The basic defense of the ending is that the level of violence Sal and Raheem faced for their respective crimes was unfair. Sal got his property damaged, Raheem lost his life. I completely agree with this. It highlights an important disparity. HOWEVER, literally 5 minutes before Raheem is killed, he was trying to kill Sal for breaking his stereo.

The message I got from the movie was "Both of these characters got the karma they deserved. Raheem tried to murder someone over property and was murdered by the police. Sal destroyed someone's property and got his property destroyed."

I have no idea how they fucked up the ending this badly. All you had to do was have Raheem vandalize Sal's store instead of attempted murder.

Am I just interpretting this movie wrong? Is there a detail I'm missing? I sincerely doubt this was the intended effect but I can't see it any other was.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

And the poor, smol landlord.

I swear, I was liking Do the Right Thing until it got to the ending. But now I think the movie is just lib trash. The fuck do I care about some racist petit bourgeois store owner and a fucking landlord? I don't even really care if Raheem would've killed Sal, he was an asshole to people in the neighborhood but acted like he was a saint because he sold them pizza. All he got was property damage? He got lucky. My dude Raheem got fucking killed by pigs. Not the same.