Kyle and Brian offer up a review of the movie Precious from gay director/producer Lee
Daniels. Their take? It's one of the best movies of the last decade — and Mariah
Carey's mustache deserves an Oscar.
Check it out after the break.
Submitted by
on Fri, 2009-11-20 15:40.
Racism in pity drag
This whole discussion reaked with the pity for poor black folks that movies like Precious have peddled to white middle-class audiences, to great profit, for decades. It's another validation of the paternalistic approach to social ills -- leave it to social workers, et al to "help" the working poor find their way out of their miserable lives, rather than the latter uniting to fight for change THEMSELVES. It says that the degradation and superexploitation of the urban working class is a natural circumstance, which can be overcome only through individual "pluck" and fortitude. In this way, it moves guilty liberals while doing nothing to address the causes of these same conditions -- high unemployment, low wages, high cost of living, rotten public education, a debased and degrading popular culture, lousy health care and a pervasive drug economy -- that are endemic to CAPITALISM in its period of decline.
Malcolm X used to say that the main challenge to effecting social change was waking people up, NOT to their oppression, but to their WORTH. This movie looks to prevent that by ratcheting up the pity and the misery. Exactly what is NOT needed right now. Take a pass!
Really? Racist?
How is this movie racist? You actually seem to be arguing about class issues in your post.
But assuming you mean racist, are you saying the movie creates characters for the sole purpose of white audiences' pity? I'm going to say that that clearly is not the intent (it's hard to say what the viewer response will be, but we can argue intent), based on the fact that it is a movie based off a book by a black author (who lived and worked in Harlem in the 80's), directed by a black man, stars black actors, and is financed by two black media moguls. All of whom (from what I've read or seen) have said the intent of the movie is to tell the story of someone who is often invisible - a castaway of society.
If the movie isn't political enough for you, so be it. If it doesn't necessarily explore all the root causes of the problems of society, well, okay. That was not the intent. The intent was to tell the story. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems to tell the story very well.
I know I should ignore this, but I'm not going to. Have you ever worked in the trenches? As a social worker, or for an NGO? Or as a teacher, a volunteer? You don't think the overwhelming message of these "et al"s is self empowerment. Look at needle exchanges, literacy programs, micro financing initiatives, continuing education, housing programs (which most work to find affordable permanent housing for people), et cetera. You dismiss all this work as paternalistic. You argue that poor people should just unite. And then what? Revolution is a nice buzzword, but then what? It's a whole hell of a lot easier to quote Malcom X than to do any work to better a community.
Easily my favourite Sounds Like a Hit! episode
Looks really good
Great Review
I haven't seen the film yet as it isn't showing anywhere in town but I adored this episode of Sounds Like a Hit! In the meantime, I'll likely be taking in the shallower 2012 film. The obvious contrast between the two and your comments about films today not being emotionally engaging did get me thinking about what you mean by that. Because I think you're only partly right. While I agree that lots of film don't engage the emotions deeply, I think you might be making the mistake of equating emotionally engaging with films that pull at your heart strings. While those are definitely powerful emotions to evoke, they aren't the only ones.