I love in the film monk is called out for his pretentious anti black attitude like yes there should be more representation for black people from stereotypical portrayals however that’s not black peoples from inner city/working class backgrounds fault that’s the fault of white people who control our representation and believe we are portrayed as one thing it’s weird that people like him have this deep resentment for them

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Yes! That was part of the conversation between he and Golden and it was so good.

@Kevin-rg3yc

5 ай бұрын

@@WhytheBookWinsit was I also like that Issa rae character states to have the same upper middle class upbringing as monk but she has more empathy and understanding to black people who came from lower class statuses and like she says monk’s problem is white people but he misguiding it on his own people

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

​@@Kevin-rg3ycdefinitely! I originally talked about this in the video but I felt I wasn't very eloquent in retelling their conversation so I deleted it in editing. You word it so well though, so thank you for commenting!

@CNJL1

5 ай бұрын

the scene where monk has a confrontation with Issa Rae's character was my favorite. It highlighted what was missing from the book.

@kishanrai8622

4 ай бұрын

This is what having no understanding of class does to a person. This is the message that this movie wants you to internalise, that all this is completely white people's fault. Dont look at the writers, actors and directors behind these movies. Ofcourse they will redeem issa rae's character in the movie when in the book she wrote that bullshit after three whole days of visiting her less monetarily gifted cousins. She is their stand in and they need that guise of racial solidarity so that they could use the black masses to uplift their bank account by cutting deals with capitalists. They have no qualm with this system as long as their 13% of the billionaires are black, as rest of us are getting grinded down to powder under their boots.

The ending of the book was, indeed, ambiguous - but I felt a good bit of sadness at the end. First of all, it just "ended." Secondly, I interpreted it is Monk doing an ultimate "Sell out" and it made me sad. i do *love* how the movie veered off into ts own meta-ending, expanding on the book. (P.S. - I was hoping you'd do a video about this book and this movie. Yippee, and thank you!)

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Yeah definitely a sad ending in the book. I agree though, I loved how meta the movie got.

This is in my audible library. Going to start it soon

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Let me know what you think of it!

Killers of the flower moon did not get a nomination for best adapted screenplay partly because they forced Barbie into the “Best Adapted Screenplay” category instead of “Best Original Screenplay” category for “being based on a toy”

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Yeah them not putting Barbie in original screenplay was an interesting choice.

@conservativeneurologyb4999

2 ай бұрын

Barbie2= 'The Prize Winner of Defiance Ohio' is a must see film. fyi.

This is too real

I saw this trailer and have not read the book yet, but I thought this premise was covered by Spike Lee in Bamboozled. Interesting movie if you have time. Criterion felt it worthy of a release so that’s something.

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Yeah I've heard of that but haven't seen it. I'll check it out soon!

I'm a European and I'm also bothered by the various stereotypes societies embrace about themselves or their own constituent parts. This novel and the film adaptation are essentially about the frustration of constantly putting people into boxes. Either to ease your perception of others or feel good about yourself. Even outside the US social context, this is frustrating. I myself have come across some downright bizarre and insulting stereotypes even about people from my home region (from the perspective of outsiders who only think they know the whole picture), and weird ideas by some about individual people who have a dual ethnic or linguistic identity (the implication being some are seen as "weird" or worthy of ridicule, while others aren't). Many people, regardless of where they live in the world, face being put into a proverbial box, because many people are all too afraid of venturing out from the comfort zones of this or that stereotype about others. The fact that Monk's character tried to provoke people into seeing beyond the boxes (whatever those cheap boxes might be, based on context), but even got somewhat tangled in his own effort to criticise them, and questioned even his own frustrations about cheesy and trite stereotypes, just shows how complex and personal this topic can get. Jeffrey Wright is perfect for a role like this. Over the years, he's become one of my favourite US dramatic actors.

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Very well said! And I agree, Wright is amazing!

I went through James Baldwin's novels when a teenager. Loved the writer then and now. A great writer. Baldwin always felt he was an "outsider" , but his humanity always showed through, no matter how prickly he was personally .

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

I've only read If Beale Street Could Talk but I loved it!

So interesting....Thank you. Challenging critique. It's why I love your posts so much. Doscerning.

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Another outstanding video! Looovvvveee it!

Very good review sista ✊

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Thank you 🤗

Book vs movie on Boy in the Striped Pajamas

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the request! I'll add it to my list of future videos

@WhytheBookWins

5 ай бұрын

By the way, I just read and watched this and my book vs movie video will be out later in February!

I love your vids!

@WhytheBookWins

Ай бұрын

thank you! 😀

great video

@WhytheBookWins

3 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Absolutely loved the movie; the book is on my to do list. I am looking forward to reading Erasure and curious to see if I will understand the vignettes to which you refer. I found your reviews of the book and movie very thoughtful. I thought the adaptation was done wonderfully (if I can say that without having read the book; perhaps I should say screenplay) because it stood on its own so wonderfully. I subscribed to a streaming service because it featured The Handmaid's Tale, whose first season was true to the novel and subsequent seasons very relatable to the book; so I was anxious to see that that service was developing The Other Black Girl, which I loved. They (take the retitled book of My Pafology) it up! It was especially disappointing because it was done as a serial as opposed to a two hour movie, so there was plenty of time to develop it. Terrible adaptation. Curious to know if you read the novel and saw that series and would be interested in your thoughts.

@WhytheBookWins

3 ай бұрын

I'm glad you liked the review! Definitely let me know what you think of the book! And I'll look into that one! I remember hearing about the book a year or two ago and had thought it sounded interesting. But I don't often cover TV shows because they are so time consuming.

Good Video... 👍🏾😍

@WhytheBookWins

Ай бұрын

thank you!

I saw the movie and I liked it well enough but thought the targets being satirized were dated and done better in other movies, most notably Spike Lee’s Bamboozled. I read the book after seeing the movie and enjoyed it a lot more, but I also hear your points about some of the vignettes being confusing, and the ending isn’t satisfying at all. My biggest issue is with Sintara Golden. Her character and her arguments make no sense. You’re right that she’s a much more developed character than she was in the book, but she was also every bit the opportunistic hack Monk suspected she was in the book. You can’t change her into this thoughtful character who challenges Monk on his own prejudices while leaving the terrible book she wrote (We’s Lives In Da Ghetto) exactly the same! The Juanita Mae Jenkins of the novel would write a book like that but the Sintara Golden of the movie never would. That’s why her explanation of why F**k was trash, but her book was good (she interviewed her subjects?!) was nonsensical. One of the funniest reveals in the novel was that when asked where she got the inspiration for the book, Juanita Mae Jenkins says she went to Harlem for two days when she was twelve to visit relatives. She did zero research and that’s the joke! I get that Jefferson didn’t want to make a black woman author the subject of mockery in 2023, but he ended up making her a confusing hypocrite instead. Another issue I had with the movie was that I didn’t get enough of a sense of My Pafology to know if it was good or not. The moment of him writing it with the actors playing out a brief scene wasn’t enough. It was a stereotypical hood scene, but it didn’t seem poorly written. In the novel you get to read the whole thing and it is terrible, hilarious, offensive and…surprisingly engaging! I was particularly confused in the movie when he asks Caroline why she liked F**k and we never got an answer. I wanted to know. I also agree with you about the changes to the family stuff. In the book it was too bleak, and I liked that they went for a more heartwarming vibe. I just wish they had more courage with the satire part. So, for me the book wins but I appreciate your videos and always enjoy them!

@WhytheBookWins

3 ай бұрын

Yeah you make some really good points! I do feel this fits more in the 90s/ early 2000s, which makes sense because that was when the book was published. And while I like that they expanded on Golden in the movie, you make a really good point about her in book vs movie. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

@cleta2045

3 ай бұрын

Thoughtful comments on Sintara. For me, the portrayal of the conversation between her and Monk is the ultimate hypocrisy on her part: it's not bad when I do it, but it is when you do it because I don't, and have no reason to look inward. It reminds me of liberals looking at conservatives and saying the conservative's actions are bigoted but those same actions, though more subtle, being done by the liberal is not. Actually, the overarching view of the movie, at least, is that of the liberal as bigot.

So much of this is self-imposed martyrdom. Self-destruction. I'll get the movie from my local public library. So tired of self-destruction trips. It leads nowhere, it leads to annihilation.

Thus: it's NOT purely that the "#️⃣NUMBERS" are '3️⃣:2️⃣'; it's particularly, 'WHiCH' #️⃣three.....

Oh I so disagree . I hated it the film adaptation I really wanted to give it a fair shake. Like I read the book but I wanted to judge it as its own entertainment experience and not just as an adaptation of a book. And by those standards I was not crazy about the movie for the first hour and a half but I was letting self appreciate it for what it was. An utterly defanged version of a book that was share satire in 2001. Like as satire it was tame and dated but it was entertaining like a hallmark movie or USA network show or Netflix series But in the last half hour it goes from being just banal and basic and empty but tolerable fun to legit offensive to ones intelligence. The scene towards the end with Issa Rae character is weird and assaults your intelligence and someone like Cord cant be bothered to be honest, so he makes up a scene because the Juanita Mae Jenkins(Issa Rae) character in the book is rightfully bot redeemed for her exploitation. Nothing in that scene makes sense in her responses. So what if she allegedly used real experiences? Shes still exploiting. The fact the Cord makes that scene a "draw" between Monk and her gives away his hand away. He cant be bothered to criticize the grifter class as he is apart of it. Were only made to look at white people as if the black professional class plays no part, where Percival Everett indicts the black bourgeuois. But Cord is too afraid to do that. Theres nothing Monk says to Golden being a black woman, but Cord throws that in to prep the audience he might* be wrong about her. because of alleged Misogynoir. Its deeply cynical. Monk was* right about her, in the book and the film She is a sellout. And thats just one thing. The father as you mentiom, wasnt just cheating, he was in a loveless marriage because he fell in love with a white british woman overseas. Its more complex than "black man cheatin with white women lol". So much interiority especially about the intraracial class antagonisms are left out because thats "too hard". Jefferson complains about "hood" films but this past decade has been about black professionals like him. American Fiction is the black movie Hollywood wants. Hes pretending to be an underdog. The irony of this film getting 5 Oscar noms makes sense, because no white person would feel indicted by these caricatures of white peoples perception and lack of interests in black stories or humanity. It's such a caricature of white people, particularly. No more than the black professional class the Cord carefully curates the film to absolve, so both black influencers and white industry tastemakers will love it. Erasure is far more transcendent despite its time. Youll nevet see that depicted by hollywood. The book easily wins.

@WhytheBookWins

4 ай бұрын

Oh wow, you make some really good points that I'll need to think about. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

@jnkazee2526

4 ай бұрын

​​​@@WhytheBookWins​​ i highly recommend a recent article on Defector from Professor Jason England who's taught the book. Imo he gets at what's truly going on with the industry(in the most modern sense) and black creatives existing in the white dominated industries that the film maybe unconsciously, obfuscates. Just something to consider with all the accolades this film is getting as "bold and fresh". He also appeared on a podcast named Champagne Sharks to talk about it this week. In any case, always like your vids. Thanks for the reply.

@funnyguyla

3 ай бұрын

THIS! Thank you! I saw the movie first and wasn't all that impressed and just finished the book and it was so much darker, and much more scathing. Black people are skewered just as much as white people. It couldn't have been adapted as is without upsetting people. But also the targets are so dated, why would they bother? I understand making the family drama stuff more heartwarming and less bleak for the movie. But the satire was toothless.