I usually try to watch an adaptation on its own merits and not judge it against the book, but in this case the shortcomings of the movie reflect precisely what is wrong with it as a movie.
Obviously, an integral part of adapting a novel to the screen is knowing what to toss, what to emphasize, what to include but de-emphasize, and what part of the novel's story you really want to tell. In the book American Fiction is based on, 2001's Erasure by Percival Everett, a number of plot points - the family housekeeper's romance, Monk's (our protagonist's) romance, his relationship with his brother, his mom's illness - are important, but not exactly as core plot elements. Their primary purpose is to support the the defining elements of the story, the themes, and the development of Monk's character. Cord Jefferson's script instead elevates these secondary plot points in what seems like an effort to make a more conventional movie, instead of having faith in the novel and movie audiences. It would have been far more interesting if he had really gone for it and attempted to adapt the novel wholesale for the screen. Admittedly, this would have been much more challenging, but certainly not undoable.
One result is a disjointed movie that can't decide what kind of movie it wants to be, or what story it wants to tell. Unfortunately, this means that the main through-line of the novel - Monk's despair at being forced to choose between being Black or white instead of just himself (an oversimplification, but enough for the purpose here), and his abject sadness and disgust with stereotyped, pop African Americanism and the most shallow version of self-serving white liberalism, which constitute the main point of the novel - is just another part of the movie. In this way, the main theme of the novel is desaturated.
Also lost in the adaptation is the frenetic, bordering on chaotic, intensity, dark hilarity, and deep sadness of the novel and its protagonist. This aspect of the novel is one of the things that makes it truly great. By contrast, the tone of the movie is pastel. The pacing and mood are those of a comedy drama, with a dash of satire. The character of Monk and his existential crisis are so softened that he's a completely different character in the movie compared with the book. But even if taken on its own merits, there ultimately isn't enough depth for the character of Monk to be as interesting as he could have been. The intensity of the novel is replaced with blandnes.
Another symptom of the blandification of the story and the character of Monk is the loss of the first person narrative, through which the intensity and depth of the character is conveyed so effectively in the book. It's pretty difficult to translate a first person novel to a movie without a ton of voice over monologue, but that's probably what needed to have been done here. The sad part is, Jeffrey Wright is exactly the actor who could have done it well. Monk should be narrating his story and we should be hearing his bewilderment, sadness, and sardonic observations and judgments firsthand.
Less important but reflecting the choices made in the script, is the indecisive score. We move back and forth between light jazz and maudlin light piano and strings reminiscent of the kind of thing we might hear in Fried Green Tomatoes or some other '90s melodrama-comedy.
Spoiler, if you've read the novel: The movie couldn't even leave the ending of the novel right where it was, instead going for an idiotic meta thing. It completely undermines the impact of the novel's conclusion, again seeming to show that Cord Jefferson either didn't have faith in the novel or faith in the audience.
End of spoiler.
In sum, this movie is disappointing. It isn't terrible, just indecisive, bland, and forgettable. Read the book instead.
Obviously, an integral part of adapting a novel to the screen is knowing what to toss, what to emphasize, what to include but de-emphasize, and what part of the novel's story you really want to tell. In the book American Fiction is based on, 2001's Erasure by Percival Everett, a number of plot points - the family housekeeper's romance, Monk's (our protagonist's) romance, his relationship with his brother, his mom's illness - are important, but not exactly as core plot elements. Their primary purpose is to support the the defining elements of the story, the themes, and the development of Monk's character. Cord Jefferson's script instead elevates these secondary plot points in what seems like an effort to make a more conventional movie, instead of having faith in the novel and movie audiences. It would have been far more interesting if he had really gone for it and attempted to adapt the novel wholesale for the screen. Admittedly, this would have been much more challenging, but certainly not undoable.
One result is a disjointed movie that can't decide what kind of movie it wants to be, or what story it wants to tell. Unfortunately, this means that the main through-line of the novel - Monk's despair at being forced to choose between being Black or white instead of just himself (an oversimplification, but enough for the purpose here), and his abject sadness and disgust with stereotyped, pop African Americanism and the most shallow version of self-serving white liberalism, which constitute the main point of the novel - is just another part of the movie. In this way, the main theme of the novel is desaturated.
Also lost in the adaptation is the frenetic, bordering on chaotic, intensity, dark hilarity, and deep sadness of the novel and its protagonist. This aspect of the novel is one of the things that makes it truly great. By contrast, the tone of the movie is pastel. The pacing and mood are those of a comedy drama, with a dash of satire. The character of Monk and his existential crisis are so softened that he's a completely different character in the movie compared with the book. But even if taken on its own merits, there ultimately isn't enough depth for the character of Monk to be as interesting as he could have been. The intensity of the novel is replaced with blandnes.
Another symptom of the blandification of the story and the character of Monk is the loss of the first person narrative, through which the intensity and depth of the character is conveyed so effectively in the book. It's pretty difficult to translate a first person novel to a movie without a ton of voice over monologue, but that's probably what needed to have been done here. The sad part is, Jeffrey Wright is exactly the actor who could have done it well. Monk should be narrating his story and we should be hearing his bewilderment, sadness, and sardonic observations and judgments firsthand.
Less important but reflecting the choices made in the script, is the indecisive score. We move back and forth between light jazz and maudlin light piano and strings reminiscent of the kind of thing we might hear in Fried Green Tomatoes or some other '90s melodrama-comedy.
Spoiler, if you've read the novel: The movie couldn't even leave the ending of the novel right where it was, instead going for an idiotic meta thing. It completely undermines the impact of the novel's conclusion, again seeming to show that Cord Jefferson either didn't have faith in the novel or faith in the audience.
End of spoiler.
In sum, this movie is disappointing. It isn't terrible, just indecisive, bland, and forgettable. Read the book instead.
Tell Your Friends