![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Precious/Push
Nov. 7th, 2009 10:52 amVia Jezebel, a quote from David Edelstein's New York Magazine review of "Precious" (based on the book "Push" by Sapphire, which was one of the most upsetting, chilling things I have ever read.)
"I’m not judging girls who look like Sidibe (the actress who plays the lead in the movie) in life, but her image onscreen is jarring to the point of being transgressive, its only equivalent to be seen in John Waters’s pointedly outrageous carnivals. Her head is a balloon on the body of a zeppelin, her cheeks so inflated they squash her eyes into slits. Her expression is either surly or unreadable. Even with her voice-over narration, you’re meant to stare at her ebony face and see nothing. The movie is saying that she’s not an object, but the way that Sidibe is directed she becomes one."
Okay, first - "girls who look like Sidibe in life" include Sidibe herself. She actually is a 300-something pound woman. Doesn't it seem a bit excessive (not to mention out of context) to describe her quite so cruelly? A balloon on the body of a ZEPPELIN? Really? The author of the review defends himself in part by saying that in real life photographs, her eyes are bright and clear and lovely! So basically, she's a zeppelin with nice eyes then? How generous, Mr. Edelstein!
I haven't seen the movie, though I plan to. However, without having seen it, I still question his assumption that the direction made Precious an object, as if that was some kind of error. Based on the book, it would have to be very deliberate. It's likely very true that the movie communicates that Precious is not, in fact, just an object - but Precious herself would be living a life that defines her as such, and that makes her feel reduced to that level. Sibibe would be directed to act as someone who lived her life as an object, then, and rightly so.
This is such a complicated book, and a complicated movie. I'm interested in it because it is so complex. The book was both horrifying and fascinating, repulsive and hopeful. Some have said it was poverty/abuse porn, and I can see where they're coming from. Some people commented on what is lost in the translation from book to movie, and I imagine there has to be a loss - there often is, especially with something like this, where the narrative in the book is stream-of-conscious thought, written as if by someone who is illiterate and deeply, deeply suffering. That adds so much to the book that I wonder what the movie will be like without it. There's a lot of commentary on the race and class issues it raises, and how those differ from the novel...and that's more than I can thoroughly digest or comment on at this point. But I've been enjoying reading about it, and seeing the discussions that go deeper than OMG MARIAH CAREY WAS IN IT WITH NO MAKEUP.
"I’m not judging girls who look like Sidibe (the actress who plays the lead in the movie) in life, but her image onscreen is jarring to the point of being transgressive, its only equivalent to be seen in John Waters’s pointedly outrageous carnivals. Her head is a balloon on the body of a zeppelin, her cheeks so inflated they squash her eyes into slits. Her expression is either surly or unreadable. Even with her voice-over narration, you’re meant to stare at her ebony face and see nothing. The movie is saying that she’s not an object, but the way that Sidibe is directed she becomes one."
Okay, first - "girls who look like Sidibe in life" include Sidibe herself. She actually is a 300-something pound woman. Doesn't it seem a bit excessive (not to mention out of context) to describe her quite so cruelly? A balloon on the body of a ZEPPELIN? Really? The author of the review defends himself in part by saying that in real life photographs, her eyes are bright and clear and lovely! So basically, she's a zeppelin with nice eyes then? How generous, Mr. Edelstein!
I haven't seen the movie, though I plan to. However, without having seen it, I still question his assumption that the direction made Precious an object, as if that was some kind of error. Based on the book, it would have to be very deliberate. It's likely very true that the movie communicates that Precious is not, in fact, just an object - but Precious herself would be living a life that defines her as such, and that makes her feel reduced to that level. Sibibe would be directed to act as someone who lived her life as an object, then, and rightly so.
This is such a complicated book, and a complicated movie. I'm interested in it because it is so complex. The book was both horrifying and fascinating, repulsive and hopeful. Some have said it was poverty/abuse porn, and I can see where they're coming from. Some people commented on what is lost in the translation from book to movie, and I imagine there has to be a loss - there often is, especially with something like this, where the narrative in the book is stream-of-conscious thought, written as if by someone who is illiterate and deeply, deeply suffering. That adds so much to the book that I wonder what the movie will be like without it. There's a lot of commentary on the race and class issues it raises, and how those differ from the novel...and that's more than I can thoroughly digest or comment on at this point. But I've been enjoying reading about it, and seeing the discussions that go deeper than OMG MARIAH CAREY WAS IN IT WITH NO MAKEUP.
