A couple nights ago, I went out to see "American Fiction." Incidentally, it's a great movie, and one that works on many levels. If you haven't seen it yet, go see it now.
But in particular, I was emailing with Marie earlier this evening. I mentioned the movie and told her I'd liked it. She went online and found a trailer, and said it looks like "The Producers." I replied that it is nothing at all like "The Producers." (Not to say anything against "The Producers"! It's the funniest movie ever made. But "American Fiction" breathes a whole different air.)
So I started to think to myself, What do I like about it so much?
Fair warning: In what follows there are likely to be SPOILERS! So don't read any farther unless you have already seen the movie or just don't care.
Partly I loved the satire. On the whole the movie is as much a drama as a comedy, but the comedic bits are hysterically funny. At one point a panel of judges is evaluating a roster of books for a prize. There is one book (by a Black author) that the three white judges love, but the two Black judges hate. The vote is 3-2, so the book wins a prize. After the vote, one of the white judges explains to the two Black judges, "I think it is really important to uplift Black voices with this prize" … even as he had completely ignored the voices of the two Black judges on his panel. There's a strong hint that a lot of the white attention to Black authors or personalities is equally performative and equally unaware.
Partly I think the family relationships are drawn very delicately. The adult siblings care about each other, but they've made very different choices in their lives and they've grown into very different people. Also there are unresolved issues left over from when they were younger. So when they get together for a family event, the interactions are … warm but prickly, if that's a thing. Caring but awkward. The relationships are subtly drawn, and I found them easy to believe.
The main character (nicknamed "Monk") provides our point-of-view, but it's clear that he is not always an easy man for other people to like. There are aspects to his personality that make sense to us (the audience) because we see the world through his eyes, but that obviously make other people feel less than comfortable around him. Again, this is skillfully done.
And then there's the subplot in which he writes a book under a pseudonym, a book that takes off and becomes a runaway success. For various reasons Monk can't simply come clean and admit that he is the author. At the same time, it becomes emotionally harder and harder to keep up the deception. We see the deception cost him a relationship. His brother (who doesn't know about Monk's secret book) talks about his own life as a formerly-closeted gay man, and about what that deception cost him. He tells Monk, "People want to love you. Let them love all of you." We see that Monk wants to, but just can't.
So what about me? What about this identity, "Hosea Tanatu," that has written close to 1500 posts here over the last 16 years, plus another 70-some over on the Patio? If I ever publish something that hits it big—I mean, if Hosea ever does!—I'll be in exactly the same position as Monk. Do I tell anyone? There's a reason that I hide these things under the name Hosea. No, of course I don't want to tell anyone. But then, how easily can I keep it a secret? If I publish something that becomes famous, if everyone is talking about it, if money is rolling in … how easily can I keep up the pretense that it has nothing to do with me? And what does it mean for all my relationships if I keep everyone—everyone!—at arm's length like that?
I suppose it's a good thing that I'm already disconnected from other people! And of course there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that anything I write will ever hit the big time. As I said back at the beginning, I guess I'm glad. (Yes, this kind of solemn and subdued affect is exactly what "glad" looks like.)
No comments:
Post a Comment