Monday, December 27, 2010

Comparative Film Review: Precious vs. Happiness: The Fine Line Between "Well-Done" and "Poorly-Done" Disturbing Films




Recently I watched the 2009 award-winning film Precious on Netflix for a mid-week thought-provoking movie.  It definitely fulfilled it’s purpose in provoking lots of thoughts but not the kind that I was expecting.  I had been warned that it was a disturbing film and that it carried a lot of heavy content.  This was not an exaggeration at all.  I was not prepared for this kind of disturbing, however.    

(SPOILER ALERT: if you don’t want the film Precious ruined for you, don’t read this review.  However, because I value Happiness so much, I would never dream of spoiling that film so rest assured that you can read on without fear that I am ruining it for you). The film Precious is a Geoffrey S. Fletcher adaptation of the 1996 novel Push by Sapphire.  It is about an obese, illiterate, impoverished African-American teenage mom named Claireece Precious Jones who grows up in Harlem in the 1980s and the struggles and trials that she has to overcome in order to build a normal life.  The film starts out by immediately diving into the abusive home situation that Precious was born into and has lived in for 16 years and how this has drastically affected her ability to learn at an already low-performance, inner-city public school.  As the film progresses the viewer learns even more about just how twisted and abusive Precious’ home life is.  She is 16 years old and already a mother of a 2 year old toddler and she is now pregnant again--both times by her own abusive father.
While this film is indeed very disturbing content-wise from the get-go, what I found to be far more disturbing (and even unsettling) was the execution and the presentation of the content.  Instead of letting the disturbing content organically expose itself or be appropriately woven into the plot of the story, it was shoved in the viewer’s face and even showcased.  In fact, the way that Precious‘ deeply disturbing circumstances are presented is so over-the-top that it’s almost comical (disturbingly so).  It’s as if you can almost hear Bob Barker or some other cheesy game show host announcer saying: “And now ladies and gentlemen, we have Precious Jones up for the 2009 Victim of the Year Award!  Not only is she fat and black and dark-skinned and ugly but she is also completely illiterate/stupid and a mother of two children, fathered by her own father whom she has been raped by since infancy...isn’t that just TERRIBLE?!...Oh my! And just when you thought she couldn’t have it any worse...she has AIDS too! Oh my! Ding ding ding! Ladies and Gentlemen we have a winner!!! Congratulations Precious Jones you win the 2009 Victim of the Year Award! Woooo hooooo!!!”
By the end of the film, I was not only disgusted by the content and the presentation of the film but I was actually offended as well.  I’m not even black but I honestly found this film to be very race-biased.  Every black character in the film was either a wicked and evil child-molesting animal or a hopeless and miserable victim and all of the “good guys” in the film were either white or very light-skinned, well-educated, non-ebonics-speaking blacks who did not live in black neighborhoods.  This film honestly did not portray a single positive attribute among normal, medium to dark-skinned, inner-city black folks and it did not give them much of a hopeful message either other than: if you’re life sucks, leave home and find some charitable white people or black people who are similar to white people to help transform your life for you.
As much as I deplored this film, however, I am glad that I watched it because it forced me to think about what it is that makes a disturbing film well-done and what is it that makes a disturbing film poorly-done.  It is a fine line that determines the quality of a disturbing film but this line definitely exists.  In oder to help define this line, let’s look at a highly disturbing film that I consider very well-done--one of my all-time favorites, the 1998-dark comedy directed by Todd Solondz, Happiness.
Happiness is one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen.  It looks at the interconnected lives of three sisters, their families, and those around them--all seemingly very typical, everyday American people--and uncovers a slew of very dark and twisted issues pertaining to emotional and sexual abuse that lurk beneath the surface.  However, instead of trying to earnestly address every issue that is brought up, like Precious attempts to do, it merely makes light of them and laughs at them.  Disturbing?  Definitely.  Effective?  Definitely.  
In Happiness, there are numerous occasions where the viewer doesn’t know whether he is supposed to laugh, cry, scream or all three at the same time. In doing so, the director makes such a disturbing impact upon the audience that they can’t help but think about the film for weeks afterward, questioning every preconceived notion that they’ve ever had about the perfect all-American family.  Precious, on the other hand, does nothing but reinforce and strengthen already-existing negative pathologies.  It does nothing to break outside the box or force the audience to think, it just exaggerates every negative conception of black Americans that the audience already had.  Kind of like, “Oh yea, I guess it really is that bad...that’s sad,” and then go back to their everyday lives even less motivated to help out the poor and oppressed because they now think their efforts will be completely ineffective.  
Similar to Precious, the intensity and the quantity of the disturbing elements found in Happiness is way-over-the-top and way too much to take in at once.  It’s so much that it feels forced and unnatural, even manipulative.  But the difference here between Precious and Happiness is that Happiness is a comedy and Precious definitely is not.  As disturbing as it may sound, I actually think that that Precious would have been so much more effective if it was produced, similarly, as a really dark and morbidly twisted comedy.  This would have allowed the director to draw the audience’s attention to Precious’ horrific circumstances but in a way that was digestible and more appropriate with the over-the-top presentation.  
As the film was, it took on way too much content and it took itself way too seriously.  It could have been a decent film if it focused in on one aspect of her disturbing upbringing, say the incest or the illiteracy and dissected it, but when you just keep on accumulating the tragedies, it cheapens them and doesn’t allow the audience to digest them properly.  There is just too much.  The film could’ve been nine hours long and it still would not have been able to effectively address all of the issues brought up.  Precious should be used as case study number one why attempting to take on all the content of a very deep book and condensing it into one 110-minute film never works.
In the end, Precious failed miserably at capturing my empathy or even my sympathy for the life of Claireece Precious Jones.  After watching it, I only had sympathy for Geoffrey S. Fletcher who, it appears, is completely incapable of turning a beautiful, heart-wrenching story about a teenage girl who overcomes the unimaginable and beyond to build a life for herself, into a halfway decent film.  I have never understood artists’ collective aversion to the cliche more vividly than after I watched this film.  The inability of the director to break away from obvious cliches is not only painful but it is lazy. What Fletcher produced was a mockery of the original story and it would have been more effective if the tone of the movie was a mockery as well.     
  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Intro: Old Man

My taste is very simple. Much like Winston Churchill, I simply enjoy the best. I like my coffee black, my milk whole, my meat red, my tobacco full, and my whiskey strong. As far as women; well, I like those too. Altogether I’m a fairly easy man to accommodate. My chief difficulty however, is in people.

I’m from Texas. Home of the brave, land of the free…range. That never really occurred to me until I moved here to Manhattan. Home of the money slave, land of the free…cage. Back home it wasn’t uncommon to pass by a few fields on the way to a friend’s house. Over here the only fields you pass are small block of land that haven’t been constructed on yet which is usually offset by a construction notice of the next exciting city rectangle to come. I was born and raised in a community where my neighbors were always beside me and now I live in work in a city where my neighbors are above and below me.

I’ve never worked harder than I have here in Manhattan. I’ve also never felt more insignificant and worthless than I have here which is rather odd just because, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else. Funny how that works. As many years as I’ve been here now there’s something so enchanting, so charming about this city I still can’t put my finger on. I’ve seen some and even had to do some pretty sneaky things to get by here in the city which makes me feel like such a snake at times. It’s hard to feel that bad about it though, as much as I’d like to. Imagine how bad a sneaky reptile would feel at the mercy of its snake charming circumstances. Socrates once implored the importance of what it is to know thyself. As much as I’ve grown to know who I am I’ve learned some hard lessons in what it is to love and respect myself. During the process I’ve also learned what it is that I don’t like, even deplore about myself. Whenever I see these deplorable qualities of mine in characterized in others it really stirs me up. All of which brings me back to my original point; people I don’t like.

We live in a culture that conditions us to do things that radically oppose each other. In one hand we’re to conform to a glamorous world of materialism and then we somehow manage to promote a rather excessive degree of individualism. This new breed of animated individualism has inadvertently created a sort of god like mentality in many of us. “I’m ME!” is the new banner we’re raising over our children and enforcing in our culture and the result is becoming more and more outrageous. It’s not hard to notice anymore how we’ve abandoned glorified virtues like commitment, parental respect, modestly dressed women, and even abstinence (YEAH I said it) in order to make room for our elephant individualism. Yet even in a culture of abandoned virtue and prescribed ego it all fits well in the consumption glove.

Be who you want to be! Not that any respectable culture should have ever discouraged such regards but it’s easy to see how that’s changed in today’s age where we’ve gone from telling young men they could be astronauts on posters when they’re at school to telling them they can be girls on TV when they get home. Do what you like! Do what makes you feel good! Our culture of individualism has become so god like now it’s no wonder people are so damn sensitive these days. Heaven forbid people’s feelings are inconvenienced by opposing thought or disagreed with on ethical grounds. I guess it’s pretty easy to step on Zeus’s toes when Mt. Olympus is crowded with so damn many of them. How did this happen? I wish it was just one persons fault. It’d be a lot less exhausting than being pissed off at everyone.

Another qualm I have with this culture is probably the same I’ve had with most cultures throughout the history of time. Everyone wants to live a thousand years but no one wants to get old. I’ve already embraced as much. I’m one of the oldest man you’ll ever meet in such a young body. To this day I’m still not too sure what the kids are referring to with that funky street word of theirs, ‘block.’ But whatever it is I’m pretty sure I’ve been around it a few times. I’ve got more experience than a ship wrecked captain and more stories to tell about them than a well seasoned sailor. There’s such a thing as many but for someone my age it’s more like a thing of too many. That’s partly why I think my soul is so wrinkled.

But unlike most of us! Hell! Even unlike myself, I’m looking forward to the old man within emerging to his fullest form. To curse Harry Potter kids and speak without consequence, which is my precise intention with this writing medium. If I have as much to look forward to I mine as well start now. I’m reminded of what that good ole boy Marcus Aurelius once said about it. You must become an old man in good time if you wish to be an old man for a long time.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Intro: The Graduate


This was originally supposed to be my “About Me” but thank God they put a 1,200-character limit on those things, so instead, here is my introductory post.




I am the incarnate soul of Benjamin Braddock, living in the second decade of the 21st century.  I am a charismatic, intelligent, and good looking (blah, blah, blah) young college graduate who had his life all perfectly ordered until the diploma landed in his hand.  It was at that moment that I realized that my whole life I had been drawing a blueprint for a life that was not my own.  I was unleashed into a world with too many choices and not enough discipline, too many hormones and not enough restraint, too many questions and not enough answers.


Driven to near insanity by all of this confusion, I embarked on a 90-day, 18,000-mile roadtrip across North America (to get rid of all of the confusion of course...HA!).  On this journey I succeeded at blowing my life savings (on gasoline and camping supplies), meeting my own Mrs. Robinson (she was Québécoise, go figure), witnessing the beauty of nature like I’d never imagined, reconnecting with my family roots in Alaska, experiencing the birth of my nephew in Vancouver, accumulating a lifetime supply of life lessons, and propelling my life into complete ambiguity.  Somehow I found myself back in New York City, exactly where I started, except even more confused with even fewer answers than when I started (gee, who could've seen that coming?!).

So today I reside in Chelsea, Manhattan with my Bachelor of Arts in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics hanging on the wall of my overpriced apartment, enslaved by my self-induced ambiguity.  I am way too inexperienced in anything practical and way too experienced in everything universal and hypothetical to be of any use to any prospective entry-level job.  I could probably rule the country pretty well if given the chance, but ask me to be a barista at Starbucks and you have a disaster on your hands.  
I spend most of my days planning out my hypothetical rise to wealth and fame, while lacking the actual discipline or stability required to implement any of my plans.  I tried rejecting the world of “doing” and embracing the world of “being” in accordance with a nostalgic view of 1960s Existentialism, only to realize that in New York City, that’s what makes you homeless.  In this city nobody really gives a fuck who you are, they just care about what you can do for them.
Alas, I find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time--in the City of Action, suspended in a State of Inaction.  What’s a hopeless, bleeding heart Philosopher King-trainee to do?  Give up everything he’s worked for, throw in the towel, and move back to Cincinnati?  Sell out, shut up, and join the rest of New York in pursuing a career that I hate?  Or maybe I should just barely get by (you know, make enough money to almost cover my bills then embarrassingly ask my hardworking, disciplined, Protestant-work-ethicked parents for a bailout to cover my last $200 of rent and utilities), work part-time at Starbucks with way too much time to philosophize, hypothesize, watch the entire series of Nip/Tuck, and set up a blog all the while changing the world one day at a time?  DUH...I chose the third option.  Welcome to the life of Wyatt Baker.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.