Comments

1. G.D. wrote:

   One of the criticisms of ‘Push’ in the other thread was the idea that white movie execs were chomping at the bit to propagate ‘negative’ images of African American women.

   That seemed a little off to me. But I wonder: does that criticism stand when the author, director and now, the bankrollers, are all black?

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:38 am ¶

2. Rchoudh wrote:

   It really will be quite interesting to see how this film is marketed and to what extent it reaches a wider mainstream audience.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 9:36 am ¶

3. Jamma Mamma wrote:

   excellent comment G.D.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 9:52 am ¶

4. gatamala wrote:

   @GD~Oprah and TP will undoubtedly fork over cash. But they will really shakedown other folks to support the movie financially. You can definitely believe there will be white support. At least Spielberg.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 10:23 am ¶

5. Monie wrote:

   I really want to see this film despite some of my worries about the cast; Mo’Nique and Sherri Shepard. But I’m also a little worried now that Tyler Perry is involved. He’s about bashing Black women so maybe this film is not what I think it is.

   I’m not sure that this, Perry and Winfrey, being involved is a good thing. I would have felt better had Jada and Will attached themselves to the film.

   We’ll see how this goes.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 10:46 am ¶

6. Avant wrote:

   I am *not* excited about this at all. Though they both tackled black suffering, make no mistake — Push is not anything like The Color Purple. The characters faced sexual and physical abuse in the movie, however it depicting such abuse was not the main point of the movie.

   Push, the novel, revels is depicting the abuse in which the protagonist suffers. What is problematic to me about this story is that there is little movement in the lead character. From a narrative standpoint, movement in character is when over the course of events in the story the character is fundamentally changed. They are different from how they were in the beginning of the story. This is not to be confused with having ‘a happy ending’. In Hamlet, the protagonist moves from a state of indecision to deciding to take action to avenge his father. The play tells the story of how events unfolded and how the characters responded.

   Push reminds me of an unfinished story. It revels in the dark details, but ultimately before the character the undergoes dramatic changes it reaches a final conclusion. This is what makes me uncomfortable about the film. In the end, it’s lasting impression is the not the sadness of the character — the biggest impression is the details of her brutality. As a result, it’s a plot driven story instead of character driven one.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:05 pm ¶

7. Oona wrote:

   @I really want to see this film despite some of my worries about the cast; Mo’Nique

   I’ve read dozens of reviews that mention how fantastic Mo’Nique is in this movie. More than one of them mentioned that she really deserves an Oscar nomination for her role. It shocks the hell out of me. I don’t really like Mo or think she’s funny but I got a little excited for her when I read all that praise.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶

8. Madame Zenobia wrote:

   @ Oona,

   I’ve read the same of Mo’Nique and must add to it that in Shadowboxer she also did a great job. Kinda blew me away.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:54 pm ¶

9. G.D. wrote:

   Monie: Jada and Will —The people who brought us ‘Lakeview Terrace’ and the universally loathed ‘Seven Pounds’ — would have been better? Word? Different strokes, i guess.

   I also wouldn’t say that Tyler Perry is about bashing Black women, though I may be reading this wrong. His movies may have, um, specific ideas about what Black women should be like, but his audience is made up largely of black women, albeit black women who probably share his churchy views on family.

   This goes back to the question I asked above: aren’t black people allowed any agency in how we choose to portray each other on film? in the films we consume about each other? If the author of the source material is black, the director and financial backers are black, and the potential audience might be as black as those for Perry’s previous films, it doesn’t mean a film isn’t potentially problematic, but it certainly has to change the, er, complexion of the conversation around it.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶

10. cocolamala wrote:

    my point, gd, is that there are other, equally powerful stories and film dying to be made about the black experience that don’t focus on misery. I want more variety of representation.

    What moved Push to the top of the pile over others? Oprah said it was “raw” and it “split her open.”

    She reads widely and has selected many black authors for her book club.

    She made “The Women of Brewster Place,” and “Their Eyes were Watching God” and “Beloved.” So she’s doing good on breadth of representation in black filmmaking.

    I’m not ascared of the heartache and tribulation, but what about Edwidge Dandicat, Paule Marshall, Toni Cade Bambara … MOAR PLEASE.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶

11. atlasien wrote:

    I just want to weigh in on one thing… the idea (it came up on this thread and the other one) that to be great, a work of art has to have character development.

    I don’t buy that. At all. The idea is both eurocentric and historically contingent. I don’t think even think Shakespeare was really all about character development. Issues of obligation, morality, fate and so on are at least equally important. You can read many of his plays through a character development lens, or not.

    After the 18th century the idea of character development become much more important.

    If you look at earlier classics like The Odyssey, I don’t see much character development there, either. Odysseus never really learns to be a better person according to any contemporary standard we could retroactively apply. By the end, he’s still the same cocky bastard that set out from Troy.

    Many modern classics have little or no character development. For example, Garcia Marquez organizes many of his books around collectively-experienced cyclical time, not linear character.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶

12. G.D. wrote:

    cocolamala: i don’t think i ever argued *against* that point. in the other thread, i’d argued that i wasn’t sure what metric was being used to recognize one film as ‘positive’ and one film as ‘negative.’ (personally, i think it has a lot to do with the socioeconomic class of the characters being portrayed, but that’s another discussion.)

    i’m all for broader representation of ‘the black experience’ (whatever THAT is), but these conversations pretend that *nuanced* portraits of the lives of the black poor are de rigeur. I’m not sure I buy that.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶

13. Asada wrote:

    Yes!
    looks like we have another controversial black film in the makes! Accept the challenge! =D

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:09 pm ¶

14. Paz wrote:

    -I’m happy about the news b/c I heard about a number of movies at Sundance, but I wonder if I would even have access to them.
    -Hopefully with Oprah’s backing it will be shown to a wider audience that can see a movie centered on a black female. How often does that happen in mainstream Hollywood?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:14 pm ¶

15. Avant wrote:

    @atlasien
    I just want to weigh in on one thing… the idea (it came up on this thread and the other one) that to be great, a work of art has to have character development.

    I don’t buy that. At all. The idea is both eurocentric and historically contingent.
    ————————————————

    Having a story with character movie is eurocentric?? Wow you are *seriously* reaching there…

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶

16. Avant wrote:

    Character movement*

    Typo above..

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶

17. Monie wrote:

    @GD

    I actually didn’t know Will and Jada had anything to do with those films. I heard Six Pounds was a decent flick by the way. I’m with you on Lakeview.

    Anyway I’ll take Will and Jada over Tyler Perry and his minstrel shows any day of the week.

    Regarding Tyler Perry’s women bashing; I feel they are, as a woman, and I think the evidence is pretty clear in all of his work that he hates Black women unless we conform to his twisted view of who we should be.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶

18. Monie wrote:

    ***Meant to type Seven Pounds*** lol

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:43 pm ¶

19. TeakLipstickFiend wrote:

    Do you think some people will see this film by accident when they wanted to see the Dakota Fanning sci-fi flick called “Push” instead? Or vice versa?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:44 pm ¶

20. Kamai Nicole wrote:

    I have not had the opportunity to see this film yet. However, “Push” is one of the very first books I’ve ever read and it moved me. Growing up in a abusive single parent household I connected with this book in more ways than one. Since then I have encouraged everyone one of my friends to pit it up and read it.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶

21. Winn wrote:

    @atlasien,

    Thank you for offering some historical and literary perspective on the supposed necessity of character development. The idea of the necessity of a “dynamic character” is a (relatively speaking) modern and Westernized idea, and early literary classics and many examples of non-Western literature feature static and flat characters as protagonists. KSU English professor Lyman Baker points out that, “Moreover, within literary critical discourse, these terms are meant to be purely descriptive, not evaluative. That is, “dynamic” characters are not necessarily better, in narrative art, than “static” ones.”

    @ Avant

    Comparative literature scholars have been researching and debating the Eurocentrism of much of what we consider literature and its archetypal elements, including the need for narrative and character arcs and development, for many years, including scholars like Toynbee, Mouralis, Schipper, and others. If you are interested, you might want to check out issues of The Journal of PostColonial Writing or the latest edition of Falling Into Theory: Conflicting Views on Reading Literature. Trust me, atlasien didn’t just pull this idea out of the ether. It’s been a hot topic for at least thirty years.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:56 pm ¶

22. atlasien wrote:

    @Avant: if you disagree, give a real counterargument to the examples I named.

    Could you name and describe a single famous Greek tragedy where a character displays a substantial personality change as a response to events in the play? The change has to be organic and psychological (i.e. being struck mad by the gods doesn’t count).

    I never said that character development in and of itself is eurocentric. For example, in the Chinese Buddhist classic novel Journey to the West, the character of Monkey does undergo considerable psychological change.

    But the idea that character development is this great standard by which literature should be judged is, yes, eurocentric, and also reached its height in the 19th century.

    I haven’t read “Push” so I’m just making a broad literary point, not a specific one. Saying “Push” is bad based on the idea that it doesn’t have character development and all great narratives have character development… that’s just not supportable.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:18 pm ¶

23. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Monie: From what I heard, cutting it down to six, maybe even five pounds would have been an improvement. Zing on you, Will Smith! ZING.

    @ G.D.: I agree with your point about black films with black writers, directors and backing. If it isn’t a ‘The Color Purple’ situation, if black dollars and influence are getting a film on screens, does that neutralize the accusations of fetishized black suffering? Or does it just change the driver (from “Black life! So, hard for those guys what with the being black and all – people must see this” to “We suffer and no one even notices – people must see this” for example).

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶

24. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ TeakLipstickFiend: I have a friend who made this mistake with 28 Days (Sandra Bullock drinks! Sandra Bullock goes to rehab! Sandra Bullock dates McNulty) and 28 Days Later (Rage virus zombies at Sandra Bullock and everyone else and you’re next). We were dying when the mix up showed up on ‘The Office.’

    Also: after my parents took my sister and I to see ‘Menace II Society’ (a sociological experiment of sorts), my mom turned to my dad in the car and stage-whispered “I thought we were going to see Dennis the Menace. That was not Dennis the Menace.”

    In short: Maybe a few.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:30 pm ¶

25. Monie wrote:

    lol@A.D.

    Was it that bad? Now Iwant to see it for myself.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:32 pm ¶

26. Lamees wrote:

    co sign with edwidge danticat-

    seriously one of the most amazing writers

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:43 pm ¶

27. Alienation wrote:

    @ Avant

    Isn’t it interesting that in all the years of American cinema, when an effeminate black male character pops up people come out of the woodwork to say that it is “racist”, regardless of it being based on a book or not? Actually, the only time it’s not argued that a black male character is racist is when he is depicted as a masculine hero, regardless of the “eurocentric” point of view that he is “positive” because of white patriarchy. Isn’t hypocrisy funny?

    To suggest, however, that movies like “Push” which showcase the identical equivalent for black female characters, or Tyler Perry movies are everything from “necessary” to “Eurocentric”, to “Real” and thus, acceptable and heavily backed by the mainstream.

    I’ve always found this contradiction extremely strange…

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:00 pm ¶

28. G.D. wrote:

    Monie:

    Sometimes reading film reviews for bad movies is a lot of fun; ‘Seven Pounds’ brought me a lot of enjoyment, in that regard.

    (Tony Scott’s was the best: “Frankly, though, I don’t see how any review could really spoil what may be among the most transcendently, eye-poppingly, call-your-friend-ranting-in-the-middle-of-the-night-just-to-go-over-it-one-more-time crazily awful motion pictures ever made. I would tell you to go out and see it for yourself, but you might take that as a recommendation rather than a plea for corroboration.”)

    Anyway, all that to say: when did Will and Jada became paragons of movie excellence? My co-bloggers and I have a running joke that Jada Pinkett’s mere involvement is an indicator of a project’s shittiness (she wasn’t the reason the last two ‘Matrix’ installments sucked, but she was a red flag.)

    Jokes aside: why are Tyler Perry’s movies ‘minstrel shows’? Because they’re broad? Not my cup of tea, either. But ‘minstrel show’ seems loaded and maybe not altogether fair. Care to explain?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:35 pm ¶

29. coco wrote:

    The characters are exagerated (broad humor), but Perry also recycles black stereotypes that date back to minstrelsy
    (and black actors did perform these stereotypes in minstrel shows):

    fat, loud, sassy momma — Saphire, mammy
    promiscuous/drug abuser young black woman/single mom — jezebel
    lowlife/abusive man– shiftless negro
    black religiosity — check

    [brain]wash, rinse, repeat.

    i don’t feel like he is malicious – but it can get tiresome.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 6:38 pm ¶

30. coco wrote:

    Shoot, why not just make Oprah’s story?

    She doesn’t lose the weight, it ends with her being a BILLIONAIRE and, it’s true.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶

31. coco wrote:

    … and she’s buddies with the President of the United States, and she gets to party with Toni Morrison, and her own magazine with her face on every issue …

    *great story — someone should option that*

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 6:52 pm ¶

32. brownstocking wrote:

    I won’t say TP is a minstrel, but I will say that he’s just chitlin circuit, which isn’t my cup of tea, and I’m tired of black men in drag and fatsuits going for “laughter, love and life lessons.” Retch.

    So, HUGE red flag, as I said in the other thread about “Push.” And Will and Jada (why aren’t they called Willda?) aren’t impressive, either. I think that man is confused. She’s always been her own drum corps.

    Completely cosign on Danticat et al. mentioned above.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:03 pm ¶

33. Monie wrote:

    @G.D.

    Regarding Tyler Perry: What coco said in comment #29.

    Someone I know has a screener of Seven Pounds so I’m going to check it out this weekend. I’ll see how bad it is for myself. (Rosario Dawson is in it so how bad could it be?) lol

    And Jada and Will aren’t perfect but they don’t seem to wallow in making or being involved with stereotypical films as Tyler Perry does.

    I won’t even go into what I think of Oprah so as not to start any wars on the thread.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:27 pm ¶

34. Monie wrote:

    @coco

    I agree with your comment about Tyler Perry except I think he is being malicious. Have you seen any of his TV show House of Payne? I find it hard to believe, after seeing that show, that he’s not being malicious.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:30 pm ¶

35. G.D. wrote:

    coco: Oprah was sexually abused, used drugs, was in abusive relationships, and is a portly black woman who dispenses ’sage’ advice to her largely white audience.

    you see where I’m going with this? You can take aspects of anything and reduce it to stereotype — that’s why people buy into stereotypes: they can be conveniently custom-fitted to just about anyone’s narrative. It’s not that they’re true, is that they’re broad enough to be plausible when someone wants to employ them.

    and my point about class still stands. you brought up the fact that she was phenomenally rich to offset the other ’stereotypical’ aspects of her life. that’s really telling.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:41 pm ¶

36. G.D. wrote:

    Monie/coco:

    lemme just get this straight: a movie that would be ‘positive’ and not ’stereotypical’ would feature no overweight people, no religious people, no single mothers, and no drug dealers.

    yeah, like i said. it’s becoming clear that ‘positive’ is a code-word for ‘middle class.’

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:47 pm ¶

37. queerhapa wrote:

    Isn’t Oprah a survivor of child sexual abuse? I can see this as contributing to her desire to help get Push distribution. To help give voice to other survivors, to those who have been silenced and shamed. I don’t know if Sapphire is herself a survivor, but she often writes from the perspective of survivors of sexual abuse and incest in an extremely intense, raw, powerful, stomach ache-inducing way. Despite folks bashing Push as misery porn (or whatever it was called in the other thread), I do think it’s rare for literature to be written *from the perspective of a survivor*, and even rarer for film. Bastard Out of Carolina would be the other example I can think of off the top of my head.

    These two threads about Push are setting off my internal alarm bells (which, granted, might just be me projecting and being triggered), worrying that by dismissing creative projects that deal with sexual abuse and incest as cynical misery porn, people are just perpetuating the shame cycle, telling survivors, esp. survivors of color, to just STFU because their stories are making others feel uncomfortable.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:50 pm ¶

38. queerhapa wrote:

    Oh, and Atlasien, wouldn’t you say that Oedipus Rex experienced some serious character development?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:50 pm ¶

39. atlasien wrote:

    @queerhapa: Oedipus commits a transgression related to hubris, then gets punished horribly for it. He doesn’t change as a person. Things happen to him, but they don’t change his personality.

    If you can call that character development , it’s really non-psychological. He moves from the top of fortune’s wheel to the bottom (external, social change) and becomes blind (external, physical change).

    It’s pre-Christian and there’s no redemption involved for Oedipus. He doesn’t get rewarded in the afterlife for his suffering. He’s not even going to get rewarded by “becoming a better person”, the more secular redemption arc. The whole point of Oedipus is to for the audience to think “OMG, sucks to be him…”

    Again, this doesn’t have much to do with “Push”. But some narratives (both ancient and modern) reflect the fact that really horrible things can happen to people, and sometimes people don’t learn anything from those horrible things, and they don’t become better people as a result. We’re just conditioned to believe that there always has to be redemptive value to suffering.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 9:59 pm ¶

40. Monie wrote:

    G.D.

    I don’t have a problem with Push. I read the book and I’m looking forward to seeing the film.

    I don’t think that every film telling a story with Black characters has to be or ought to be a positive story. My concern is more with the continued use of the same stereotypes and tired storylines that we’ve seen since movie making began.

    My concern with Push is that Tyler Perry and Oprah are now attached to the film. I worry how these two might market the film.

    On your point though; I think that the desire for positive themes in Black films is a reaction to the constant stream of ‘ghetto’ films Hollywood produces. I wouldn’t reduce that desire as being simply a middle-class thing.

    What’s wrong with wanting balance?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 10:43 pm ¶

41. Rchoudh wrote:

    @atlasien

    I agree with what you say about how character development is not always necessary for a story to be good and praiseworthy. Hollywood in general has fallen into this formulaic method of storytelling where 99% of the time the main character undergoes some major change that somehow is meant to turn him/her into a better person in the end. This is not always reflective of reality where someone can experience many things without becoming a better person out of it.

    That was one of the major complaints behind the movie Slumdog Millionaire, in which you have one of the main characters (Jamal’s brother) suddenly turn from being a bad guy to a good guy without any real explanation over why and how the sudden change came about. And also you have the first part of the story depicting the depressingly gritty slum life in India followed by the Bollywood like fairy tale ending of the hero getting the girl and winning alot of cash.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 10:52 pm ¶

42. theboxman wrote:

    Atlasien is on the mark here. One has to keep in mind the very historicity of how character is understood in narratives now — as complete individuals with psychologies and motivations as opposed to archetypal placeholders in prescribed mythic forms — does not come about until recently, and is only then retroactively read back into premodern texts.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 11:27 pm ¶

43. Free wrote:

    I’m not surprised by this development as Lions Gates distributed Monster’s Ball and Tyler Perry’s films.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 4:25 am ¶

44. Free wrote:

    oops – Lions Gate

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 4:26 am ¶

45. cocolamala wrote:

    I understand your point about money and middle class, but drug abuse, sexual violence, single moms, etc. are not specifically class-bound issues. You don’t have to highlight these themes every time you talk about poor people, or black people. That’s where people begin associating those markers with class and race while overlooking or excusing those same problems in their own communities. That’s how prejudice and stereotyping works (that’s why I think about diversity in representation).

    Oprah’s real life story has all those stereotypical elements, but it also has more than those elements. That’s because she’s a real human being and not just a “type.” Oprah’s success may be due to those mammy markers, but her real life story belies the mammy stereotype. Being a billionaire is not part of the mammy stereotype, neither is palling around with the POTUS. A stereotype is defined by others, but Oprah literally creates images of herself in her magazine. She’s modeling on every cover and she’s not a size zero. How stereotype busting is that? That’s all I’m saying, when you compare the type to the reality, even a good match, you can see how it’s a poor fit.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 11:10 am ¶

46. Nina wrote:

    Everyone please re-read the book I am about 3/4 of the way through it, having not read it since it came out. It is harrowing. Perhaps more so for me because I have become a mother since my first reading of it.

    I don’t think it is a story that should not be told, just wish that there was more balance in the stories told about POC in the movie world.

    And for what it is worth, the movie is a completed project and Oprah and Tyler’s attachment to it is purely about financing distribution and promotion. The movie’s content should not change substantially (there may be small edits here and there) now that they are attached to it.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 11:36 am ¶

47. blip wrote:

    I don’t think it is a story that should not be told, just wish that there was more balance in the stories told about POC in the movie world.
    __________________________

    I’ve heard this statement reiterated through these posts on Racialious. I have no idea what you are talking about. It’s clear that you don’t watch many films, or even take notice of the black films that come out on any given year. I’ll repeat this one more time.

    It’s PUSH that’s the anomaly.

    The hood films, cookie-cutter romcoms, “black man in a dress” films, biopics, and historical dramas that are the imbalance.

    If films like PUSH are in abundance, name five films like PUSH that came out in 2008. If that’s too hard, name five films that came out in the ’00s that are like PUSH, that is causing this ‘imbalance’ you speak of.

    I betcha can’t name them, because your statement is not true.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:04 pm ¶

48. gatamala wrote:

    @blip

    PUSH is a “hood” film. As in what goes on in the “hood”.

    It may be a “different” type of a hood film in that it was Critically Acclaimed at Sundance.

    The theme didn’t change, the audience did.

    Black Pathology always makes $$$, no matter who’s shelling out the bucks.

    It doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist. Hell, I may see it (Netflix).

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 6:11 pm ¶

49. LaurynX wrote:

    I’m sorry, but I really fail to get what everyone is, excuse me, bitching about. We get a complex story about one black experience and people are up in arms about how negative it is. Didn’t Cadillac Records just come out? Didn’t Dream Girls make a hit? How about the Pursuit of Happyness? What do you want? …I don’t get it.

    Of course there are a million stories that can be told that aren’t. But I’m not going to dismiss the validity of this story just b/c it’s “negative”. What?

    I bet if all the films depicted happy times, people would be complaining about “reality not being portrayed”.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:43 pm ¶

50. brownstocking wrote:

    mmm Etta clearly wasn’t happy about “Cadillac” but that’s an aside.

    I read “Push,” and while it was stark, at first, it grew tiring. I do wonder what, exactly, we’re getting with this being released into mass distribution.

    It was an okay book, I don’t get the fanfare or the rabid “I NEED to see this on the big screen,” either.

    I will say I’m looking forward to seeing Mo’Nique’s portrayal, since I consider her part of the problem of imagery in American Black cinema. I’m just not going to pay for it.

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 12:57 am ¶

51. yesand... wrote:

    oh, you.

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶

52. Kendra wrote:

    I’m currently reading “Push” and I’ve gotten to the part where Precious discusses her own invisibility. I suppose it also explains why she’d prefer whiteness over blackness; she realizes that she isn’t treated like a human being in most situations. Her presence doesn’t warrant respect, attention or even understanding. She notices how some white people, white women in particular, are seen as human despite what she considers poor behavior on their part and she wishes for that kind of recognition.

    It’s reminds me of how for the most part a human child isn’t considered human until he/she has developed some knowledge and competence in use of a human language (spoken or otherwise). Because her intelligence is considered subpar by the tests’ standards, she realizes that she isn’t being seen because her “lack” of intelligence is considered subhuman on top of how other people judge her appearance.

    Her vampire metaphor is interesting, too.

    She’s certainly a flawed person: she uses a lot of profane language and she has lingering anti-Asian sentiments as well as the occasional anti-Latino and anti-white utterance. She also seems anti-woman, anti-black woman especially when it comes to her mother and her potential self-hate, anti-skinny, anti-light skinned black woman, anti-fat, etc. I would say that most things are borne of ignorance as well as a product of her unchecked and equally prejudiced environment. She also has a lot of defense mechanisms, her racism being one of them though I don’t wish to limit her agency even with how she’s constantly traumatized and abused. Her language is understandable given how her parents talk to her and treat her.

    And she’s certainly not oblivious to how people view her weight; she even expresses a desire to lose weight if she actually had the opportunity or really the time. Then again, if your mother forced you into an itis-state just to make you vulnerable, would your first thought always be your weight or the fact that you’re tired and you’re being sexually abused? But yeah, she’s realizes her mother is a very big woman, as is she. And yes, there are parents that force feed their children, overfeed them or simply don’t give them the nutrients that they require. This constructs life-long habits which can be difficult to break.

    But I’ve noticed changes in the storytelling, so I’m wondering if this variation is supposed to reflect her “mental retardation” fading into moments of clarity, someone else telling part of her story or simply an omniscient narrator.

    I don’t know what the film will accomplish. If it moves people in any way or opens their eyes to how kids, not just black kids, suffer then that would be nice. If it gets more people becoming child advocates, that’s nice, too. But to make this the overall depiction of Black America or the black child experience (as though both are completely singular) . . . that would be troublesome.

    I don’t think that you can get rid of racism or prejudice. But you can inform people and educate them, if that happens to be your choice or reaction. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with this story so far since I can only view it as just one experience. I know how it would structurally be seen, but that aside I think that it is an important story. I mean, advocacy work is difficult and your charge doesn’t always survive. People die without ever being considered human once in their lives, so you can’t save everyone even though that might be your mission. There are many children like Precious out there who don’t have fat black skin, but if that is your only image upon seeing a girl like her then perhaps something is missing because there could be someone out there who is invisible by your standards.

    I must admit that I don’t see everyone either, so I don’t mean to make that a personal attack but it’s just a fact. We don’t see everyone.

    I can understand if too many maladies were put into one story, but would the reception be better if the girl was white, a different person of color, skinny, more noticeably intelligent, or any other quality than what she currently portrays? Would it then become another story about a white girl but black (poc) children go ignored yet again? (Not to say that black is always the stand-in for poc, though it usually seems that way. If this story had been about an Asian child, First Nations child, albino child of any race, a child with a visible physical disability, a mixed race child, etc. the story would have had just as much potential, though it might warrant more praise of novelty.) Would it be another pretty girl to prove that only the pretty ones are victimized? (Just to let you know, I think that the actress is pretty and my image of the book’s character doesn’t really call to mind whether I think she’s pretty or not.)

    I just wonder what you intend to do after you see the movie or even read the book and what you will offer to the general discussion (to those who have not spoken from some knowledge of either portrayal of the story). But we should definitely discuss the movie when it becomes widely distributed.

    Also, I know that there is a dearth of “positive” or rather balanced black images in cinema. I’m not looking for a superhero or a positively outstanding person myself, but someone with complexity would be appreciated. Especially variety in the vessel which exhibits that complexity.

    Indie films really do help. Though Monique’s Phat Girlz may have been problematic in certain parts, I still loved its general message and how it dispelled the myth that all fat people can simply be converted into skinny people and that if you’re fat/overweight/obese you’re just some self-hating bitch waiting to be told that you are indeed subhuman. And that you need to be skinny, and possibly white, in order to be loved, recognized, respected and seen as a person with potential and promise. The undesired woman character foil needn’t always been white, blond, blue-eyed, skinny and poor in comportment, though . . . but we understand what the epitome of attractiveness is considered in the US context. (Nothing wrong with being of any race or size. Life gives you baggage regardless.) It encouraged you to be yourself even if others would rather that you change your image to comfort their “reality.” So I usually have no problem with Monique. Saw her in Shadowboxer too and that movie was interesting. Monique just manages her life well in my eyes; she has children, a lover (technically her husband), she loves life, she’s successful, she’s the kind of person I’d want as a friend, she’s down-to-earth, and she doesn’t seem particularly biased in a vilifying sense unless she’s really serious about hating skinny women. And while I think the skinny woman hate is a part of her act, if it’s real I won’t condone it.

    She’s had problematic mammy portrayals in some movies, but even so she most certainly isn’t asexual. To me she is a sex symbol. Perhaps she screams oversexualized everytime someone sees her. Is that becomes she black or is that what she really wishes to convey? I’m not sure to be honest. But I like Monique. I would definitely love to see her grow as both an actress, performer and a person.

    I really liked her jail comedy special, too. You rarely get a focus on women in prison, but that’s a completely different dynamic since unlike most males in prison, women in prison are usually the only lifeline available to their children. And women do time too, racially in very disproportionate numbers.

    (And here ends an extremely long post.)

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 3:35 pm ¶

53. Kendra wrote:

    Oh, and I realize I haven’t finished reading “Push” yet, so my perspective is subject to change.

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 3:37 pm ¶

54. Kendall Weddington wrote:

    I just read a powerful article about Tyler Perry at http://www.ebmpublishing.com. The article was wonderfully written and showed a different side of him. It discussed in detail his approach to life and commitment to improving the community. It’s an engaging, thought provoking article that gave me a new found level of respect for him.

    Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 1:57 pm ¶

55. Uncle Rosy wrote:

    There’s heavy promotion for Meet The Browns and House of Payne on local radio here in St.Louis and on Tom Joyner’s Show,Steve”Pass The Grits”Harvey Show and Michael”I love white people”Baisden show.Tyler Perry is no better than the white people who created Minstrels Show back in the day.

    Posted 10 Jun 2009 at 9:28 pm ¶