Clint Eastwood and Spike Lee Are BOTH Right

t's hard to find fault with director Spike Lee in terms of his pride, passion and advocacy for African-Americans in film. He's been speaking on our behalf for quite some time and arguably has received less credit than deserved, above and beyond just the films he's made.

If there was another director who would have dared touch upon the harsh realities of race in contemporary society in the manner that Do the Right Thing didââ'¬Â¦feel free to remind me accordingly.

If Lee is anything, he is consistent. He has been consistent in his love for African-Americans on and off the screen. He has been diligent in creating images of us in which we can be both proud and point to as truthful. Such authenticity from an artist is rare.

For those reasons and many others, I appreciate who Spike Lee is and what he does.

When one looks at Spike Lee through such a lens (no film pun intended) it puts his recent dispute with venerable director Clint Eastwood in a more proper perspective. At the same time, Clint Eastwood should be looked upon in an equally comprehensive sense. Clint Eastwood is a film legend and it's fair to treat him as such. He's not infallible, but let's be both honest and fair; Eastwood's directorial history has been more inclusive than exclusive in nature.

For those who aren't up to date, Lee launched the first war-movie-salvo with the following:

"He (Eastwood) did two films about Iwo Jima back to back and there was not one black soldier in both of those films. Many veterans, African-Americans who survived that war are upset at Clint Eastwood in his vision of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist. Simple as that. I have a different version."

To Spike's credit, it's a fair criticism in terms of highlighting where documented history differs from "his-story." To Eastwood's credit, he didn't set out to create a documentary, he made a film...a dramatization. One can not and should not look upon Flags of Our Fathers in the same way we do 4 Little Girls.

You have to compare apples with apples.

Where Eastwood may have trod down the wrong path was in responding with disrespect of a fellow colleague...a reputable director in his own right. When the underlying discussion is racial in nature, such disrespect reeks of having its own racial component attached.

"The story is ËœFlags of Our Fathers,' the famous flag-raising picture. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, ââ'¬ËœThis guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate. A guy like him should shut his face."

A guy "like him?"

It calls into question what is "like him?" Last I checked, Spike Lee had been nominated twice for Academy Awards for his work, only one less than Eastwood. A guy like Spike...with two Academy Award nominations, should shut his face and have nothing to say about films? Is that the message that Eastwood is trying to send?

It calls into question whether Eastwood would have been so quick to openly disrespect a non-African-American director who also had two Oscar nominations to his credit. In the context of this particular discussion of Black respect or lack thereof in regards to cinema, it's relevant.

Very relevant. In fact, one could argue that such flagrant disrespect of Lee proved his point.

Conversely, it's relevant to acknowledge that Morgan Freeman does not win his Oscar previously without being cast in Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. It's fair to cite the fact that the movie Bird, telling the story of music legend Charlie Parker likely doesn't get made AT ALL if not for Eastwood's labor; and neither does its star Forest Whitaker become a leading man (and eventual Oscar-winner) in Hollywood.

All of these facts are relevant. In fact, one could argue that such flagrant disregard of Eastwood's directorial history proved Clint's point.

Lee, sensing the seemingly disparate treatment from Eastwood had this response:

"First of all, the man is not my father and we're not on a plantation. The thing about it though, I didn't personally attack him. And a comment like ââ'¬Ëœa guy like that should shut his face' - come on Clint, come on. He sounds like an angry old man right there."

It's at this point that that both of these directors, though talented in their own right, had officially reverted to somewhere right around the 4th grade with the name-calling. It's a bit disingenuous to criticize someone's "personal attack" with one of your own Spike, just FYI. But the main point missed amongst the childish behavior is that there is merit in each of their "professional" criticisms.

Spike is right to remind Hollywood of the egregious omission of African-Americans from movies "based on true events" or allegedly historical depictions. There is "historical" precedent for Lee's concern. Films like Cleopatra starring Elizabeth Taylor instead of Lena Horne or some other actress of color come to mind. Egypt has been in Africa for quite some time, although Hollywood historically would have you believe otherwise.

Such precedent is connected to why until relatively recently, the only African-American contributions taught in American schools outside of Black History Month were one man who had a dream and another who was pretty inventive with a peanut. Historical omissions of African-Americans hit a particular nerve within our community and Clint Eastwood should have addressed his fellow colleague accordingly.

Eastwood should know better and not have to have it explained to him.

At the same time, Lee should also remember that film is an art form first and foremost, complete with all of the freedom art implies. Clint Eastwood's responsibility as a director is NOT to meet the historical accuracy litmus test of Spike Lee but to make good films true to Eastwood's own vision as a director. That, and also not be so damn sensitive when "a guy like that" criticizes said vision.

Lee should have known better and should not have to be reminded of such.

Both of these directors have served Black Hollywood well in different ways. There's no Malcolm X, if it weren't for Spike Lee. And to be fair, there is no Bird without Clint Eastwood. I appreciate both Eastwood and Lee as they have both been important benefactors of Black Hollywood. And no, I would never expect Eastwood to ever be about the business of uplifting Black Hollywood, but undeniably he's done more than most.

This isn't about who's right or wrong, as they both have legitimate reasons to stand their ground. I will say this; the next time Clint Eastwood gets beside himself in a similar fashion, I and other members of the African-American press might not be as forgiving.