The Hot Blog

"you must see the film and you must decide for yourself. "

I'd love to, but only Americans are allowed to see Precious for now. Best not let all of us unworthy "foreign territories" see a movie or we might... umm... er, I dunno. We might like it?

Naturally, I have nothing to say on the film.

I suppose I'm guilty of being one of the "monkeys" of which you speak, since I didn't (and still don't) like your description of "Precious" as a "very, very Black movie."

That aside, however, I'm very glad you've written this piece and clarified your thoughts, and not only because I agree with you almost entirely. I found "Precious" both unpleasantly exploitative as tract and clumsily constructed as cinema. (Meanwhile, I don't understand how people can absolve it of sentimentality, not least when it comes to the figure of Blu Rain (!), who seems to have blown in from a much easier film.)

Still, as you say, I'm glad there's a film out there that is actually inspiring conversation and argument, however wrong-headed I found it.

Scott likes movies that feel punishing, and isn't so keen on ones that are more obviously sentimental. He's said this many times.

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had on what is meant by "honest" in this context. I believe Spielberg is utterly sincere in his sentimentality, but that it is not always truthful to the material. I don't want to speak for Scott, but I suspect that may be what he means.

Saw this with my lady who cries at the drop of a hat and neither one of us was emotionally effected. It's too much and it feels cruel and exploitive. Not the actions on screen but the director's decisions. The scene on the staircase is where I checked out emotionally. Served no purpose other than to be cruel to the main character. We already know everything we need to know about Monique's character so her last gasp of evil is just pointless and oddly comic at that point. But I do feel weird harping on discussing this movie this much. I'll give everyone in involved credit just for getting this story made.
PS
The worst movie I've seen this year is The Fourth Encounter. Unbelievably bad.

Generally, it seems that Critics and internet nerd types will give way more leeway to a movie as long as it's gritty or "dark."

SPOILER ALERT(S)

Given that Precious is diagnosed as HIV-positive, that tempered a lot of the sentimentality for me. Sure, she's made the wise decision to ditch her mother, but she's probably not going to be around long for her own kids, and what social niceties will she be able to truly provide them with in the time she's got? Also, I see the point about the staircase scene feeling over the top, but Mo'Nique's final scene was mindblowingly great for me. Wisely, it was not an attempt to legitimately elicit audience sympathy for her brokenness, but yet another manipulation using an attempt to generate sympathy as bait. More than just Oscar bait, that is a more fully committed character moment than I would have thought possible based on Mo'Nique's previous work.

For the record I have not seen Precious...

Maybe it's from being overly empathetic or overly analytical, but the issue I've always had with 'rags to riches' stories (even good ones) is what I like to call the 'why Oliver?' complex. In that, when I see Rocky or Oliver or The Pursuit Of Happyness, I can only ask at the end 'what about all of the other helpless orphans, down on their luck bums, or impoverished single fathers?'

Point being, by showing how hard it is for one of these members of a given social class to climb out of their situation, the films (accidentally?) underscore the tragic impossibility of social mobility in modern society. Instead of saying 'gee, isn't that great that Will Smith became a stock broker and was able to provide for his son', people should be looking at the movie and ask 'why is the American Dream as presented so difficult to achieve for the economic underclass that one success story is judged as so astonishing to merit a book and hit movie?'

But then, I'm a person who watched Hook at the age of eleven and got disturbed during the Lost Boys buffet scene, because I took the scene at face value and realized the Lost Boys were actually starving to death.

Scott: Whatever else it may be, "Precious" is NOT a rags-to-riches story.

I liked the movie more than most here but I really agree with Foundas' and David's takes on it. It's kind of a mess. But I think the sentimentality people are thinking they should be feeling comes from decades of minority based feel good stories.

We're like...waiting and wanting to feel happy and inspired by Precious and her story because every film we've ever seen that has a down and out black or hispanic person going to school and getting inspired ends with a slow clap, tear stained exit where we feel inspired to help someone for at least 5 minutes, but "Precious" isn't that kind of movie. And no Oprah Oscar baiting is going to make it that movie. There's nothing really there to feel great about an maybe the disconnect for people is happening there.

And as for the messiness, I kinda liked it. While normally I have issues with movies that swing widely in tone, I felt this was more of an art film or an impressionistic thing rather than just simple manipulation. Actually, writing that felt weird as at it's core the film is a crash course in manipulation.

In any case, it's worth seeing and discussing and should make for lively debate down the road.

Agreed Guy, 'rags to riches' was a simple way to define 'person with terrible life eventually gets better or slightly better one'. I know that Precious (unlike the other films I was referring to) is not a sort of uplifting tale of super-success, but then I thought Slumdog Millionaire was a pretty dark fable myself. And even there, my thoughts at the end were more in the realm of 'what about all the other slum kids of India?'.

Wait a second... Lee Daniels, the director of Shadowboxer, has directed a movie that's "kind of a mess?" You don't say!!

Haven't seen the movie, but have read "Push", the novel that it's based on. I would say that at least in the book, the sentimentalism is honest.

As for Spielberg, I don't think that the sentimentalism is not honest, but the sentimentalism always feels forced. I don't ever get the feeling that he thinks that his audience can read into anything, so he does everything he can to push the message over and over.

That doesn't make him a bad director (I love a lot of his movies), but I think it disqualifies him from the "Pantheon of Directors" category. If you're a true film lover, and you're thinking about the greatest movies ever made-aren't they the ones that make you read into a lot of things? For me, I feel that the best directors are the ones who trust their audience, and don't force anything on them.

I'd say it depends on the movie. Some of the greatest ones work the way you say, subtly and discreetly, but plenty of great ones are broad and straight-forward as well.

Plus, I think Spielberg doesn't get enough credit for the movies where he does things that actually are subtle and discreet (usually mixed in with obvious sentimentality at the same time) - big chunks of Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, A.I., Catch Me If You Can, Munich...

I'd say there are more great directors who made populist movies than not. One of the greatest directors ever, Howard Hawks, would actually scoff at making anything more thank good story. Freidkin credited Hawks with stopping him from making more art films that no one would give a shit about.

Sure there's a lot to be read into movies like Psycho, Rio Bravo, Jaws, etc...but at the end of the day they were made to be populist entertainments and were simple stories told simply.

Spielberg gets into the pantheon based on technical matters alone. Homeboy knows how to make a MOVIE. Compare the directing of War of the Worlds to any disaster movie made by Emmerich or Bay or whoever, and there it is.

First, let me say, Scott Foundas is a pretentious cock. If he's reviewing a film, I just turn the page or click to something else. That his opinion counts for something on the New York Film Festival selection committee makes me ill. PRECIOUS is a fantastic, CINEMATIC jewel. Is it the most polished, calculated thing out there? No - but it hits you where it counts and wears its street cred with pride. The performances are superb, even if it's dripping with melodrama - but it feels like it's coming from a heartfelt and committed place. Personally, I hate it when a film over intellectualizes its subject matter. So many critical darlings are films that leave an audience no way in. People end up liking them because they're supposed to. I felt that way about most of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, whereas CRASH pulled me through the door in several sequences, even though I'd be the first to admit that it's a deeply flawed film. A guy like Foundas just doesn't want to feel anything while watching a film because he resents the manipulations of movies, period. He only respects a film that subversively gets to him, that slips through the cracks of his hardened psyche - films so subtle that they only work because they trigger emotion through minimalism and these days, on a Kenneth Turan/Foundas critical scale, minimalism is all the vogue. If a film has a sweeping emotional score then it's automatically counted out. Fuck it - I'll cry not to see either of these guys housecleaned.

I think Foundas wrote a fawning piece on Michael Bay last year, so that's not wholly true.

Ah yes, let us invoke Spielberg's name simply because he is such an easy (as in large - don't be fooled here, target). The most important thing that is being proven here is that Spielberg's name gets mentioned so often not just because he is the most prominent director but because many of his works rightfully stand criterions against which works of many genres are judged.

Just because a director frequently deals with, or draws on,strong emotions, as Spielberg frequently does, does not mean he is sentimental. If you cannot see that, I am sorry but you are a fool.

You want me to start listing the instances of sentimentality in the films of Coppola, Scorsese, Cameron, Eastwood or any other director you condider to be in the "pantheon"? Of downright shallowness and empty "darkness" of the likes of Herzog, Tony Scott or whoever you think is cool?

Moreover the mere fact of the idea of the fawningly named "pantheon" speaks of your overall shallowness and elitism. And not in a healthy nerdy fanboish way either. Spielberg is not a part of your pantheon. He is the frigging pantheon. And he stands above any other.

In conclusion, when people cannot assault Spielberg's works due to their skill, storytelling clarity, lack of needless slowmo, ADD cutting crap, and populairity they choose to call them sentimental because that's the only "weapon" they have left. Here, I am reminded of the sorts of unfair, inappropriate (as in, totally unfitting - I am not talking viciosness here) idiotic and downright libelous attacks on "Munich".) Those who want to critisize, will critisize anyway.

And critisize they will, because more than for any other working director Spielberg's RANGE ECLIPSES THAT OF HIS AUDIENCE. And it is his willingness to "go there" even if the sheersize of his fanbase would imply that not all will be able to FOLLOW is what I admire the most about the man. That, is also a sign of a true artist.

The greatest (and most inacurate myth of the man's career is that he is a sentimental director). Nothing could be farther from the truth and anyone who taken any time to look at the men's body of work should know that. He rose to prominence due to the likes of Duel and Jaws. Paranoia and terror were recurring themes from the beginning. His first professional work was called "Eyes" and dealt with one character signing away his right to see. Then there is, the abduction scenes in CE3K, Munich, death and hopelessness in AI, Saving Private Ryan, etc. Look at the opening to Amistad, for chrissakes!

I'll give you a very specific example:
The best scene is Saving Private Ryan involves the German Soldier pleading for his life as he is digging a hole surrounded by American Soldiers. He starts singing and Spielberg films it all in a single take and from a significant distance. There is a certain coldness and detachness to it that only contributes to the scnees incredible power. We look at the soldier from the perspective of the soldiers and we feel no pity - much like there isn't any pity in the "let them burn" comment earlier in the film.

There is a reason why 99% of the killings in Ryan are Munich are not shot at close-ups. While lesser directors would have opted for mose "glorious" and gory shots, Spielberg consistently choses scope and power over exploitation.

Jaws, isn't just superior populist entertianent either. It wouldn't be quite as influential or longlasting otherwise as there is quite a lot of this time of "commodity" around. Its attemps at character development and, yes, even social commentary should not be dismmised just because they are servising what is essentially a horror film. And project like this should not and CANNOT be dismissed as "one-offs" as Steven consistently revisited the same issues throughout his entire career - and amazingly enough he does it with a simimingly effortless inventiveness.

When Spielberg made "Color Purple" he has made perhaps the best African-American movie ever and it has not been bested since. I do not mean to be controversial here and god forbig I should come of as being racist. This is also one instance when I am not simply trying to make Spielberg look good but overpraise his achievement. It a simple statement of fact that there hasn't been that many attempts to play the field on the same level of skill and ambition (the source material helps too as it was a superior novel to adapt).
For all of it's greatness, "Precious" doesn't quite come close either. And even dismissing the whole "black" aspect of the movie altogether - as we should, I agree with Guy on that, "Precious" doesn't really top any genres either. That said, it is a very very good effort. Unlike most people here I do not feel the need to insult one person in order to praise another one.

And yes, "Color Purples" does have a number of scenes that deal with sentimentality - although not nearly as many as one would think. This isn't Tyler Perry sentimentality, folks. Let's not confuse the two kinds here. This is the very real and realistic kind for the most part. I'd be really interested in hearing anyone's take on how or why these should be avoided considering that the story involves frequent violence and suffering is told from the perspective of the victim and has to have a somewhat "happy ending". It's there because it needs to be there.

On the other hand the ritual scene in Africa intercut with Woopie Goldberg "shaving" Mister is both unsentimental and the best edited, scene I have ever seen in any movie.

The only reason why I am not worried about "Precious" ultimately sharing the same fate as "The Color Purple" at the Oscars is because having a black director at the helm this time would make it much harder for the academy to find an excuse to dismiss it completely (especially in regards to that director's nod). If it's in, it is walking away with something. It is worth noting, however, that one award "Color Purple" did win is the Director's Guild of America honor -in my opinion, the greatest honor of them all.

P.S. Logging in to post on this blog was a nightmare.

"gonzo knight", formerly known as kate capshaw

Yeesh. I'm a huge Spielberg fan, but yeah, he's a generally sentimental director. That's not a value judgement, it's a simple description, like saying he makes movies on 35mm or starring human beings.

I think the Spielberg/sentimentality elephant in the room is.....big film buffs and critics do NOT like sentimentality these days. DP made a great point in his DP:30 tease on "Antichrist" that writers don't like movies that make them "feel" and he's spot on. SPOT ON.

Spielberg is and always has been a sentimental manipulator. I have zero problem with that, it's his schtick. His auteurism. The guy was severely damaged by a divorce at a young age and has made movie addressing that (or at least family) ever since.

People get sooo mad about the end of "War of the Worlds" where the teen boy lives but that's what Spielberg DOES. It's like getting annoyed with Hitchcock for always having an icy blonde in his films.

I do find if odd that the only time writers, bloggers and those who chime in LOVE sentimentality is when it's in animated form. "Lady in the Water" gets shat on 1000 times over but "Finding Nemo," "Where the Wilds Things Are," "Up" and all sorts of animated fare get heart felt praise.

I feel like I'm rambling but when was the last time a sentimental live action film was praised roundly? "Saving Private Ryan" maybe? People just don't like live action sentimental films these days and that seems weird.

Don, you got a world filled with 20 somethings, that have a problem dealing with their emotions. So, yeah, sentimentality does not work for these emotionally stunted people. Whenever they get over their emotional limitations. Only then will we no longer have to deal with assholes who dislike live action sentimentality!

"People get sooo mad about the end of "War of the Worlds" where the teen boy lives but that's what Spielberg DOES. It's like getting annoyed with Hitchcock for always having an icy blonde in his films."

No, they're mad because the FAMILY is totally alive and well, and in a real apocalypse situation that seems massively unlikely, and a cop-out for a movie that promises to be intense.

"when was the last time a sentimental live action film was praised roundly?"

CRASH comes to mind. Also BABEL. Oh, and last year's big winner, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.

Happens all the time.

hmm, i think assuming people (i don't know about 'writers' - i would think they are individuals just like everybody else) don't care for 'antichrist' because it makes them 'feel' and they don't like to be made to 'feel' is frankly absurd.

for me 'antichrist' was so emotionally non-compelling i felt nothing except vague annoyance at how obvious it was, vague disdain for the delusional messiness and tiresome, formulaic depiction of gender and pseudo-religious misogyny, but most of all i felt bored. does that mean i don't like to 'feel' in movies? not at all, it just means 'antichrist' didn't move me, but lots of other movies do, to tears in fact.

whether or not one 'feels' is not an intellectual choice but a visceral reaction, a function of emotion based on our own individual life experience and identity; we each bring our own baggage into the equation and what makes one person 'feel' doesn't necessarily make another 'feel'.

for big sentimentality to work in live-action film it has employed judiciously and most of all work within the context of the story, because real life is so NOT grandiose and sentimental; real life love, friendship and family is moment-to-moment, often mundane, defined by little gestures and fleeting moments and subtle shows of emotion. thus grandiose, saccharine sentimentality can take people right out of a movie because it just doesn't 'ring true' to the human condition. i don't think sentimentality is necessarily the problem but rather the over-use and often overwrought, cloying nature of it. spielberg is an undeniably sentimental director, and sometimes his sensibility works for me sometimes, sometimes it doesn't (more often than not it does). i imagine it's the same for many people.

(animated films can get away with more i think because they don't attempt to strictly mimic reality but instead deal in the fantastical, where a much broader emotional palette is acceptable because the confines of real-life subtlety aren't required to relate to the characters and story)

re: 'war of the worlds', i dislike the ending because it's incredibly stupid, not because it's 'sentimental'

Some interesting takes on the film:

After its rapturous response on the festival circuit, Precious received something of a backlash as its release approached. There is a certain faction of the critic population that feels it is obvious, emotional porn, which preys on the sympathy of guilty whites. I'm not really interested in picking through the minutiae, but I do wonder what would have made these people happy. (Just not telling this character's story?) Any serious movie about the lives of black people risks a pandering following, but I'm pretty sure that Sapphire didn't write her book for white people. I'm pretty sure that Lee Daniels wasn't thinking, "All my peoples up in Connecticut are going to flip their shit when they catch my Ntozake Shange reference!" I'm pretty sure that the kind of political correctness those are supposedly exhibiting when they gush about Precious is skin-deep, that your average guilty liberal isn't going to marvel at the breadth of representation of women of color that's going on here. I don't remember the last time I saw a movie that offered so many vivid depictions of black women."

http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/2009/11/we-arent-all-precious.html#more

Yet the movie is not neutral on the subject of race and the prejudices that swirl around it, even in the supposedly postracial age of Obama. “ ‘Precious’ is so not Obama,” Daniels said. “ ‘Precious’ is so not P.C. What I learned from doing the film is that even though I am black, I’m prejudiced. I’m prejudiced against people who are darker than me. When I was young, I went to a church where the lighter-skinned you were, the closer you sat to the altar. Anybody that’s heavy like Precious — I thought they were dirty and not very smart. Making this movie changed my heart. I’ll never look at a fat girl walking down the street the same way again.”

For some audiences, that may not be reason enough to make a movie that risks reinforcing old stereotypes. It’s a criticism Daniels has heard before. “As African-Americans, we are in an interesting place,” Daniels said. “Obama’s the president, and we want to aspire to that. But part of aspiring is disassociating from the face of Precious. To be honest, I was embarrassed to show this movie at Cannes. I didn’t want to exploit black people. And I wasn’t sure I wanted white French people to see our world.” He paused. “But because of Obama, it’s now O.K. to be black. I can share that voice. I don’t have to lie. I’m proud of where I come from. And I wear it like a shield. ‘Precious’ is part of that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/magazine/25precious-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: