I'll begin by saying I hope no one actually makes "Plantation Annihilation" into a movie! The premise is fairly interesting. It reminds me of some previous films which covered similar territory: "The Dark Half", based on a book by Stephen King where a literature professor is secretly writing books under a pseudonym, and the pseudonym comes to life! Also "The Hoax" starring Richard Gere based on the true story of a fabricated biography of Howard Hughes. It has some elements also of "Tar" but much more watchable and somewhat enjoyable but it felt like a film which hadn't quite decided what it was supposed to be.
Thelonious "Monk" Ellison is a struggling academic working at a nameless university in Los Angeles. He has published a few books, none of which have sold well, because, he is told they aren't "Black enough". In a scene which has almost become a bit cliche, he challenges a student who walks out of class. (At least the scene didn't last too long.) Frustrated he goes on leave to Boston/New England to attend a literary conference.
There he notices another African-American's book which is getting a lot of acclaim: "We's Lives in Da Ghetto" by Sintara Golden which appears to cater to African-American stereotypes. Over the course of a lot of screen time (almost too much), Monk finally decides to write a similar book. In my favorite scene of the film, we see Monk writing and the characters he's writing about perform in front of him.
The main thrust of the plot is how the publishing community becomes interested in Monk's book which he wrote as a kind of protest. In a couple of moments I didn't quite buy Monk's behavior towards the publishing world's interest in his book. Any writer academic or otherwise would love their material to be acclaimed and popular. This idea that academics live in a "bubble" where they don't care about popularity is a big canard.
My problem with the movie is the other story-line involving Monk's family in New England. I felt it was a bit melodramatic and in some ways comprised the main thrust of the story. Monk has a sister Lisa who feels Monk has been avoiding the family because he lives in Los Angeles. (Truth be told academics have to go where the job is; they usually don't have a choice.) She and a housekeeper care for their ailing mother, played by Leslie Uggams who was cast as Kizzie in "Roots" 50 years ago! Tragedy strikes on several fronts and I wasn't sure if I was watching a comedy or drama.
If there was another glaring problem it was some of the gay characters which show up. Monk's brother Cliff is gay, who is not stereotypical. However, his gay friends are which seemed to diminish the point of the story which I thought was a critique of stereotypes. By having stereotypes in a movie critiquing stereotypes I thought it undermined the point of the story. There's even a gay publishing editor who was so over-the-top it was nearly offensive.
Still an interesting film with a great performance by Jeffrey Wright as Monk. I guess part of the idea was to portray the African-American characters much more roundly while the White characters were stereotypes. I am still not sure after having watched it if I understood what the point of all this was in the final analysis. To its credit, the ending was very unexpected but I am not sure if it was overall very satisfying.
Thelonious "Monk" Ellison is a struggling academic working at a nameless university in Los Angeles. He has published a few books, none of which have sold well, because, he is told they aren't "Black enough". In a scene which has almost become a bit cliche, he challenges a student who walks out of class. (At least the scene didn't last too long.) Frustrated he goes on leave to Boston/New England to attend a literary conference.
There he notices another African-American's book which is getting a lot of acclaim: "We's Lives in Da Ghetto" by Sintara Golden which appears to cater to African-American stereotypes. Over the course of a lot of screen time (almost too much), Monk finally decides to write a similar book. In my favorite scene of the film, we see Monk writing and the characters he's writing about perform in front of him.
The main thrust of the plot is how the publishing community becomes interested in Monk's book which he wrote as a kind of protest. In a couple of moments I didn't quite buy Monk's behavior towards the publishing world's interest in his book. Any writer academic or otherwise would love their material to be acclaimed and popular. This idea that academics live in a "bubble" where they don't care about popularity is a big canard.
My problem with the movie is the other story-line involving Monk's family in New England. I felt it was a bit melodramatic and in some ways comprised the main thrust of the story. Monk has a sister Lisa who feels Monk has been avoiding the family because he lives in Los Angeles. (Truth be told academics have to go where the job is; they usually don't have a choice.) She and a housekeeper care for their ailing mother, played by Leslie Uggams who was cast as Kizzie in "Roots" 50 years ago! Tragedy strikes on several fronts and I wasn't sure if I was watching a comedy or drama.
If there was another glaring problem it was some of the gay characters which show up. Monk's brother Cliff is gay, who is not stereotypical. However, his gay friends are which seemed to diminish the point of the story which I thought was a critique of stereotypes. By having stereotypes in a movie critiquing stereotypes I thought it undermined the point of the story. There's even a gay publishing editor who was so over-the-top it was nearly offensive.
Still an interesting film with a great performance by Jeffrey Wright as Monk. I guess part of the idea was to portray the African-American characters much more roundly while the White characters were stereotypes. I am still not sure after having watched it if I understood what the point of all this was in the final analysis. To its credit, the ending was very unexpected but I am not sure if it was overall very satisfying.