His response is a far cry from his original essay reviewing the film. It is more polished and thoughtful and he chose his critics well. Though he did not answer to certain statements such as:
"Her head is a balloon on the body of a zeppelin, her cheeks so inflated they squash her eyes into slits."
"But the woman who drops a TV onto Precious as she hurries down the stairs with her infant is a sociopath, too singularly garish to be universal.."
"photos of Oprah Winfrey (thinner than she was at the time).."
"She’s a tad too goody-goody, but her toasty, caressing voice is a gift beside Sidibe’s mush-mouthed monosyllables. "
These kind of statements did give glimpse to certain bias he had watching the film and perhaps reading the novel. The thought that someone like Mary wasn't universal, that Oprah just had use her thin picture, the need to describe Gabourey in such terms when we have seen the actress already is a little over the top. It was at times difficult to tell when he was critizing the directors choices to represent the novel and it's characters and when he was merely just complaining for the sake of his own sensibilties.
Overall the original review tempers many of these senitments with the usual bits of self denfense and his critic of the film was like any other and the assesment seemed somewhat fair as it related to both the novel and film. I'd say for essay #1 a clean 60/100 and for essay #2 76/100. Apology accepted David. #caterwaulingagainsttheworld