Precious
My friend Emily Abt was at Sundance this year with her own awesome film, Toe to Toe (which just got distribution, yay Emily!). When she returned, she said that THE film to watch in the next year was going to be Precious, based on the incredible novel Push by Sapphire. She wasn't the only one that felt this way. It won both the Grand Jury Prize and Audience Award and is set to storm Cannes soon. The trailer was just released by Lionsgate:
It will hit theaters in November. I can't wait.
For more on the director, Lee Daniels. And yes, that's Mariah Carey as the social worker.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Precious.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13709
This book is incredibly moving, and when I saw the trailer yesterday, I burst into tears at the perfect embodiment of Precious. I was so afraid they were going to glam her up for the big screen, or sanitize the story, or that Mariah would be cast as, say, the mom (eeeek!) but the trailer suggests that the film will hold on to the grit (and, frankly, horror) of the book. It's a book I have handed to select students over the years, and I rarely get it back--when a kid who usually refuses to read instead refuses to return a book because they love it too much, I consider that a triumph.
If it's true to the spirit of that text I can't wait to see this!
This looks excellent. I hope I get to see it!
Looks like I have some reading to do!
Kudos to your friend on her distribution deal.
As to PUSH/ PRECIOUS:
I'm a bit conflicted over works of fiction--especially cinema--that are marketed to majority or mixed (i.e. still shaped by majority) audiences and that highlight minority subcultures in ways that affirm majority society's long-standing "pathologization" [sic] of them. In PUSH's case, that would be Black American teen pregnancy, child obesity (the worst sin in majority's eyes, indeed), high levels of household abuse, etc., etc. I don't know about the book, but it seems as though the movie is angling towards mainstream-leaning (i.e. Sundance) audiences, the consciousness of which would tend to follow majority (i.e. European-American; Middle-class) lines.
On the one hand, if it were just members of my own specific ethnic, religious, etc. sub-culture, then heck-yes, this type of material can be hugely powerful to us. For instance, there have been movies about Native alcoholism that were Native-made and released first to Native communities around the U.S. That's an issue Native communities are well aware needs work and cooperation from all community members. But other movies in the past have dealt with Native alcoholism abominably and have provided fodder for majority members to either patronize ("those poor, drunk, impoverished Indians") or excoriate ("Indians expect government handouts when they're drunks and violent criminals") Native communities.
I have a whole lot of dirty laundry in my own ethnic background, beginning with involuntary female genital cutting, and I always feel conflicted when I see fictional accounts of women who have suffered it (or suffered similarly gendered abuse like the "honor killings" much hyped in the West). The problem is that, yes, some women do suffer such abominations, and it's vital we end that suffering--but, at the same time, depictions of it can also help feed majority "hysteria" about non-Western societies in general, in a manner that's ultimately not helpful to the maimed women. It is ultimately not useful (and likely harmful) to have majority-members proclaim (as I have heard them do), "God, that movie/book was amazing. Look at what those poor people go through living in that culture. Women/children/poor people have it so bad there. " In fact, I have heard commentators of a right-wing bent add things like, "this is why America shouldn't be dealing with these kinds of people--they need to clean up their cultures before we legitimize them" or "And THESE people want to immigrate here and bring their practices with them?" or "and THESE people want welfare from our government to subsidize their abuses of women?"
There's a visual element, too. The vivid imagery of domestic violence, human rights abuse, poverty, and other ills becomes indelibly associated in the viewer's mind with non-European bodies (or, in movies about other religons, with religions different from that of the majority of viewers). American viewers have 3,000 Julia Roberts, Kate Hudson, and Matthew McConaughy movies to serve as a visual and narrative counter to the movies about European-on-European violence or abuse.
But where is the counter for minority communities who rarely get their storiess--even or especially their positive, fluffy, happy ones--heard? I suppose this is the cruz of my problem; it is the same problem that plagues minorties the world over: if the only time we are reprsented in the majority media is to showcase what's wrong with our communities, we will inevitably be pathologized in the majority consciousness.
This is why, in some African and Middle Eastern countries, members of minority tribes and religions have reacted very strongly--in protest--when their a member of their group is depicted unflatteringly in the movies or TV. That may have been the only time in 5 years a member of their group made it onto the big screen, and that one time it's going to be in manner that confirms the majority's negative opinion of them?
An author or screenwriter has the choice in how he or she represents a group of people or an issue, so this is different than my reaction to a documentary (although docs' presentation of issues is by no means cut-and-dry "truth;" it also involves manipulation and narrative).
So, I suppose I'll never stop feeling conflicted about it. My personal ambivalence is reflected in this Racialicious post from a few months back. Read the comments and see that some Black Americans think it a good thing that Black poverty and abuse be brought to light (as a corrective to the usual "Funny Black man in a fat suit lampooning women" shtick), while others think it is poverty porn, a continuing pathologization of Black bodies and communities that feeds into the majority's hand-wringing over minorities.
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/01/30/reveling-in-bleakness/
One other thing about the movie version of PUSH (PRECIOUS):
Did anyone else notice the casting at play?
The sainted teacher (a la Dangerous Minds) and the concerned social worker were both played by light-skinned, very conventionally beautiful women (Paula Patton and Mariah Carey). I think both of these women are very talented performers, and don't begrudge them their chance to shine in these roles. But, it's still a hard truth that redeeming characters are almost always light-complected and pretty, while the potentially pathologized characters are fat and brown (Mo'nique) or dark (the young actress who plays the lead).
At least, this is what the movie looked like to audiences who have not read the source material. There may have been an explanation for why the authority figures and redeeming characters were light skinned and conventionally beautiful.
BLEH!
The "crux" of my problem, not the cruz.
I was typing at top-speed.
That's one of the problems of films about Black poverty and social distress especially films where the "solution" to those problems comes from caring White (or in this film's case, extremely lightskinned Black) social workers.
Especially art house films like this - which will be predominantly seen by an affluent White audience.
There's a tendency to see African American poverty and it's social effects in New York Times terms.
That is, inner city poverty is a psychological pathology - which can be solved by social workers and teachers and other liberal professionals coming in and straightening out the pathologized people of color.
In this analysis, you will NEVER hear one word about layoffs, or deindustrialization, or the widespread institutionalized discrimination against Black workers practiced by many White employers, or systematic mass arrests of minority young people - all of that stuff (which would present the capitalist system in a bad light) gets sweeped under the rug.
Instead, you get to see how pathological poor Black people (and in particular poor Black WOMEN) are.
In this case, it's quite dramatic - both the young woman who plays Precious and Mo'nique, who plays her mom, are darkskinned and heavy - as far from White American beauty standards as can be.
But the "positive" social worker and teacher characters are skinny and very lightskinned - as close to the White ideal as Black women can get.
The message there is very clear - the "good" Blacks are the ones who are as close to Caucasian culturally - and even physically - as possible.
While the "bad" Blacks are dark and fat and have clearly African facial features - totally alien and Other from White America.
I'm sure all this racism is purely subconscious on the part of the producers and directors.
But I'm also sure that the liberal White audiences at AMC 25 and Film Forum will quickly and clearly pick up those subconscious stereotypes and absorb them.
Abuse is something that "those people" do - and "people like us" come in and save the day.
It's the paternalistic side of racism - the chair next to the caseworker's desk, rather than the metal chair in the police interrogation room - but it's racist nontheless.
I like the distinction you draw between INDIVIDUALS (i.e. White Saviors (TM) or their non-European proxies) and SYSTEMS (here, capitalism, patriarchy, racism, etc.).
You are quite right that movies traffic almost exclusively in the former, when indeed it is the latter that deserves the lion's share of attention and work and fixing.
As a teacher myself, I have to say that "teacher as savior" trope makes my skin crawl. . .and compounding that with the issue of said "savior" being light-skinned is even more deeply disturbing. But (although I haven't seen the movie) the relationship in the source material is much more than that. . .the fact that the teacher is light-skinned is relevant to how Precious feels about herself, and all the messages she gets that she is less-than. I would hope that it's more visual shorthand to represent the beauty standards of an oppressive system (which turn out to be BS) than it is racist in this case. Precious doesn't see a way to love herself in part because of her physicality, so the contrast is intentional, relevant and necessary here---not subconscious at all.
As another teacher, I'm tired of the teacher/savior movies too. Combined with the beauty and race issues other commenters mentioned have made me really cautious about seeing this movie. However, the trailer for this made me cry, and I'll probably still go see despite my reservations. Also, the woman who plays Precious looks like she did a pretty good job in the role.
i am also conflicted and intrigued about this trailer, but mostly i wanted to add that i think a lot of white people keep talking about how great it is that obama is so articulate NOT because he's black and white people are surprised he's articulate but because it's such a nice change after gwb who could barely speak. i'm sure some people mean it the way you're expecting, but i think a lot of people are excited he's smart because gwb was such a doofus.
very well put. wasnt this movie brought up here several months ago? and someone else (or maybe you) brought up very similiar arguments. im also conflicted by this movie (i havent read the book but i think i will read it first before/if i see the movie)
i hope the movie brings some positive change, and not just an opportunity for groups of privilege to "slum-it" and think theyve done something because they bought a movie ticket.
Thanks, good point about the "buying a ticket to get vicarious absolution" issue.
Okra -- I understand what you're saying but I think maybe you're expecting too much from this movie?
We really don't have a lot of non-saccharine non-nice-white-lady accounts in our media of what it's like to be a poor minority with no opportunities. Those voices have traditionally been silenced. So now a movie is coming along to tell a story about a young woman growing up with incredibly limited opportunities, in an abusive household, and the reality of the situation for a lot of women just like her.
Now, it's not that I don't understand your concern. In high school, I had a racist friend who loved to use the like "you know, stereotypes exist for a reason" (ie, because "those people are really like that"). And there's nothing any of us could do to disuade someone like that from that belief. And frankly, he's not going to watch a movie like that anyway because it looks too humanizing. In fact if a white person does watch that movie, I highly doubt it's for the "see, I told you that black people are a bunch of fat abusive welfare queens" value. But, (and this is going to be incredibly hard to articulate so please bear with me), let's look at that statement again: "those stereotypes exist for a reason." I think that black urban poverty (or Native American reservation poverty) is something very different from general poverty and it does have specific symptoms. When people say "those stereotypes exist for a reason," we all know that they're making the statement of Biological Essentialism: that black people are just by their nature a bunch of [fill in the blanks]. But I would argue that a lot of the white people who see this movie are going to be saying "those stereotypes exist for a reason" in a much different way: the reason is because of the institutionalized racism that have been created by the people in power in this country to keep black people poor and dehumanized have a serious hand in the problems facing the black community at the mercies of the ghetto that while folk created for them and corralled them into. You can pretty much cut, copy, and paste that response into the problems that the Native Americans are experiencing.
So I don't really see a movie like this so much as reinforcing the stereotypes, but rather exposing that beneath the stereotypes are people who have dreams and desires that are being killed through the legacies of institutionalized racism in this country.
As for the light skinned savior characters vs. the dark-skinned pathologized characters, I see your point... but it's pretty well-known that the lighter skin an African American has, the more opportunities they are given to advance (she even says in the opening voiceover that she wants to find a light-skinned man, and there's a cultural history of trying to "lighten up the family line" in African American families). I don't know if the movie is going to take a Teaching Moment to address the fact that the savior characters' success was piggybacked on the privilege of having lighter skin, but it's possible.
You make very good points and I agree with them.
That's part of why I'm still conflicted--I can agree with both arguments before and against.
You make very good points and I agree with them.
That's part of why I'm still conflicted--I can agree with both arguments FOR and against.
Problem is, this movie does not show institutional racism.
You don't see the fundamental root cause of Black poverty - which, at it's base, is the systematic refusal by White employers to hire Black workers or - when they hire us - to pay us as much as White people.
All you see is a heavyset darkskinned full time mom who is very brutal and abusive to her heavyset darkskinned daughter.
Add to that the fact that the daughter is pregnant with her second kid (and she's still high school aged) add to that that they are both fat (did you notice the scene where they showed her cooking pork and eggs - and made the food look monstrous?)
This movie shows that Black poverty is caused by Black women being fat, dark, mean and overfed.
And the "solution" comes from social workers who are, to use the old saying "light, bright and damned near White" and who are both very skinny.
Notice that the trailer NEVER shows the two lightskinned skinny women eating - but THREE TIMES in 2:31 shows the heavyset Black women eating, cooking and/or violently demanding food.
What message does that send?
And remember who's the audience for this - liberal affluent White people.
The same folks who are still patting themselves on the back for voting for "one of them" last November - and who still talk about "he's so articulate and intelligent" (like they still can't get over the fact that "one of them" could be smart and a good speaker).
The ones who read those paternalistic "Neediest Cases" articles in the New York Times - and the op eds that talk about how Black poverty is caused by "lack of middle class values" in the ghettos.
So, sorry, I have to disagree with you, but this flick is nothing more than "poverty porn" for liberal White audiences.
Nowhere does it point out the cause of Black poverty (White institutional racism and systematic societywide White skin privilege - particularly White Male privilege) - because that would challenge the audience and make them address their complicity in the systematic oppression of African Americans in this country.
Also, challenging institutional racism also involves pointing the finger of blame at American capitalism - and no film can do that and even hope for corporate funding.
So, instead, it demonizes poor heavy darkskin women (the kind the New York Times says are poor because they "lack middle class values") and lionizes middle class skinny lightskin women, who "look like White America".
Can you not see the racism and the sexism - even when it stares you in the face?
i have a question - a legitimate question -
have you seen the movie? and i'm asking this with no sarcasm or snark, and i really don't even have an opinion yet to voice. it's just that everyone on this thread has been making some great and very thoughtful points - and as far as i can see, only the trailer has come out, while some are saying "this movie ...___", etc. have some seen this movie? because while i can see and agree with many of these points from the trailer, i wonder if the movie might subvert expectations or simply reinforce them?
Wow. You actually phrased your question exactly as I was going to phrase it when I asked it myself.
From the trailer, we can make some predictions about what the movie is about, but not seeing the other 90 or so minutes, those of us who have only seen the trailer can only guess what the movie brings to the forefront or not.
I think that Okra and Gregory Butler both bring up valid questions as to the representation of this movie. But I also think that Mighty Ponygirl made some excellent points as well.
It's so frustrating that there are so few movies featuring African Americans, urban (and other) poverty, and the realities of racism that one movie is expected to speak for ALL of it. It's really not fair to the movie. The author, director and producers are really only trying to tell one story. And it, being their creation, is theirs to tell. I felt the same way about Juno when there was criticism as to why Juno didn't end up aborting or keeping the baby once it was born. It wasn't a movie about all teen pregnancy. It was the story of one character facing pregnancy as a teenager.
So, maybe we should take some pressure off of this movie and not expect it to be about ALL experiences of young, poor, black women in urban areas, but the story of Precious who is unique and doing what she can in her own reality-based, though completely fictional, life. Let this be one story that may open the door for others to tell other aspects of life for this demographic.
This doesn't mean that it's exempt from criticism. I think that the light vs. dark skin in the characterization of these characters may deserve a hard look, just to name one thing that stood out from the trailer.
Actually, part of the power of the source material IS the systemic injustice, and the fact that Precious manages to survive within it.
Gregory, I can only speak from my perspective.
I don't know if I would classify this as poverty porn, I don't think that the Nice White Ladies of the world who are busy patting themselves on the back for voting in One Of Them a few months ago are going to see this movie. I just don't see the draw. I haven't seen the movie, but from the trailer, I don't see Precious Overcoming Incredible Odds to Become Her Dream because a Nice White Lady chose to see something special in her. I dunno, maybe this is what happens in the movie... maybe the Nice Lightskinned Ladies help her out and teach her the value of not eating and she loses weight and she can become a dancer on a BET video. But my impression of the movie, based on the trailer, is that there is no "happy ending," that the best we can hope for is survival and maybe something resembling an easier life for Precious, but still nothing that a Nice White Lady would associate with "a happy ending." Or maybe it will end badly and the movie is a tragedy. In either event, I don't see Nice White Ladies flocking to the movie to partake in ghetto voyeurism because there's no payoff in the end for them.
People like you've described don't want to feel bad about shit and then not feel better. They want to feel outraged but then they want to feel like everything is good in the end: they want to be angry over Americans arms dealers supplying tribal leaders who turn around and massacre villages, but they want to feel good because Iron Man swoops in and kicks their asses. They want to feel angry about Bush Sr's abandonment of the Shia uprising in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm, but they want to feel good because George Clooney and Marky Mark help get a bunch of them safely across the border. They don't want a depressing movie with an ending that isn't happy.
If Precious doesn't show how a bunch of Nice White Ladies can make token efforts to pull up the poor downtrodden black people in the ghetto, then the Nice White Ladies aren't going to watch the movie because it isn't going to reinforce their belief that they're Good People.
So when we take those people out of the picture, I don't know with the white liberals we're left with are the sort who will wring their hands and declare that it's all just so awful with that legacy of institutionalized racism in this country, but whatever are we supposed to do about it?
I don't know if this movie is going to inspire anyone to try to dismantle the 400+ year old legacy of slavery and racism in this country. But I guess I'd rather have people talk about it than just dismiss it as "those stereotypes exist for a reason, you know."
I think we are missing the big picture here. True, there are light skinned women in the movie, filling the roles of supportive teachers and social workers. And true, this might not address the hundreds of years that have lead to the epidemic of poverty in black neighborhoods, but can we not look towards the positives. This is a story that needs to be told, which isnt told unless its a Lifetime movie or Tyler Perry is making a joke out of it. I believe that viewing the disadvantaged, whatever color skin they may have, is not on the top of the list for really any narrative film production company. Its more interesting when its in another country, where it can be far away and we do not have to take a sincere look at its OVERWHELMING effects on America.
And to the discussion of the actresses fulfilling the teacher and social worker roles. I think the bigger issue isnt with what it means to this movie, I believe it probably has to do with the overall look for the majority of black actresses in Hollywood and the ones who would deal with major pay cuts to make an indie. I know we can look at this culturally, but we also have to understand the business in which it was created in.
Have you read the book? Because the book is not written for liberal affluent white people. And therefore I'm reserving my judgement on the movie. Precious' character very frequently talks about issues of white privilege and even light-skinned women of color's privileges. There are definitely instances where institutionalized racism is the blame in the book for a lot of issues. (i.e. the White mayor wanting to tear down Harlem Hospital, because the 'blacks don't need their own hospital.')
I'm just curious if I'm missing something or if you're just making guesses off this 2 minute trailer
Oh, and just to clarify: even though I spent more time talking about the negatives of such movies, I am genuinely conflicted:
That means that I agree quite a bit with arguments both AGAINST such movies (see above) and arguments FOR such movies (they bring abuse to light; give silenced victims a voice; give fat/dark-skinned/less-Europeanized bodies prominence and narrative trajectory (as opposed to silly sidekick status); increase the visibility of minority authors (sorce material PUSH); and present systemic problems, etc. etc.
I'm eager to hear responses to both arguments; I just wanted you to know that I personally am invested in both sides.
I totally understand this. The very things that are potentially problematic about the movie are the things that are positive about the movie. It's hard to operate rhetorically in that space.
I don't like Perry's films but this movie looks very interesting. I think I might see this one.
The book was brilliant and I hope the movie holds up.That's not always the case. I recall how (imo) they took Toni Morrison's incredible 'Beloved' and let Thandi Newton commit crimes against acting. They were way out their lane on that one.
Though lighter skinned black Americans experience some priviledge, I have to argue that the overall discrimination towards black people in this country encompasses them as well. This privilege does need to be examined, but a great deal of othering is directed towards light skinned black people and it creates an entirely different set of discrimination and stereotypes that they must come up against.
... This is hard for me to voice, so please be patient with me. Though the whole 'nice white-r lady' stereotype is being played here, I also feel like this ALONG with Precious' coment in the trailer could open up a discussion about how skin tones among a group can further affect racism, discrimination, etc.
The fact that this movie is read so many different ways may be accidental or purposeful. If its good, its a good movie with a different take than the 'funny' black person. If its bad, a discussion about what is wrong with it and how it differs from the book.
I don't think Sapphire was setting out to write a novel that was poverty porn, and we have yet to see what the movie based on her novel turns out to be.
Overall, good or bad, hopefully this movie encourages more people to read the novel.
Just a quick note on the lighter-skinned hero teacher figure:
The book was actually purposely written that way, so as to analyze the resentment young black women/girls often feel about their own darkness. It's part of a broader theme in the novel wherein Precious is dealing with her self-image, so I wouldn't say this is a reflection of careless casting, just being true to the original details in the book.
i would like to also throw out (and literally, i would like to throw it out) the trailer for something very scary bad looking: http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/lifeishotincracktown/
i can't even handle the title. i like the idea of depicting how hard people have to work to make a living, but it just looks so...yech.
I was curious to know whether anyone who has ever experienced abuse (even in a milder form) found the trailer affecting because of that.
That's why it got to me, personally. If your parent abuses you when you are a child--there's nothing more lonely. You experience this incredible aloneness. You are sure you aren't worthy of love. Of course, most people this happens to never have anyone reach out and try to cross that barrier. So maybe that's the unrealistic part--the redemptive part. But not--because it does happen--it's what should happen.
I see that it is about a person who could be despised by society for a lot of different things. But why can't ANYONE just relate to Precious as a human being? Can we care about the person in the movie? Is there nothing about her experience that resonates with people who don't have exactly the same experiences? That's what all art does. I can relate to Madame Bovary in certain ways. I feel that I relate to Precious as a character. Isn't her story worth being told and can't people see her story as something powerful not because we pity her but because there's something more universal about her character.
I only ask this because I can see a reason to be suspicious to look at people's suffering from this liberal white perspective. But she is a powerful character so there's more than one way to look at her suffering. But then I can see that people might be suspicious of that--if you don't come from the same place as Precious how do you relate? But then I think: Well, if people can't understand her experiences at all then does this mean that art about people from oppressed groups should be ghettoized? It's not like other art in the sense that it can mean something for people with social privilege?
But then I see that this is a very particular kind of art--because of the sympathy. The sympathy is what causes the political issue. Does it mean you have to look down on Precious? I don't think it means that. Maybe some people will but not everyone will.
Okra and gregory have expressed my exact sentiments. In other posts about this movie, I have heard people expressing how the subject is marginalized and such movies are "refreshing" for letting stories like Precious's be heard. Something to point to, though, is how the term "marginalization" in and of itself is problematic in this context and it illustrates the conflict such movies produce within communities of color.
The questions to consider are from whom are these characters marginalized and for whom are these issues "coming to light?" Many Black people are well aware of obesity, crime, sexual abuse and poverty in our communities. Just as Native Americans and Latinos are aware of similar issues within their communities. Moreover, many of us have dedicated a lot of time and energy into creating organizations to resolve these issues. So who, then, is being "refreshed" by it? Inherently in the term marginalization is the connotation that there exists a dominant body who does not know about these issues. Along with that is that this dominant body will somehow be able to observe them, and while not relate, be able to empathize with this "marginalized" group because of the movie. But to say a group is marginal (much like th term "minority") is like saying there is some normalized vantage point and barometer to which they can be measured. Basically, I am sure the majority of Black people will not be any more enlightened or refreshed by this film than another person of color who sees a similar film relating to their respective ethnic "experience." Often, instead, such movies are used to get white people to see what "others" experience.
The conflict and mixed feelings within our communities, as okra expresses, is that while people of color are virtually excluded from lead, quality roles in general, every now and then we have movies, like this one, that relate to our various experiences. We like the fact that our people can get some play. And no less a troubled spirit who does not fit a Eurocentric image to which members of our community can relate. Unfortunately, when those rare movies do come out about us, they tend to follow a jaded trope, however real or compelling they may be.
Someone asked if white people really would go see this film. Considering the general underrepresentation of blacks in the media and the general lack of support black related themes get, maybe, maybe not. So, yes, it is positive to see a cast with so many people of color. But that is not the point. The reality is that movies with similar plot lines, whomever sees it and for whomever it is intended, tend to play to a paternalistic sentiment amongst dominant groups, and they are often used in academia for "teachable moments" at the expense of people of color.
I think we have to demand more as audience goers, and those vested in these issues of social justice have to do more to create plot lines that deal with challenging the systems that oppress us and not just coping with them. While the plot line may be "refreshing" to some, how "refreshing" is this movie for the young woman, maybe one just like Precious, who sees this every day in her real life experience? A girl like Precious may be inspired by such a movie, but I suspect she'd be even more inspired by a movie that exposed (not just hinted around) why she internalizes white superiority/black inferiority, the historical dimensions that led to how her family became poor, and what she can do to change both her individual experience and her environment on a larger level so other little Black girls don't have to suffer from what she endured. Damn, maybe I'll end up making the sequel ;).