Precious: Based on the Novel Push By Sapphire (2009): C

An exploitative social drama dressed up in Oscar-baiting inner-city threads, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire mucks around in low-income-housing misery, abuse and degradation in search not of enlightenment but merely liberal-guilt shock. In 1987, obese Precious (Gabby Sidibe) is 16 and still in junior high school, pregnant with her second baby by her incestuous father, and forced to return home each day to a mother (Mo’Nique) who does nothing but collect welfare, watch game shows in her dank apartment, and viciously beat and berate her daughter. Lee Daniels (Shadowboxer) drenches his prolonged, venom-dripping scenes of maternal malevolence – like mom callously tossing Precious’ Down’s Syndrome baby onto a chair and then trying to kill her daughter by throwing a TV on her head – and other assorted spectacles of Precious’ debasement in mucky blacks and blooming whites. All the while, the director, though eliciting heartfelt performances from his leads, lays on crass and/or excessive gestures (Precious’ daddy-rape features cutaway shots of sizzling eggs; Precious retreats into escapist fantasies of the glamorous celeb life with a light-skinned boyfriend) that speak less to the character’s grief and coping mechanisms than to the filmmaker’s own show-offy tendencies. Looking in the mirror, Precious imagines her reflection as a white girl, yet racial and socio-economic issues make up very little of Precious, which far too frequently sidesteps serious inquiry in favor of simply indulging in ghastly sights of its African-American heroine’s humiliation (at one point, she steals a bucket of fried chicken and, when done, leaves the grease smeared on her face). Precious’ salvation comes via both a lesbian GED prep teacher (Paula Patton) who encourages her to write, and a social worker (Mariah Carey) who compels her to open up about her home life. But just as Daniels and screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher pile tribulations onto their protagonist (culminating with an HIV+ diagnosis) not to inform but merely to exploit, so too does Precious’ climactic, cathartic confrontation with Mommy Dearest resound as merely disingenuous uplift.

The 47th New York Film Festival 

Comments

[Todd M.]

I saw the same movie at Sundance, but your review seems to be about another film entirely. What you term exploitation, I'd say is depiction of reality. I've seen girls such as this in my medical practice, and sadly the various abuses depicted are all too common. You think the film-makers have done this to make money. I'd say it is to shock- yes- but enlighten, and ultimately show hope in a seemingly hopeless situation.

[K. C.]

How are you going to blame the screenwriter for content that comes directly from the novel? He didn't "pile on" an AIDS diagnosis. Read the book, and you'll see that this is an awesome translation to screen.

[Rob]

Ah yes, once again, the argument that any depiction of those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale is "exploitation."

[Nick]

Todd - First, the director doesn't just depict reality; the film deliberately strays far from neo-realism in style and tone. Second, there is no genuine hope provided by the film, just counterfeit uplift via the mom's sudden and - given the preceding material - implausible desire to open up and come clean about her terrible motivations and actions.

K.C. - If you want to blame the novelist, that's fine. But the screenwriter decided what elements of the novel to include in the film.

Rob - Who said that "any depiction" is exploitation. I didn't make such a blanket statement; I just criticized this particular film.

[D]

The movie is not uplifting in any way! Let's examine the final shot. She has aids, two children-brothers, reads at a first grade level, is homeless, morbidly obese, without family, homeless, poor and young. It is a sadistic, masochistic mess! In the same year that Obama was elected to be the most powerful man on the planet you depict nothing but a slave story. How embarrassing!

[Karen]

Please take a look at the scene when the baby with DS is tossed aside on the couch. There is a quick flash to the baby's face and there is hurt there. Why was that child subjected to that in real life, probably not having the capacity to understand what was happening?

Sorry, but I find fault with that and cannot seem to find any article or reference to that child being protected from the movie and separating real life acting from it. Shame on all for allowing that to happen!

Including OPRAH!!!