Okay… this is a real question. Please don’t take it to be ironic or disparaging. But…
Beyond being a good, great or crap movie, the group responding most powerfully to Precious seems to be gay, white men. Why do we think that’s the case? (Or perhaps you disagree with the premise of the question.)
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Any pop culture conversation I’ve had with a gay, white man in the last few months has revolved around only one thing: “Mad Men.” Seriously.
Why do we think that’s the case?
Who is “we”? And why?
Daniels is a huckster who appeals to white liberal guilt. Since 99% of gays are liberal, he knows his target group — the tastemakers who run the festivals, write for the New Yorker, work in publicity, are the ones who are pushing PRECIOUS
Looks like women are primarily going to see it, those already familiar with the book and those that love a good drama. I heard a lot of white-male Well’s types arguing “Who is going to go see this thing?” Apparently, people not like them.
I just looked at Wells’ site. Apparently villainous/bad characters should be campier evil who winks at the audience so everyone knows it’s all in fun.
Ha ha, what a simpleton.
Gay white man here. I don’t buy the premise (I’d say African American audiences are embracing it with the most fervor, particularly women), but there may be something to the outsider/left-out identification with the main character.
Gay white man here. I don’t buy the premise (I’d say African American audiences are embracing it with the most fervor, particularly women), but there may be something to the outsider/left-out identification with the main character.
Daniels may be toying with our white liberal guilt, but I didn’t respond to “Precious” as a “black” movie at all. I mean, yeah…it’s set in the ghetto and features black characters, but I never got that feeling that white oppression caused the situation I was seeing.
As for gays responding…maybe it ties in with the Judy Garland/Liza thing where they identify with these people who lead a very tough life trying to become who you want to be before emerging as a proud human. Or who couldn’t read or write but then could. Or maybe it’s got something to do with the act 3 plot point involving Precious that also would strike home with gays?
My gay friends count is way down so I don’t have anyone to ask, unfortunately.
Can you provide sources for this theory or is it based on anecdotal evidence? Assuming you’re correct in your assertion, my guess would be that the film’s popularity is due to its “Ugly Duckling”-esque elements. Those kinds of themes are popular with gay men and younger straight women.
Uhm… the same reason they like “Mommie Dearest?”
Well I loved the film, so I guess I fall in the target quadrant here….friends of mine either really liked it or do want to see it so I think it’s a fair question…it’s been talked about more than “Dreamgirls” already. I’m not really sure as to the answer entirely…although I can promise you it’s not because Mariah Carey’s in the movie.;)
mystery, “we” is you and everyone else who is reading this. I am sincerely interested in the perspective of others on this.
Which speaks to Tam’s question… and the answer is yes, experiential evidence. Everytime I seem to see or hear someone expounding on loving this movie, aside from on Oprah, it is a gay white guy.
And in terms of the natural – on every movie – mix of responses… so far, the response from gay men who I have heard from directly or in print or in other outlets has been more positive, more consistantly from any other group I have encountered.
On Brokeback, it was actually women and gay men in equal measure, in my experience, though I have to say, I found more negative on BBM from gay men than on this so far.
I can certainly be wrong in this perception. I completely get Chris’ take, for instance. And I have not done anything remotely like a scientific study. It just struck me for the fifth or sixth time this morning as I read a Facebook entry about a talk show appearance of one of the actors in the film and I thought, again, “Wow… this is kinda a gay culture phenomenon.”
(Note: the 5th or 6th time I thought something cultural was happening… meaning dozens of experiences leading to my first notion that something was afoot.)
And for the record, I also continue to find a lot of unhappiness amongst Jews regarding A Serious Man, claiming that the cast is not attractive enough, physically or emotionally.
I think the issue of ethnic response to movies is completely relevant and worth discussing, even if the danger of stereotyping always lurks nearby.
Well, Lee Daniels is openly gay, right?
Part of it is Mommie Dearest appeal and part of it – and, as a white gay guy who usually hates blanket generalizations, I feel a little uncomfortable typing this – white gay guys love fat black women. It’s inexplicable. We just do.
Mo’Nique’s movie Phat Girlz has a huge gay following, too.
Hey, spoilers, I guess!
I saw Lee Daniels do a Q&A after a screening of this last week, and there was a moment where he talked about visiting Gay Men’s Health Crisis here in New York to do research on the film’s HIV angle. He said he was expecting to see a bunch of, well, gay men. But he also saw a lot of black women. He went on to explain that there’s a connection — that gay black men, shamed by the church and the African-American community, were having unprotected sex on the “down low”, contracting the disease, and then spreading it to the female mates they were in open relationships with.
I’m not saying that answers Poland’s question about why gay men would be drawn to the movie, but it does outline one possible frisson of recognition between the gay community and the African-American community with regard to the film’s subject matter.
straight, white, mad men, and precious fan here– why does this always have to be brought up whenever a straight guy enjoys himself during these things?
To fit the Niche.
At the risk of sounding crass, I certainly hope that the whole ‘down-low’ issue wasn’t a surprise for Daniels. It’s been an open secret for ages (it was used in a Law and Order SVU ep half a decade ago). If true, it’s slightly odd/disconcerting that someone making a movie like Precious wouldn’t know about something like that prior to the movie.
As for the movie, I agree with Don that the film’s strength is that it doesn’t try too hard to be about every person in the given sub-culture that Precious belongs to (take your pick). It’s simply a slice of life drama about one person and that one person’s problems and struggles.
rossers – I really don’t understand what you are trying to say/ask?
Does “this” always come up? context please.
And what is the thing about “when a straight guy enjoys himself?”
Seriously… just trying to get your full meaning.
Gay men have long suffered for not conforming to what they perceive to be the perfect gym body-type expected of them, so yes…Gay men will identify with Precious as being tyrannized because of her body shape.
Gay men love it when their fabulous Divas deglam the way Mariah and Mo’Nique do here. (Bette Davis in “Baby Jane,” anyone?)
Gay men can identify with the way Precious is treated by her father. “Daddy was a monster and almost destroyed me, but I was strong enough to survive.”
After a summer of light popcorn movies, everyone (not just the gays) would like some serious drama, and this seems to be the one people (not just the gays) want to see.
People who like heavy dramatic acting want to see movies with roles like these. (I would love to see The Last Station tonight because I want good acting in serious roles.)
Well, I am reasonably straight, and I love Precious. It might have something to do with having been a welfare worker for two years, and meeting several real-life Precious figures first hand. Or it might have something to do with having been a college adjunct professor for 10 years, and having had several students who very likely (judging from their screenplays in scriptwriting courses) were Precious types when they were younger. Or maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with it being a pretty damn good movie.
“the group responding most powerfully to Precious seems to be gay, white men. ”
well maybe they are the most vocal, doesn’t mean they are responding “most powerfully”.
Many of us inner city kid gen Xers read Sapphire’s book…and I would say it would speak to anyone who had to either witness someone enduring alot of abuse (just about any inner city or isolated rural kid has seen a fair share) or experienced personally that kind of abuse.
I made an effort to see Precious because I read the book, and because I grew up with a Puerto rican Precious,an African american Precious and an Irish Precious in my neighborhood, and I will never forget the horror they went through and how some very special people in social services and school, and us, as friends, were able to help them survive and get rid of the bad people in their lives (no, I didn’t help commit a murder, although we were tempted…some people should be banned from parenthood 4 ever).
Some of the acting was really great in Precious. Direction…dunno, it reminded me of an afterschool special of the 70s or 80s…many of which were GREAT social commentary for sure, but still, not great cinema to me. I think some acting noms are in store.
gay, straight, liberal, conservative or commie, EVERYONE talks about Mad Men.
I loved that last episode–the business aspect of it was, well, was it not brilliant?
The morals and smoking and drinking…makes you think the society then in early 60s was either heaven or the shit-hole, depending on where you stand, but the actual running of a business I found fascinating.
Great stuff.
Joe – your first sentence has one of the most amusing random qualifiers that I’ve seen in a while. Thanks for making my day. š
Foamy: And you are the first to notice! Congrats!
i noticed, joe. i was gonna ask which boys float your boat so that you are ‘reasonably’ rather than ‘arrow’-type straight, but i was too shy
Yeah, no. Complete bullshit, DP. An unsound statement – a gross generalization. You talked to what, three people to base this on? Most of the positive reviews of this films have been written by straight men and women, mostly all white. I find, if anything, black men seem to have a problem with Lee Daniels himself. Or maybe only two black men. It is also a weird theory to float on your blog – for what purpose, this?
Leahnz: Well, there is Antonio Banderas…
I was just going to suggest that maybe DP was dealing with an oversampling situation where he was talking to an unusually large number of gay white people…maybe because there are lots of gay white people in big cities where the movie is screening so far…something like that.
I think what Jeff says makes sense, sort of a Pauline Kael fallacy situation.
banderas, eh, joe? nice, very suave & sexy (of melanie’s great loves i myself have a soft spot for ol’ don j)
leydon– count me among the amused with the opening line…. a ‘clutch the pearls’ moment…..
If Joe is reasonably straight, does that mean Lex is unreasonably straight?
Odd no one has mentioned this in 30 plus comments…
Many, many white gay men have a thing for black women. Your observation about gay men and Precious does not surprise me at all.
Over and over I have watched black women “exhale” around gay men in social and business settings; seen the positive shift when coming out to them… the automatic assumption that I am interested and can see them.
Not universally true, of course.
Maybe it’s because Precious is about women and revolves around women and isn’t the usual macho manly man stuff that “serious” cinema is usually about. Plus, as adorian said, gay men will find themselves in many different situations and a girl who is abused at school for not being “normal” fits that bill to a tee.
Having said that, I think the idea presented is ridiculous.
SPOILER (and question):
When is the movie supposed to be set, because wouldn’t her HIV+ nature have been uncovered when she was in the hospital to give birth? It is standard procedure to have blood on hand and they test that shit. The only way I can think otherwise is that it starts out in 1982 or something? I guess it was just story-convenient to reveal it when the movie did to make us feel so bad. End SPOILER.
For me (white, straight) the movie was the kind of relentless, manipulative, “feel bad” experience that I despise at the movies.
Not to make another gross generalization but Bob, I think that’s true of all women re: gay men. We can exhale around them because we know they’re not (well, some, not all) are not necessarily judging us on our fuckability. Okay, I’m done generalizing. It doesn’t seem like it’s a criticism, what DP wrote, but it is because everyone knows that the Academy is made up of straight white men. Ergo, Precious won’t do well at the Oscars.
hmmm… I always figured it was our shared love-hate relationships with beauty-aid products…
Kambel, ssshhhhhhhhhhhh. Do not bring up ridiculous plot holes to Oscar movies. Now bring up something about Michael Bay, and let’s move on!
FWIW, (and I haven’t seen the movie), but my wife’s boss runs a fairly large non-profit organization that focuses on helping teen mothers, victims of domestic abuse, etc — she went to an advance screening and came out hating the film. She felt it was ridiculous, manipulative, and not that realistic.
“Everytime I seem to see or hear someone expounding on loving this movie, aside from on Oprah, it is a gay white guy.”
Well, I’m not a gay, white guy (last time I checked, at least), and you already know how I feel about this movie. But then again I do KNOW a lot of gay, white guys, so perhaps their influence has spilled over.
I dunno … we talked about this film a lot at Sundance, specifically, who would go see it? Or more to the point, would the Black-urban-Tyler-Perry audience go see this artsy, depressing adaptation of an artsy, depressing novel about an abused African-American girl? I think the jury’s still out on that question.
Interestingly, I don’t think anyone at Sundance speculated on the possible influence of the white gay audience, but if it’s true, perhaps it will give Precious a boost going into Oscars.
Assuming that there is some substantive evidence that ends up backing the gay-white theory, I would speculate that perhaps the theme of oppression and the power of the human spirit resonates for a group of people who have been oppressed, or had to oppress themselves by hiding who they are.
WTF have y’all been? Lionsgate is targeting black folk first and Film Snobs second on “Precious”. That this pic has cracked the national top 5 on the strength of the black community has frightened the Liberal Media who regularly drink the Kool-Aid coming out of Hollywood.
When “Precious” expanded to NYC suburbs last week it went mainly to theaters that black people go to. The arthouse in Montclair, a town with a sizable black population, got frozen out in favor of mainstream theaters in two nearby towns.
People will search out a movie like this when it’s playing alongside blow-’em-up/name-checking/Academy Award Winner bullshit.