comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

The fatty takedown begins.

comment #2

Colin says ...

Jeff are you a bandwagon guy? Legitimate question since you seem to swing on the political tide all the time.

If the film were about white people, spanish people, etc. it would still be a great film. No one is leaping to the conclusion that Precious is representative of all the black community. Instead focus on the point of the film: some people need help and are being ignored.

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I totally get the "some people need help" theme. That's what's touching and beautiful about the film. But you have to first get through those first two acts to bask in this.

comment #4

Colin says ...

So it's okay for Slumdog Millionaire to do whatever the hell it wants, but if a film made by black people, showing black people with problems and then picking themselves up by their bootstraps is made then it is only due to subvert racism that it is popular?

Then just one question. Where the hell is the hate for Blind Side?

comment #5

quit staring says ...

Is there anyway for the positively sublime Mad Men season finale to get a best picture nomination? It was a lot more satisfying than any of the front-runners that I've seen so far.

comment #6

Ryansi51 says ...

so bummed that i fell behind on mad men and then just stopped watching- figured its better to wait and watch em all on dvd.

looks like its been a great season after a lackluster (IMO) season 2.

comment #7

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Stop trying to hijack this thread for the sake of Mad Men! Stop it right now! I've made some good points about Precious, and it took me a long while to throw them together in just the right way, and it at least deserves a little discussion.

comment #8

Colin says ...

Wells is right there is a great discussion on Mad Men on /Film, leave this discussion about Precious which is dearly needed.

comment #9

Colin says ...

InContention has made a big to do about Smith's letter. I wish people wouldn't give him the attention, it's no worse than Armond White's trolling.

And it only lends credence to the elitist belief that people such as Precious don't exist.

comment #10

Phreaker says ...

You don't know anything about what film is going to win Best Picture, Jeff, no offense. You just don't think the way they think. Predicting that movie to win right now is pretty foolish too. Up in the Air and Nine are probably going to fight it out. This year the Academy will go for feelgood -- and herein lies the fault in Kris Tapley's logic. In a year when the Academy is trying to funnel in audiences and bring up their numbers there is a pretty good chance they're going to go for a hefty blockbuster. A big, general audience movie - not one that divides audiences.

But I see the anti-Precious campaign is alive and well.

comment #11

quit staring says ...

Shit, Jeff, sorry to go off topic on the seventh Precious post on your front page.

That was literally my second post to your site. I guess its only alright to go OT if you post a bunch of unrelated links.

Here, you'll like this:
http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com

comment #12

qwiggles says ...

"Are the makers of Precious trying to get us to see it by playing on vague feelings of racial guilt and that longing we all share of wanting to understand and somehow lend support to sad disenfranchised people by listening to their story and, for a couple of hours at least, living in their world?"

In a word? Yes. Of course they are. And I don't see the feelings of racial guilt as being at all vague, either.

I liked Precious well enough, and will even go so far as to give the bulk of the credit to Daniels, who mobilizes uniformly excellent performances from a wide range of performers in a wide variety of emotional registers from scene-to-scene. But like a lot of those who are mixed on it, I have deep anxieties about how Mo'Nique's character's violence against her daughter plays as a grotesquerie, cribbing equally from the Passion of the Christ and Wile E. Coyote's deathmatches against the Road Runner. Say what they will about the film's alleged realism -- "I know Precious," "Everyone has seen but never listened to a Precious," etc etc -- its staunchest defenders tend to have trouble accounting for why Daniels cranks up the gritty filters, shutter slow mo and and thundering musical cues whenever Mary launches a TV or a blunt object at the back of her daughter's head. It's not only grotesque -- it's downright loopy.

I'm also having a really hard time with the impulse both in the film and in its marketing push to universalize Precious's life as ALL of our lives. To precious girls everywhere? Come on: is this a film about a particular girl's ascent through an unbearable amount of psychic, social and racial trauma, or is about how all of us feel a bit lonely and abused sometimes? Why does it need to be universal, anyway? I find the move to allegorize Precious so that she becomes Every Suffering Soul who has ever overcome -- through a remedial literacy course? -- a real insult. It reads to me like uncertainty on Daniels's part that we can invest in her. And if we can't, if it's too much of a stretch to expect us to have emotional stakes in her life, why make the movie?

comment #13

Travis Crabtree says ...

It's heartbreaking watching the flimsy construct that constitutes a family in the film "Precious". Sadly for her, the only family she has it that monster of a mother she has.

In many ways a company is like a family. Some are warm and welcoming, some are dysfunctional and fragmented.

Take Sterling-Cooper for example. Though never perfect, it was at one time a nourishing, supportive place to work. Then it was purchased by the British company Putnam Powell and Lowe. Wanting to streamline their new acquisition, the Brits started laying off employees who had been with Sterling-Cooper for years. The general atmosphere grew dour and unsupportive.

Now we learn that Putman, etc are going to be purchased by McCann Erickson. Don Draper, who never wanted to be owned by anybody, decides to leave, but not before taking with him both Sterling and Cooper, as well as Pete, Harry and Joan. By reforming and redefining their "family", they can move forward with the confidence of being a part of something stronger than the individual.

Sadly Precious doesn't have that love and support.

Also... you just know Sal's coming back, don't you? And I guess Betty's serious about this Rockefeller flunkie.

comment #14

Travis Crabtree says ...

Allow myself to introduce myself.

comment #15

Gordon27 says ...

"What does it say, exactly, about white moviegoers' attitudes and beliefs about black culture that they've accepted the sexual-child-abuse story in Precious as being somewhat representative of a certain kind of down-at-the-heels African American family?"

Wait, what?

You're flipping things, same way your friend Anthony did. The point isn't that people think this is representative of African-American families; the point is, this shit happens, and does happen disproportionately more to African-American families. I haven't talked to a single person who saw it who said, "Wow, I never realized how bad all black people have it." It's absurd to suggest that people view this movie as an accurate representation of the average black person, and more than Harmony Korine's movies represent the average white person -- even add "lower class" to both of those, it's still not true.

The trap you seem to be falling into, Jeff, is that you personally don't want to like the movie because it's too sentimental, contrived, and/or manipulative. But you feel guilty, because you're white, so you're looking to black people to support your argument so that you won't inadvertantly come off as racist. So you mix all this stuff together and try and take the problems that you have ("It's manipulative", for instance) and trying to make it into some bigger thing about race ("It manipulates people into thinking this is how all black people are!").

That said...

"I've made some good points about Precious, and it took me a long while to throw them together in just the right way, and it at least deserves a little discussion."

You know that I mock you fairly regularly, but I agree with this statement.

comment #16

Gordon27 says ...

"There's a limit, I think, to the amounts of abuse and cruelty that audiences will sit through in a film -- a line that Precious crosses, I feel."

As I mentioned in the other thread, it goes back to the Oscar Wilde review of 'The Old Curiosity Shop'.

comment #17

Chicago48 says ...

Jeff, I'm a minority and I liked everything you wrote. Especially the middle paragraph,

A producer friend reminded me a little while ago that "most people don't want to see movies with unattractive stars." Another guy I spoke to, industry-employed, says that "the problem with Precious is that this girl is in your face...the other part of it is that people have come to this film ready to accept, because of the marketing, that it would be an inspirational story, bu the reaction I got from two guys was 'I expected to be teary-eyed but I was dry-eyed throughout.'"

Me too. I cried more on the trailer, and when she walked out of the welfare office with those two babies, all I could say was *sigh* there goes another single black woman who will struggle throughout her life. The good about the movie? The casting of amazing black actresses, esp. Paula who's stock should rise.

Daniels has said that the movie needed to be made so that we stop looking at welfare (poor black girls) moms the way we do....that we stop looking at obese (black girls) the way we do....well, it hasn't changed my opinion. And it's been stated by sociologists & civil rights activists that single motherhood is what's dragging the black community down. The young women have children they can't care for; or can't get proper child care for, and these are the kids who end up in gangs....if you don't believe it, read the statistics. Something like 70% of the boys in juvenile come from single family homes.

I respect Daniels for bringing a different character to the movies, but -- this is a Lifetime/Hallmark movie, regardless of what some critics say.

comment #18

Chicago48 says ...

Colin: So it's okay for Slumdog Millionaire to do whatever the hell it wants, but if a film made by black people, showing black people with problems and then picking themselves up by their bootstraps is made then it is only due to subvert racism that it is popular?

Different themes, different endings. She didn't "pick herself up"...she walked out of the welfare office. In Slumdog, the hero had a job. Slumdog was so different. You could actually see the transition, and there were TWO male characters who went different ways.
You cannot compare the two movies. I actually had joy in my heart at the end of Slumdog, but I didn't bust a tear for Precious....I don't think Daniels wants that, I think he wants the audience to cry and to "act".

comment #19

VictorLazlo says ...

A little over 100 years ago someone made a movie about an orphan who endures humiliation, starvation, assault and all manner of injustice only to find happiness at the end. It was called OLIVER TWIST.

From Oliver Twist, to Pinnochio, to Odysseus, fiction is littered with stories of good people triumphing over impossible odds... and it usually doesn't happen until the third act.

comment #20

VictorLazlo says ...

And once again, black creators are hamstrung. Not only is it a battle to get a movie made, but they must make sure they get approval from the world at large. We can't make movies like The 400 Blows without submitting the content to a bunch of blowhard social critics.

I take solace in the fact that PRECIOUS will be a solid box office hit.

comment #21

Kyle_D says ...

Great post Jeff.

If I didn't feel compelled go to movie church, I'd have absolutely no interest in seeing this film. Everything I've seen and read about it leads me to believe that Daniels is content to revel in grotesquerie and exploit it for emotional payoff without providing it any context, sociological, sociopolitical, psychological or otherwise. I hate to be the guy who has to bring up The Wire, but season 4 of that series appears to have handled a lot of the same territory as this film with a lot more tact and thought behind it.

Yes, Precious may exist and sure, that may inspire a bit of guilt in me, but I won't be able to pay my penance in tears, praise, or the price of a movie ticket. The underlying, unspoken pretense behind the marketing and the accolades so far is that I can (and should) purge my guilt through the film, which frankly, I find insulting. If a film has to guilt me into seeing it because it's so deliberately unappealing (and apparently shallow) otherwise, I'm going to resent it from the get-go. Whether that is a problem for broader audiences or, in turn, for the film's Oscar chances, I don't know, but I do know that it's way too early to anoint this as the frontrunner. We'll see how well the film does when it expands.

comment #22

Gordon27 says ...

"exploit it for emotional payoff without providing it any context, sociological, sociopolitical, psychological or otherwise."

It sounds as if you're complaining that the emotion isn't intellectual enough for you.

comment #23

arturobandini2 says ...

I'm a sucker for social commentary movies and movies about redemption. About the only thing that can make me weep in a movie is when someone extends a hand to the downtrodden. But it has to occur with some degree of subtlety. In Motorcycle Diaries, for instance, when Che played soccer with the lepers, I lost it when they cut to the shot of the bench and we realized the gloves were off. In School of Rock, believe it or not, I started blubbering when Jack Black gave the pep talk to the fat little girl.

I was looking so forward to seeing Precious for this reason -- and I like Mo'Nique the comedienne a lot! -- until I saw the trailer. It makes it look shameless and manipulative, plus it gives away the climax. Any movie that proudly wears its despair on its sleeve as a selling point turns me off on an epic scale. (At least last year's excruciating Ballast had an intriguing trailer.) In fact, Precious came off my must-see list because of the trailer. Now that people are ganging up on it, I might reconsider.

comment #24

smarty says ...

Come on, an exploitation film? Thats basically saying that this kind of cruelty doesnt exist. Well, it DOES. Turn on the TV. I also found the film to be far less manipulative that unrealistic bullshit like UP IN THE AIR (that over the top VIP key scene about whos got the nest mileage and what hotels have the best benefits? Come on, that conversation HAS NEVER TAKEN PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD.
A "black' film has never won the Oscar - this kind of ghettoizing of urban films is precisely why instead shit like CRASH wins. PRECIOUS is honest, heartbreaking and REAL. It doesnt tie up anything nicely yet finds the beauty and poetry and natural outcome of these situations.
I may never be more angry with your opinions than now.
P.S. I am a WHITE GAY guy....

comment #25

THE MovieBob says ...

"Come on, an exploitation film? Thats basically saying that this kind of cruelty doesnt exist."

Actually, smarty, I think it's kind of the exact opposite of that. "Exploitation movies" generally referred to a films that were fixed-in on some real phenomenon, or current event, or common emotional reaction - i.e. the "juvenile deliquent" cheapies in the 50s or the "sex-pervery murder mysteries" in the 70s.

comment #26

Kyle_D says ...

"It sounds as if you're complaining that the emotion isn't intellectual enough for you."

I am, and it isn't. At least not in the case of a film like Precious.

If a dramatist is going to use a social problem as the basis for a work, then in that work they have a responsibility to open a discourse surrounding the factors that contribute to problem; otherwise they're merely exploiting the social problem for an emotional payoff and personal gain that they could have wrung from any number of other foundations unrelated to the actual suffering of real people. That's not to say a dramatist can't or shouldn't wring a social issue for emotion (in fact I'd argue it's perilous not to, at the risk of imbuing impassivity or glibness toward the issue), but they've got to dig deeper and earn it by leaving the audience with an understanding of the problem in addition to a reaction to it.

Like I said, i haven't seen Precious and maybe Daniels does in fact earn his payoff, but nothing from the marketing or the reviews of the film lead me to believe that he does so.

comment #27

Kyle_D says ...

I should clarify my statement that an audience should be left with an understanding of an issue. It's okay if that understanding is that the issue is completely beyond understanding or comprehension, as long as the work conveys that.

comment #28

Gordon27 says ...

"then in that work they have a responsibility to open a discourse surrounding the factors that contribute to problem"

I think this is the part where I disagree with you, but you state your case pretty well. I think it's more important for the work to be dramatically honest about the situation; if a movie starts trying to really get into what you're talking about, it tends to come off as polemical, and less likely to open a dialogue (it's actually cutting off dialogue if it provides simple pat answers).

I think that the things you're talking about can be interesting, but are almost always poorly served in movies, just based on the timeframe involved. Even when done perfectly, there's not a lot of room for it in most stories.

Especially with a movie like 'Precious' seems to be [I should point out, we both haven't seen it, so we're on equal footing]. It seems like it would be fundamentally dishonest to have what you're talking about dramatized.

I mean, you mention 'The Wire'; one of the key themes of that work, or of 'The Corner', is the idea of the trap of inner-city ghetto for children; they lose the capacity to imagine that there's any other way. It isn't simply a question of "How did it get like this?" -- the question can't occur to somebody until they realize that "this" isn't how it always is. And that seems to be what 'Precious' is about.

comment #29

Chicago48 says ...

There's nothing wrong with the film, and all this controversy and discussion is going to keep the box office high. It's a miracle that it got made and with an all-black actress cast. Daniels took a lot of risks.
I think there will be some acting noms and awards...however, we've been here before with the Color Purple and Dreamgirls. So I don't think it's going to win the big one.

comment #30

JaySmack says ...

Jesus, what is BurmaShave's problem? There's no blackface scene he won't passionately defend, no coony-buffonery he won't endorse or black person who speaks out on that he won't attack.

What color is the sky there Burma?

look, w all know Precious is already an Oscar contender. If you do a dignified portrait of black people (Miracle at St Anna, The Great Debaters) the academy will pretend you don't exist.
But if you do ANY sort of racist hit piece, even if it doesn't star black people (Tropic Thunder, anyone?) and they'll fall over themselves for it.

Mo'Nique will get an Oscar for sure and so will the fat girl.

And the people who cheer and drool for this crap will cover their bigotry with rhetoric about how "Well, you had positive portayls like Cosby."

Uh yeah, 25 years ago! Get in the 21st century already.

comment #31

VictorLazlo says ...

To JAYSMACK: Miracle at St. Anna was total unmitigated CRAP, that's why it wasn't nominated. And you're "dignified" comment simply doesn't wash. Glory, Ray, Sounder, Dreamgirls, A Soldier's Story were all nominated. Name five "undignified" movies that were nominated.

The fact that the Academy rarely nominates GREAT films is the problem.

People like high drama. And oscar nominees are usually less than subtle, melodramatic films.

comment #32

Bob Violence says ...

In Slumdog, the hero had a job.

A job he would've had no chance of obtaining if he hadn't magically picked up barely-accented Queen's English by working as a goddamn tour guide, a development so transparently full of shit you could grow crops with it

Hallmark movies only dream of being as ridiculous as Slumdog Millionaire