Film review

  • American Fiction

    Cord Jefferson (2023)

    The trailer for American Fiction sets out the main story clearly.  Monk, a middle-aged African American, writes serious literature with zero commercial appeal.  Frustrated by abysmal sales and dismayed by the success of a Black author whose new best-seller trades in Black stereotypes, Monk embarks on writing his own crowd-pleaser, in a spirit of angry sarcasm.  He types the title, ‘My Pathology’; after a moment’s thought, he replaces the ‘th’ with an ‘f’.  When his agent informs him that a publisher has accepted ‘My Pafology’, Monk is incredulous; when the book becomes a smash hit, he’s appalled.  Each time I saw the trailer in the cinema, I wondered how this strong comedy premise could be spun out to feature length (especially since it’s also clear from the trailer that representatives of the white publishing world will be getting cartoon treatment).  Now I know.  The material used by Cord Jefferson to expand the narrative to nearly two hours verges on an example of what American Fiction is meant to be satirising.

    Jefferson is a well-known writer for American television; American Fiction is his first cinema screenplay as well as his directing debut.  The source material is a 2001 novel called Erasure by Percival Everett.  Like his creation Monk, (Professor) Percival Everett is an English scholar as well as a fiction writer.  Even if you’ve not read Erasure (I haven’t), the Wikipedia page delivers an instant impression of its cultural knowingness.  Everett’s protagonist’s full name is Thelonious ‘Monk’ Ellison, who writes ‘My Pafology’ pseudonymously – as an Invisible Man.  Monk’s nom de plume, Stagg R Leigh, plays on the name of a legendary Black badass.  According to Wikipedia’s summary of Erasure, ‘My Pafology’ is ‘based in part on Richard Wright’s Native Son (1940) and Sapphire’s Push (1996)’; Everett presumably sees the latter as epitomising ‘the late-1990s’ reality of the publishing industry seeming to pigeonhole black writers by valuing accounts of dysfunctional urban poor over other black lives’.

    Monk Ellison’s phony novel is (Wikipedia again) ‘published in its entirety within Erasure and creates a meta-narrative that challenges the reader about the value and merits of this writing in contrast to the supposedly more erudite text and characters of Erasure’.  American Fiction can’t replicate this (a nice coincidence to see it just a week after bumping into Atonement again) but Jefferson takes from Percival Everett’s original the other elements mentioned above, and more.  While Push would become a 2009 film with a foolishly longer, self-aggrandising title (Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire), Monk Ellison tries to derail his book’s publication by insisting that ‘My Pafology’ be retitled ‘Fuck’ – or else the deal is off.  The publisher agrees, of course; ‘Fuck’ it is.  Jefferson also retains what one reviewer of Erasure would describe as a ‘moving portrait of a son coming to terms with his mother’s life’.  The Ellison family story, which accounts for much of the film’s screen time, is where American Fiction starts to go wrong.

    The opening sequences are promising.  Monk (Jeffrey Wright), who teaches at a university in Los Angeles, crosses swords with one of the students in his seminar.  Like most of her classmates, Brittany (Skyler Wright) is white – as is the board on which Monk has written the names of Flannery O’Connor and one of her short stories, The Artificial Nigger.  When Brittany complains the class shouldn’t ‘have to stare at the N-word all day’, Monk patiently explains that ‘This is a class on the literature of the American South.  You’re going to encounter some archaic thoughts, coarse language, but we’re all adults here, and I think we can understand it in the context in which it’s used’.  When Brittany continues to protest, Monk tartly replies that ‘I got over it – I’m pretty sure you can, too’.  Her exit line – ‘Well, I don’t see why’ – is petulant but the scene is strong as well as funny because Skyler Wright shows Brittany as genuinely upset.  The next scene, in which the university authorities suspend Monk for this latest in a series of verbal indiscretions, is comically much cruder but it’s also necessary.  American Fiction is apparently set in the present day but you do wonder if the war of words in the seminar reflects a situation more likely at the time Percival Everett wrote Erasure than in the 2020s:  it seems improbable that Brittany would today be a lone complaining voice.  It’s believable, however, that her teacher would now be disciplined for suggesting that she grow up.

    The key episode at a literary festival in Boston – Monk’s home city, where he returns while on enforced sabbatical leave – isn’t subtle but makes its points effectively and amusingly.  Monk has just learned from his agent, Arthur (John Ortiz), that his novel manuscript has come back from yet another publisher with regrets that the book, though ‘finely crafted, with fully developed characters and rich language’, lacks connection ‘with the African-American experience’.  Monk’s fiction does indeed sound off-puttingly academic:  this latest effort, ‘The Persians’, is a reworking of Aeschylus’s tragedy of that name.  At the literary festival, there’s a feeble turnout for a panel discussion on ‘Revitalizing Ancient Literature for the Modern Audience’ in which Monk takes part.  He learns that this session clashed with a Q&A with exciting new Black author Sintara Golden (Issa Rae).  He looks in on the Q&A to hear Sintara tell the fawning moderator (Nicole Kempskie) how she came to write her rapturously received novel ‘We’s Lives in Da Ghetto’.  When she reads an excerpt, Sintara gets a standing ovation from a full house.

    By this point, Cord Jefferson has started to work in details of Monk’s middle-class family.  His sister Lisa (Tracee Ellis Ross) and his brother Cliff (Sterling K Brown) are both doctors.  Lisa works in Boston and, with the help of live-in housekeeper Lorraine (Myra Lucretia Taylor), cares for the three siblings’ widowed mother Agnes (Leslie Uggams), who’s showing signs of dementia.  Plastic surgeon Cliff, like Monk, moved out west; he recently split from his wife, after she found him in bed with a man.  Lisa stays in the film long enough to reveal to Monk that their late father had affairs (with women); she then dies, suddenly and unexpectedly.  It soon emerges that Agnes needs to be in a care home and that Monk must raise funds for her care costs since Cliff won’t chip in.  It’s a perfectly good idea that Monk, when he sits down to write a book that will sell, is driven by this urgent practical imperative as well as by cynical fury – but there’s little further traction between the film’s satirical comedy and the routine domestic drama, of which plenty is still to come.  Monk embarks on a tentative romance with Coraline (Erika Alexander), a divorced lawyer whose house is on the same street as his mother’s.  Cliff hangs around in Boston, in Agnes’s beach house, having fun and doing drugs with a couple of younger men.  There’s a sentimental, sub-Peggotty-and-Barkis romance between Lorraine and a cab driver called Maynard (Raymond Anthony Thomas).

    Monk’s agent Arthur evidently isn’t used to peddling trash:  each shot of his desk mysteriously displays a pile of copies of Alcools (as if Guillaume Apollinaire need worry about sales …).  When Arthur first receives ‘My Pafology’ he’s apprehensive about getting it read because it ‘scares me’.  Monk asks why:  ‘Because,’ says Arthur, ‘white people think they want the truth, but they don’t.  They just want to feel absolved’.   The runaway success of ‘My Pafology’/’Fuck’ vindicates Arthur:  a six-figure sum offered as a pre-emptive advance, a vastly more lucrative movie deal, eleventh-hour submission for a prestigious literary award.  The comic focus, of course, is on self-approving white liberal perceptions and reception of the book but the non-comic parts of the story offer white audiences the opportunity for another kind of complacency.  If the dramatis personae of American Fiction were white, their ordeals – bereavement, dementia, sexual identity, marriage breakdowns – would rightly be dismissed as items on a checklist.  Because the main characters are African-American, anxious white viewers are given an excuse to feel better about themselves:  look, the Black bourgeoisie is just like us!   There’s even a generic melancholy score (by Laura Karpman) to underline the point.  None of this would matter so much if Black audiences viewed the Ellison family and their dramatically tame travails as no less ridiculous than the film’s white personnel but this may not be the case – at least if the public reactions of some Black cineastes are anything to go by.  In a piece she contributed to Variety late last year, Gina Prince-Bythewood, director of The Woman King, admires American Fiction not only as ‘a searing indictment of biased norms’ but also as ‘a heartbreaking family drama … [with] characters who are flawed works of progress searching for peace within themselves, and with each other’.  You could say the same of characters in any self-respecting TV soap – if, that is, you’re as comfortable with silly hyperbole as Prince-Bythewood seems to be.

    The shallowness of the film’s but-seriously side also detracts from Jeffrey Wright’s portrait of Monk, which is absorbing but always tantalising.  Wright certainly looks the academic part but I never got the hang of why Monk – bespectacled, urbane, a few pounds overweight – was so isolated and miserable in his personal life as well as thwarted in his creative endeavours.  The plot depends on his keeping secret from Coraline his latest writing venture but not necessarily his past or his feelings, yet he’s silent on all these subjects.  When they first meet, he’s gratified to learn she’s one of the few people who buy his high-falutin novels; when they fall out and break up, it’s because Coraline is a less discriminating reader than Monk thought – she enjoys ‘Fuck’, too.  Are we meant to think Monk is so preoccupied with being a successful novelist that he can’t form successful personal relationships?  If so, Jeffrey Wright doesn’t convey that impression.  He suggests someone more fundamentally, though opaquely, dissatisfied.  He also renders implausible what proves to be a crucial plot development.  Monk is invited to join the panel of judges for the major annual award given by the New England Book Association, which is anxious to improve its diversity profile.  When Monk demurs, the Association’s director tells him, ‘This will literally allow you to judge other writers for once’; quick as a flash, Monk replies, ‘I’m in’.  It’s a dumb joke on rabid rivalry among writers:  how did Monk think this panel would work other than by literally judging literature?  Wright’s interpretation of him ensures the joke rings all the more false.

    Monk’s decision to judge is important for several reasons.  The panel’s first task is to rule on whether ‘Fuck’ can be admitted to the contest even though the nominating deadline has passed.  The book is rapidly becoming a cultural phenomenon and its author an intriguing and elusive new celebrity:  Stagg R Leigh, according to publishing hype, has previously done time inside and is now once more a fugitive from the law.  Trapped in his own tangled web, Monk argues in vain that ‘Fuck’ shouldn’t be eligible for consideration for the prize.  Each of the three whites on the five-strong panel is a crude caricature of a particular literary-political point of view; the other Black judge is Sintara Golden.  At the business end of judging, she and Monk are the minority voting against ‘Fuck’ for the award – an ironically amusing alliance that results from mixed motives:  Monk is full of contempt for what he has written and scared of being unmasked as the result of further public recognition; Sintara is irked that ‘Fuck’ is now upstaging ‘We’s Lives in Da Ghetto’.  In the panel’s discussion, she accuses Stagg R Leigh of ‘pandering’ to white preconceptions of non-white experience.  This is too much for Monk:  it’s the pot calling the kettle Black.  During the lunch break on judgment day, he catches Sintara alone and, taking pains not to give away too much, asks her to explain how it is that she wasn’t pandering.  Sintara explains herself in proudly self-justifying terms.  This well-written, well-played exchange is the best bit of American Fiction’s lampoon of literary amour propre and jealousy.  Like that opening sequence in the seminar room, comedy and urgency are held in tense balance.

    Jeffrey Wright is at his best in these scenes; the lunchtime discussion also gives Issa Rae the chance to show another side to Sintara.  Most of the supporting roles are either underwritten (Coraline, Arthur) or one-note (Lorraine and Maynard, the white panel judges (Jenn Harris, Neal Lerner, Bates Wilder) and publishing people (Miriam Shor, Michael Cyril Creighton), Cliff’s beach-house paramours (Alexander Pobutsky, Joshua Olumide)).  Although Cliff isn’t part of the ‘Fuck’ story, his behaviour, unlike that of the other people in Monk’s private life, involves comic elements.  They’re mostly coarse and Cliff is a plastic surgeon for the sake of a single one-liner but Sterling K Brown’s verve livens things up considerably.  The brazenly unprincipled Hollywood producer Wiley Valdespino (Adam Brody) may be the most carelessly conceived character of all.  Arthur sets up a meeting with him, telling Monk that Wiley ‘specializes in Oscar-baity “issue” movies’.  It turns out his latest movie is, as Wiley explains, ‘about this white couple.  They get married on an old plantation in Louisiana and all the slave ghosts come back, and they murder everyone. … Ryan Reynolds gets decapitated with an Afro pick in the opening scene’.  That’s a weird idea of Oscar bait – ‘Plantation Annihilation’ (as it’s called) doesn’t sound nearly worthy enough.  Adam Brody does pretty well, even so, in Wiley’s first meeting with the man behind ‘Fuck’ – a meeting Monk attends in a rare appearance as his Stagg R Leigh alter ego, though he’s half-hearted in the part.  Stagg talks rough but surprises Wiley by asking for a glass of dry white wine.

    American Fiction ends with a bang but, since it’s a meta bang, also a whimper.  When ‘Fuck’ is announced as the winner of the big literary prize, Monk goes to the stage and says he has a confession to make.  Cord Jefferson then cuts to Wiley telling Monk this won’t do as the climax to his screenplay for ‘Fuck’:  it leaves things up in the air.  Cut back to the ceremony:  this time, when the winner is announced, Monk exits and hotfoots it to Coraline’s house, to apologise to her.  Back to Wiley, who dismisses this as too much like romcom.  Monk tries again:  now armed white police, on the hunt for Stagg R Leigh, invade the ceremony and shoot him dead.  Perfect, says Wiley:  ‘Fuck’ will go into production.  As Cliff, belatedly in on Monk’s secret, drives his brother away from a studio backlot, Monk exchanges meaningful looks with an actor playing one of the plantation slaves in Wiley’s blaxploitation bloodbath.  By now, the racial point-making has elbowed the film’s supposedly realistic elements out of sight.  One upside to this is that the Ellison family drama etc has at long last been abandoned.  Another, from Cord Jefferson’s perspective, is that the point-making means American Fiction really is ‘Oscar-baity’ – with five nominations, including for Best Picture, to prove it.

    15 February 2024

  • Padre Padrone

    Paolo and Vittorio Taviani (1977)

    When Paolo Taviani’s Leonora Addio was screened at the 2022 London Film Festival, a BFI spokesman said they hoped to programme a Taviani brothers retrospective in the coming year:  just a few weeks late, the retrospective has now arrived.  For this viewer, watching the brothers’ best-known film delivered on a much longer-standing good intention – I’ve been meaning and failing to get round to Padre Padrone for nearly half a century.  The Tavianis were also approaching fifty – Vittorio was born in 1929 and Paolo in 1931 – when this film won the Cannes Palme d’Or in 1977 and gave them their international breakthrough.

    Padre Padrone (it’s usually known by its Italian title, which translates literally as ‘Father Master’) is based on an autobiography of the same name by the Sardinian author and linguist Gavino Ledda, who was born in 1938.  As a six-year-old, he was taken out of primary school by his peasant father who decreed that Gavino, as his eldest son, had no time for conventional education and must learn instead to look after the family’s sheep.  The father allowed his illiterate son to resume elementary education only when he was eighteen (as the father had been allowed to do by his father).  Determined to escape his grimly restrictive environment, Ledda tried unsuccessfully to emigrate to the Netherlands before being called up for service in the Italian army in 1958.  He was unable to speak or understand much standard Italian but his language skills improved apace during his military service.  He took middle school exams as an external student, qualified as a military radio operator and returned to Sardinia to combine further academic study with working on the land, although by now increasingly rebellious against his father’s rule.  After obtaining the equivalent of a high-school diploma in 1964, Ledda started university in Rome and graduated in 1969 with a linguistics degree.  He then embarked on an academic career.  He published Padre Padrone in 1975.

    The real Gavino Ledda (introduced as such by a voiceover) is on the screen at the start of the Tavianis’ film.  He’s whittling a stick, which he hands to Omero Antonutti, the actor who will play Gavino’s father, Efisio.  This over-to-you exchange launches the dramatic action:  Efisio and stick enter the classroom where Gavino (Fabrizo Forte) is one of the pupils (all of them boys).  Although Gavino won’t be a pupil much longer, it’s longer, in terms of screen time, than you might expect.  Rather than tersely announcing and carrying out his intentions, Efisio disputes with the class teacher (a young woman) and delivers quite a lengthy speech – railing against the government policy of compulsory schooling, insisting that, for the likes of him and his family, ‘Poverty is all that’s compulsory’.  The Tavianis are known as politically engaged, leftist film-makers, whose influences include Brecht.  The handover of a ‘real’ stick to become a prop at the start of Padre Padrone is a bit of alienation technique.  The thrust of Efisio’s speech in the classroom could be considered Marxist.

    In the narrative that follows, the juxtaposition of styles is unusual:  I think that juxtaposition, rather than integration, is the word – and it’s one reason why I found Padre Padrone such a struggle to watch.  Most scenes in the first part of the film (which runs just under two hours all told) take place in the Sardinian mountains where Gavino is sent to learn shepherding, often in complete human isolation.  The stark landscape is realistic; the Tavianis’ observation of Gavino’s experiences is sometimes nearly documentary.  But the realism is interrupted by bursts of magic realism.  We hear what people are saying inside their heads – and not only people.  Gavino milks a ewe and is dismayed when the yield includes droppings.  The boy angrily tells the ewe, ‘I’ll milk you first then plug with your own shit your mouth, your eyes and ears’.  The sheep replies, ‘You whack me and I crap in the milk – then your father whacks you’.

    The ewe is right about the whacks.  This part of the story is dominated by Efisio’s beatings.  He hits his son – in punishment for either disobedience or incompetence – with his hands, with sticks, even with a snake that Efisio has just killed.  Knowing in advance the son would suffer repeatedly at the hands of the father, I expected to find this phase of Gavino’s education hard going – especially as I guessed that animals used in the filming would also be having a tough time.  In fact, it turns out to be less difficult seeing a sheep’s throat cut (you accept this as everyday life/death in the rustic setting) than to watch Gavino wrenching at the crapping ewe, who presumably survived the experience.  It’s a relief for all concerned that the camerawork implies, rather than shows explicitly, another young peasant having sex with his mule and shepherd boys masturbating with the help of a chicken.  These sequences – followed by one in which Efisio and his wife (Marcella Michelangeli) abruptly prepare to couple – are accompanied on the soundtrack by frantic, frustrated breathing.  It was once the hero had grown into a young man (Saverio Marconi) that I became frustrated with Padre Padrone.

    I get that the film is, as Ryan Gilbey described it (in the Guardian‘s ‘My Favourite Cannes Winner’ series, in 2015), ‘about the mental poverty that arises from a paucity of language, and the relationship it has to physical poverty.  Music, from traditional folk songs to Mozart and Strauss, provides oxygen in Gavino’s airless young life.  But words emancipate him’.  For me, they don’t emancipate him enough.  In the army, he’s socially isolated to a degree that seems implausible even allowing for the verbal constraints that result from speaking only Sardinian – his sole contact is with fellow trainee Cesare (Nanno Moretti), who helps Gavino learn Italian.  (Although in only his mid-twenties, Nanno Moretti had already directed his first feature film when he appeared in Padre Padrone.)  In view of his already strong antipathy to his father, it’s puzzling (and seems masochistic) that Gavino – now wearing a stylish grey suit – returns to his family in the village of Soligo once his academic studies are getting underway.  He has always got on better with his mother and siblings than with his father but Gavino doesn’t say much to them.  It’s only when the real Gavino Ledda reappears in the film’s epilogue that we get an explanation:

    ‘I had to come to write my story – on which this film is based, taking the necessary liberties.  Not really my story but the story of the shepherds.  They, not I, gave life to the book.  With their lives – and I chose to come back for that very reason … Perhaps it’s only a selfish consideration which detains me here.  The fear that far from my cave, my people, my smells I’d be a recluse again …’

    Because Padre Padrone tells an inspiring true story and has such a high reputation, I decided long ago that it must be a masterpiece.  It’s strange to see a film so belatedly and to be so disappointed by it.  (The disappointment is more acute because I was fascinated by the Tavianis’ Caesar Must Die (2012), as well as by Leonora Addio.)  Part of you can’t quite believe you’ve really watched the film:  what you’ve watched, at any rate, isn’t enough to dislodge your well-preserved idée fixe that it’s something special.  As a friend said when I mentioned this, it’s rather as if there’s still a platonic ideal version of Padre Padrone out there somewhere.  NFT1 was showing shadows on the wall of the cave.

    11 February 2024

Posts navigation