Driving Miss Daisy vs. Do the Right Thing: Race in 1989 Cinema
This paper examines two landmark 1989 films — Driving Miss Daisy and Do the Right Thing — as contrasting cinematic responses to American race relations at a pivotal cultural moment. Set against the backdrop of a nation shifting from colorblindness to multiculturalism, and three years before the Rodney King riots, the paper analyzes how each film approaches racism, representation, and resolution. Driving Miss Daisy is assessed through its mainstream appeal, its portrayal of Jewish-Black solidarity, and the criticism it drew from Black audiences for reinforcing servitude stereotypes. Do the Right Thing is examined for its unflinching depiction of urban racial tension, Spike Lee's stylistic choices, and its moral ambiguity. The paper ultimately argues that both films share the same social goal but pursue it through fundamentally different artistic strategies.
- America at a Racial Crossroads in 1989: Historical context for both films' cultural moment
- Driving Miss Daisy: Mainstream Appeal and Critical Reception: Production, box office success, and divided reviews
- Race, Jewishness, and the Limits of White Liberalism: Jewish-Black identity and the Alabama highway scene
- Do the Right Thing: Confronting Urban Racial Reality: Lee's film, its setting, and its social message
- Spike Lee's Style, Language, and Moral Ambiguity: Racial slurs scene, King vs. Malcolm X ending
- Two Films, One Goal, Opposing Approaches: Synthesis comparing both films' strategies and aims
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds both films in a specific historical context — the late 1980s cultural shift toward multiculturalism — giving the comparison a clear analytical frame rather than treating each film in isolation.
- It balances multiple critical voices, drawing on both white mainstream critics (Roger Ebert, Bob Greene) and Black scholars (Gordon, Turner) to illuminate how audience identity shapes reception.
- The close reading of the Alabama highway scene in Driving Miss Daisy effectively illustrates how Jewish identity complicates simple Black/white racial binaries, adding analytical depth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative textual analysis applied to film, using specific scene descriptions, direct quotations from critics and filmmakers, and scholarly sources to build an argument rather than simply summarizing plot. The integration of Spike Lee's own words alongside academic commentary (Gordon, Turner) shows how to triangulate primary and secondary sources around a single interpretive claim.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical context, then treats each film in sequence — first Driving Miss Daisy (production, reception, close reading), then Do the Right Thing (production, themes, style, ambiguity) — before synthesizing both in a concluding comparison. This parallel structure makes the contrast clear and mirrors a classic compare-and-contrast essay format appropriate for undergraduate film or cultural studies courses.
America at a Racial Crossroads in 1989
The year 1989 was a time "when the American quest for colorblindness sought in the seventies and eighties became a search for multiculturalism. The decades' symbols turned from 1987's July 4th cover of Time bravely announcing 'We the People' to 1991's fife and drum corps made up of all ethnic types and asking, 'Who are We?'" (McGraw). On a timeline, this was also three years before Rodney King's beating and the Los Angeles riots. The country was undergoing a transformation that was still an undercurrent. Two films released that year dealt with the similar theme of racism but in very different ways: Driving Miss Daisy and Do the Right Thing.
Driving Miss Daisy: Mainstream Appeal and Critical Reception
After much difficulty securing funding for their film — largely because it featured a Black leading actor, Morgan Freeman — author Alfred Uhry and director Bruce Beresford were able to get Driving Miss Daisy produced for $7.5 million. It eventually went on to earn $93.6 million, as well as three Academy Awards: Best Actress (Jessica Tandy), Best Adapted Screenplay (Uhry), and Best Picture of 1990.
Driving Miss Daisy was based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by Alfred Uhry. Set in the earlier American South, it follows an old Jewish woman, Daisy, played by Jessica Tandy, and her African American chauffeur, Hoke, played by Morgan Freeman, whose relationship grows and deepens over the years. The film addresses both racism toward Black Americans and anti-Semitism toward Jews, and both characters carry their own biases and stereotypes about the other. As Uhry himself states: "When I wrote this play I never dreamed I would be writing an introduction to it because I never thought it would get this far. When I wonder how all this happened, I can come up with only one answer. I wrote what I knew to be the truth, and people have recognized it as such."
Despite its early funding difficulties, the film was warmly received by audiences — especially mainstream white viewers — because, as Turner notes, "Driving Miss Daisy is a likable film. It is a simple movie without violence, with heart-warming characters, engaging situations, and comfortable resolutions." Critic Bob Greene wrote, "I think it is the perfect motion picture — it is funny, it is moving, it is thoughtful, and I know for certain it will be on my mind for years." Most white film critics echoed this sentiment. Roger Ebert observed: "After so many films in which violent and shallow people deny their humanity and ours, what a lesson to see a film that looks into the heart." Critics appreciated that the film made viewers feel good about the world. It celebrated the possibility that people can overcome their differences and surmount barriers of race, gender, religion, and class (Turner).
However, some Black critics were adamant in their objection to the film, arguing that it emphasized the servitude of Black Americans. Its stereotypical portrayal was seen as reinforcing the same limiting representations that existed both then and today. Many refused to see the film because Morgan Freeman — esteemed as an actor — was playing a role that Hollywood had used and reused endlessly. They highlighted the industry's persistent reliance on a narrow range of parts for Black actors (Turner). Furthermore, because the story was set in the past and was non-violent, it was more palatable to contemporary viewers, allowing them to feel less guilty and to avoid confronting the more disturbing dimensions of American racial history.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.