Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
David Poland has written his first Oscar column of the season, and while it’s a typically interesting read, it features several eyebrow-raising statements that I really can’t square with.
I’ll leave you to pick through its eccentricities — that he seemingly doesn’t believe Christoph Waltz is a contender, for example — for yourselves. (Sasha Stone has written an extensive riposte.) But there’s a pair of head-scratching (to me, at least) tags in his Best Picture chart that I feel like highlighting:
“A Serious Man”: It’s the Jewish “Precious” … but funny!
“A Single Man”: It’s the Gay “Precious” … but pretty!
I’d actually find these blurbs objectionable if they meant anything at all, but they don’t. I guess Poland is being deliberately, and obtusely, glib in grouping together three films revolving around social minorities … but what do these films have in common aesthetically or thematically that illuminates such an argument? Anyone?
Of course, earlier this year, Poland described “Precious” as “a very, very Black movie.” (His capitals on “Black” and “Gay,” by the way.) Substitute the words “gay” and “Jewish,” and I guess that’s what he’s saying about “A Single Man” and “A Serious Man,” respectively. Respond to that how you will.
12 responses so far
1 10-03-2009 at 4:53 pm
Gustavo H.R. said...
He just needs to stick his head off his ass.
2 10-03-2009 at 4:53 pm
Gustavo H.R. said...
BTW, I’m not a detractor at all!
3 10-03-2009 at 6:05 pm
Encore Entertainment said...
Okay…seriously he’s looking at Julie and Julia, Amelia and It’s Complicated as more laudable for the BP spot than Bright Star? and I guess he didn’t get the memo about Ronan going lead…
So by extension Nine would be the musical Precious [it's really musical] and An Education is the British Precious [it's really British]. Crap.
4 10-03-2009 at 6:28 pm
Colin said...
Let’s not act like Dave Poland has ever been one for aesthetic analysis (I remember how he used the one-line paragraph “… and she will win the Oscar” repeatedly in the same “review” to explain that he thought a performer was good). Good to call him out on it, though.
5 10-03-2009 at 8:33 pm
Robert Hamer said...
I can’t believe I’m going play into David “Hancock is one of the best superhero films ever made” Poland’s bullshit games, but here goes…
Now, I haven’t seen Precious yet (It’s on my “To Do” list, promise!), but based on what I’ve read and heard about the film I would point to Sidney Lumet’s The Pawnbroker as being the closest Jewish equivalent to it. It has a protagonist who who has to deal with the hardships of poverty and his past which stem from bigotry towards his ethnic heritage. It recieved major critical acclaim, had a lauded lead performance, and was praised for raising issues that most Hollywood films just skirted over.
Now, the homosexual equivalent to Precious is more difficult to pin down. In fact, I can’t think of a film that matches what Precious is trying to do. Anyone want to help me out?
6 10-04-2009 at 1:35 am
PJ said...
Um, “Mysterious Skin”? But I thought that was a reflection on the effects of child sexual abuse more than anything. The homosexuality of one of the abused boys was more a prism to show how differently children deal with it. Seriously, this sort of misguided pigeonholing is very unecessary; it makes abuse and trauma seem universal and singular across social minorities, and really trivialises it, both in reality and on screen.
7 10-04-2009 at 4:11 am
Robert Hamer said...
I’m inclined to agree with you, PJ, I was simply making a comparison between two films and what they were trying to accomplish. I wasn’t making any sort of commentary on the subject matter itself.
8 10-04-2009 at 8:50 am
Andrew said...
Thanks for calling this out, Guy.
When I saw his column last night, I was just dumbfounded. Not just for the strange choices (”Bright Star” dead on release?? “Coco Before Chanel” a serious contender??), but for these two “Precious” comparisons.
Quick, it’s a minority film! Group it together with the other ones!!!
9 10-05-2009 at 3:05 pm
Patryk said...
So I guess “Sugar” is the Dominican “Precious?”
Too bad no one is mentioning “Sugar” anymore. Wouldn’t a screenplay nomination be fitting?
10 10-05-2009 at 3:25 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Indeed. More than that, in a perfect world. (I love the lensing in that movie.)
11 10-05-2009 at 3:25 pm
Robert Hamer said...
If Half Nelson couldn’t pull one off, a screenplay nod for Sugar is a near-impossibility.
12 10-05-2009 at 4:20 pm
Patryk said...
Too bad no one is capitalizing on “Sugar” right now while the postseason is here. Go NYY…