Precious Pathologies…
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5FYahzVU44
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire is a film about an obese, sixteen year-old black girl growing up in Harlem. She is illiterate, has a really mean mama who beats, rapes, and berates her. She has two children by her father, who also infected her with HIV. Think Color Purple. After getting kicked out of junior high for being pregnant (and not for being too damned old) she arrives at an alternative school where she makes friends with other disadvantaged colored youth and finds herself by reading and writing. Think Lean on Me.
What Sapphire gives us in the book version of Precious is a long ways away from the politically safe propaganda film served up by Oprah Winfrey, Tyler Perry, and the film’s director Lee Daniels. While the book proved to be a nuanced and critical look at failing school systems, drug-ravaged communities, child abuse, and alternative education, the film is completely sanitized of the book’s radical politics. There is no Farrakhan, there is no dreadlocked lesbian instructor, and there is not one crack addict. Instead we are steered towards conservatism through anti-welfare signage, black leader montages, and gospel. As time passes we should just assume Precious’ personal growth is because she has both seen and read (never mind she’s illiterate) the anti-welfare signs (even though they are typically hung well above her head) and that the church choir she discovers upon leaving home foreshadows things getting better. All things are possible through the Lord. Self-preservation and Christianity, popular themes for both Winfrey and Perry, are force-fed to the audience without evidence of their real-world utility. In the book we are confronted with Precious’s simultaneous disdain for and veneration of white people. Her politics are fueled not only by her own deep sense of self-hatred, but also by Farrakhan’s political ideology that informs her views on whites, drug addicts, and homosexuals. Perhaps Daniels’ team didn’t like Farrakhan’s tendency to point the finger, thus Precious loses this reference point. As a result, her values and behaviors appear more the result of improper upbringing and less grounded in deliberate political ideology. Think The Moynihan Report.
While the film may be tamer and less violent than its written counterpart, it plays directly on the audience’s innate negative reaction to things big and black and then fails to challenge us to think otherwise. Instead, our most vile beliefs about dark skin and obesity are reinforced through dramatic intercuts of boiling pigs feet, chicken theft (Precious steals a 10-piece chicken meal before her first day of alternative school), and glistening black skin. Just when we’ve had enough cursing, beating, and raping, we are all, along with Precious, rescued by light, pretty, asexual, racially ambiguous people.
The juxtaposition of light and dark–and by extension good and bad–holds steady throughout the film. It is Precious’ white principal Ms. Lichtenstein who delivers the news about the alternative school, while the mother pushes welfare in the background. From here Precious proceeds to meet Mrs. Weiss (played by Mariah Carey), whom she openly questions about her racial identity, and who in true Mariah form opts to be everybody. And last, but not least, there is Ms. Rain, the glowingly light-skinned lesbian instructor who wears turtlenecks, high-laced flat boots, drinks red wine, and plays Scrabble with her equally femme, racially ambiguous partner. As a result, a film that works so hard to offer a path away from the stereotypical welfare-dependent, absentee parent, high school drop out, only works to reinforce negative color politics. By the end of the film, we are no longer bearing witness to Precious’s fantasies (in which she is white or receiving affection from someone white), but are now active participants in Precious’s dreamscapes.
thanks for this post… I just saw the movie last night and needed a fresh critique like this that you can’t find in the mainstream media reviews that are flooding the airwaves and newspapers.
My question is, why do you paint some of the characters as asexual? Why do you think this is important?
thanks for this post… I just saw the movie last night and needed a fresh critique like this that you can’t find in the mainstream media reviews that are flooding the airwaves and newspapers.
My question is, why do you paint some of the characters as asexual? Why do you think this is important?
Thanks for the post Alex. Having not read the book, and relying solely on the movie – I am disappointed, but not shocked, at how far the movie strayed from the book. In Henry Louis Gates’ exposee on the plight of black actors and actresses (“Los Angeles: Black Hollywood”), the viewer learns that in pursuit of developing a black film, one of the first things to be compromised is ethnicity and culture; and clearly this played a role in the complextion games in Precious. With a story this strong, race and gender is a mere formality, and tragedy takes center stage; but with a film being this strong, in order for the piece to be authentic and true, the least that could have been done is stay true (in some parts) to the book. But in order for this film to be digestable to the masses (or the majority), you must infuse the movie with racially ambigious characters, who strongly resemble anything and anyone who are not African-American in origin. What a shame.
Thanks for the post Alex. Having not read the book, and relying solely on the movie – I am disappointed, but not shocked, at how far the movie strayed from the book. In Henry Louis Gates’ exposee on the plight of black actors and actresses (“Los Angeles: Black Hollywood”), the viewer learns that in pursuit of developing a black film, one of the first things to be compromised is ethnicity and culture; and clearly this played a role in the complextion games in Precious. With a story this strong, race and gender is a mere formality, and tragedy takes center stage; but with a film being this strong, in order for the piece to be authentic and true, the least that could have been done is stay true (in some parts) to the book. But in order for this film to be digestable to the masses (or the majority), you must infuse the movie with racially ambigious characters, who strongly resemble anything and anyone who are not African-American in origin. What a shame.
It’s been years since I read the book, but WTF was the point of the chicken thievery? Was that even in the book?
It’s been years since I read the book, but WTF was the point of the chicken thievery? Was that even in the book?
i think the best thing about Precious is the dialogue it’s provoked. i thought it was a great film. i was prepared to see a sensationalistic version of PUSH, leaving out the most important parts. i did not have the same experience you did–i thought religion played a very minor role, so not sure about christianity being “force-fed” to the audience. and i don’t think Oprah or Tyler had anything to do with the making of the film; i understand that their support came after this independent film was at Sundance. i agree with your critique of the color casting in the film, but i think it’s a mistake to say that light-skinned women are “racially ambiguous”. and, even though the principal gets rid of P to an alternative school, i would hardly describe this character as “positive”. i do agree with you that the film is no substitute for the book, and that PUSH is required reading.
i think the best thing about Precious is the dialogue it’s provoked. i thought it was a great film. i was prepared to see a sensationalistic version of PUSH, leaving out the most important parts. i did not have the same experience you did–i thought religion played a very minor role, so not sure about christianity being “force-fed” to the audience. and i don’t think Oprah or Tyler had anything to do with the making of the film; i understand that their support came after this independent film was at Sundance. i agree with your critique of the color casting in the film, but i think it’s a mistake to say that light-skinned women are “racially ambiguous”. and, even though the principal gets rid of P to an alternative school, i would hardly describe this character as “positive”. i do agree with you that the film is no substitute for the book, and that PUSH is required reading.
great points ellen. perhaps i should have broadened the oprah and tyler critique to include their media influence to date. “force-fed” is indeed strong for Precious as there was only one scene, however i found it oddly out of place and inappropriate and as a result forceful. it almost seemed like the filmmaker was clamoring for a place to put a religious scene. it was forced into the narrative. and im sure oprah had a say. as for the “racially-ambiguous” comment, i believe daniels used the if you “are black step back, if you are brown stick around, if you are light, you’re alright” on this one. not sure i believe that light-skinned women are “racially ambiguous” but i think the use of light skin is supposed to provide evidence of good genes and therefore good traits that are unrelated to blackness.
lastly, while i’m sure there is an expectation that the film will be “sensationalistic”, we must continue to critique/question what elements are used to make them so. i would also venture to say some of the warm gooey feeling people are having (not that this is how you felt) is because Precious overcame her circumstances–not just HIV, lack of education–but that of being overweight and dark-skinned.
great points ellen. perhaps i should have broadened the oprah and tyler critique to include their media influence to date. “force-fed” is indeed strong for Precious as there was only one scene, however i found it oddly out of place and inappropriate and as a result forceful. it almost seemed like the filmmaker was clamoring for a place to put a religious scene. it was forced into the narrative. and im sure oprah had a say. as for the “racially-ambiguous” comment, i believe daniels used the if you “are black step back, if you are brown stick around, if you are light, you’re alright” on this one. not sure i believe that light-skinned women are “racially ambiguous” but i think the use of light skin is supposed to provide evidence of good genes and therefore good traits that are unrelated to blackness.
lastly, while i’m sure there is an expectation that the film will be “sensationalistic”, we must continue to critique/question what elements are used to make them so. i would also venture to say some of the warm gooey feeling people are having (not that this is how you felt) is because Precious overcame her circumstances–not just HIV, lack of education–but that of being overweight and dark-skinned.
i want to see that movie it is jus so sad that ur father will do something lik to u .and give u hiv at that men she got it hard
i want to see that movie it is jus so sad that ur father will do something lik to u .and give u hiv at that men she got it hard
Wow I never thought of Precious being rescued by the “asexual lighter skin people” until you said it. I understood where she was coming from in that most of our lives as dark-skin girls, we’re put in that positions to hate ourselves given the media’s perceptions of what beauty is. I commend the author for painting a real picture of those insecurities. I also commend the screen writer, producers and directors for not adulterating it, thus giving it to us raw, the same way we experienced such experiences and fantasies. Think Toni Morrison’s “The bluest eye”. I believe that art imitates life, and those artists simply utilized their art to voice how they felt…whether it’s about the color complex, incest, or abuse. We write our truths.
Wow I never thought of Precious being rescued by the “asexual lighter skin people” until you said it. I understood where she was coming from in that most of our lives as dark-skin girls, we’re put in that positions to hate ourselves given the media’s perceptions of what beauty is. I commend the author for painting a real picture of those insecurities. I also commend the screen writer, producers and directors for not adulterating it, thus giving it to us raw, the same way we experienced such experiences and fantasies. Think Toni Morrison’s “The bluest eye”. I believe that art imitates life, and those artists simply utilized their art to voice how they felt…whether it’s about the color complex, incest, or abuse. We write our truths.
As a “racially ambigious” person, I’m a little sick of the light-skinned critique. As though it really matters that the people in ‘Precious’ who come to her rescue are mixed—they are still BLACK, are they not? Apparently not black enough. Good Lord, I’m so over that–I’m done! I don’t equate my lighter skin with being better than anybody who is darker than me and I don’t know who around me does…this perception needs to change, and your blog doesn’t help. I appreciate your articulate thoughts on the film, however.
Apparently, you missed the part where Precious looks in the mirror, SEES HERSELF and says something to the effect “Ms. Rain told me I’m beautiful the way I am. I think maybe she right.” And it escapes everyone who critiques the film “color politics” that Gabby Sidibe is herself, quite a beautiful woman in real life. At least I think she is.
As a “racially ambigious” person, I’m a little sick of the light-skinned critique. As though it really matters that the people in ‘Precious’ who come to her rescue are mixed—they are still BLACK, are they not? Apparently not black enough. Good Lord, I’m so over that–I’m done! I don’t equate my lighter skin with being better than anybody who is darker than me and I don’t know who around me does…this perception needs to change, and your blog doesn’t help. I appreciate your articulate thoughts on the film, however.
Apparently, you missed the part where Precious looks in the mirror, SEES HERSELF and says something to the effect “Ms. Rain told me I’m beautiful the way I am. I think maybe she right.” And it escapes everyone who critiques the film “color politics” that Gabby Sidibe is herself, quite a beautiful woman in real life. At least I think she is.
of course people who come to Precious’ rescue are still black, but there is a reason they all looked a certain way just as there is a reason you signed “MixedBrotha” instead of just “Brotha.”
in regards to your second comment, Precious’ finally looking in the mirror and finally seeing herself is hardly enough to move me. if anything, it seemed trite. as for the real gabby sidibe, she is more like Precious’ than you’d care to admit. “My name is Clareece and I want a light-skinned (aka MixedBrotha) boyfriend.” “My name is Gabourey and I want Justin Timberlake to be my date.” your pick.
of course people who come to Precious’ rescue are still black, but there is a reason they all looked a certain way just as there is a reason you signed “MixedBrotha” instead of just “Brotha.”
in regards to your second comment, Precious’ finally looking in the mirror and finally seeing herself is hardly enough to move me. if anything, it seemed trite. as for the real gabby sidibe, she is more like Precious’ than you’d care to admit. “My name is Clareece and I want a light-skinned (aka MixedBrotha) boyfriend.” “My name is Gabourey and I want Justin Timberlake to be my date.” your pick.
sooo fake, Naoma Lowing
sooo fake, Naoma Lowing