocal qualities usually work to the advantage of how he writes his song. He includes the coldness of the worlds he details. McGuinn by comparison sings this, and other songs, with a more positive attitude. This works to good effect where he can be sarcastic, on tracks like the opener; “Strap yourself to a tree with roots. You ain’t goin’ nowhere.” He lacks the morbidity that should be present for a line like, “As through this life you travel, you meet some funny men. Some rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.” Regardless, McGuinn’s style is solid due to how pretty its melody is and having a storyteller tone. Maybe he is a storyteller that looks more on the bright side? Even when faced with a lyric like, “Every crime in Oklahoma was added to his name.” This version of the song is also much jauntier than with Guthrie. You’d think this song would be sung or chosen by Parsons, who has a closer voice, but in fact it seems to have really been McGuinn. It makes sense considering Guthrie was more of a folky and inspired the 60s protest music movement. Despite such material not seeing release until after his death, Parsons also recorded many folk numbers during that time.

Especially jaunty is Gram Parsons’ first vocal on the album, “You’re Still On My Mind”. The drums, by briefly official Byrd Kevin Kelley, are more prominent and the guitar more driving. The danceable grooves make this about the closest we get to a rock song, despite the flavors consistent with this record, such as the lack of an electric guitar. While a fine track, it is not as revolutionary as some other works here, in terms of the playing and singing. You would expect Gram to have a more soulful style or the instruments to reflect more influences. That style is used to great effect on the haunting “Life In Prison”. Inspired by singer-songwriter Merle Haggard, Parsons turns in an impassioned portrait of a man just wishing to die instead of wasting away in a cell. His vocal is only mildly more restrained than a plea, with a sense of pain and sadness constantly prevalent. The guitar is especially stabbing, like reflecting the feelings of the singer. The playing feels very surrounding, possibly inspired by Phil Spector’s wall of sound. The effect is to show this story and singer as a piece of history, just like everyone else depicted. It also nicely sets up the ending of the record.

One particularly powerful lyric in the Haggard original is, “Insane with rage, I took my darling’s life, because I loved her more than life. My dream for her will last a long long time.” This was changed to, “With trembling hands, I killed my darlin’ wife, because I loved her more than life. My love for her will last a long, long time.” The original implies that the act was done in a crime of passion that may have only lasted a moment, while the cover implies quivering and angst, as if this is something the singer is more conscious of. Seeing as he talks about finding life to just be causing him suffering, saying “I prayed they’d sentence me to die, but they wanted me to live and I know why”, there is the implication that he’s always wanted to die and may have desired to have his wife with him in death? While the subject matter is horrific, you can’t deny the themes of the album, humanizing social outcasts and giving a glimpse into what they’re like. Such themes can be found in various country songs, like Haggard’s. The song amplifies the subtle tension and unsettling qualities seen throughout, like on “Blue Canadian Rockies”.

OVERVIEW

Despite the fresh and new sound for the time, it is important to note that this is a rock record, as well as country. You still get a lot of verse-chorus-verse structures and I-IV-V blues chords, even if on not every track. The “talking blues” style that someone like Woody Guthrie employed is not used in a traditional sense. “Pretty Boy Floyd” is an example of this, but here it is very much sung instead of something closer to just talking, as Guthrie employed. Despite the minimization of commercial qualities, they are still there, notably in the use of popular Dylan songs, even if their arrangements are not faithful to Dylan’s. Amusingly on “the Basement Tapes” versions of these songs that the Byrds probably heard, Dylan uses a Guthrie-esque talk-singing style.

While the Byrds were never miles from country, especially folk which they utilized, arguably being country or country-adjacent; they never would have made something like this album without the leading hand of Gram Parsons, someone who also would never have lasted long with them no matter what. Note that David Crosby’s egomaniacal behavior did him no favors. Considering that stylistically this is not a Byrds album, what is it? Gram Parsons himself wanted it to be credited to “Gram Parsons & The Byrds”, showing the creative force here desired such a distinction. Regardless, he clearly didn’t identify strongly with the band, as he’d later say. I’m also surprised he bothered asking for that considering there was no way that would be allowed. He wasn’t even a famous name at the time, but he’s acting like a head honcho! After Parsons was fired by the Byrds, the sound of this album would later be continued by Gram’s next band, The Flying Burrito Brothers. Chris Hillman, despite issues with him, would join Parsons, leaving the Byrds as well. The Burritos continue where this record left off with more blending of different genres, including more prominent rock conventions. The pedal steel and mandolin would become mainstays of the band. For the record, I subscribe to the typical belief that any Burrito business after Gram left doesn’t count and isn’t the same thing. He and Chris were the only prominent songwriters before the former left, so without him it’s a different beast. Thus, Sweetheart is a Flying Burrito Brothers album. The only kink in this armor is that unfortunately the only other Burrito constant during the Parsons-era, “Sneaky” Pete Kleinow, is not on the “Byrds” outfit, but he wasn’t much of a creative force anyway. His inclusion would have still been appreciated.

After Chris Hillman left the Byrds, Roger McGuinn was not to be discouraged and continued onward. The seventh Byrds album, Dr. Byrds & Mr. Hyde, would have no members of any previous Byrds lineup other than McGuinn. As such, many say a name change was in order. Even with the Burritos, of the four albums that feature Hillman, three also feature none other than Michael Clarke. (Don’t even get me started on the many lineups of this band.) They had more Byrds than the actual late in the day Byrds. This gets even more confusing considering in the time frame of the late 60s-early 70s, various Byrds appeared on Gene Clark solo albums. Eventually Clark, McGuinn, and Hillman would team up, not even able to call themselves the Byrds despite having more true members than in 1968, without being interrupted by an outsider.

Regardless of who made the music or what it’s called, you can’t argue that Sweetheart of the Rodeo is a seminal work. It is unfortunately hampered by some avenues, like in its attempt to either stick to a past arrangement or improve it and fail. Not that this is a “fault”, but it’s also not the first country rock album. Ignoring Safe At Home, Michael Nesmith and even Gene Clark arguably beat Gram to the punch. Going back to the 50s, you can hear what is essentially a similar blend in the music of the Louvin Brothers and others. Regardless, this ode to the old and new of American popular music is as varied as it is unified, by outlaws and criminals and women. The depiction of a woman on the cover feels like the perfect embodiment of what drives creation and passion. You see themes from the environmentalist movement, like in “Hickory Wind”, where Parsons wants to be away from commercialized society. You see themes of unfair prejudice, as is implied in “Pretty Boy Floyd”. As was McGuinn’s intention, there are themes of many genres of popular music, like soul on “You Don’t Miss Your Water”, though most that aren’t country are more muted. Even Gram embodies the rebellious spirit of being almost a nobody that schemed his way up the ranks to be a revolutionary, who burned short but very, very bright; just like Floyd. It’s hard to go wrong with it… especially if you sub back in the Parsons-sung versions of songs McGuinn recorded over.

Blue Velvet (1986) Review

I love this outfit.

Ever since he came onto the scene, David Lynch has continued to polarize. This film is an experience that risks, just like all of his other works, being baffling. While I can’t truthfully say I understand Blue Velvet, you have to commend the effortfulness of it. It knows what it is and commits. From square one, it is overwhelming in its bright 1950s-esque lighting and scenery that is so pristine that it’s grotesque, this then actualizes into shots of the ground and then an ant-covered severed ear. A notable and persistent theme is something traditionally considered American and wholesome, like protagonist Jeffrey Beaumont, played by Kyle MacLachlan, falling in love clashing with something less straightforward or negative, like Jeffrey’s interactions with Dorothy Vallens, played by Isabella Rossellini.

The acting is notably terrible, but it feels very intentional. One example is after an emotional and worried Jeffrey finds the ear, he goes to Detective John Williams, played by George Dickerson, who has a comically cavalier and casual tone to the matter. “Yes, that’s a human ear alright.” He’s even smiling. Later, Sandy Williams, played by Laura Dern, and Jeffrey are talking. The subject matter quickly shifts from a casual conversation to Jeffrey talking about issues with his father to talking about the infamous ear. The delivery of the two’s vocal inflections are lighthearted and hardly shifted to reflect the change in conversation, as if to them this whole time they continue to be talking about pleasantries. At one point, after the two breach into their mutual fascination with morbidity, Sandy asks if Jeffrey wants to see something and he says yes. You’d think that their tones of voice would reflect the underground and unsettling nature of both the topic and the implications of what this says about them. They should be intrigued, but their delivery is wooden, as if they were talking about nothing. If you were hearing about a potential death and even wanted to snoop around to find out more about it, wouldn’t you at least be unsettled in your voice?

Despite this seemingly slapping in the face a basic component of quality storytelling, these performances come with such confidence that it creates a tone both unlike your average good film and even your average bad one. In a bad one, its poor performances serve no apparent function and come off as careless. Here, they blend the familiar with the unfamiliar to make something unsettling. Every line feels deliberate in how it is said. The consequence of this is that the characters are less relatable due to not feeling real. A central focus of the film is Jeffrey and Sandy, but their whole relationship is built on scenes of coming off as caricatures of romance leads and 50s archetypes rather than anything more human.

It is also generally considered a failure if a movie cannot stand on its own and needs the help of some other source. While this is possibly true, with a story being frustrating if you have to go outside of it when you don’t want to, the main issue with this rule is that it’s boring. Note that the main reason for this rule existing is that stories are typically less interesting when they don’t stand on their own and you just stop there. However, who is to say you have to stick to this? Deeper levels of filmmaking can be reached when you look outside of conventions and go against the rule book. This movie may offer a better experience to those that want something as different as possible, even if that goes against what you would expect in order to have a functioning story. Take Dean Stockwell’s scene, which is a visual and musical spectacle, but extremely out there by the standards of narrative storytelling. Stockwell is dressed in clown-like makeup and at one point lip syncs to a Roy Orbison song. The song has thematic relevance to the movie, but note that any number of songs could have filled the same role. The scene is still a favorite due to its elegant and filmic look and Dennis Hopper’s amusing performance.  “Man, you are so fucking suave.” More consequently would be Sandy getting mad at Jeffrey only to quickly forgive him.

According to many film critics, a movie fails if its content is too hard to follow or disconnected from itself. As an example, critics and audiences were fairly hard on Magical Mystery Tour, made by and starring the Beatles. That film makes more sense when looked at through its inspirations, Timothy Leary and the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Blue Velvet is also usually looked at through philosophical lenses, like Sigmund Freud. Both films are nonsensical when taken at face value. The difference may not be anything more than the intended audiences being similarly very different. You come with expectations based on the artist’s previous works. The Beatles’ previous films were masterclasses in comedy and music, with a functional story. Just like Tour, Lynch’s story is not functional. One example is that at one point a prominent male character applies lipstick and kisses another man. Homosexuality isn’t otherwise focused on and the purpose of this scene is unclear. You can begin digging and notice things like someone responding like this kiss is something far more violent and disturbing and match that up with the story’s references to 1950s idealism. By extension, numerous other avant-garde movies could get the same treatment.

SPOILERS

There is something arguably too silly about Sandy’s honking at Jeffrey not being heard because he flushed a toilet. It is a bit convenient for the story, but to go along with it, a large part of the story is driven by sexualization, so it is nice that what helps get the character more involved is a moment of exposure of a sexual place. One of the most sexual parts of the film is when Jeffrey in the nude hits Dorothy, albeit with her asking him to do so. While this isn’t played for laughs, the screen itself distorting heavily after takes the focus off of what just happened, as if we’re not supposed to be thinking about it. The movie as a whole never wants to look away from Jeffrey’s perspective, even to consider Dorothy, who has a lot going on clearly. Her behavior as a whole is ripe for analysis, but the story itself doesn’t care about that. It feels like we’re being left hanging after being given so much on how Dorothy suffers.

The scene of Sandy feeling hurt and anger at Jeffrey over cheating on her is an especially strange one. It became apparent the reason why is because it is conventional and believable, something that you might see in any other movie. Sandy even has a really over-animated crying face. While already silly, it is in stark contrast to how chilled she normally is. After this scene, the story arguably becomes a bit more conventional, while still being itself. Sandy confesses her love to Jeffrey, clearing up the tension of her having a boyfriend; Jeffrey goes and finds the body the ear came from and kills the big bad; then we move to a happy ending. This more “conventional” climax feels very jarring. Shots of Sandy running for Jeffrey are intercut with Jeffrey’s investigating haphazardly. The score builds tension for the scene as if we’re watching the ending of an adventure film, as if this movie has been building suspense to this moment.

The primary reason it’s so unsatisfying is that unlike in a story where you pick up information over time and stop the antagonist, here everyone is in the same position they already were in. The main antagonist Frank, played by Dennis Hopper, and Jeffrey are in the same mental and physical location, with Jeffrey in the closet again. The difference is now Jeffrey has a gun. If he did in the beginning the movie could’ve had the same ending but been much shorter. The discovery of where the ear came from is also very conveniently just provided, as if Frank displayed it for Jeffrey to find. On top of all this, Jeffrey is hardly even a character and this plot is hardly even a story, so where is the suspense?

The reason Sandy found out about the cheating was because Dorothy appeared beaten and naked at Jeffrey’s house, which is almost the epitome of the uncaring and scary world depicted with the crime life of this film. The picture beginning with its 1950s-esque imagery suggests that that is a default for this world. Thus, there is a sense of fear from what breaks from that, which also plays off the 50s’ stereotypical desire for everything to have this overly clean cut and pristine image, not to be tainted by Communists or more generally criminals. Despite this, that underbelly of life you’re not supposed to like or look at is appealing, even to an apparent nobody. The absurdity of those antagonist characters reflects their seemingly paradoxical appeal, the comical attitude would make them more appealing, as would the more apparent pleasure of sex from Dorothy. It disproves the notion that the “50s” lifestyle is perfectly satisfactory. By the same token, Dorothy’s brutal state shows both that such violence exists and comes out and also that there are drawbacks to engaging in behavior like Jeffrey’s, investigating crime and having sex with a traumatized and under threat woman.

Unfortunately, the story never concerns itself much with the suffering of Dorothy. Dorothy’s behavior throughout is usually very sexual and sometimes there’s some sense of dark comedy, even if it comes from discomfort over how she’s acting. The offbeat and obviously “funny” Frank, who gets you to laugh at him more than fear, lightens the struggle of Dorothy by proximity, at least to the audience. Her manic yelling, sometimes at essentially nothing, and especially desire for sex makes her funny and sexy more than someone to be afraid for. In fact, the big thing that might get you scared for her is that oftentimes the sorts of deviants who would want casual sex in a 50s film end up killed for their moral crimes. Even from a big early moment for her actress to perform, when she catches Jeffrey in the closet, she doesn’t appear upset with him. She demands he undresses, possibly to gain a sense of control in a way she can. Her wanting sex with him there would probably be seen as a fantasy for many. The character never gets to be looked at outside of the 80s tropes of hyper sexualization or the 50s one of filling a motherly role.

The ending depicts the various non-villain characters at peace and living a 1950s idyllic lifestyle, as if to say that after dealing with the harshness of the brutal 80s sex and violence, that going back in time is the liberator. This is shown through Jeffrey’s relationship with Dorothy not ultimately affecting his with Sandy, as if he spiritually went to before that was a concern. Dorothy returns to having her child and an apparently peaceful life, because Jeffrey was able to kill her captor by returning to the closet that first gave him insight into these events. Essentially, the troubles are depicted as being undone. Even with differences like Jeffrey and Sandy now being together, arguably that would have happened even if nothing ever went wrong. To compare this film to the idea people have of 50s media, it’s often considered too clean. In fact, due to this scene being almost too perfect, like with the robin arriving that supposedly liberated the world in Sandy’s dream, this ending doesn’t feel real. Note the artificial look of the robin and the camera panning to the sky at the end. Sandy also earlier referenced seeing thousands of robins in her dream, but here there’s only one.

While there are many interpretations of what the film and this ending are saying, one is that hiding from your issues is appealing, but not ultimately advisable. Jeffrey started to make more progress in his investigation of his mystery once he first left the closet. Once Dorothy opened herself up to him, she too improved for both of their sakes, note her knife being dangerously close to Jeffrey’s genitals. Jeffrey hiding around Frank results in him being caught by him and his life seemingly threatened. There’s not even a reason for Frank to not kill him. However, Frank was not really much of a threat due to being so easy to find and kill. The detective wanted Jeffrey to stay uninvolved in the case, especially to avoid including Sandy, but when he does this anyways he gets what he wants and isn’t reprimanded, like his actions suddenly become justified because they happened to stop a violent criminal. Despite originally being afraid of Dorothy, Jeffrey opens up to her and literally in the nude hits her. Here, he is accepting not being so perfect. His willingness to degrade for the fun of it breaks the film, as if destroying his perceived innocence, but it doesn’t matter in the end. The film keeps going.

OVERVIEW

Blue Velvet is an experience that clearly says a lot and means a lot to many people. Even on a surface level, it offers a lot in terms of thrills and comedy, which have a unique connective tissue of dreamlike non-sequiturs. On that aesthetic level, the performers work well. All are dressed and filmed so well that they resonate more on an emotional level, like when Jeffrey is wearing and lit with black. Like media of the past with heroic but simple protagonists, you’re supposed to put yourself in the shoes of Jeffrey. He’s very good looking, smart, and is never struggling to get women. The consequence of this is that the aesthetic depiction of women is too stereotypical and arguably disturbing. By extension, the ending appears to try to erase the trauma as depicted before, as if it can be so simply and without comment. While this picture does comment on the 50s and what that was like, it doesn’t challenge it much. Nor does it challenge the cinematic convention of having a lighthearted character or segment to relieve yourself of the madness. Dennis Hopper is all absurdity and is by far the best performance, but not for the right reason. He serves the purpose of not leaving the movie to be all doom and gloom. His flavor of chaos feels out of left field for the movie but not so much when put up against the silver screen’s other comic relief roles. He also probably looks a lot better due to how much more muted everyone else is. And c’mon David Lynch, that’s cheating!