@38, Yes, she mentions the play, but since she doesn't discuss it at all,
I doubt she's read it, and a professional reviewer with high standards
would have taken the time to read the play this film pays homage to and write a few words comparing and contrasting. Instead, she wastes space saying, "It's bad! It's bad! It's fucking bad!" The lack of depth found in this review belies any evidence that she put any outside reading or thought into her work at all. Where's her pride in her job?
She made no mention of the Women of Liberia (who Lee was also honoring). It's like she's never heard of the history of sex strikes
. Because of her ignorance and willful apathy, she insults women who have used this strategy to try to bring peace and make the world better for themselves and their families.
It's very clear that she didn't know that Cusack's character is based on an actual preacher living and working in the South Side, which makes the review even more embarrassing.
This review comes off like she didn't do any research or homework before getting pissed off and writing about politics, rather than the film itself and the director's intent.
@39, Oluo panning the film is not the problem. The problem for me is why she panned it. I've not yet seen this movie, but I've seen almost all of Spike Lee's other films (I've never seen Mo' Better Blues
), and based on his oeuvre, I don't think it's unreasonable to doubt that he would ever
trivialize the everyday violence of residents living in Chicago's South Side. He's Spike Lee, for fuck's sake.
I am aware of Oluo's race (and her personal bias when reviewing films), but I was actually referring to a comment from someone saying, "As a black woman..." That person is focusing on her identity first, rather than the film itself. But you're right that I was being a bit too sarcastic. I shouldn't have made the "feelings" remark.