Comments on: Precious Pathologies…

By: Naoma Lowing

Naoma Lowing — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:20:44 +0000

sooo fake, Naoma Lowing

By: alex.

alex. — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:10:39 +0000

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.

By: MixedBrotha

MixedBrotha — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:59:44 +0000

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.

By: nicole

nicole — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:28:53 +0000

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.

By: jahnea

jahnea — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:02:48 +0000

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

By: alex.

alex. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:24:34 +0000

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.

By: ellenfoto

ellenfoto — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:01:03 +0000

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.

By: Mary Cotter

Mary Cotter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:35:13 +0000

It’s been years since I read the book, but WTF was the point of the chicken thievery? Was that even in the book?

By: incognegro

incognegro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:34:18 +0000

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.

By: pidge

pidge — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:30:04 +0000

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?