Spike Lee's latest film Highest 2 Lowest poses an interesting moral quandary for its lead character -- music mogul David King (Denzel Washington) -- but leaves the audience with an unclear message.
King is trying to save his company from being bought by an aggressive competitor when word comes that his son has been kidnapped and is being held for ransom. When police discover the kidnapped boy is not King's son, Trey, but the son of King's driver, he is relieved that he'll be able to hold onto the 17.5 million dollar ransom.
Those around him are stunned by his coldness, and his driver (Jeffrey Wright) is tossed by feelings of confusion and disrespect, not just from King, but from the police who seem to value his son's life less.
A series of counter-arguments from those in King's circle disrupts his resolve. A business partner asks him about the optics if he refuses to pay and the boy is harmed or killed. King responds that the public's memory is short and the fallout would pass.
His son presses him to pay the money for his friend, who is like a brother to him, using language regularly heard on the hip-hop recordings King has made millions producing and promoting. King responds by threatening to beat his son for disrespecting him.
It will surprise no one that the hero eventually relents and agrees to deliver the ransom -- with assurances from the police that they will retrieve the money and capture the kidnapper. But the plan does not lighten his burden, which he and his driver, a former convict, later handle in street fashion, more or less.
Lee's film, an adaptation of Akira Kurosawa's 1963 classic High and Low, toys with Shakespearean themes of hubris, greed and distrust, but, rather disappointingly, offers a conclusion that leaves the hero mostly whole -- even though those around him have been damaged -- bodily and spiritually.
Why was this choice made? What were Lee and screenwriter Alan Fox trying to say as they modified the original ending, which was a meeting between the extorted businessman and the envious kidnapper, to include a coda that assured viewers all would be well for the Kings.
Were they trying to anticipate audience pushback if the hero was indeed left at his lowest point, as the title suggested?
Did they imagine audiences would be forgiving of a man who, despite attributing his actions to divine guidance, demonstrated repeatedly through word and deed that he was moved almost exclusively by material gain?
Maybe Lee and Fox placed the real message in the last scene between King and his driver, who was recovering in a hospital from injuries. The driver says he won't be working for King anymore and hoped to move on with his son. King said he understood, and the two parted with a dap and a homie sign-off, but the look on the driver's face suggested it wasn't just physical injuries he suffered on behalf of the King who had, if just briefly, set himself above his friend.
Now there is something to think about!
No comments:
Post a Comment