Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Alleged cross-over appeal and forthcoming Oscars aside, it could never be mistaken for the work of Ron Howard. Unlike 'Slumdog Millionaire,' its hack critic-claimed doppelganger, Precious never makes abject poverty look fun.
Four years ago producer Lee Daniels made his directorial debut with Shadowboxer, the kind of lurid, batshit whatzit you recommend to people to prove your popcorn wasn’t laced with acid when you watched it. Such sights include (but are not limited to): a man felled with pool cue up the hoo-ha; a zebra as proof of Scarface-style excess; Joseph Gordon-Levitt dating Mo’Nique; Stephen Dorff’s condomed cock; an obviously blinkered Macy Gray; Cuba Gooding Jr. fucking Helen Mirren to death.
The strange thing about Daniel’s Precious—a breathlessly hyped crowd-pleaser knighted by both Oprah and Tyler Perry—is how little its maker has changed up his game. A tale of mega-misery centered around Precious, a chronically obese, serially raped, illiterate Harlem teen (newcomer Gabourey Sidibe), the film is a grimy slog whose scenes often look lit by a single stained, red New Orleans light bulb. Alleged cross-over appeal and forthcoming Oscars aside, it could never be mistaken for the work of Ron Howard. Or even Danny Boyle. (Speaking of: Unlike Slumdog Millionaire, its hack critic-claimed doppelganger, Precious never makes abject poverty look fun.)
But let’s not go nuts. Adapted from a novel that’s somehow even grimmer, the film finds its titular character Precious wallowing in a purgatory with a strong contender for cinema’s worst mom (Mo’Nique, again), before being sufficiently encouraged to enroll in alternate schooling with a kindly teacher (Paula Patton).
If the overall story feels slight, Daniels’ bizarre syntax at least gives the illusion of something new and exciting. As with Shadowboxer, Daniels is a reckless filmmaker, whose own films—unlike the stodgy, comically simplistic ones he’s produced (Monster’s Ball, The Woodsman)—show little care for craft, taste or even sense. Indeed, Daniels’ trick is to hew so close to Sidibe’s Precious it often feels the film was made by the character herself. Her rambling narration is so prevalent it actually interrupts scenes, often while another person is talking. The tone is bipolar, rolling around in utter horror one second, then reveling in moments of stolen joy the next.
The whole enterprise is dicey, but it really only definitively fails whenever Daniels tries to depict her fantasies. It’s true you’ve never seen something quite like Precious, and also true that there’s a scene where you’re not sure who is delivering a more kickass performance: Mo’Nique or an unrecognizable Mariah Carey, as a knowing social worker. But let’s not mistake what is a bit of an unsightly mess for something sui generis. C+
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENT
Related Content
Lee Daniels' 'Precious' Moment
By Monica PetersEditor's note: West Philly's Lee Daniels directed Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire to wide acclaim last year. Tuesday morning, it was announced as one of 10 nominees for Best Picture Oscar -- and Daniels himself was nominated for his directing job. In November, PW profiled Daniels.
MORE
Article:
Liam Neeson Is a Badass Who Fights Wolves in the Wildnerness in "The Grey"
Article:
"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close": It Will Always Be 'Too Soon' for a 9/11 Movie
Article:
Roman Polanski's "Carnage" Is a Delectable & Hilarious Slice of Misanthropy
Article:
The Top 10 Worst Films of 2011
Article:
Newest "Sherlock Holmes" Is Bigger, Louder—and Not as Good
Article:
Siblings Reconnect Over Shared Trauma in "Shame"
Article:
"The Other F Word" Shows What Happens When Men Trade Rock 'n' Roll for Fatherhood
1. Zaitz, Ben said... on Nov 11, 2009 at 09:20PM
“C ? I am shocked.”
2. Aaron M. said... on Nov 12, 2009 at 08:05PM
“A reviewer has a responsibility to want things to be good. Whether it be a restaurant or a film or what have you, it is the reviewer's obligation to desire success and recognize failure, otherwise, why go?
Matt Prigge seems to have made up his mind about 'Precious' long before he ever laid eyes on it. Thus, the selfish and unnecessary rehash of 'Shadowboxer' and why he hated that so much, and the mention of 'Precious' as "breathlessly hyped", with obvious derision.
The phrase "crowd-pleaser" only exposes his limited command of the english language, as does calling the story "slight". And "chronically" never quantifies 'obese'.
"Daniels trick is to hew so closely to Sidibe's Precious it often feels the film was made by the character herself". That is called perspective. And that was the point. That is, like it or not Prigge, craft.
As for Prigge's reference to a fellow critic as a hack, I say, 'o pot, would that you had a mirror, for to see a kettle.
Come on PW, you can do better”
3. mm said... on Nov 13, 2009 at 11:41AM
“PW reviews often appeal to the A.D.D. generation and that's consistent with such criticism as : "Precious never makes abject poverty look fun."”
4. Matt Prigge said... on Nov 13, 2009 at 12:06PM
“Excuse me, "mm," but was your comment operating under the belief that I was criticizing Precious for NOT making poverty look fun? Because I'm apparently a monster?”
5. Aaron M. said... on Nov 13, 2009 at 03:01PM
“In defense of mm, your lack of care with such a strong phrase enables the reader to interpret it as they choose. You were so eager to get in your entirely irrelavent jab at a fellow critic that you failed to pay attention to the structure of your prose. To be a god reviewer you must first be a good writer. You must have enough of a command to ensure that your intent cannot be misinterpreted.
In your defense, I don't think you meant it that way, but there is no way to know that (see above).
A good reviewer has to have an open mind and remain focused on the work to be reviewed. You cannot meander aimlessly or expose your predilictions with comments like "couldn't be confused with the work of Ron Howard". Thank god for that. Spielberg isn't Kurosawa isn't godard isn't Hitchcock. By saying that, you show your hand and expose your narrow sensibility. This, in turn, removes the value of your forthcoming reviews.
”
6. Sean Burns said... on Nov 13, 2009 at 03:50PM
“When did Matt become "a god reviewer?"”