A Resistant Viewing and Analysis of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing:

Yet Another Argument for Segregation and a Parting of Ways

Author’s note: this short review and analysis is a companion piece of “Exposing Black Privilege,” which references the plot of this movie while discussing black propensity for noise pollution by way of Bluetooth speakers and many other conveyances.

Resistant reading—or, in this instance, resistant viewing—is an important concept that should be familiar to most readers. That approach is integral to what is often referred to as “opposition research.” In addition to monitoring and understanding subversive and undesirable trends and elements in the culture, a resistant critical approach allows one to articulate how a given book, essay, film or other artistic work actually works against the message intended. A classic example of this is American History X, a film obviously intended to be “anti-Nazi” and “anti-racist.” And yet, despite this intention, viewers often take away the opposite message intended, due to how the film ended (black violence leads to the death of the younger brother) and most especially the infamous dinner scene which proffers a number of irrefutable arguments and contentions for a more race realist perspective.

Although perhaps less obvious to some, the same method of resistant viewing easily applies to Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, and indeed does so in very natural ways. The film of course has been lauded by critics since its release almost 40 years ago. This critical acclaim largely stems from who the director is, a want and desire to prop up “black cinema,” and to propagate the film’s dubious messaging on matters of race and society.

Indeed, the film’s near universal critical acclaim is repudiated in large measure by any number of defects in the film, especially the stilted acting by Spike Lee, who plays the film’s central protagonist “Mookie” and even that by Danny Aiello who plays Sal, the owner and proprietor of Sal’s Pizzeria. The film also meanders with pacing and even plot, as much of the first half of the film does little to advance plot, but is rather a pastiche of somewhat disconnected vignettes and scenarios set in the predominantly black neighborhood of Bedford–Stuyvesant in Brooklyn, New York. Some but not all of these vignettes do have a unifying theme of portraying increased racial tension during a heat wave that summer.

Outside of these vignettes, which do add some context and also introduce the viewer to certain characters, albeit in rather stilted, stodgy fashion, the plot and story is remarkably simple. Sal runs and owns an Italian pizzeria in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood with his two sons. He has also hired “Mookie” to deliver pizzas to customers in the neighborhood. Two interconnected incidents occur that day which lead to a race riot that loots and burns down Sal’s Pizzeria. Quite unrealistically, no other stores or locations in the neighborhood suffer this fate.

“Buggin Out,” played by Giancarlo Esposito, who would later play Gus Fring in Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, enters Sal’s restaurant to order a slice. When placing this order, he is rude and confrontational in a way that is uniquely characteristic of much of the black population, even slapping the palm of his hands on the counter when haggling about price and toppings. After arguing with Sal about the price of a slice of pizza and that extra mozzarella cheese is an additional two dollars, this character berates the owner because the “Wall of Fame” consisting of photos of famous Italian Americans does not feature any black individuals. He does not even ask politely, but essentially shouts at Sal, demanding that images of black individuals be adorned on the wall as well. Sal refuses, and soon ejects “Buggin’ Out:” apologies to readers are in order, the character’s real name is never revealed, as is the case with most characters. For the rest of the day until closing, this character tries to convince others to boycott Sal’s Pizzeria until closing.

This incident is compounded by the behavior of one “Radio Raheem,” a 6’4 young black man who spends all day walking around the neighborhood blasting rap on his boombox. Unlike his real-life counterparts, he does not blast rap music generally, but only Public Enemy. Sometime in the afternoon, he walks into Sal’s Pizzeria while blasting this music from his boombox. Sal, rather curtly, correctly refuses service unless Raheem turns off the music. As with ”Buggin Out,” Raheem is not exactly polite in how he interacts with others. He simply utters “two slices,” while afflicting ownership and patrons with his music. When Sal continues to refuse service, Raheem reluctantly turns off the music. Then, as Sal puts two slices in the oven for him, Raheem bellows “yo, put some mozzarella on that mother fucker.” Sal’s response: “extra mozzarella is two dollars.”

Later that evening, Just as the pizzeria was supposed to close, Sal allows four patrons to purchase slices as a last call. At this time, both “Buggin Out” and Raheem storm back in, to confront Sal about not having black individuals on his wall of fame and because he would not allow Raheem to blast his music inside the restaurant. It should be noted that as “Buggin’ Out” was ejected earlier, his reentry is criminal trespass. An argument ensues about both matters. Raheem is blasting “Fight the Power” by Public Enemy, and Sal commands him to turn it off. Raheem does not and even turns the volume up. Sal then takes a baseball bat and smashes the boombox to bits. A physical altercation ensues—an utterly unrealistic one as Raheem gets on top of Sal for a ground and pound. Given his size (6’4) and that he is wearing knuckle fingers featuring “love” and “hate,” such an altercation would invariably lead to either serious bodily injury or death. And yet in the film Sal walks away virtually unscathed.

In the wake of this altercation, the neighborhood is further outraged after the police intervene. One officer subdues Raheem with a baton chokehold. This kills the black youth in short order. The depiction and acting of this climactic moment is very amateurish and is almost reminiscent of a bad high school drama production. Mookie, an employee of Sal’s, then leads the mob by throwing a trash can in the front window of the restaurant before the mob loots and then burns down Sal’s Pizzeria. Incredulously, in the morning after, Sal stands by his burned down restaurant together with Mookie, who bears direct responsibility for the looting and arson. Despite his role in destroying Sal’s business, Mookie demands Sal pay his wages. Sal, again incredulously, actually pays him, just as he remains civil to a man who burned down his restaurant—his business and livelihood. Relevant to the age of Black Lives Matter and the George Floyd riots in particular, Mookie avers that burning down Sal’s restaurant is ultimately inconsequential, because insurance payouts will compensate Sal for his loss. Sal correctly explains that his restaurant was his, something he built up. Sensible viewers will conclude that whether Sal gets to keep his business or collect insurance proceeds after its destruction is not a decision for others to make, particularly those such as Mookie. Insurance payouts are often less than fully compensatory and, in any case, society pays for this in any number of ways by higher insurance premiums (a cost which gets passed down, as everything does), and a myriad of other social costs as well, including that those who liked that pizzeria can no longer patron the establishment.

Some insist that any competent interpretation of this film precludes the assertion that the film excuses or condones bad behavior by various members of the black populace. Yet, both Mookie and the four patrons seem to regard the action of Buggin’ Out and Raheem as more or less ”morally neutral,” whereas Sal finally calling Raheem a “nigger” was what invoked outrage. Blasting music to a captive audience, on private property no less, criminal trespass and, for all intents and purposes, picking a fight is morally neutral, but uttering an unkind word, indeed a racial epithet is a moral outrage. Moreover, the film ends with “Smiley” putting a picture of Martin Luther King up on what remains of the “Wall of Fame” in the burned-out structure. This clearly signifies sympathy and at the very least concurrence with Buggin Out’s ridiculous demands.

Spike Lee and others have argued this film is a litmus test to determine if a viewer is “racist” or not. The idea suggested is that property could never be worth more than a human life. Thus, those who care more about Sal’s pizzeria being burned down care more about property than black lives. To that, consider the blithe retort “guilty as charged,” at least in relation to circumstances such as these. A less flippant reply will articulate that belligerence, rude and outrageous behavior, and even criminal conduct always increases the odds of bad outcomes, and does so by some order of magnitude. As stated, the death of Raheem is poorly acted and defies credulity. But even taking the narrative at face value, society must return to the notion of “unclean hands” when considering such matters. The outrageous and even criminal conduct of “Buggin Out,” “Raheem,” and later Mookie and the neighborhood set in motion the violence and destruction. The precursors to such outcomes are greatly reduced if not eliminated by acting with a minimal baseline of civility and manners, let alone abiding by the law.

The blackies even have an adage denoting this sound principle, although stated in that appalling excuse for English described as Ebonics, or “African American vernacular;” “don’t start no trouble and there won’t be no trouble.” This is intuitive to anyone with even the barest semblance of an upbringing. If a person goes about life speaking to people rudely, making demands rather than asking, shouting commands and even expletives, the chances for a serious disagreement or even physical altercation explode exponentially. When a person walks into a bar, especially a blue-collar bar looking for a fight, he may just get the shit beat out of him, get a broken nose, or worse. Those not inclined to afflict a captive audience with a Bluetooth speaker or, in decades past, a boombox have the decency and courtesy not to subject other people with music that many do not like and, in the instance of rap music, should not like. As much as any sensible person hates and detests rap, “Fight the Power” is not that bad of a song, even if its message is overtly black nationalist and even, arguably, black supremacist. It is at least somewhat listenable, compared to the vast majority of this forsaken genre which should simply be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

But that is incidental. It does not matter whether “Fight the Power” is a good song, a bad song, or whether it has some redeeming qualities or not. Someone could be playing Beethoven’s 9^th or “Just Like Heaven” by The Cure and it is still an imposition on others who may even correctly like this music, but do not want to hear that music—or any music—at that moment, or prefer not to hear it on less than ideal fidelity, or because someone has an earache, or is trying to have a conversation with someone else, and so on. As passionate I am about my own unique and somewhat acquired taste in music, I understand it is not only not for everyone, but would often clear the room in most circumstances. Thus, it would be unthinkable to go on mass transit or other public settings and blast “Pray for Life” by Velvet Acid Christ, “Rhetoric” by The Virgin Prunes, or even “Cracked” by The Jesus and Mary Chain. Or perhaps any number of selections from the album Spite by Sophia might fit the bill even better.

Indeed, imagine a society where practically everyone saw fit to play his own music in any and all public settings. Ten people on a crowded commuter bus or commuter passenger car, with one fellow playing gangsta rap music, another Creedence Clearwater Revival, while another likes hot jazz music. And yet another wants to play the most disturbing selections from Suicide Commando. Society simply could not function, and indeed is not functioning because this sort of behavior has been tolerated to any extent whatsoever.

The same principle applies to any number of matters covered by what is aptly described as decency, manners, and civility. Such considerations explain why sensible people shower daily and use deodorant, so that deficiencies in personal hygiene do not offend or adversely affect others. It is the same reason why those with that bare semblance of an upbringing learn to eat with their mouths closed, learn not to chew gum at all, or if they do, to do so with their mouths closed, as well as any number of good habits that are conducive to good manners and common courtesy, and to avoiding altercations. Conversely, these and many other offenses can provoke strong disagreements and even altercations. There are not many ways more likely to cause offense and potentially cause an altercation than someone saying to someone else “you stink,” even if that insult is fair comment. Those who wish to avoid such insults have the power to do so by taking a shower and tending to personal hygiene. By the same token, blacks who do not wish to be ejected from eating establishments and who do not wish to be called choice racial epithets also have the power to avoid these problems by simply not engaging in the behavior and even criminal conduct that makes such epithets so very fitting.

Despite this film’s reputation as an avatar for civil rights or black liberation or whatever else, there are not many better arguments for segregation and a parting of ways than this film. Mookie is a terrible person and employee. Taking ninety-minute breaks between delivery runs is bad enough, and certainly grounds for termination. Mookie cannot be held responsible for the actions of the other two antagonists, but he is directly responsible for something for worse—looting and arson. That he was not identified and arrested, let alone that Sal would not respond with violence, also stretches the viewer’s credulity.

The film depicts the dysfunction and ruin that defines multiracialism in many other ways, including the animosity between blacks populating the neighborhood and a Korean couple who own a convenience store. Much of the outrageous, criminal behavior characteristic of the black undertow is depicted in other ways, including especially Raheem blasting music on his boom box, a pernicious sociological trend which is exhibited in the modern phenomenon of blacks (and some others) blasting horrible music on Bluetooth speakers in many modern urban settings. In one scene, “Buggin’ Out” picks a fight with a white passerby for simply bumping into him, scuffing his Air Jordans in the process.

Do The Right Thing is not the great film that its many accolades suggest. The conduct and behavior it tacitly condones is appalling to any sensible viewer. That an overwhelming number of blacks as well as that fifth column of liberal, racially masochistic whites applaud both the film and its deplorable messaging underscores that the multiracial experiment has not worked and indeed cannot work. As with many other subversive and other elements in the culture, it does have at least one redeeming quality, insofar as it informs the viewer that these problems and tendencies are nothing new in the black populace, but have persisted and even worsened over the decades. To “do the right thing” can only mean finding a way back to segregation and, above all, effectuating a lasting and permanent parting of ways; that is, to reject the multiracial experiment at long last, once and for all.

ADDENDUM: although not without significant reservation, a playlist has been prepared on Spotify to better punctuate the point about broadcasting my own peculiar taste in music. Although this is offered for the uninitiated, readers are urged to acquire these tracks as hard digital files, as well as to keep and maintain a digital music library that precludes the need for streaming.

PLEASE NOTE: Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative. Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.