Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:58 pm**

That was dancing. It's called disco music, Sabin. Look it up.

(Which, incidentally, brings up my favorite isolated element of the film outside of the two lead performances -- Daniels' inability NOT to inform the pop cultural context with his own presumable experience as a black, gay young man in the late '80s. There's no other explanation for either "Was That All It Was" or "Love is the Message" appearing on the soundtrack.)

Edited By Eric on 1258570847

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:45 pm**

So maybe you guys did get that Daniels was trying to portray dissociation, but I was thrown off when Sabin referred to Daniels "deflating tension with comedy"

I was referring to Mo'Nique working out in front of the television. Not a fantasy sequence.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:15 am**

danfrank wrote:So maybe you guys did get that Daniels was trying to portray dissociation, but I was thrown off when Sabin referred to Daniels "deflating tension with comedy" or when Flipp talked about him "draw(ing) away" from the "big money scene."

Just for the sake of clarification, the scene to which I was referring was the one when Precious comes home from the hospital with her new baby and gets into that knock-down, drag-out fight with her mother. This was a scene I'd imagine Precious was fully engaged in (her baby was in that awful woman's arms, for godssakes). My criticism was that the director chose to turn the camera away at crucial moments, resorted to slow-motion tricks instead of giving the audience a clear image of the zenith of Mary's abuse. It was a jarring directorial choice that sacrificed one of the stronger scenes of the film, a scene from which, I might add, none of the characters were going to disassociate.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:08 am**

So maybe you guys did get that Daniels was trying to portray dissociation, but I was thrown off when Sabin referred to Daniels "deflating tension with comedy" or when Flipp talked about him "draw(ing) away" from the "big money scene." I think these were side effects but not the main intent here. Perhaps you're right Flipp, and Daniels was attempting to give the viewer some relief from enduring a very ugly scene (on a side note I was relieved that he did cut this scene short if only because several of the people in my audience had brought their elementary school-age children with them); mostly, though, I think he was trying to bring us into Precious's world, where dissociation is the most viable way to endure such intense and repetitious trauma. Although it seems realistic that someone like Precious would indulge in a fantasy world such as shown in these scenes, it seems less realistic that she'd be having these kinds of fantasies while she is being raped. She would more likely just black out, but then that wouldn't be very cinematic. I think that showing some type of fantasy scene here wasn't a bad directorial choice, but I agree with you guys that the overly comedic nature of them served (unfortunately) to negate the brutal power of the abuse scenes.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:35 am**

Wow, let's not even go back to those dark days. I wish we could bury Crash as the utterly useless vacuum that it is.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:21 pm**

Eric wrote:
Sabin wrote:I'm pretty sure that save for the producers of Brokeback Mountain you hate Crash more than anyone else on the planet.
You'd be surprised. I personally know at least a half dozen people who also claim it to be the single worst movie ever made.

If Crash was the first film I'd ever seen, I'd never watch another one.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:13 pm**

Film Comment review aside (which I can't speak to), how has this part of the film been misinterpreted by board members in our discussion of the film thus far?

I don't think it has been misinterpreted on this board. I know it's meant to bring us into her disassociation but some of the attempts are clearly designed to make us laugh: when she's pushed down on the street and imagines that kid in her fantasy or the re-imagining of Two Women. We're supposed to laugh.

They're not meant to be comic relief or to pull the viewer away from the horrors at hand.

Doesn't disassociation imply pulling the viewer away from the horrors at hand? Because that's what the character is doing to herself?

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:57 pm**

danfrank wrote:I just want to point out that I'm pretty sure that the so-called "fantasy sequences" are being misinterpreted by most on this board and by the Film Comment review posted below. They're not meant to be comic relief or to pull the viewer away from the horrors at hand. I think that they're meant to portray a form of dissociation (in this case, Precious's), which is a psychological defense in which one mentally checks out in order to avoid attending to circumstances that are emotionally too overwhelming to endure. This could have been portrayed better in the hands of a better director.

I know what disassociation is and I know that's what Precious was partaking in with these scenes. I also never viewed these scenes as traditional comic relief. But, yes, they are fantasy sequences that the main character is diving into in order to divorce, or, yes, disassociate, herself from the horror of her reality and the audience, from her perspective, is brought along into them as well.

Film Comment review aside (which I can't speak to), how has this part of the film been misinterpreted by board members in our discussion of the film thus far?

Edited By flipp525 on 1258509935

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:05 pm**

I just want to point out that I'm pretty sure that the so-called "fantasy sequences" are being misinterpreted by most on this board and by the Film Comment review posted below. They're not meant to be comic relief or to pull the viewer away from the horrors at hand. I think that they're meant to portray a form of dissociation (in this case, Precious's), which is a psychological defense in which one mentally checks out in order to avoid attending to circumstances that are emotionally too overwhelming to endure. This could have been portrayed better in the hands of a better director.

Precious is not a terrible film; I'm pretty sure it has good intentions. It's just not very good. In the case of Lee Daniels, he neither has the directorial chops nor the emotional intelligence to handle such material. I heard him interviewed on Fresh Air; it was clear that, even though he suffered abuse himself as a child, he has a very immature view of it. To give him a bit of credit: he did pull out some good performances from his actors.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:26 pm**

The Original BJ wrote:
Sabin wrote:I guess BJ was wrong. The film isn't the Board's whipping boy. It's just mine.

I'm waiting until dws and Damien get to this thing before declaring my prophesy right.

Oh, they'll probably both hate it (Damien, for sure).

And my review isn't some big apology for it, by any means. I think there are things to admire about the film while, at the same time, there are elements to point out as HUGE, flaws. I would love to have seen what a more competent director/screenwriter team might've done with this material, especially since the acting is so top-notch across the board (even that annoying Sherri Shephard doesn't disappoint in a character that offers some rare humor to the whole affair). Lee Daniels failed his actors and Sapphire; we won't hear that in the coming months, but it's true.

Sabin, I thought Paula Patton was good. Bland? Well maybe, but the character is sort of the anti-Precious, so it seems like she sort of has to be (her lesbianism does seem very incidental, though and rather pointless). I thought that her body language in that first scene was so real -- evocative of the downtrodden, overworked, inner-city alternative school teacher -- that she pretty much had me from then on.

Edited By flipp525 on 1258492687

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:17 pm**

No, most people on this and many other film boards will straight loathe this movie. I can barely defend it except on terms of "it's not that bad."

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:14 pm**

Sabin wrote:I guess BJ was wrong. The film isn't the Board's whipping boy. It's just mine.

I'm waiting until dws and Damien get to this thing before declaring my prophesy right.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:03 pm**

but even the big confrontation scene between Precious and Mary after she comes home with Abdul, felt like Lee Daniels desperately trying to NOT show us what was going on (with slow-motion, odd camera angles, just general confusion). That is such a big money scene, why draw away from it?

UGH! That scene was terribly directed!

As previously cited, the screenplay doesn't know exactly where it's going with the character of Mary Jones -- is she a monster, a complicit and active participant in Precious' ongoing abuse? Is she actually trying to protect her in some desperate, ill-conceived way? I chose to interpret that last shot of "redemption" as just another facet of Mary's desperation and chameleon-like evil (we had already seen her turn in Grandma Sunshine when the social worker showed up for a visit in order to secure her check). She saw what was happening and she was taking one last shot at retaining her golden ticket. Did Mo'Nique sell the fuck out of that scene? Oh, hell yes. I'm just not sure we're necessarily meant to interpret it as the about-face others seem to be making it out as.

This is such a major failing of the script. So much of this movie is rooted in artifice that it ends with something so powerfully real...and the film doesn't even stop to ask itself what it is! I guess BJ was wrong. The film isn't the Board's whipping boy. It's just mine. I see very little redeeming about this film.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:23 pm**

Precious is a much better movie than Crash.

That said, I made the comparison because it's from the same studio, Oprah loves it, and this board will groan at its success throughout awards season.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:57 am**

Overall, I thought the acting in Precious made up for some of the more general deficiencies. There is so much going on with Gabourey Sidibe's performance beneath the surface. Every look she gives is full of meaning; it's a very lived-in, natural portrayal augmented by an element never to be taken for granted: verisimilitude. Precious feels like a real person; as catastrophe-laden as her life is, it doesn't seem too far removed from circumstances that might actually be plaguing a girl growing up in that environment.

More deficiencies: the fantasy sequences are, for the most part, successful, but could've been used more sparingly. At times, I think we needed our faces smashed up against the true horror of what Precious was enduring, rather than the camera drawing back into BET-netherland -- although I *loved* Red!Carpet!Precious, thought she showed Sidibe's versatility in presenting someone so completely different from the, at times, ill-grammared, grunting behemoth that dominates the first half of the film. No, I don't think we need to see Carl's Vaseline-slathered cock going in and out of her, but even the big confrontation scene between Precious and Mary after the former comes home from the hospital with Abdul, felt like Lee Daniels desperately trying to NOT show us what was going on (with slow-motion, odd camera angles, just general confusion). That is such a big money scene, why draw away from it? There are several what I'll call "obligatory scenes" that are lacking throughout the film and this seems like a screenplay problem, although Daniels' direction is, admittedly, very frenetic and non-assured.

For a film that wears illiteracy as a huge badge of suffering (the opening credits are even translated for us from Precious' illiterate English), the film does not show us the progression of Precious gaining knowledge, or even accessing the power of the word and, therefore, finally unlocking her own voice. The film resorts to a panoramic view of current events (including the anachronistic '89 Tiananmen Square footage) in order to show us what, exactly? Precious learning about the world around her? I thought it was an English class; at some point the director/writer chose to create a space of all-purpose Illumination that only results in more cloudiness.

The screenplay doesn't know exactly where it's going with the character of Mary Jones -- is she a monster, a complicit and active participant in Precious' ongoing abuse? Is she actually trying to protect her in some desperate, ill-conceived way? I chose to interpret that last shot of "redemption" as just another facet of Mary's desperation and chameleon-like evil (we had already seen her turn into Grandma Sunshine when the social worker showed up for a visit). She saw what was happening and she was taking one last shot at retaining her golden ticket. Did Mo'Nique sell the fuck out of that scene? Oh, hell yes. I'm just not sure we're necessarily meant to interpret it as a complete about-face for the character.

I think Mo'Nique has to be considered the frontrunner for the Oscar at this point -- not that she hasn't already been perched there sight unseen for months now. The performance encompasses too many conflicting (yet perfectly-melded) facets to be ignored -- Mary Jones is terrifying, selfish, piggish, desperate, vulnerable, ashamed, at-the-end-of-her-rope, callous, and vicious. It tops almost any "villain role" I've seen in the past two years and certainly rivals Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight for best villain of the last half decade. It calls to mind Shelley Winters' Oscar-winning work as the abusive mother of a blind girl in A Patch of Blue. It's sheer ferocity will make it something hard to ignore come Oscar time.

For all the derision she endured for Glitter, I also have to give props to Mariah Carey here. She perfectly telegraphs the overworked welfare caseworker who is forced into action when confronted with the horrific conditions of her client's day-to-day existence. And, let's be honest, that 80's black-and-white Lord & Taylor suit she was wearing at the end was spot-on (totally something a woman of median income would've snatched off the sales rack and proudly displayed in the office). On that note, the art direction and costuming were both quite successful in conveying Harlem, 1987. All the girls in Ms. Rain's class came off as very "period" (Joanne's glasses were a thrift shop relic and a truly awesome find).

Is the narrative unrelenting in raising Precious to Job-like status? Perhaps. But it's the arc in which these events occur and how they are meaningful to the main character (and the audience) that is basically where the movie fails (yes, Mo'Nique's big moment definitely comes at the expense of Sidibe who, one would think, would've been given a greater moment of catharsis in that slot). But, to me, Precious is a valiant failure saved, again, by some pretty delicious acting.

Edited By flipp525 on 1258501014