PDA

View Full Version : PRECIOUS (Lee Daniels 2009)



Chris Knipp
11-13-2009, 03:26 PM
I'm reposting this here from the NYFF Festival Coverage threads for discussion. It is being much discussed, and Mo'Nique is constantly mentioned as an Oscar contender, perhaps the movie too. Beyond that, this is a must-see, however debatable its artistry. Though in limited release since November 6, 2009, the number of theaters went up to 174 this week (Nov. 13).

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5715/precious1.jpg
GABOUREY SIDIBE AS CLAREECE "PRECIOUS" JONES BEING TAUNTED BY GHETTO YOUTHS

Lee Daniels: PRECIOUS, FROM THE NOVEL 'PUSH' BY SAPPHIRE (2009)


Dramatic depiction of a black teenage girl's horrific ghetto life

by Chris Knipp

(This review above was originally posted in the Festival Coverage section NYFF 2009 thread. (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=23069#post23069). Also pubished on Cinescene (http://www.cinescene.com/knipp/precious.htm))

Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire (the film's awkward full title) is treacherous ground for audiences and movie reviewers. How can you be critical of a 300-pound sexually abused, illiterate 16-year-old black Harlem teenager who betters herself? Moreover the film has the warm endorsement of Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry. Oprah says "it split me open," "I've never seen anything like it. The moment I saw (it) I knew I wanted to do whatever I could to encourage other people to see this movie." The film also comes with the mixed blessing of double prizes at Sundance and the audience award at Toronto. The Weinstein brothers fought with Lionsgate for distribution rights; Lionsgate won. It almost makes you want to hate it, and there are things to criticize, but ultimately the movie is so bold, striking, eye-opening and thought-provoking that it inspires respect. The director Lee Daniels, a black man, has done respectably with tough topics before as a producer of Monster's Ball and The Woodsman but in this second outing as a director goes for a stronger impression, with colorful visuals and a host of vivid performances. It's still hard to be tough on the subject matter. But is this a great movie? I don't think so. We're meant to be awed, though, rather than to analyze the film as a film.

Clareece "Precious" Jones (excellent newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) is pregnant with her second child fathered by her own father. She is put down and ordered around by her lazy welfare mother Mary (the explosive and frightening Mo'Nique), who does absolutely nothing but smoke cigarettes and watch TV and expect Precious to cook for her and wait on her. It is the scenes between Precious and her mother that give the film its shock value. There are even brief flashbacks of her father having sex with her. Daniels says this film would "have been X-rated" if he had not introduced colorful brief fantasy sequences that come when Precious wants to escape from her life and imagines herself as a star greeting fans, dancing, escorted and adored by handsome young black men in tuxedos. Precious' voice-over, which is sharp, articulate, and somewhat detached at times, also provides a necessary distancing effect with materials that otherwise would be too harsh and Dickensian to bear -- or perhaps to believe, or take seriously. But the fantasies, in which Sidibe (who in real life is a smart college girl more like Precious' dreams than her reality) excels, also add to the slick artificiality that makes Precious feel too much like Darren Arronofsky's manipulative, stylized morality play, Requiem for a Dream.

Clareece/Precious is big, and sometimes violent, and after she hits somebody in math class who taunts her, she's sent to the principal's office. (She is relatively good at math, or thinks she is, and imagines the white male teacher likes, even loves her.) As a result of this encounter with authority she is transferred to an "alternative" G.E.D.-preparation school called "Each One Teach One," and here her fellow students, an assortment like a female ghetto equivalent of a 40's movie bomb squad, and their beautiful light-skinned black lesbian teacher Ms. Rain (Paula Patton), become a second, better, family for Precious. Under Ms. Rain's patient tutelage she also begins to learn to read and write and speak correctly.

While Precious is reading one of her journal entries, a "fantasy," she goes into labor. The baby is normal and a boy; she names him Abdu. Her previous child is retarded (or autistic?) and she calls her "Mongol" or "Mongo." The class and Ms. Rain rally round her in the hospital, and she meets a kind male nurse, John, played by Lenny Kravitz. Another piece of successful celebrity casting is singer Mariah Carey as Mrs. Weiss, Precious' welfare counselor.

Precious has a horrible clash with her mother that causes her to take Abdu, break into Each One Teach One, and throw herself upon Ms. Rain's mercy. Ms. Rain finds a halfway house where Precious can be safe with her child, but Mary contacts Mrs. Weiss and demands that she be allowed to see the baby and meet with Precious in Mrs. Weiss' office. The film's most appalling moment among many comes when Mary tells Mrs. Weiss about the father's sexual abuse, and what she did, or didn't, do. The movie has Precous say nothing except to tell her mother she never wants to see her again and walk out with her baby. Later she learns she has AIDS, but the baby doesn't. The movie is set in 1986 when this was a terrible fact, but still Precous expects to finish high school and go on to college, and Ms. Rain is encouraging her to give up the baby for adoption so she can pursue an education.

The film is more focused on depicting the girl's horrific situation than on presenting a rounded picture of Harlem life. Precious is larger than life in every sense. Emphatic closeups combine with the voice-over and the DayGlo daydreams to undercut realism further. Saying that this is "the truth" is to say it's a truth that we'd rather overlook, or that perhaps middle class African Americans might rather not think about, or white Americans might prefer not to know. But it's hard to claim as some do that Precious has "utter authenticity." Its "authenticity" is relative and highly cinematic. Lee Daniels has worked well with his well chosen cast and not gotten in the way of what they could do with the explosive material, and consequently, whether this needed another film festival boost or not, Precious seems likely to do better and get a wider audience than the previous films Daniels has been involved with. It does so much to keep you from observing its over-simplifications and artistic shortcuts that you'd be hard put to do so, even if the subject matter did not scream at you to shut up.

Shown at the New York Film Festival in October 2009. Also presented at the Cannes, Toronto, San Sebastian, Tokyo, and London film festivals. To be released by Lionsgate (limited) from November 6 2009.

(NYFF selection committee member Scott Foundas, reporting from Sundance, wrote a nicely balanced short review for the Village Voice (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2009/01/less_money_fewe.php).)

oscar jubis
11-15-2009, 10:28 AM
I am still thinking hard about Precious a week after I watched it. You say it is not a great film. I am not sure if it is great or just very good. You say that the fantasies "add to the slick artificiality" of the movie but I know from working with trauma victims that indulging fantasies is a most common coping mechanism, so for me the fantasies are serving the film's realism. I agree with you when you say that the film does not present a "rounded picture of Harlem life". I think you'd agree that is not what the film intends to do anyway. And, since you don't explain what the film's "over-simplifications" are, I am still looking for reasons to think this horrific, deeply moving, case-history of a film is less than great (other than the by-design narrow focus on a single extreme case).

Chris Knipp
11-15-2009, 05:36 PM
Do not think Daniels is a great filmmaker of even a highly skilled one (compare Todd Solondz, Michael Haneke). He just got a good subject and a good team to work on it. Have to see his previous film to evaluate his work further. In some ways this evoked for me Darren Aronofsky's highly manipulative REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, which a certain audience adored but I disliked. However, the material in PRECIOUS is strong and it sticks to your ribs. Some comments on REQUIEM might go for PRECIOUS:

May be an elaborate stunt, a bungee jump, but even so, it's forceful enough to leave a rare palpitating residue. VILLAGE VOICE

It's two hours of slumming in a vision of hell hatched from bourgeois comfort. That, and not its unsavory subject matter, is what makes it bummer theater. BOSTON GLOBE

Aronofsky has given us a well-acted, gorgeously overwrought and luridly entertaining exploitation flick -- a midnight movie for future generations. TV GUIDE

oscar jubis
12-09-2009, 12:14 PM
Armond White's essay is simultaneously a critique of the film and an elaborate put-down of Oprah, Tyler Perry and director Lee Daniels. Of course, it has generated a ton of press.
http://www.nypress.com/article-20554-pride-precious.html

Chris Knipp
12-09-2009, 01:16 PM
Oscar, thanks for both of your recent entries on this thread though I wish you had time to say more.

Let me respond to your earlier post:

I am still thinking hard about Precious a week after I watched it.

I value that quality too. Daniels isn't making a good film but simply a cleverly in-your-face one, like a crude simple ad campaign that's utterly simplistic but you can't get it out of your head. There's a difference between that and a good or "great" movie which I alluded to in listing it and TRASHHUMPERS and THE WHITE RIBBON and LIFE DURING WARTIME as the films that stood out from the New York Film Festival and pointed out that this didn't mean Daniels' and Korine's films were in a class with the superb filmmaking of LIFE DURING WARTIME or the world-class mastery of THE WHITE RIBBON. But I'm looking for movies that will be remembered from the year and this is one.


I know from working with trauma victims that indulging fantasies is a most common coping mechanism, so for me the fantasies are serving the film's realism.

You had to work with trauma victims to learn this? Didn't you go through adolescence? I would not argue that because one has observed a certain pattern exists that its inclusion consitutes "realism," because that depends on how the behavior is represented, and there many artistic choices are involved. White points to how poorly done these fantasies are. It amazes me that so many reviewers thought they were one of the movie's best features; they're one of its worst. Finally anyway "realism" remains subjective, and a limited and questionable goal. Is a painting of a flower arrangement a good painting because it looks like a flower arrangement? Hardly.

]I agree with you when you say that the film does not present a "rounded picture of Harlem life". I think you'd agree that is not what the film intends to do anyway.

No I most certainly would not agree any such thing. But that's irrelevant. One should not evaluate a film on the basis of how well the director did what he "intends" but on how well the film does what it does. Films don't "intend" anything; filmmakers do. This assessment of an (actually unknown) plan of the artist/writer/filmmaker has been called "the intentional fallacy." You don't know what that intention is, but if you do know, how well the artist achieves his intention isn't a measure of the work's merit.

you don't explain what the film's "over-simplifications" are,

I think they're obvious. See Armond White's article. He gives many details of the stereotyping. He describes Sidebe's and Mo'nique's performances as "two-note."

Thanks for the reference to White. How did I miss it? I'm usually the one who refers to him. He is at his best here, making good use of his indifference to whom he offends or on whose toes he treads. Somebody needed to point to the absurdity and obvous self-agrandizement in Tyler Perry's and Oprah Winfrey's getting on the PRECIOUS bandwagon early. Self promotion is the not so subtly hidden goal in such promotions. Objectors to White's critique of PRECIOUS use the obvious ploy of criticizing his examples of better black films, especially MEET DAVE, NEXT DAY AIR, and NORBIT (I haven't seen any of those so can't comment. I can see I should see NEXT DAY AIR, and also some of the Todd Solondz films I have missed. Anyway the fact that I don't admire the same movies as White doesn't make his criticism irrelevant; its independence, backed up by his passion, seriousness and knowledge, makes it a point of reference that continues to be of value.

People should pay attention to what Armond White says when he comments on a black film because he has formidable cinema knowledge and he is black and he rejects received ideas and has nobody he needs to please (except himself). Of course he is extreme, and I found his attack on MILK and Van Sant's entire oeuvre last year totally odious. But he was excellent earlier on DREAMGIRLS and has often been excellent on other similar films about African Americans that offer false white liberal images or flow out of black internalized self-hatred; these are things he sees and white people don't and he has the extensive knowledge to back it up.

I agree with the anonymous commenter on White's PRECIOUS review, agreeing with him: "Fried chicken, obesity, incest, and poverty are not the culprits of this travesty of a film- it's the sick use of them all as the tour de force of this protagonist that is uninspiring and dumb."

Nonetheless I am probably picking this as one of the best English language movies of the year because of its outrageous vividness -- and because this is a weak year. In a (much) better year I might pick it as one of the "MOST OVERRATED."