Why I Hate the New York Times Magazine.

In graduate school, one alarmingly bad, blindingly obvious article about gay marriage convinced me that the New York Times Magazine, the one you get for free on Sundays, is actually bad for journalism. That the world’s pre-eminent journalistic institution can churn out, at times, such a poorly written and edited magazine has always troubled me, not least because I feel its tremendous reach obligates it to delve into the issues the country faces in a meaningful way. I may be committing professional suicide here, but the conviction that we should burn this magazine as soon as it touches our doorsteps was only made stronger by the coming piece on the movie Precious.

The movie is already an Oscar favorite; it cleaned up at the festivals and its challenging subject matter — an overweight teenager abused by  her father and mother before a caring teacher and social worker help her find the beauty, the beauty that’s inside — is ready-made for the kind of congratulatory, back-patting spirit with which liberal Hollywood elites like to give awards. But by all accounts, the movie, which is based on the book Push by Sapphire, is actually a really good one,* especially because of (not in spite of!) the acting by Mo’Nique and Mariah Carey.

So it’s natural to want to know a lot about how the man who made it, Lee Daniels, did it, what inspired him, and how he got the woman who made this to become a good actor. Too bad, because the piece is written by Lynn Hirschberg for the New York Times Magazine, and what you get to read about is how one time Daniels caught Carey putting on some blush when he needed her to stay ugly. You should know something’s up when Hirschberg tries to draw you in with this lead:

At the Cannes International Film Festival in May, in the loud, chaotic bar at the Martinez Hotel, Lee Daniels seemed, as he often does, both ecstatic and nervous. He jumped, he slumped, his mood changing from giddy to anxious. He was the only black man in the crowded bar, a fact that he mentioned and then brushed away. He was dressed unremarkably in a loose, untucked shirt and slouchy khaki pants, but his hair, an electric corona of six-inch fusilli-like spirals, demanded notice. Although Daniels will be 50 this year, he has the bouncy, mercurial energy of a child. The previous night, at the gala screening of his movie “Precious,” which he directed and helped produce, he greeted the audience by saying, “I’m a little homo, I’m a little Euro and I’m a little ghetto.” The crowd cheered.

Wow, really? A movie director at Cannes is nervous and a little bit eccentric? What a unique fucking insight. I hope someday I become famous so a writer can pick this scene, in which I’m doing the exact same thing as everyone else is at that chaotic bar is doing, and describe my unremarkable clothing in the paragraph that’s supposed to make everyone want to read the story about my professional breakthrough.

It’s especially disappointing because later on, you learn some interesting stuff about Daniels, the actors involved and why they decided to become part of the movie. Many of those who join in or back it, like Oprah and Tyler Perry, admit to being abused. Daniels’s police officer father, who died when Daniels was 15, beat him, and Daniels aunt thinks it’s because the father knew Daniels was gay. See? That’s interesting. What’s not interesting is that lede.

Neither is this:

A MONTH AFTER Cannes, Daniels was back in Manhattan in his 11th-floor loftlike apartment near Madison Square Garden. “This is where I raised money for ‘Precious,’ ” he said. Daniels, dressed in black, lay sprawled on a plum-colored sectional sofa; on a low, white table in front of him were piles of scripts and stacks of photographs from “Precious.” A Roller Disco pinball machine stood next to a baby grand piano, and a large TV screen dominated one side of the room. Although he had a separate office in the same building, Daniels’s apartment seemed more like a lavish hotel suite than a home.

I DON’T CARE ABOUT HIS PURPLE COUCH! But if you make it through that, you get this great quote about the main character, Precious, “But at the end, it’s just this girl, and she’s trying to live. I know this chick. You know her. But we just choose not to know her.” So why isn’t that quote higher up in the story?

In a throwaway graph, we learn that a couple who live in Denver randomly gave Daniels $8 million to make the movie. Why? We don’t know. But we do learn that the wife is a Celestial Seasonings (you know, Sleepytime tea) heiress. Isn’t that more interesting than the couch? Can we know more about why the couple decided to give the money, and how Daniels convinced them to do it other than repeating, over and over again, the Daniels has a way of convincing people to do things without showing us how he does it?

We can’t, because Hirschberg is too busy following Daniels description of the spirit of the actor who plays Precious, Gabourey Sidibe, with this:

Daniels has said all this before — to journalists, to investors, to anyone he thinks needs convincing of Precious’s appeal. Like much of Daniels’s patter, it sounds both rehearsed and contradictory. But it’s also colorful and strangely persuasive — as long as you don’t listen too closely. Daniels is always convincing someone of something, and like any good salesman, he knows that selling is not just about the truth. “He’s not dishonest,” Bob Berney told me. “But Lee does what he thinks he has to do.”

Thanks for repeating something he’s said before, something that may not be entirely trustworthy because he’s such a good showman, and then tell us not to listen too closely to it. And please, by all means, spend more time with snide comments like this:

I met Mo’Nique and her ever-present entourage — bodyguard, assistant, full-time videographer who records her every move from the moment she leaves her house in Atlanta to when she returns at night — at the City Crab & Seafood Company on Park Avenue South. It was her choice. Mo’Nique, who was dressed in a tight black cocktail dress and high heels, entered the restaurant as if it were a premiere.

Ok, fine, pick on Mo’Nique. Make insider jokes about her picking City Crab. But there’s actually a great deal of reported tension between her and the rest of the cast, as well as the film’s makers, and it may cost Mo’Nique an Oscar. Hirschberg doesn’t touch on that to say more than what I just did; that there are reports. Thanks, reporter. Don’t bother finding out the real story. It’s not like you’re talking to the cast or anything.

Not every article in the magazine is bad, but this story is not unusual. There are interesting tidbits in the piece, but they’re crowded out by so much of the mundane. And that’s really the problem. We read reporters’ articles because they have the kind of access we can’t get. Reporters are supposed to take us to those places we can’t go, but this one takes us here:

BY THE TIME Daniels moved to Los Angeles in 1980, he had changed his name to Lee. “I should have been a casualty, honey,” he told me one afternoon this fall over rib-eye steak and lobster cocktail at his haunt, the Staghorn Steakhouse restaurant on the edge of the garment district, conveniently located on the ground floor of his apartment building.

I’m so glad to know Daniels lives above a steakhouse. Hold your breath: He orders steak.

*I can’t tell you much more about what it’s about, since I have yet to make it through a preview without bursting into tears.

Tagged: , ,

24 thoughts on “Why I Hate the New York Times Magazine.

  1. Ron October 22, 2009 at 10:35 am Reply

    I read this article on Sunday and was baffled by its lack of informativeness, too. I think the writer was angling for something, but what, is anyone’s guess.

  2. shani-o October 22, 2009 at 10:44 am Reply

    Yes, yes, yes. Daniels’ story is amazingly interesting. Hirschberg’s othering of him is not. And why not more about Gabby, the star of the film?

    • ladyfresh October 22, 2009 at 11:16 am Reply

      i suspect, from the interview i saw on GMA, that her story isn’t ‘compellingly’ tragic enough.

    • quadmoniker October 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm Reply

      Yeah, I would have liked that too. What was weird is how Hirschberg was trying to make it a story about Daniels. But then when she talks about the cast, it’s always an aside that’s pretty mean. All she mentions about Gabby is that she’s also obese, but seems to have a good handle on it. That’s all we get to know about this otherwise unknown actress who by all accounts gives a good performance.

      • shani-o October 22, 2009 at 4:29 pm Reply

        Right. The nastiness about Mo’Nique (who I don’t care for at all) bugged.

  3. robynj October 22, 2009 at 10:56 am Reply

    I’ve had my head buried so missed this on Sunday. Which is good b/c I saw the movie the night before and I would’ve been really annoyed. I have to say, though, I’ve never found the mag to be as… one-dimensional(?) as you have. But I do get your point.

  4. ladyfresh October 22, 2009 at 11:15 am Reply

    Darn it i missed this, love the cover. Haven’t read it yet, thanks for the heads up.

  5. quadmoniker October 22, 2009 at 11:24 am Reply

    it doesn’t come out until this sun., so you didn’t miss it. it’s online now.

    • ladyfresh October 22, 2009 at 11:42 am Reply

      thanks!
      and thanks for the critique!

  6. G.D. October 22, 2009 at 12:27 pm Reply

    You know, I was only kind of worried about this movie before I read this article. But after reading this long, schizophrenic piece — it’s not really about the movie, and not really about Lee Daniels — I’m really uncomfortable. Daniels’s hucksterism and penchant for overstatement (as evidenced in this piece) may not show up in the film, but I’m worried it will.

    • ladyfresh October 22, 2009 at 1:24 pm Reply

      the thing I gathered from this article and now (note i haven’t seen any of his movies, i may seek out shadowboxer/the woodsman now though) his movies. He isn’t about being comfortable.

      • keke October 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm Reply

        yes you have it right. I have seen monster’s ball and the woodsman (haven’t seen shadowboxer yet). Daniels really pushes his audience to the limit and it does become uncomfortable to watch some of the scenes in his films. I cannot imagine what is is like being on the movie set. I would have to throw a party every night if I were an actress for one of his films.

        I decided to read the book “Push” and it is an extremely uncomfortable story. I started reading it yesterday and I will probably finish it tonight. I just want to be done with it. There have been moments when I had to put it down cause its so freaking sad. Given the subject material Daniels has tackled in his past films, the story of Precious seems perfect for him. I am still undecided if I want to see the film. I want to support it and it helps that the movie has received such great reviews but at the same time, I’m not sure I want to see the story played out on the big screen. The book is difficult enough, I’m not sure I can turn around and watch the movie now.

        I did skim through the article, yes it is a silly piece. I don’t feel that I have learned anything new or important about Daniels, the actors, or the film-making process. I did learn that the fantasy Vouge photo shoot Daniels wanted in the film didn’t happen ( andre leon talley immediately shot it down) and I learned that Lynn Hirschberg was ridiculously obsessed about Monique’s food preferences.

        • ladyfresh October 22, 2009 at 2:18 pm Reply

          i definitely have that ‘suck it up’ and go feeling. i refuse to see monsters ball . I avoided reading the book(can’t do it/not happening). I wasn’t clear if GD’s discomfort was with the article or the movie or both. i’m thinking if it was the movie it seems to be Lee’s MO of incentive to galvanize the audience to see the film….and i’m not sure if i’m comfortable with that, but yes, yet and still i’m going.

  7. ladyfresh October 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm Reply

    oh and quad…you’re right that article was disturbing/annoying. for a movie about hope against one of the main characters many demons (societal views on obese women) i can’t believe the writers comments on monique’s(sp?) order of food/choice of restaurant weren’t more…sensitive i guess.

    i mean really let’s now made pointed comments about the fat woman’s restaurant and food preference? it seemed low esp amidst the lack of an in-depth story

  8. quadmoniker October 22, 2009 at 5:08 pm Reply

    I was just thinking I also meant to say something about Hirschberg’s weird aside about the Jewish outsiders who founded Hollywood. She just, in general, skirts the real issues the film may raise and instead makes offhandedly racist comments and uses lazy writing techniques.

    And the article doesn’t even try to answer it’s own question, “Is America ready?” for the movie. It just tosses in some quotes about Obama.

  9. kaya October 22, 2009 at 6:33 pm Reply

    i was annoyed that it told the whole story of the book on the first page. some of the appeal of the book was the shock value in lots of the events of precious’ life. i’m glad i read the book before reading the article. maybe they should have a SPOILER ALERT at the top of the mag. ugh.

  10. Adams October 22, 2009 at 11:26 pm Reply

    When the author felt the need to point out that Mo’Nique ordered THREE!ORDERS!OF!JUMBO!SHRIMP! I was through with this piece. Actually, I was done near the beginning when the author mentioned a “natural” repulsion she assumed would have attended the sight of Gabby Sidibe. Excuse me, what?

  11. thewayoftheid October 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm Reply

    Epic takedown. Love it! I hope someone shows Hirschberg this entry.

  12. Adams October 22, 2009 at 11:47 pm Reply

    Ok, I went back and reread the piece, and the author didn’t use the word “natural,” but Hirschberg certainly seemed to imply that that her reaction was somehow typical:

    “When Precious’s plight lands her in a special school, she blossoms: the audience’s initial rejection of Precious, even repulsion at the sight of her, slowly gives way to a kind of identification.”

    • Kjen October 23, 2009 at 2:36 am Reply

      “When Precious’s plight lands her in a special school, she blossoms: the audience’s initial rejection of Precious, even repulsion at the sight of her, slowly gives way to a kind of identification.”

      Actually I can understand the assumption that the audience was suppose to be repulsed. Generally, when there is an fat, black and poor body on screen, they are suppose to fulfill the role of funny person, mean or pathetic. Rarely if ever are they really meant for the (assumingly white) audience to identify and emphathize with.

      As for the style of the piece – eh, entertainment feature writing 101. New Yrk Times Mag or not, its the norm.

  13. Adams October 23, 2009 at 11:24 pm Reply

    I understand what the author was trying to suggest, but I think her phrasing lands with such a thud [with me] because it’s evident that she didn’t spend much time interrogating a) why an audience might feel repulsed by an poor, overweight, female body; and b) how deeply fucked up that is.

  14. anon October 25, 2009 at 7:14 am Reply

    If the goal of this article was to make Lee Daniels seem insufferable and pretentious; they succeeded.

  15. The Obamas’ Marriage. « PostBourgie October 30, 2009 at 10:02 am Reply

    […] New York Times magazine (quadmoniker, avert your eyes) has a whale of a story this week about the relationship between Barack and Michelle Obama. It […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: