The contemporary equivalent of My Pafology wouldn't be a narrative that fetishizes black poverty. It would more likely to be, say, some multi-generational family saga of an upwardly mobile black woman as she navigates genderized racism at elite universities and workplaces, as well as difficulties in interracial relationships, all somehow tied to overarching Twittery BLMish themes. For American Fiction to have had genuine artistic integrity, it would've had to have gone after the Cord Jeffersons and Issa Raes, not the Sapphire stand-in. But of course Jefferson and Rae aren't going to target themselves, so they create this self-serving fantasy where they're both the winners AND underdogs.
I genuinely wondered after seeing it whether the movie was a meta-commentary on what it takes to appeal in a white audience in 2024 as opposed to when the book was written. The movie is about the trials and travails of the professional class! It's the only possible explanation to me as to why the movie is so disjointed, with two plotlines that have very little to do with one another and a bizarre meta-ending that lets American Fiction be the piece of work filmed rather than Fuck.
If that's the case then it's absolutely brilliant; Jefferson pulled one over on everybody and got nearly the same level of acclaim for American Fiction in the real world that Fuck got in the film. If that's not the case then I genuinely couldn't believe how off-the-mark the parody was in the film. The Park Slope audience at Nitehawk sure seemed to lap it up though...
I very much enjoyed the literary award panel discussions and the archetypes that were represented. And I also had fun thinking of exactly which writers were being satirized.
Yup. This was my exact issue too, and I loved the movie aside from that. The John Singleton-esque movies and stories that American Fiction satirizes aren't in vogue anymore, so that aspect is a bit dated.
A best-selling book today would be about a POC enduring microaggressions at work and so-forth. One day someone is gonna lampoon that and make a killing.
The title and subtitle of this post led me to expect that you would be criticizing "American Fiction" for something more than simply the character Sintara's assertion that Bret Easton Ellis writes about the (white) downtrodden. Am I missing something about what you found lacking in the film?
Perhaps Sintara's response wasn't so inaccurate after all. She mentioned Bukowski and Ellis fiction as two widespread extreme representations of white society. Besides, wherever there is wealth and privilege there is also poverty and downtrodden. Anyway I guess her point was that there are plenty of white authors writing about extraordinary experience and nobody has problem with that.
But technically you're right. Mentioning Ellis in such a phrase is inaccurate.
Ross, I read this with great interest: I read Erasure before going to see American Fiction. I liked them both a lot. I immediately got your point about blurring the time frames of the novel and the film. But I had trouble following some of what you wrote. What does "encultured" mean here? What are you designating as trauma novels-- professional/managerial class trails and tribulations or something else? Liz
It means people who occupy a high place in the culture and have cultural capital. Trauma novels to me are novels of gratuitous suffering and victim narratives, so they can be PMC-type works and other things
The contemporary equivalent of My Pafology wouldn't be a narrative that fetishizes black poverty. It would more likely to be, say, some multi-generational family saga of an upwardly mobile black woman as she navigates genderized racism at elite universities and workplaces, as well as difficulties in interracial relationships, all somehow tied to overarching Twittery BLMish themes. For American Fiction to have had genuine artistic integrity, it would've had to have gone after the Cord Jeffersons and Issa Raes, not the Sapphire stand-in. But of course Jefferson and Rae aren't going to target themselves, so they create this self-serving fantasy where they're both the winners AND underdogs.
I genuinely wondered after seeing it whether the movie was a meta-commentary on what it takes to appeal in a white audience in 2024 as opposed to when the book was written. The movie is about the trials and travails of the professional class! It's the only possible explanation to me as to why the movie is so disjointed, with two plotlines that have very little to do with one another and a bizarre meta-ending that lets American Fiction be the piece of work filmed rather than Fuck.
If that's the case then it's absolutely brilliant; Jefferson pulled one over on everybody and got nearly the same level of acclaim for American Fiction in the real world that Fuck got in the film. If that's not the case then I genuinely couldn't believe how off-the-mark the parody was in the film. The Park Slope audience at Nitehawk sure seemed to lap it up though...
Yeah I was wondering why no one seemed to catch that, and it seems that Easton Ellis hasn't commented on it.
I very much enjoyed the literary award panel discussions and the archetypes that were represented. And I also had fun thinking of exactly which writers were being satirized.
Yup. This was my exact issue too, and I loved the movie aside from that. The John Singleton-esque movies and stories that American Fiction satirizes aren't in vogue anymore, so that aspect is a bit dated.
A best-selling book today would be about a POC enduring microaggressions at work and so-forth. One day someone is gonna lampoon that and make a killing.
I was going to write more on Boyz in the Hood, a movie I like it, and didn't quite get to squeeze it in. I think Everett was reacting to that as well.
The title and subtitle of this post led me to expect that you would be criticizing "American Fiction" for something more than simply the character Sintara's assertion that Bret Easton Ellis writes about the (white) downtrodden. Am I missing something about what you found lacking in the film?
Perhaps Sintara's response wasn't so inaccurate after all. She mentioned Bukowski and Ellis fiction as two widespread extreme representations of white society. Besides, wherever there is wealth and privilege there is also poverty and downtrodden. Anyway I guess her point was that there are plenty of white authors writing about extraordinary experience and nobody has problem with that.
But technically you're right. Mentioning Ellis in such a phrase is inaccurate.
Wow… this is an education.. thank you. I missed this too.
Ross, I read this with great interest: I read Erasure before going to see American Fiction. I liked them both a lot. I immediately got your point about blurring the time frames of the novel and the film. But I had trouble following some of what you wrote. What does "encultured" mean here? What are you designating as trauma novels-- professional/managerial class trails and tribulations or something else? Liz
It means people who occupy a high place in the culture and have cultural capital. Trauma novels to me are novels of gratuitous suffering and victim narratives, so they can be PMC-type works and other things