Precious is Not “Our Story”
A Response to Fade to White by Ishmael Reed
In a New York Times Op-Ed, Ishmael Reed discusses the movie Precious, and how it was offensive to the African-American audiences to whom he spoke, while being more widely accepted by white audiences.
He writes:
Among black men and women, there is widespread revulsion and anger over the Oscar-nominated film about an illiterate, obese black teenager who has two children by her father. The author Jill Nelson wrote: “I don’t eat at the table of self-hatred, inferiority or victimization. I haven’t bought into notions of rampant black pathology or embraced the overwrought, dishonest and black-people-hating pseudo-analysis too often passing as post-racial cold hard truths.” One black radio broadcaster said that he felt under psychological assault for two hours. So did I.1
It seems to be Reed’s contention that the heart-wrenching portrayal of an African-American woman living in a terrible situation is palatable to white Americans because they already think very little of how African-Americans live. On the other hand, African-Americans whose lives do not in any way resemble that of Precious should be offended for how that story misrepresents them.
And here is where Mr. Reed and – everyone else who feels this way – makes a critical mistake. Like so many others, he treats the example of one individual who happens to be African-American necessarily as a representation of all African-Americans. This kind of presumption is one that bubbles up from the cracks of institutionalized racism. It is an irony and a travesty where African-Americans themselves – like Mr. Reed – are instilled with racist presumptions by way of this institution.
One of the many dimensions of racism is that people of color are seen first for their race and second – if at all – for their individual merits. Along with this also comes the idea that the actions or experiences of one African-American somehow represents all African-Americans. For example, the more salacious behavior of some African-American celebrities – like rappers or athletes – are taken as evidence of some moral depravity inherent to their race.
It is this way of thinking that gives rise to stereotypes. Every stereotype has some basis in reality. But where the actions, thoughts, or experiences of an individual or even a small group of people are taken to represent the larger group to which they belong, it becomes racism.
Where an African-American watches Precious and feels some personal shame or awkwardness, especially where they are in the company of white people, it suggests that they have internalized this idea that every African-American by default represents their entire race. Where a white person watches Precious and somehow feels more “informed” about the black experience or feels some remorse for African-Americans as a whole, only shows just how ill-informed they are for assuming that all African-American experiences are the same.
I cannot pretend as though I am unaffected by this experience. When watching Tyler Perry’s latest movie I Do Bad All By Myself, I was acutely aware of the fact that there were white people in the audience. Part of my anxiety stemmed from the thought that while African-American audiences were laughing “along with” the movie, white audiences were laughing at the movie, in a finger-pointing sort of way. Somewhere in my mind I assumed that white people would walk away from this movie with the idea that they obtained some glimpse into African-American life. And found it hilarious. Which of course, in turn, must mean that they are laughing at me. The pathology of the black experience and institutionalized racism are deeply rooted.
Tyler Perry doesn’t claim to represent all African-Americans in his films. Rather he is crafting stories that represent particular experiences that otherwise would not be shown in predominantly white Hollywood. Because I have had this discussion about representation and institutionalized racism – both internally and with others – I am able to assuage any feelings of anxiety after the fact. But it would seem that this conversation is not taking place nearly enough.
No one watches a movie like 8-Mile and presumes that it represents all young white men, or even all young white men who grew up in Detroit. No one presumes that American History X reveals the typical everyday experience of white people. No one listens to a news story about a white mother murdering her child and assumes that such a thing is commonplace amongst white families. So why should anyone take Precious to be a representation of African-Americans in general, simply because the main character and most of the cast happen to be African-American?
Precious is only one story – an extreme case, yet a case that undoubtedly reflects or touches on the real experiences of particular individuals in this country. At no point did Sapphire – author of the original book, or Lee Daniels – director of the film (both of whom are African-American) – state that Precious was a “black story” or representative of the African-American experience in general.
Looking at the bigger picture, the existence of this paradigm of one-represents-all suggests something even more critical. That “blackness” – in how it purports to categorize and define a large number of diverse people – and “individuality” are mutually exclusive. It highlights the shame inherent to the black experience, instilled by the history and present reality of racism, such that one feels an automatic need to distinguish themselves and their experiences from other African-Americans who are quite unlike them.
It suggests that we – as a nation – are past due for a revolution in our way of thinking, that is one that lies outside of race, yet not without serious consideration for how race has affected and continues to influence our social dynamics.
"And here is where Mr. Reed and – everyone else who feels this way – makes a critical mistake. Like so many others, he treats the example of one individual who happens to be African-American necessarily as a representation of all African-Americans."
I think you misinterpreted the article you're quoting from. Reed doesn't assume this, he infers this based on this:
"Barbara Bush, the former first lady, not only hosted a screening of “Precious” but also wrote about it in Newsweek, saying: “There are kids like Precious everywhere. Each day we walk by them: young boys and girls whose home lives are dark secrets.” Oprah Winfrey, whose endorsement assisted the movie’s distribution and its acceptance among her white fanbase, said, “None of us who sees the movie can now walk through the world and allow the Preciouses of the world to be invisible.”
Are Mrs. Bush and Ms. Winfrey suggesting, on the basis of a fictional film, that incest is widespread among black families?"
I think both of you are actually saying the exact same thing.
I'm referring to the bit that I quoted, which plainly talks about "self-hatred", "psychological assault", and how Jill Nelson compares Precious to herself. Why would Reed, the person on the radio, or Nelson feel this way if they weren't operating under the assumption that Precious, for her blackness, was somehow intended to represent them?
There was no error on my part. Perhaps you need to re-read both articles.
a number of critics including A.O.Scott at the Times implied that
the family in "precious" was the typical impoverished black family,
including the most powerful one, A.O.Scott of the NYTimes who
said that the film would begin a "national discussion about race."
you should also read the marketing plan behind the movie. It
was aimed at white audiences and when it was nominated for
oscars, lee Daniels, the movie's front man said that maybe now
more "white middle class" people will go see it. I discuss the
marketing plan at " The Selling of Precious" counterpunch.org
Hm now this is important information that seems to have been left out of the piece. And did you know it going into the movie? And do all of the audiences who are critical of the movie?
As for A.O. Scott, leave it to a white man to presume he knows anything about the "typical impoverished black family", or that there is even such a thing AS a typical family. That's also what I was getting at in my post – about misrepresentation. But A.O. Scott's summary isn't the fault of the movie creators, but his own.
As for "The selling of precious" I'll be sure to check it out on counterpunch. Thanks for your response.
Ah, that was error on my part. I apologize. I guess the thrust of my response was based on what I perceived as your overall analysis that those who feel psychologically assaulted are operating under unchecked assumptions. Even as a person who understands that I am individual apart from my perceived "blackness", I can still feel confined by such rave reviews by such high profile people for such a movie though I haven't even seen it nor heard of it until today. Why? Because it doesn't matter what I know to be true, it matters how others perceive me as based on media representations they've seen. I would venture a guess that the people you mentioned were probably thinking, while watching the movie, "great, now not only will a black person automatically be associated with crime, delinquency, and poverty but also incest and illiteracy". A person who has "renounced their blackness" still has to put up with these assumptions and the more there are, the more annoyed they will be I would think.
But I didn't say anything of the sort, so I'm not sure where that assumption came from. On the contrary, I plainly admit that in spite of my renunciation of "blackness" (which I don't even mention) I have these same feelings – making the mistake of taking any "black" character as necessarily representing an entire race. So yeah I have to put up with these assumptions, but I make them myself. The point of the post was to reveal this practice to those who may not be aware of it – and the problem with it.
I hate to get into what I feel is a petty semantics squabble, especially since I agree with basically everything you said but…
I said:
"I guess the thrust of my response was based on what I perceived as your overall analysis that those who feel psychologically assaulted are operating under unchecked assumptions."
You said:
"But I didn't say anything of the sort, so I'm not sure where that assumption came from."
From your post:
"Like so many others, he treats the example of one individual who happens to be African-American necessarily as a representation of all African-Americans. This kind of presumption is one that bubbles up from the cracks of institutionalized racism. It is an irony and a travesty where African-Americans themselves – like Mr. Reed – are instilled with racist presumptions by way of this institution."
The definition of 'presumption' is "an assumption". I was responding to the fact that I didn't think that Reed and others were simply responding from unconscious/institutionalized assumptions but responding to what they knew would be assumptions for and from others aimed at those considered "black". Ishmaelreed's own response says as much. I agree that many "black" people view the actions of another individual "black" person as reflecting on them. But that's only when there are "white" people around to view the behavior (as you mentioned your experience in your post). This is because they know that while they can distinguish individual behavior of a coincidentally "black" person, a "white" person can't. So, basically, I'm agreeing with you and defending Reed and others as also agreeing with you. If this is still an incorrect assessment of what is going on then…*shrugs*…oh well. My excuse is that it's late and I should be sleeping
.
Not to undermine the premise of a well presented post, but my initial reaction echoes that of phantom thought. Lets for a moment take "blackness" out of the situation all together. I know that personally, Im concerned with the disproportionate misrepresentation of ANY race by the buffered spectators of white society (in the context of America) that feed off of the media's subversive influeces. For instance, if the movie depicted a Japanese family, I would be as readily alarmed. Again, not because the film isn't appropriate to be shown by its own merit as an isolated work, but by the mere fact that the film is NOT an isolated product. It is a depiction of negativity that resides within the cultural context of Hollywood's biased past and America's unreconciled history. Collectively, "White" America already has a delusional point of reference for it's relations with ANY race beyond television, politics, and singular encounters. So before any personal "race-associations" I may have even come into play, several red flags go up. My "offense" is a valid concern that one person (white nonetheless) is choosing how to depict a demographic of humanity to a privileged audience that has no intention of actually experiencing or knowing the source material for themselves. As demonstrated by Mrs. Bush, it is the sheer ignorance that is disconcerting, not the blackness nor the film's content by its exclusive merit. Adding to America's lack of perspective, its also clear that such cinematic campaigns are clearly beyond just enterainment, and only serve to perpetuate America's…immaturity. In other words its not about what I feel it reflects in me, but in my country.
As another example of the media's divisive and misrepresentational influence, CNN repeatedly censored (at least 15 times) any reference I attemped to make to Black Wallstreet or the Tulsa Oklahoma massacre of 1921. If Hollywood sincerely seeks to depict the plight of ANY race of ANY socio-economic rank they need to complement such films as 'Precious' with others that represent the full anthropological/pathological context of which it selectively conveys.
However, regardless of critics response to the movie being the premise, I agree with what the post is communicating overall. I'm just not sure the movie "Precious" was as effective a platform for me (I still have to watch the whole thing
) Personally, the Tiger Woods scandal is probably the most recent example of what you've articulated. It was by no means a "black" issue but somehow I found myself internalizing some sort of damage control relative to the public perception of his skin complexion and hence identity (not to mention his interracial marriage.)
To respond to both PT and TF:
The argument only works where – as TF said – "one person (white nonetheless) is choosing how to depict a demographic of humanity…"
But both Lee Daniels and Ramona Lofton – director of the film and author of the book, respectively, are African-American. Red flags may have gone off for me, too, had the director or writer been white.
However, it seems that Mr. Reed is saying that in spite of the ethnicity of Daniels and Lofton, they are willing pawns in Hollywood's game to demonize African-Americans – a point I'm not too quick to dismiss. Unfortunately, the evidence for his case is laid out in this essay:
http://www.counterpunch.org/reed12042009.html
And the essay is damn near unreadable. He makes a lot of references to people and events that we're supposed to know, but that at least I do not, and he goes on unnecessary tangents that make it difficult to even follow his train of thought. It's about one of the worst things I've ever read – or rather, tried to read, because I only got halfway through it.
The last thing I am is a Hollywood apologist, as I suspect it is a predatory industry that feeds on the mentally ill (invariably all the people who become actors). So I was willing to hear Mr. Reed's argument, but…as I said, the essay is unreadable to me. Perhaps armed with some much needed background information I could make some sense of it.
But then, there's also the matter of credibility. I have no idea who Ishmael Reed is beyond his op-eds on various sites, and so I don't even know how he has any of the insights he claims to, where he gets his information, nothing – things that could be substantiated through more elaboration rather than annoying and extraneous tangents…
Furthermore, even if I were able to make sense of and validate Mr. Reed's analysis of Precious and its marketing plan, it wouldn't change my original point. Let's say that white executives got their grubby hands on the film – which they undoubtedly did – and made certain changes to the script or direction intended to demonize African-Americans, but for the purpose of making the movie have mass market appeal. In other words, to make it more palatable to white audiences.
And let's say that Sapphire and Daniels were willing participants in this scheme, not giving a damn about misrepresentation – perhaps because they wanted their work to be more widely recognized, or maybe just for the money.
The point I'm making is that AUDIENCES – whether black or white – where they presume that Precious somehow represents African-Americans as a whole, it is indicative of the pathology of the black experience on the one hand, and institutionalized racism on the other. That the people behind Precious could have been aware of this despicable state of affairs and played off of it for profit would not come as a shock to me.
But none of that changes the fact that misrepresentation only works where that one-represents-all mentality has taken hold. And the point of my post is not to undermine Mr. Reed's opinion of a sinister Hollywood machine, but to point out how he – and others who harbor this idea – empower that very paradigm.
unreadable? people all over the world made sense of it. it was loaded with
facts including the exposing of the people behind the scenes who are
responsible for "precious," sarah siegal.sarah siegal would never finance
a movie about her ethnic group which has been into incest since
biblical times. shunned by those outside of their group, they marry
their first cousins, check out a great film called "sunshine" about a Jewish
family attempting to assimilate in Austria. Incest is the theme, yet it
didn't begin " a national conversation about race." i received a review
from a british film critic who had problems with the film. he said that
"well off" critics over there were assuming that the "precious" is the
typical family. propaganda films such as these influence public
policy. therefore we all should pay attention and be respectful of
one another's views. check out my exchange with "precious" defenders
at awardsdaily.com, a front for the Oscar's establishment and the
Huffington post. half of the whites who defend the film say that
they haven't seen it.
Well if the people all around the world are film critics or people privy to certain proprietary knowledge that is critical to understanding the piece, then that will help them put things into the proper perspective.
As it is now, there are too many references to people, places, and events that I do not know – like the reference to Alice Walker's "appeal" to white people, and the bit about Ramona Lofton's "lynching" of 5 young men.
I couldn't tell if that was a figurative or literal reference. Now, mind you, it is not that I doubt your thesis, it's that the exposee feels incomplete due to those proprietary details.
And can you provide me with some direct links to the things you're talking about above? Which British film critic? Which argument at which URL on awardsdaily.com? You make a lot of statements and references to things which I'm expected to take at face value when your argument itself is about NOT taking things at face value – i.e. recognizing the hidden agenda behind a movie like Precious.
Can you see how this would create a problem for me?
@Godheval
"And the point of my post is not to undermine Mr. Reed's opinion of a sinister Hollywood machine, but to point out how he – and others who harbor this idea – empower that very paradigm."
And this is where I think you're losing all of us. No one is arguing that the one-represents-many assumption doesn't exist and that it doesn't affect "black" and "white" moviegoers in different ways. However, I do disagree that "black" people have the power to empower this paradigm. No matter how much "black" people disagree with the notion and ignore it and act otherwise, the assumption will still exist within the mentality of "white" people and "black" people will still have to deal with it affecting their status in the eyes of their "white" peers. Hence, why "black" people are reacting negatively and saying, "this doesn't represent everyone! Remember individuality?". In fact, I would say that this reaction is not an acceptance of an unchecked assumption that empowers the paradigm, it is deliberate action that fights against it. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Also, the counterpunch.org article, while long, didn't seem 'unreadable' to me…but everyone sees things differently.
I hope you don't feel like we're "ganging up" on you. I think it's been an interesting discussion so far, so thanks for all the replies.
No, I made the statement of "…one white person (white nonetheless) is choosing how to depict a demographic of humanity…" as a dose of snarky sarcasm. Im fully aware of Winfrey's, Perry's, and Lee's involvement in the film. The reference of "white" was actually a reference to the mindset which I have applied to Winfrey at times. Again, im not disagreeing with your overarching point, but the post didnt stick as well with me because, of the clips I saw, 'Precious' didnt really engender that sort of response to begin with on a personal level. Personally I feel the film, on its exclusive merit could be rather moving.
However, regardless of the intentions of all and anyone involved, what the film represents in the context of Hollywood and American history, the book's author, Lee's and Winfrey's involvement are inconsequential. One, the book as it existed in the market of all other books was far more supported by other reading material that better rounds out the anthropological/pathological context as I mentioned. Hollywood, with the involvement of those white, black, or blue, has snatched this literary tidbit from relative obscurity and has thrust it into an arguably more influential realm, headed by the support of Winfrey and Perry no doubt. This realm of blockbuster films, far unlike the breadth of obscure reading material that is more encompassing, is a realm of gross cultural under-representation. Again, my issue isnt with how the film stands according to its own merit, but with how it assumes it can stand on its own merit given the context of its delivery within an industry heavily burdened by tired complexion-based cliches.
"However, I do disagree that "black" people have the power to empower this paradigm."
Except that you're wrong. They may not be to BLAME for the paradigm, but they do – unwittingly – participate in it. It's related to the fictional idea of there being a "black community" – which most African-Americans and the white-run media buy into.
This is about where I withdraw from the discussion, because I actually don't care -that- much. There isn't much of a damn we can do about it, anyway.
"Except that you're wrong. They may not be to BLAME for the paradigm, but they do – unwittingly – participate in it."
You just repeated what I said in different words. Here's what you just wrote with barely any changes:
"They may not have EMPOWERED the paradigm, but they do – unwittingly – participate in it."
"Black" people didn't create an institutionally racist society either, yet they must participate in it. This doesn't mean that "black" people are empowering a racist society and most certainly not 'unwittingly'. Again, for the third time, **it doesn't matter what "black" people do in response to a situation (whether they disagree or agree with the status quo (e.g. those "blacks" who support/created the movie and those who don't) ), they are not in a position to change the power dynamics. That falls upon "white" people, who are holding the assumptions and fueling the state of affairs, to change.** "Black" people could scream until they are blue in the face that they don't belong to a "black" community and "white" people would still treat them as a monolithic entity. The system churns on, with or without their consent. Look what happened to MLK's "judge by content of character, not color of skin" ideals years later. Nothing. This is the whole point of institutionalized racism. Non-white people are put into groups by the mentality of the majority "white" population where one-represents-many. Do African-Americans relate to a the idea of a "black" community? Yes, but only as much as societal expectations pressure them to. "Black" people don't inherently get along at all and even within the "black" community there is plenty of disagreement over music, politics, racist behavior, etc. I'm not sure how this is not entirely obvious.
So, in plain-speak, TF, what you're saying is:
Can the story of Precious be taken individually in a market where stereotypes are the norm?
And I'm – implicitly – asking whether or not it's the movie's responsibility to account for all possible misinterpretations/misrepresentations.
Because I've never known "overweight, illiterate, sexually abused, and AIDS-stricken" to be a common stereotype. I think it's for that same reason that you say that Precious didn't bring out that misrepresentation response in you?
I think we're all talking circles around each other and not really making any progress in the discussion. How can this be fixed?
Oh, and PF – really? – you understood that essay? You read the whole thing or just skimmed for key points? I mean, I can pull the thesis out of it, sure, but I also knew that thesis going in. But since I like my understanding of anything to be let's say "complete", all of the gaps created by a need for certain proprietary information was distracting enough to make me unable to continue.
How did you reconcile that?
"Oh, and PF – really? – you understood that essay? You read the whole thing or just skimmed for key points?"
I read a little more than half of it before being interrupted to go play a video game
.
And yes, I can say that I understood the essay (the part I read anyhow). It is simply outlining industry attempts to manipulate the market to help the movie sell well, in addition to analyzing attempts by high profile people who help promulgate negative stereotypes of "black" men. Is it the most perfectly outlined essay ever? Probably not, but it isn't so horrible as to not be able to take away the fact that "Precious" isn't necessarily an innocent stand-alone film about a struggling person. It's marketing was directed to feed off of existing stereotypes. If this is not a correct understanding, well then I agree with you that it is impossible to understand
.
Interrupted, or desperately ran away? Heh.
lol, my allergies to plain-speak is its tendency to drown out the nuances I feel are most important. Its not really an excuse for my poor articulation but you see my point. Anyhow, to reiterate…
1) I agree with your post's thesis. You/me never knowing "overweight, illiterate, sexually abused, and AIDS-stricken" to be a common stereotype is an accurate analysis as to why it didnt bring out that misrepresentation in me. It didnt and doesnt which was why I was kinda like "huh?" to you using 'Precious' as the platform for your post to begin with…Because in your post, you were using Reed's singular, and seemingly misinterpreted example, as evidence to a greater black pathology which seems to mimic the one-represents-all issue you're addressing. Again, I dont disagree with existence of such a pathology, but the self-contradiction struck me.
2) Now on the topic of the film's responsibility, beyond how it does or doesnt make me feel… The film actually has no responsibility to anyone by any constitutional premise, but I feel this is hardly an excuse for a lack of circumspection… which is where my point comes into play. The movie assumes the responsibility of social progression, while fostering the very misinterpretations that account for social ills the movie "doesn't address" because it isnt labeled explicitly as a "black movie." The root problem isnt in our discussion or perception of it being a black/white film, but rather in the responses of people like Barbara Bush. The notion is that such misinterpretations are taking root without the affected culture having the Hollywood power to counter it. Just as Obama is a placebo…so is Winfrey, and Perry and the bunch. Skin complexion aside they cant call foward the anthropolgical/pathological issues the movie is actually built on then ignored while the film is used to deliver more "palatable" topics.
Furthermore, if Reed's assertions are even remotely true there is the much bigger issue of deliberate agendas that get to hide behind the fact they dont actually have a "responsibility" to anyone by avoiding explicit labels or using ones that are politically effective for furthering a campaign. Its a scenario that lends itself to your qualms with a "post-racial" society, and reflects CNN's censorship of topical history that has little-to-no transparency. We can talk openly about obesity, illiteracy, sexual abuse, aids, etc and the pathological premises. We can NOT, by example of CNN, openly discuss race and racial issuses which the movie intentionally or unintentionally exploits as a platform for less taboo issues. While we're not talking about it, "white" America (ex Barbara Bus) is interpreting it via its limited sources under the guise of more comfortable topics. For instance, if all the complexion/ethnic-based role casting was flip flopped would the critic's response have remained the same? If not it lends itself to an implicit racial issue of the film deliberately skirted for the sake that it would otherwise have to address it.
So in other words im not empowering the paradigm because the film doesnt actually affect me personally that way. However, my "individuality" aside, those developing such films as 'Precious' are shirking responsibility by exploiting a fundamental social ill for its unreconciled emotional value but not actually confronting it. Consequently the paradigm isnt empowered by those who do seem to belong to some one-represents-all mentality. The paradigm is empowered by those who are exploiting the paradigm they created, then cornering the market on its portrayal. Flip-flop the race-roles underpinning all of the top grossing movies of Hollywood, and you'll realize that the type-casting that allows a movie of any topic to be successful either ignores or exploits what gave rise to those type-casts to begin with. So on the topic of responsibility… If anyone intends to exploit the premise of a censored societal quagmire/taboo, especially under the guise of social progression, then I would deem it appropriate to not ignore what they are implicitly siphening for profit.
@Reed…could you provide some more direction towards finding your discussion at awardsdaily.com?
It would also follow that 8-mile and History Weapon X aren't basis for misinterpretation because they exist in a Hollywood where positive, white-male-hero films completely and entirely drown out any conveyed negativities or misrepresentations by sheer numbers.
I disagree with your assessment of plain-speak. There is always a simpler way to say anything. That's the game we play with ourselves as writers on a regular basis.
Anyway…so if I understand, you're suggesting that if Precious were a movie featuring white characters that it wouldn't get the same press. And by virtue of the characters being black – because "fucked up life" and "black" meld together well in the white imagination – it lends the film more credibility for white audiences?
So, while the point of the movie, perhaps, is to shed some light on some messed up situations, it can't shirk the responsibility of any implicit association with blackness, even if such an association only exists within the white imagination – an imagination that the producers were counting on to sell the film.
That about right?
I do not agree with the premise that the movie would not have had the same press if it were white characters – I think it would have, although it probably would not have gotten the backing of Winfrey and Perry. But maybe any one of hundreds of white producers would've picked it up instead. From what little I was able to derive from Mr. Reed's article over at counterpunch, the film's creators were having some trouble finding funding at first, and I'm guessing that had to do with the ethnicity of the cast. This is all conjecture, of course, but I imagine that someone out there would've produced it.
However, I do agree that if the film purports to be some sort of social commentary, then it has to take on the responsibility of all social implications that arise from its premise and its cast. At the same time, I'm not so sure that white people – or Perry or Winfrey – are smart enough or "conscious" enough to be aware of all of those implications.
Ok hold on. Granted we can agree to disagree…but you really think the press reaction would have been the same if the plot, delivery, and range of skin complexion role-casting had remained constant but had simply flipped to the other end of the spectrum? So if the main character was a ghost-"white" American and had said that she "…wished she had a dark skinned boyfriend," you feel such statements and associated portrayals wouldve garnered the same lauding from critics? I somehow very highly doubt that.
Why would she have to be ghost-white? And…I don't understand the BET music video reference.
Although I agree with your general view of plain speak this is where its tendency to drown out important nuances come into play. Its not a simple matter of the cast just being "all-black" or "all-white." The role-casting according to the RANGE of skin complexion is very important in illustrating my point. Accurately flipping the race-roles in the movie to the "white" end of the spectrum requires such a range to be mirrored in the opposite direction. Follow? The main character in Precious has a very dark skin complexion and to accurately portray the same effect on the opposite end of the complexion spectrum would require a very pale skinned character. Furthermore, to maintain the range of complexions portrayed in Precious would require more than the flip-flopped cast to be "all-white." The dynamics of the film would now be driven by darker skinned people in the position to "help," and lighter skinned people in a position to be "helped." I challenge you to name the last notable Hollywood success to be based on or even reflect those dynamics.
The BET reference is a line straight from the movie. Again, if the dialogue, script, dialect, plot, delivery, setting…essentially every detail about the movie had remained the same except that the range of skin complexions (and references to them) had been mirrored to the other end of the spectrum, you feel critics would've responded to the film the same way?
Um…if you're talking about just reversing the hierarchy, meaning that Precious would be white and the white characters would be very dark, then of course the response wouldn't be the same. Because white people wouldn't find it believable at all that African-Americans could come to the rescue of some beleaguered white girl.
I don't even understand the point of that comparison. It's not even feasible.
The point of the comparison in its extreme is to demostrate how Precious is in fact a black movie. Im not saying that because the movie is racial that its intent is to reflect on any or all black people. However the implications associated with the fact that "black" culture is being exploited as a stage for this turbulent drama, are aggravated by the racial delusions of an America that is too cowardly to confront them.
Reed's reaction seemed to parallel your response to GAB. In my view, you were concerned by a group professing a certain cause, furthering that cause by exploiting a demographic for emotional value, then proceeding to not even offer proper recognition. Precious advertises social progression by exploiting the racial implications of the "black" demographic, then completely ignores any explicit recognition of that culture's pathology/anthropology.
Its technically possible to assemble a cast that reflects a flipped hierarchy, but no its not socially feasible because of the racial interpretations and expected representations Reed is worried Precious perpetuates. So to bring this back home. I agree with your post overall, but I also feel Reeds general reaction is justified because in the context of present-day America, Precsious is firmly rooted in a racial quagmire. To me the paradigm Reed supposedly empowers is the direct byproduct of the "white" imagination. The paradox here is that indignant outcries, though fully justified in my opinion, actually feed this delusional "white" imagination we're trying to counter. Racial outcries are immediately labeled as racist outcries that are now just ammo for the newest, self-satisfying, post-racial delusion you identified in The Obama Placebo. My question is what to do?
Hm, you know, I didn't get all that from Reed's article. If he had made that point as clearly as you just did, then I may not have written this at all. But that criticism of the film ONLY works if we assume that Reed's second argument – about the marketing of the film – is accurate, and that the casting choices weren't simply to be true to the book. If the latter, then can we really blame the film for the sickness that is the white American imagination?
As for what to do…well, it's prudent for me not to say what I think in public.
You make a point here Godheval. I never thought how most black people would feel about Precious, although I am pretty sure that the people behind the movie would know the impact it would have.
The problem truly is that the MEDIA is controlled by white enterprises, which means we're being fed stereotypes everyday without even knowing it so, the wider society thinks what the MEDIA tells them, and the sad truth is that no one can't scape racist ideas.
The only solution is more people like Tyler Perry who show the different faces of the Black community.
One problem with this assessment. The range of skin-tones mostly doesn't apply amongst white people – at least in the U.S. If you're white, you're white – unless you have some features that mark you as other, and they have to be striking. Even Jews with tightly curled hair can qualify as white.
For African-Americans, the range of color is significant as it relates to whiteness. There can be resentment or presumptions amongst people on this basis. Flipping the skin colors wouldn't create a similar dynamic amongst white characters.
Exactly. I was actually anticipating that very response. Flipping the skin complexions on a purely chromatic basis would in fact NOT create the same dynamic because it hightlights the implications of race that are blantantly implicit, but explicitly ignored. The point is that regardless of the manner in which institutional definitions of race still exist, any allusion to them should be inconsequential if the movie's success isnt dependent on any form of "blackness." The fact that by any institutional standard you CANT flip the race-roles to the same effect, makes it a "black" movie. To reiterate, Precious IS a "black" movie, because if it wasnt a "black" movie America should be able to freely interchange race-roles without changing anthying else about the film or without impacting the audience's reaction. As you imply, Precious cant even exist in the same capacity if it was an "all-white-complexion" movie. That should tell us something.
In other words, ignore "race" (its supposed to be irrelevant anyhow) long enough to fully flip ONLY the skin-tones on a chromatic basis THEN try to reconcile this supposedly inconsequential detail with the American consciousness and the existing institutions of race. So institutional race definitions aside, Precious COULD have been filmed with this full chromatic interchange of skin complexions and…my question to you is, if it was delivered in such a manner, along with the implied "power" shift, you think the critics response would have been the same?
Sure, because white people – the intended audience of Precious if we take Mr. Reed's suggestion – do not understand the dynamic between skin tones amongst African-Americans.
Lighter tones may bring African-Americans closer to their beauty standard, making them more appealing to white people. Which is why, at almost every opportunity, lighter skinned African-Americans are chosen for the "good" roles (moral goodness, not quality of the role), whereas the darker skinned characters are more likely to be villains. But this doesn't mean that white people understand how that range of skin tones plays out amongst African-Americans themselves.
Point being that an all-WHITE cast only makes all of the characters more sympathetic, meaning that it should appeal even more to white audiences. There would need to be no skin-tone range because the same "good vs. evil" according to tone does not exist. Instead they would make the "evil" characters less appealing physically in other ways.
They – the white audience, including critics – wouldn't have to wade through the dilemma of deciding whether or not any of the characters – for racial reasons – were likable or sympathetic, not to mention being able to avoid any preconceptions that this particularly "black" dilemma places the characters outside of their ability to understand or relate to. The latter, I imagine, being the reason why it was difficult for the movie to find financial support in the beginning.
If the cast was changed to an all-white cast – and lets not pretend whitewashing isn't a common practice – those characters would be judged exclusively for their merits and faults – of which there are many.
So, yes, the critics response could have been the same – may have even been more positive.
You're furthering my point although I think we're hitting a wall with this concept of "all-white." Im NOT suggesting an "all-white" cast. Im suggesting a cast that represents the mirroring of the skin-tone range in Precious. They are two separate things…
… For instance, lets take the skin complexion range of the main character Precious and Mariah Carey as boundaries. Lets now take that range and flip it.
1) You admit there IS a complexion hierarchy of which 99% of the range is self-contained within an institutional concept of "blackness," which is why Precious is a black movie.
2) If you flip that hierarchy it puts "whiteness" at the bottom which upsets the entrenched "power" dynamics of hollywood and would immediately bring Precious' racial implications to the forefront.
3) Accurately portraying that flipped range would require more than an "all-white" or an "all-black" cast. It would require a mixture to represent what Precious' character from the white end of the spectrum. Consequently, Mariah Carey's guiding character would be represented with a much darker skin tone. In this mixture of race-roles where whiteness has been interchanged with blackness, America would be forced to reconcile the representation of BOTH "races" on screen but with flipped complexion-based roles.
4) For the sake of a scientific control, outside of this interchange of race roles, EVERYTHING else about the movie remains the same. There is no shifting of anything else or any other details to compensate for this flip-flop. In other words, no making "…evil characters less appealing physically in other ways." If Precious isnt racial then there should be the ability to leave the movie completely unaltered AS-IS in EVERY way except ONLY the skin complexion of the characters and references to them.
5) If the movie was re-filmed as you're describing to be marketable in an "all-white" context then sure, the critics opinion might actually be more positive. However, even in that scenario, the movie is just as racial, implicitly or otherwise.
6) So now I have to rephrase my question
… If the movie Precious AS-IS with all the references to "black" culture in place was changed ONLY by shifting the skin complexions based on my explanation above…you think the critic's response wouldve stayed the same?