The discombobulating aspect of this film is very brave. I found myself (a very picky, long-European film loving, little patience for Hollywood-type guy) cringing at certain moments, not necessarily because of the subject matter, but because I was not given what I am conditioned to expect at certain moments in this film.
For instance – when she is told her father has AIDs, I felt a strong need to see a close-up of Precious there. I needed to see what was going on in her. Because, to me (even though I reject all things conventional, and would argue with you if you said i was still conditioned like the average movie-goer),to me if a filmmaker wants to “show me” what's going on inside a person, he gives me a close up and lets the actor do her thing so i can study that persons face. Now, I am not saying there are no close-ups in this film. but in that moment when this news is delivered to her, there is a quick cut to more of that high-energy, happy, party-like fantasy that is going on in her head. So we get to see what is “going on” in this character in that moment. but, for me, it took me some time to settle myself with that. I wanted a close-up and some violins. or, maybe i didn't WANT it. (because I HATE that stuff) but i guess i am still conditioned to “need it” at such moments. it actually embarrassed me when I realized it.

I feel like there are a lot of moments like that in the film. Strange uses of music and editing and resolutions that set it apart from other Hollywood movies. To me, it would be a shame if it were considered a hollywood movie. It is strange and powerful in a different way. Life of all kinds is made worthy. even the monster's. that is rare. and i feel like it just needs to be appreciated or condemned for what it really is. the light-skin issue, the Armand White insanity (which would be a whole lot less bombastic if there were no Winfrey and Perry involved and he suspected it would remain simply a small film made by a dark-skinned gay black man) and the poverty-porn assertion are taking the focus off what this really is. This is a very unique film that has a certain power that it does not abuse. rare.
thanks for reading.

I find your last comment fascinating – you begin by acknowledging that you set a negative tone for the conversation, and that this is what you feel is preventing Jett from responding directly to your question; and then in the next paragraph you say that he's full of crap. I don't want us to keep going back and forth over this, and I'm not going to speak for Jett, so can I suggest we just move on from the negativity, and talk about the film?

Your initial comment helped me understand what it was I was trying to communicate on the show about the trauma flashback scenes in 'Precious' – I think you're absolutely right: when I say 'how it's shot' I'm saying something far broader than the literal interpretation of that statement; I'm not talking specifically about cameras or lenses – more a sense of how the piece contrasts with the rest of the style of the film, how it represents the hyper-real experience of traumatic memories. Jett is far more qualified to speak to the technical production realities of 'how it's shot'; and so it's possible that he mistook what I was saying. But I still imagine he would disagree with me about how the scenes feel; and that's just fine – part of why we do the show is to allow a deeper truth to arise in the midst of a creative conflict. But I'm grateful that you brought the point up because it left me surer of my own view that these scenes are extremely effective and powerfully done; in a way that mimics the experience that some people actually do have when they're remembering their own trauma. Your point about how Precious contrasts with more typical melodrama is, I think, worth exploring.

I'd really like us to move on from the negativity and have you as a welcome commenter on the site – so if I may ask you a question: when you say that you think Precious is in danger of being taken for something that it's not, what do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued.

The problems, for me, began with The Tenembaums… Rich family is a shadow of its former-self. Boo and hoo. I've seen it a few times now though and I actually quite like it within the confines of its own little existence.

The Life Aquatic for me is an adventure movie about “anything other than the real world”, told in a nerdy way. It never quite captured me, but I can see how people can view it as an “escape”. In fact, my own book Ooyay (now available on free download on my site), shares some of this notion -ie. travel the world with a one-track-plan without ever acknowledging the possibility that maybe the world is not quite like this… which (if done right) can lead one to view one's own existence anew -perhaps opening one to the possibility that the world itself can, a lot of the time, be an environment of their own construction -for better or worse.

Darjeeling is a meandering mess, which appears to be the point of what the characters are discovering about India, but didn't particularly appeal to me. It did remind me a lot of Jean Renoir's The River, but I didn't like that either.

I love the look and feel of _all_ of his films, but to my mind he should snap out of perhaps his natural 'nerdy' view of the micro-world and attempt to make something less overtly child-like-self-conscious (and I don't mean that in a critical way -it's charming when done once, but grates eventually).

Yes, I think you're full of crap. and i am not being very polite about it, but the best way to shut me up is to just explain your self instead of saying for the 4th time that you are an experienced director and that I have “embarrassed” myself. I asked you valid questions that are about what YOU wrote. and i guess you are not going to answer them. is clearing up what you mean for me really going to “feed” me? I am not being an ass just to be an ass. really.