I agree that it isn't the author's responsibility to create positive art. I'm sure that there are writers who are writing books and screenplays about functional black families whose stories will never make it to a movie theater.
We have diversity of material for these movies - we don't have diversity in the selection, production or distribution system to reflect that diversity in theaters.
It seems to me that, with Precious, people are regularly combining criticism of the movie as art with criticism of the movie as a social document, and it's at that intersection that things get really messy.
It is so unfortunate that so few movies are made about black people that the ones that ARE made have all this pressure on them to get everything exactly right.
I think Precious/Push are very valid and important stories, but I also agree with the criticism that points out how often these narratives of abuse and poverty show up in Important Socially Aware Movies About Black People.
It seems to me that the only resolution is to have more movies reflecting more experiences of more people. (And I don't mean movies that use white people as the narrative entrance point into a story about Others, i.e. The Blind Side.) No single artist should have bear the burden of telling the One True Story of a society, yet that is exactly what happens.
I don't understand why this is even a subject to discuss - these are the issues Sapphire saw in the world. From the little I've read about her, while Push wasn't autobiographical, it sounds like Sapphire had a somewhat dysfunctional start to life. If she's writing about people and situations she knew, then why should she have to sugar coat it simply because she is black? Did we get upset with Frank McCourt, who published a well known book the same year about downtrodden white people?
@Bunsen Honeydew: People got really, really upset at Frank McCourt, said he was exagerrating and lying and making the Irish look bad. I'm not saying your point isn't valid, but that it's not the right comparison.
@SunburnedCounsel: Okay, you know now that I think about it, I was like 10 when that book came out. Yeah, I should have found a contemporary example in order to not sound ignorant.
Thanks for correcting me though, I would have hated to have said something like that at my holiday work party or something.
@Bunsen Honeydew: I'm sorry if I sounded snippy, I'm having tone issues on the internet today. But I was living in Ireland when Angela's Ashes came out and frankly, all hell broke loose with his siblings and "old family friends" and all sorts of nonsense. I think it's a pretty common response of "insiders" in a group wanting to protect their projected image to "outsiders", especially when complex media representations of your group are so rare. (We're drunk and Catholic, I get it already).
@SunburnedCounsel: But an interesting comparison, since the Irish have faced a lot of discrimination and stereotypes in the past, so perhaps there is the same pressure to not write something that gives fodder to the stereotypes.
@Grim Reaper of the Forest: Absolutely. And I think, as people mention down-thread, the fault does not lie in the authors who experienced or wrote about others in the minority group. Push and Angela's Ashes are both excellent books, and excellent stories. The question is why are these the books that the majority culture choses to publish and laud. Is it, consciously or subconsciously, because they reinforce the dominant narrative (and stereotypes) about the group? Are there amazing stories about a young middle class black woman struggling with college and parents not being published, or even not being written, because that is not what the dominant culture wants to market? Probably. No one in America wants to read about my happy, well-adjusted, somewhat hippiesh, non-Catholic upbringing in Ireland. But you want stories about my alcoholic brother who looks like a leprechaun and was born on March 17th? Those are the ones everyone wants to hear.
@SunburnedCounsel: Exactly. Although I sort of doubt that there is a market for memoirs about the minor struggles of the middle class, no matter what ethnic group. I think it has to be about incredible adversity or incredible success to sell, which is why you get people like James Frey exaggerating their life stories. But there is certainly a market for novels and movies about marriage or dating or coming of age for middle class white people, whether it is drama or comedy, and that sort of thing seems to be missing minority voices.
You know, I haven't seen the movie yet (in Canada limited release is really limited release), but the more I hear about it the more parallels my mind draws to The Color Purple. Is this a fair comparison, Jezzies?
@JilliefromChile: It seems to me that a lot of people who think that the critics are being unduly negative are people who might not be aware of how common certain tropes are in the black media that white people consider high-brow. "Girl who is impregnated by her father" appears in more highly-praised black lit than I'm comfortable with, both because blacks keep writing it and whites keep thinking it's meaningful.
@voteforme: Is childhood sexual abuse not meaningful? I'm sure the acts themselves have an impact in a lot of people's lives, and it's a strong way of indicating a breach of trust or safe space in art.
I do think you have a point about overused and/or racialized tropes though.
@JilliefromChile: I mean that in, say, my modern American lit course, both "black" novels we read (The Bluest Eye and The Color Purple) featured that trope. It didn't appear in any of the "white" lit. The black characters in the black novels were also fairly uniformly filthy, uneducated, oversexed, violent, and bad parents (at least the parents of the protagonists are). It really makes you wonder what's going on in the pop culture canon, which is invariably controlled by white people, and men at that. Precious bugs me because of its position in the bigger picture.
@voteforme: There's also Their Eyes Were Watching God, Invisible Man, Giovanni's Room, and Native Son - while I don't doubt that it is weird and unnerving to have incest pop up in two books in one course, I can't buy that this makes it a common trope.
@BestEuphemismEver: As far as the canon of "great literature" goes, there's definitely something funky about how "black" books are only eligible if they depict the worst of humanity via black characters. I have never heard of the books you've mentioned; they're not famous in the academic canon.
@voteforme: I don't know about the 'worst of humanity', certainly I would hazard to say that representations of poverty and the social effects of institutionalised racism are common in books because they are common in life. There are certainly writers representing other facets of the African-American experience (I am not a connoisseur, but Terry MacMillan comes to mind).
I am surprised that you haven't heard of those titles, I would consider them all to be well-known and part 'academic canon'. They are all in print in Penguin Modern Classic editions, expect possibly TEWWG - I know Virago publishes it in the UK.
@BestEuphemismEver: The thing is, the academic canon has nothing to do with what you "consider" to be included in it (which is a massive problem with the canon; I'm not saying that it's right because it has power over educational insitutions). I have never seen the books you've mentioned on a reading list for a class that wasn't a non-specialized upper-level one-off seminar. Toni Morisson and Alice Walker are the only black women writers I can think of who are regularly read in school. I would consider the people on this forum to be more well-read than the average American. The average adult American probably knows about The Color Purple. I'm not sure s/he would know about the books you mentioned. That they continue to be printed only means that someone is buying them, but there are a lot of marketable books that escape my notice.
@voteforme: Sorry, but you're being extrmeley condescending. The fact that you don't know about these famous books kind of discredits all of the points that you are pushing so hard to make in this thread. Maybe the only books YOU read are the books with these disturbing themes, and thus you believe they are the only books about blacks that everyone else reads as well.
@voteforme: I generally agree with your point about which books are promoted by black authors, but if you haven't heard of Their Eyes Were Watching God or Invisible Man -- both of which were widely read in my public high school -- that doesn't mean they're not in the canon. They definitively are.
@voteforme: You're kidding. You've never seen Native Son or Invisible Man (or any other Richard Wright book) or Zora Neale Hurston (Their Eyes Were Watching God) on a reading list a for a non-specialized english class? As an academic, I find it incredible to believe that you would say these books/authors are not famous in the academic canon.
@voteforme: I'm confused as to how someone who has never heard of Zora Neale Hurston or Ellison is telling everyone what is and isn't considered part of the canon of black literature. How exactly are you determining what is "academic canon"?
@AlmostDream: I've already said that I'm talking about the general academic canon that's utilized in mainstream education. I never mentioned the canon of black literature, which would naturally include otherwise obscure titles.
@voteforme: But those novels aren't "obscure". That's why I asked how you are determining canon. Because while I don't expect Wallace Thurman or James Baldwin or Claude McKay to come up outside of courses on black literature, Hurston and Ellison are incredibly basic and well known. So since you say "academic canon has nothing to do with what you "consider" to be included in it", you need to explain how it is determined.
Otherwise it looks like you're making it what YOU consider to be included in it.
@AlmostDream: @thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe.: Would those authors make a top-100 list compiled by an academic institution? Possibly. But that I've gotten through my high school, undergraduate, and graduate (lit) educations without hearing about them would indicate that they're often ignored. Yes, it is a problem with the (highly-rated) schools I've gone to. That's the point.
@voteforme: I find it incredible and honestly baffling that you would have a graduate level education in literature and not even know who Zora Neale Hurston or Ralph Ellison are. I have to assume that your focus was not American literature?
@voteforme: I don't really know what to say to that. You're missing out on some great literature. My mediocre public high school included Zora Neale Hurtson, Langston Hughes, Toni Morrison, Richard Wright, Maya Angelou, and Lorraine Hansberry (just off the top of my head), as do many others. I'm not sure how you missed them. But if you're only familiar with a handful of famous black authors, you should probably read more before you make sweeping generalizations about widely accepted black literature.
@voteforme: I am seriously baffled by this, and by the fact that you don't seem to hear what an anomoly your education was, and why that would make others in the thread question your definition of "canon", which seems to be "books I've read". I only went to school in the US for high school, university, and grad school, did nothing but required courses on literature and English, and have read Their Eyes Were Watching God (twice! In high school and college) and Invisible Man, and Native Son (as well as Black Boy), and have heard of all the others. I'm not saying this is normal, and I'm not even arguing that they're necessarily in the canon, but that I don't think that anyone who has not even heard of them is really in the position to tell everyone else what the canon includes.
I'm really sorry about your education.
@voteforme: I do believe a lack of familiarity with the works of Hurston, Ellison and Baldwin reflects poorly on the "highly-rated" academic institutions you mention, and not on you specifically. I say this as someone who was exposed to the work of all three authors in my not highly-rated public high school almost 20 years ago.
I do think there are often cultural biases in the ivory tower, and perhaps your argument belies this bias. Do some academics have a hard time embracing literature that doesn't fit into a nifty framework, a la black-girl-victim-of-incest? Sure, I'll buy that.
But to suggest that Hurston, Ellison and Baldwin are outside the canon is misguided.
@SunburnedCounsel: I'm really sorry about some of your grammatical errors, if we're going there. The "diversity" aspect of my education focused on other areas of oppression.
@voteforme: What an ignorant comment. On so many levels. I can understand why you might get defensive when several people point out that your education is missing a huge aspect of American literature. But, really? Your retort is that the 1 black author you've read is not your cup of tea, therefore you're not missing much? Cause all those black authors are the same anyway? Try thinking before you comment.
@voteforme: You started off with a tremendously good point- which is that a reoccurring trope of incest and sexual abuse in often-read novels by African-American authors is problematic. You then denigrated and dismissed other famous and, forgive me, but canonical, novels and got more defensive and recalcitrant as people tried to clarify. You finish it off by putting diversity in quotes, and suggesting that passing knowledge of African-American authors is an optional portion of an American literature higher education. You have undermined your points and your credibility. If my only problem is the mangling of a few sentences, I think I'm well set thanks.
@thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe.: Samesies! My high school was overwhelmingly white and we still read a LOT of works by some of the definitive black authors you mentioned. I am so confused by this. How can you specialize in American lit without having heard of Zora Neale Hurston or Richard Wright?
Edited by angelina jolie-laide is a gaudy tulip at 12/10/09 10:28 PM
angelina jolie-laide is a gaudy tulip was starred
angelina jolie-laide is a gaudy tulip was unstarred
Thankfully, Lee Daniels accepted Sapphire's critiques of his 'new scenes' in the script. He wanted to include "a redemptive reunion with her father before he dies of AIDS" before Sapphire objected?!
@individa: I've said it before on these threads and I might end up saying it again, but the way the movie was framed seemed like Daniels was basically giving the father a pass for his abuse, because worse than him abusing her was her mother's failure to stop him from doing so. The mother is the monster; the father's just absent. This tidbit further supports my theories about Daniels.
@yvanehtnioj: I really didn't see Daniels giving the father a pass. He was a monster who only came in the night to abuse his daughter. Whereas, her mother abused Precious in the daylight. I never got the impression that one was meant to be worse just different.
Also notice that Daniels gave the mother redemption. That scene where Mo'nique offers to give up her welfare check and explains her story isn't in the book. The book ends with a dream sequence where Precious cusses her mother out.
Daniels seems to be trying to "happify" the story of both parents.
@d000505: Both of her parents sexually abused her, but only one got blamed for not only the abuse, but also not preventing the other parent's abuse. Did you ever see, anywhere in the movie or even in the reviews, a critique of the father for not keeping Precious safe from her mother? No you did not. But there were countless critiques (many using the word "monster") of Mo'Nique's character for not protecting her daughter from her father.
The bottom-line analysis still holds the mother responsible for her children's wellbeing in a way that fathers rarely (if ever) are, and the man who abused and probably killed both of them gets off with a gasp at the beginning of the movie and a gasp at the end. The whole rest of the story focuses on what a horrible horrible not-quite-human person her mother is. And while I wouldn't say that the mother gets redemption, because Precious refuses the check and apology and walks out, that's largely beside my point. The point is: Daniels seems to have pretty specific ideas about what parenthood is, and it's women's work. The father can't be criticized for falling down on the job too much, because it's not really his job to begin with.
She's 100% right. Yes, what goes on in the story is heartbreaking, but it does happen, and that fact should not be shoved under the rug for supposedly demonizing anyone in particular. It never ocurred to me that her purpose was to paint a damning picture of black people in general, but to let the reader share in Precious' life, to expose the reader to a life so painfully different from his or her own. Man. That book will never leave me, that's for sure. I fell in love with Precious immediately and cried for her throughout the story, and I know for sure I'm not the only one who did either of those things while reading.
ETA: It does happen *in all kinds of families, neighborhoods, tax brackets, etc.* Just realized I should have added that, since it's kind of the point of my comment.
it would be interesting to see movies like this made about white people or asians etc. because there are people in all communities who are like Precious, but for some reason, it's more often than not a story of Black struggle/poverty.
The African American community continues to complain about these stories (I think) because they have become THE story. As an African American woman I had a VERY "normal" life in a middle class neighborhood, have graduated from college and I am in my last year of graduate school. But I'm sure people have assumed (despite me dressing like any regular 20-something woman) that I lived in dire circumstances, with no money and little education-until they interact with me and realize that not everyone in the AA community is the "same".
My point is that there are MANY different stories in all of our communities. I think films should depict as many sides as possible. The story can be applied to so many different people, it's not just about US.
I can understand the anger of some in the community. As my grandfather used to say "I've worked too damn long and fought too damn hard to still be seen as just a black man." I feel stories like these put the black community in a weird place- while informing "outsiders" of the reality some of us face, we're labeling ourselves.
@gracie1117: I was going to say Once Were Warriors, but then I remembered that it was about Maori New Zealanders who, although not black, are also not European or Asian. But when that film came out, people worried that it would give foreigners the 'wrong' idea about Maori. Never mind that it was based on the author Alan Duff's upbringing and experiences- a film about Maori New Zealanders was seen as representative of an entire ethnic group, whereas films about/featuring Pakeha are not.
@gracie1117: Dorothy Allison's Bastard out of Carolina (movie and book) is a strong contender for the white equivalent to Precious. However, most of the reviews I've read focus on the poverty; any analysis of ethnicity is usually relegated to "poor white trash" or "redneck" descriptors without any deeper context.
@gracie1117:
i agree. It seems that all too often all anyone wants to consume is our tragedy. I think it's hard for anyone to stomach the issues Sapphire raises discussed/addressed, but I understand the concern when these stories and the magical negro triumph stories are our only representation.
I think some of the negative response in this case stems from the unspoken rule in the community of not putting your business out in the street. Also, there is the thought that if we only get 1 or 2 movies out of the many that are made every year, why does it have to always be the same kind of stories?
@dandelionbrowne@xay: I think we are all saying the same thing here in regards to the content and diversity of roles in African American films.
The problem is that these films are made by either a) big shot white men who have never lived the so called "black experience" or b) black filmmakers/actors who are so happy to have gotten a break that they accept roles that continue to stereotype themselves and others.
The black community is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Damned if we do (make one of the two movies always made about us), damned if we don't.
While I understand her reaction tot he criticism, I think the comparison to the Cosby family is false. Are there dysfunctional black families dealing with poverty, abuse, HIV/AIDS, etc? Yes, definitely, and I don't think that needs to be covered up. But are there also functional and/or middle class families (not that these 2 are always linked)? Yes. These also should be shown in popular culture because this aspect of black American culture is too often overlooked. I think there's space for both.
@thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe.: I agree, for sure. I think showing that there are a variety of people within every underrepresented group is important, and I think there's room for it to happen.
On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily any one author's job to do it single-handedly, you know?
@thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe.: True story: my dad, who is an inveterate racist, hated The Cosby Show and wouldn't let me watch it because "no black people live like that! It's ridiculous!" I don't think he was alone in this opinion, either.
All the more reason to have shows about black doctors and their well-adjusted families on every damn channel.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can only talk about this on a meta level, but I'm not comfortable with these Straw Blacks. The article doesn't point to an actual critique of the book/film, but rather the existence of one. So it's easy to take Sapphire's side on that one without any substantive commentary from the other side.
But I'd be very interested to hear from people who have voiced that criticism. What I've gathered from the articles linked on Jezebel is that people of many races have a problem with it as being either "too cynical" or "too hopeful," but I haven't really heard news of black people getting up in arms about the depiction of the black family.
If that kind of argument is out there, I'm sure it's one that points to how popular culture likes to focus on black pathology at the expense of three-dimensionality, which is in fact true. You can still have a problem with that while wanting to make sure people like the character Precious and her real-life counterparts get the help they need.
I read Push and I liked it. I can't criticize her for writing about a heavy subject matter but I would like to see more books, shows, and movies about young black women dealing with issues that I'm dealing with now, college, relationships with guys and friends, etc. and not so much about poverty, rape, and incest. A black version of the sisterhood of the traveling pants would be awesome.
@Penny: Yeah, she is right. I mean, it'd be nice if everybody's family got along like the Cosby's (everybody - not just black families) but you can't just go sweeping stuff under the rug and expect it to be ok. There's a fine line between unnecessarily airing dirty laundry and talking about issues so that they can be remedied.
Also - Holy Christmas, she does look amazing!
I swear there's magic water out there that we don't know about.
@Penny: The author looks amazingly youthful if that is a recent picture. Mariah Carey by comparison looks odd, as if she has two balls of cottonwool stuffed into her cheeks.
According to Academy voting rules, a voter is only required to screen nominated films before voting in the categories of Sound & Sound Editing. This means that for everything else --Picture, Director, Supporting Actress, Art Direction, Animated Short, etc.-- voters can pick names out of hats if they're so inclined. Oscar voting is essentially like take taking a multiple choice test you haven't studied for. (I learned this from a casting director & Academy voter under whom I served a two year internship.)
But really it means that the winner will almost always come down to which studio launched the most ubiquitous ad campaign. Precious is perhaps the most hyped contender of the season. Mo'Nique's campaigning already been done for her.
12/10/09
12/10/09
We have diversity of material for these movies - we don't have diversity in the selection, production or distribution system to reflect that diversity in theaters.
12/10/09
12/10/09
I think Precious/Push are very valid and important stories, but I also agree with the criticism that points out how often these narratives of abuse and poverty show up in Important Socially Aware Movies About Black People.
It seems to me that the only resolution is to have more movies reflecting more experiences of more people. (And I don't mean movies that use white people as the narrative entrance point into a story about Others, i.e. The Blind Side.) No single artist should have bear the burden of telling the One True Story of a society, yet that is exactly what happens.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
Thanks for correcting me though, I would have hated to have said something like that at my holiday work party or something.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
#tips
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
I do think you have a point about overused and/or racialized tropes though.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
I am surprised that you haven't heard of those titles, I would consider them all to be well-known and part 'academic canon'. They are all in print in Penguin Modern Classic editions, expect possibly TEWWG - I know Virago publishes it in the UK.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
Otherwise it looks like you're making it what YOU consider to be included in it.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
I'm really sorry about your education.
12/10/09
I do think there are often cultural biases in the ivory tower, and perhaps your argument belies this bias. Do some academics have a hard time embracing literature that doesn't fit into a nifty framework, a la black-girl-victim-of-incest? Sure, I'll buy that.
But to suggest that Hurston, Ellison and Baldwin are outside the canon is misguided.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/12/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
Also notice that Daniels gave the mother redemption. That scene where Mo'nique offers to give up her welfare check and explains her story isn't in the book. The book ends with a dream sequence where Precious cusses her mother out.
Daniels seems to be trying to "happify" the story of both parents.
12/10/09
The bottom-line analysis still holds the mother responsible for her children's wellbeing in a way that fathers rarely (if ever) are, and the man who abused and probably killed both of them gets off with a gasp at the beginning of the movie and a gasp at the end. The whole rest of the story focuses on what a horrible horrible not-quite-human person her mother is. And while I wouldn't say that the mother gets redemption, because Precious refuses the check and apology and walks out, that's largely beside my point. The point is: Daniels seems to have pretty specific ideas about what parenthood is, and it's women's work. The father can't be criticized for falling down on the job too much, because it's not really his job to begin with.
12/10/09
ETA: It does happen *in all kinds of families, neighborhoods, tax brackets, etc.* Just realized I should have added that, since it's kind of the point of my comment.
12/10/09
The African American community continues to complain about these stories (I think) because they have become THE story. As an African American woman I had a VERY "normal" life in a middle class neighborhood, have graduated from college and I am in my last year of graduate school. But I'm sure people have assumed (despite me dressing like any regular 20-something woman) that I lived in dire circumstances, with no money and little education-until they interact with me and realize that not everyone in the AA community is the "same".
My point is that there are MANY different stories in all of our communities. I think films should depict as many sides as possible. The story can be applied to so many different people, it's not just about US.
I can understand the anger of some in the community. As my grandfather used to say "I've worked too damn long and fought too damn hard to still be seen as just a black man." I feel stories like these put the black community in a weird place- while informing "outsiders" of the reality some of us face, we're labeling ourselves.
Sorry this is so damn long.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
i agree. It seems that all too often all anyone wants to consume is our tragedy. I think it's hard for anyone to stomach the issues Sapphire raises discussed/addressed, but I understand the concern when these stories and the magical negro triumph stories are our only representation.
I think some of the negative response in this case stems from the unspoken rule in the community of not putting your business out in the street. Also, there is the thought that if we only get 1 or 2 movies out of the many that are made every year, why does it have to always be the same kind of stories?
12/11/09
The problem is that these films are made by either a) big shot white men who have never lived the so called "black experience" or b) black filmmakers/actors who are so happy to have gotten a break that they accept roles that continue to stereotype themselves and others.
The black community is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Damned if we do (make one of the two movies always made about us), damned if we don't.
12/11/09
I think black filmmakers/actors have to start being truly committed to building an alternative to Hollywood.
Tyler Perry has his faults, but he also has his own studio and owns the rights to his work. On the flip side, his productions are non-union.
12/10/09
12/10/09
On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily any one author's job to do it single-handedly, you know?
12/10/09
All the more reason to have shows about black doctors and their well-adjusted families on every damn channel.
12/10/09
12/10/09
But I'd be very interested to hear from people who have voiced that criticism. What I've gathered from the articles linked on Jezebel is that people of many races have a problem with it as being either "too cynical" or "too hopeful," but I haven't really heard news of black people getting up in arms about the depiction of the black family.
If that kind of argument is out there, I'm sure it's one that points to how popular culture likes to focus on black pathology at the expense of three-dimensionality, which is in fact true. You can still have a problem with that while wanting to make sure people like the character Precious and her real-life counterparts get the help they need.
12/10/09
12/10/09
Also, on an unrelated note, she's 59?? She looks amazing if that's a current photo.
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
Also - Holy Christmas, she does look amazing!
I swear there's magic water out there that we don't know about.
12/10/09
12/08/09
Preparing herself is one thing. Doing it so publicly MAY be a turn-off to the academy.
12/08/09
But really it means that the winner will almost always come down to which studio launched the most ubiquitous ad campaign. Precious is perhaps the most hyped contender of the season. Mo'Nique's campaigning already been done for her.