Love how the judges chose F*** to give black people a voice, whilst ignoring the 2 black people on the panel opposing it as the winner. Brilliant film.
Biggest flawed scene in a great movie. Monk was so bent out of shape about her book and yet he had an opportunity to speak truth and he came at her passive aggressively. This scene fell on me as a character flaw.
@@birdy1numnumisn’t his character supposed to be prone to anger? Or at least is more prone to being annoyed? I get that the scene is meant to speak about the opinions of the writer or director, but I think the scene works better when characters act like their characters rather than just be mouth pieces.
@@birdy1numnum That's literally what makes it good. It shows two different perspectives on how the black experience should be portrayed. It is a character flaw. She's right, he's wrong.
The definition of potential is not synonymous with words like think, see, isn’t, or enough. This phrase is a reflection of how perception is reality, even if that perception is far from the truth.
Didn't she basically admit that for all her informed research, her book wasn't different from F### ? She just gave the market whatever publishers can sell?
Pretty much. She’s selling out. And after all that crap she said about “where are my people’s stories? Where are black people books?” And now she basically admits that ghetto books are everywhere and everyones buying them
@@jchandlersabeast I was so confused when i saw this scene, because I thought "but shes the problem too" and the scene kind of ends in a GOT YA way, which made me confused because she was wrong.
@@tierk4328 I agree she was in the wrong, though I think the Got Ya moment was for Wright to realise his own perceptions and that it wasn’t just white people he was frustrated with
@@dgriite I think they're trying to say that the 'elitist' is eating a meal you'd expect someone that isn't that well off might eat, whereas the in touch writer is eating something that looks more expensive. It goes to her saying he's been in hi ivory tower too long and doesn't see real people have problems, when we know from watching the movie all the bs he has to deal with.
Yeah I feel like this was a subtle detail. People do this on a regular basis and pretend nothing happened. But they’re also workers in the trade not willing to expose how they exploit the system
I mean its real, one angle I don't see people hit on enough is how every race does this. I've caught white people having conversations they didn't mean to have around me. its just less frequent experience for them since we don't make a majority of the country and don't see us as much as we see them.
"Potential is what people see when they think what's in front of them isn't good enough." The look he gives her after that has such a "you're SO close to getting it" vibe
To put it bluntly: this scene is black capitalism vs black artistry. I can’t speak on which I think is right, I am not black myself, but I do believe that this film is brilliant for one simple reason. How capitalism can delude honest art. One artist is concerned with expressing their passion, the other is concerned with satisfying the demand for a market. You do the math, I’m sure you’ll realise who is the truly bitter person in this scene.
@@drdiscostu I never said art should be judged by critics, even judged at all. I think we should judge the reasons why people create art, in my experience it’s always been a good indicator of its ingenuity and integrity.
@@drdiscostuI’ll be real too, there’s a lot of nuance and subjectivity commentary about art in this film. We follow a man trying to write stories he enjoys and he is bombarded with forces of the publishing market. It seems as the film progresses he appears to be more out of touch than he did in the beginning.
Basically, it’s a very interesting story how these right the same kinda “pandering white guilt” type of novels for 2 seperate reasons. She does it because she’s trying to make a living, and to some extent believes what she’s writing, but is also aware of what she’s pandering to. While he merely wrote his book to prove how easy and stupid these types of books are, not expecting it to be his lynchpin for actually being recognized for his work. He clearly doesn’t believe in what he’s writing, but enjoys the attention, while she does enjoy writing it, while not enjoying the attention. Both wrote the same book, for different reasons.
Congrats to Cord Jefferson on his Oscar win for American Fiction. The attached scene is the most powerful one in the film from my perspective, because it demonstrates the dilemma most Baby boom and Gen X BIPOC creatives face e.g., Wright's dialogue vs. the prism in which Millennials and Gen Zers see things i.e., Issa Rae's dialogue, that allows her character to simply create. Brilliant wordsmithing.
I guess only millennials and Gen-Z see ‘things’ through a prism? I’m not sure Issa Rae’s character is representative of young ppl?? She certainly represents a certain sort of creative who appeals to market and mainstream tastes, no idea how that’s supposed to mean all ppl under 30 though, aren’t they the ones who usually complain about that stuff?
This was a wholesome scene. It’s beautiful how they both pointed out the hypocrisy of the other without delving into personal insults. A classy discourse. Shoulda won O-sssss-Kah!
That is a very interesting conversation. However Bret Easton Ellis has never written about the downtrodden. He’s an upper class white writer and his work reflects this. Which helps the male characters point. Very interesting
Yeah, when I saw the movie I found that reference really bizarre and puzzling. And watching this scene again, I still don't get it. It's so completely the wrong name to throw out for the point she's making, and then it goes uncommented on by Jeffrey Wright's character, who surely would know that. Is the point that... Issa Rae's character is so disinterested in these white writers that she can't tell one from another? Or that her conception of "the downtrodden" is so artificial and insincere that when she tries to apply it to white people she gets it exactly backward? Given what we know about her character, I don't really believe that either of those things would be true. It's so strange that I had to wonder if it might actually be a genuine mistake on the screenwriter's part. But if he thought to include Bret Easton Ellis's name at all, you'd think it would be because he knew his work, so.... can anyone explain this?
(I guess if she said something like "Do you get angry at Bret Easton Ellis or Charles Bukowski for writing about damaged, troubled people? People who aren't role models?" then it would make more sense. Maybe he thought he could get away with calling that "the downtrodden"? But it just doesn't sound right.)
@@burtcolkrewatching that part right now, monk does give a confused look when she mentions ellis, and in his retort he only mentions bukowski. maybe it was a subtle way of saying that sintara is dangerously out of the loop and doesn't know what she's even saying.
@@hazardousjazzgasm129I actually think you’re right about that. Like I feel the dialogue between them was simplistic, reflected ignorance, goalpost shifting, and ultimately unproductive to subtly expose that both are being somewhat ignorant to what is out there. Because he does state “don’t take this the wrong way” and she continues making it personal and accusatory like “you think my book is trash?” And “is your ire strictly directed to black women?” Shes ultimately part of a new brainwashed generation that takes criticism personally and doesn’t truly value intellectual honesty.
Yeah Bret Easton Ellis is very famous for his writings about upper class white ppl, which makes this dialogue even more interesting for those who actually know what she’s referring to and how skewed her viewpoint seems
This will be a scene to study in the future. The movie managed to create a debate that's been for years, but as in 2024 due to social media has only intensified: will this get me likes and views? Gotta do it, no matter if I don't guarantee it's quality.
As much as I like this movie I feel like this scene in particular is a cop out and although Issa Rae’s character makes a valid point it still doesn’t relinquish her from her accountability in pandering to an audience. As much as I enjoyed the film, the overarching message and themes of it made it feel like a toothless version of Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled.”
I met Cord Jefferson at a panel a week after he won his Oscar, he said this scene was his favorite in the film. He added that one personal experience that connected him to the story was when he was working on a script in pre-production. One note he got from an exec was to make one of the characters "more black." Cord sent the message back via his agent, saying he'd do so if the exec could meet with him in person and explain what blackness means. The note immediately disappeared. When he found the book Erasure, he described it as feeling likes someone had written the story for him, he really resonated with Monk and the complexities of what he was going through. When he pitched the script, he was told there would be a demand for it. He only got two offers, and the only one that was viable was from Orion, where the studio lead was Alana Mayo, a black woman. It infuriates me to no end when people complain about wokeness in media, especially as someone who grew up never seeing anyone who looked like me in my favorite stories as a multiracial kid (bad, narrow or a complete lack of representation repeated overtime can have a pretty damaging effect on your self-esteem). Getting people from different perspectives behind the scenes is exactly how we get out of putting people in boxes, this movie's existence is proof of that. Imagine what we'd miss out on, what else we are missing out on.
This scene and movie as a whole was so thought provoking. In particular the theme of black artistry in many forms sometimes caving in to society’s distorted appetite for black trauma content. This is something that’s been so discouraging to see especially in the genre of film cinema . Kudos for this incredible piece of storytelling and all involved with bringing American Fiction to both light and life.
So the only difference was one was based on research and actual interviews and yet if one read both how would they know the difference? Who the hell gives her the right to say that ONLY she does the research. I call out her BS!!
I view this conservation as these two are two sides of the same coin, and the err is the misdirected anger at each other versus the gatekeepers in the industry
If people didn't pander at all though then the people in power would simply have to find something else to finance/publish/etc. The fact that some people are pandering make it so everyone has to or no one will make any money.
They did such a good job of building up to this showdown... but ultimately the Issa Ray side of the argument totally fumbled and made only mildly salient points. Her character still came out of this scene as opportunistic rather than opening his mind to a different point of view. It hurts more when a movie doesn't finish strong when it is otherwise so good.
The funny things is both of them could be equally right or wrong in this conversation. First of all, Monk did not even read her book to voice an actual opinion about it. Second of all, Issa's character did not even have the same background she wrote a novel about. This movie was just so entertaining!
But that also touches upon another problem with writing: people automatically equate skill, talent and aptitude with lived experience and will summarily dismiss what's otherwise a well executed story simply because of not having the background.
It’s funny how, despite being a big hypocrite, she still has a point to a large degree. If potential was all that for her their, then she wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. No, she uses all that she’s been given to her advantage and by that logic she’s no different from Monk. Yet she judges him all the same. Quite ironic. Glad that the argument here is nuanced enough that you can see both sides of their arguments.
I might be the only commenter here to take issa Rae’s character’s side, but hear me out: monk didn’t do research for his book, he just wrote it as a joke. She did. He hasn’t read her book, projecting onto it what he thinks it’s about. She’s read his book. He is out of touch about what middle class and poor Black people face. His experience is valid, but so is theirs. She amplifies their experiences. They both have really valid points, but I think in this instance Monk needs to learn that: yes, white people often have a skewed and unfair perspective of Black people- BUT does that mean we ignore those stories? Does that mean we push those tales out of the public eye? It’s an interesting and complicated conversation, and I find it fascinating that they included this conversation in the script bc to me, it signals that Monk still has some learning to do.
@@leandromadeireira8840 What I did like about the scene was that Golden wasn’t perfect, but neither was Monk. They had their own biases, their own faults, but what really came out of that scene, was about how much Monk had assumed about Golden and her book before even talking to the woman. Really big character development here.
@@knightmare5097 that's true, i actually disagree with her about potential, i understood her point, but my view of potential is more about seeing a person can achieve so much more, and not being unsatisfied with what we see in front of us.
Best scene in the whole movie. The issue of diversity that folks are complaining about, this conversation holds key 🔑. Both have valid points and dropping bars on the image of Black people in media. Oscar winning Screenplay right here 🏆. Bravo 👏🏾 .
It's not clear to me how the film views her explanation/ defense of her book. "Giving the market what it wants" is open to interpretation, but she also seems to defend her writing as writing. I think the film ultimately looks down on her book, especially her performance/ reading of it in the beginning. The film shows her reading such an exaggerated piece compared to her own personality and background. But I'm not 100% sure.
i agree with you, to me this scene and her explanation are the screenwriter trying to play devil's advocate and genuinely try to make her justification as good as possible.
I think the purpose of the scene is that the entire movie we've been given Monk's perspective, but this scene shows us his reasoning isn't flawless or objectively right, and everyone who disagrees with him isn't just a cynical opportunist. It's an honest disagreement over writing about how things are vs how we wish to be seen.
@@XandateOfHeaven Well the 'give the market what it wants' line seems to point to her being a cynical opportunist. In that sense, her reasoning isn't much different from Monk's for selling his own book. He tells himself he wants it to fail, but on the other hand he really needs the money. The difference between the two, from Monk's perspective, is that he at least has the decency to feel ashamed about it, but at the same time, perhaps he sees her is brave for actually being willing to put her name to her book, unlike him, who insisted on using a pen name.
@@MDoorpsy I agree with your reading. I don't know if it makes Monk better, but I take your point. There is no real ivory tower of academia anymore, certainly not more so than the publishing industry. Also, I don't think her reading earlier in the movie is Monk's hallucination; I think we're invited to see her reading the same way he does, because it's actually taking place. Finally, and speaking only for myself as a writer, I certainly want the potential to get better..
1:58 You can think that drugs should be legal, but you are deeply mistaken if you think that somehow means drug dealers no longer bear any moral culpability. Tobacco, alcohol, and prostitution are legal in countries all over the globe; that doesn’t mean the people who run these enterprises are somehow no longer morally corrupt. In other words, Issa Rae’s character doesn’t get to write what she writes and critique Monk’s joke book.
Nice exchange. Monk could've finished her statement with Maybe it isn't (good enough). Not a week goes by when you see someone trying to get ahead via crime and the comments read usual suspects or how come they are never jazz or classical music lovers doing these deeds? Then someone notes that studio heads push the lowest element of gangster rap and criminality over a best with the big picture, the catalyst to continue the cycle. You ever see 45 year old bee bopping about with young clothes and more childish mindsets
Interesting that you bring up jazz because jazz actually used to be associated with drug use and crime. It's only now that it's considered to be on the level of classical music.
@@davidjones7879 that's a half-truth because jazz managed to separate the art from the subculture, unlike say hip hop. and jazz has been considered american or black classical music since at least the 1920s thanks to stuff like the third stream movement, it's not "only now"
I used to think this movie was poorly written, because of how depicts both black and white people in a binary. But I think that may have been done to show how people see each other. Ultimately every person is flawed, especially Monk who himself stated that he didn’t see race. And white people being banal and bland is just to depict an audience wanting business and satisfaction without actually understanding the meat under the shell
And Colorado. 3yr + residents getting free state college off those massive taxes. Tourism rocking in all legalised states. It’s going rarely well, thanks for asking
I feel the dialogue between them was simplistic, reflected ignorance, goalpost shifting, and ultimately unproductive to subtly expose that both are being somewhat ignorant to what is out there. Because he does state “don’t take this the wrong way” and she continues making it personal and accusatory like “you think my book is trash?” And “is your ire strictly directed to black women?” Shes ultimately part of a new brainwashed generation that takes criticism personally and doesn’t truly value intellectual honesty.
Well said and I agree. This scene really had me wondering what happened to him?! He had an audience with someone he has been complaining about and tosses softball, passive aggressive nonsense at hee only for her to immediately act the victim. *Nope.*
@@lizziebkennedy7505 I'm not so sure it was over his head. The movie absolutely takes aim at wokeness, which is especially apropos as the word "woke" has its origins in black culture, was appropriated by white culture, bastardized, defanged and eventually became an insult.
You just watched a well written, well considered, thoughtful scene of two black people in the midst of a nuanced debate about complex matters pertaining to racial dynamics in America, and your first thought was that it depicted a racial double standard that aggrieves you as a (presumably) white person. I do not wish to deny you your experience, or background, or personal sensitivities, but I encourage you to watch the scene again and to try to do so with curiosity and empathy. Try to connect with it from the perspective of the characters, and their histories and hurts and stories, without needing to rally your own defenses too much, or at least not to the extent that you can't find yourself in it other than with respect to how it makes you feel resentful. One thing this exchange seems to be saying to me is that there is "room at the table" (ha!) for more than one perspective on these issues. That includes yours. If these conversations are to advance productively, however, we have to be able to connect with each other, and to empathize with each other's human experience; to see the other in ourselves, and ourselves in the other, in vastly more meaningful ways than merely being agitated by implied double standards. If nothing else, you are cheating yourself out of enjoying a scene that, in my opinion, movingly strives for that very kind of empathy, and is the better for it. We all have hurts, and we all have grievances, and we all need those grievances to be heard so we can feel known and understood, but the paradox is, by viewing the world *exclusively* through the windshield of those grievances, we often miss out on the chance to know and understand others in *their* pain, which is the other part of what we need. To deny empathy to others is, in a funny way, to deny it to ourselves.
Love how the judges chose F*** to give black people a voice, whilst ignoring the 2 black people on the panel opposing it as the winner. Brilliant film.
What's that? F*ck?
The books name that he writes in the movie
“i just think it’s so important to listen to black voices”
ignores the opinions of the only black people in the room lol
The most fascinating scene of the entire film!
Biggest flawed scene in a great movie. Monk was so bent out of shape about her book and yet he had an opportunity to speak truth and he came at her passive aggressively. This scene fell on me as a character flaw.
@@birdy1numnumisn’t his character supposed to be prone to anger? Or at least is more prone to being annoyed? I get that the scene is meant to speak about the opinions of the writer or director, but I think the scene works better when characters act like their characters rather than just be mouth pieces.
@@birdy1numnum That's literally what makes it good. It shows two different perspectives on how the black experience should be portrayed. It is a character flaw. She's right, he's wrong.
“Potential is what people see when they think what’s in front of them isn’t good enough.”
That quote is so relevant these days, in my opinion.
The definition of potential is not synonymous with words like think, see, isn’t, or enough. This phrase is a reflection of how perception is reality, even if that perception is far from the truth.
@@manuelzamorano121 It's always been relevant
So when a trainer sees a potential heavyweight contender, they’re actually implying they’re not a good enough fighter.
@@LostSox Yet ... point is, it also brings hope.
I think this scene should have been longer. It deals with many interesting topics, and it is very well acted.
Didn't she basically admit that for all her informed research, her book wasn't different from F### ? She just gave the market whatever publishers can sell?
Pretty much. She’s selling out. And after all that crap she said about “where are my people’s stories? Where are black people books?”
And now she basically admits that ghetto books are everywhere and everyones buying them
@@jchandlersabeast bingo. she's part of the problem but is too self-absorbed to see or admit it
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 yes. In fact i think the movie let her off the hook a little bit. She deserves more of a reprimand
@@jchandlersabeast I was so confused when i saw this scene, because I thought "but shes the problem too" and the scene kind of ends in a GOT YA way, which made me confused because she was wrong.
@@tierk4328 I agree she was in the wrong, though I think the Got Ya moment was for Wright to realise his own perceptions and that it wasn’t just white people he was frustrated with
i like that shes eating rice with chopsticks and kombucha and he has a grocery store salad hes eating with a fork and a water bottle
you can eat a grocery store salad with a water bottle?
@@dgriiteno, illegal in 13 states
@@dgriite I think they're trying to say that the 'elitist' is eating a meal you'd expect someone that isn't that well off might eat, whereas the in touch writer is eating something that looks more expensive. It goes to her saying he's been in hi ivory tower too long and doesn't see real people have problems, when we know from watching the movie all the bs he has to deal with.
Eating rice with chopsticks is fancy, in your mind?
@@GJH-i7b It is when I do it. How do you do it?
Issa Rae was in 3 Oscar nominated films in 2023, 2 of them were up for Best Picture
American Fiction
Barbie
SpiderMan: Across The SpiderVerse
She's barely a factor in any of them. That's casting directors doing their jobs, not Issa. She's a product like anyone else.
Damn, and I literally did not realize her in any movie
Ok mediocre yt guy@@williammccormick984
@@williammccormick984You are just a waste of space.
So youre just a hater@@williammccormick984
Its interesting how they both put their masks back on when the lady enters at the end.
I know I would
Yeah I feel like this was a subtle detail. People do this on a regular basis and pretend nothing happened. But they’re also workers in the trade not willing to expose how they exploit the system
Yea blacks don't like arguing in front of white folks because our people care sooo much about what they think about us.
White gaze effect.
I mean its real, one angle I don't see people hit on enough is how every race does this. I've caught white people having conversations they didn't mean to have around me. its just less frequent experience for them since we don't make a majority of the country and don't see us as much as we see them.
Potential is what people see when they believe what's in front of them has a lot more to offer.
Do you think you're paraphrasing made it worse, or better?
@@Sumtinrandom That wasn't a paraphrase. That was a complete difference in perspective.
@@austinpittman1599 Thank you, Hallmark.
@@loudenlaffnite246gotcha buttons pushed
"Potential is what people see when they think what's in front of them isn't good enough."
The look he gives her after that has such a "you're SO close to getting it" vibe
it's a line that needed a retort: potential is what people see when they realize they should no longer be held back.
To put it bluntly: this scene is black capitalism vs black artistry. I can’t speak on which I think is right, I am not black myself, but I do believe that this film is brilliant for one simple reason. How capitalism can delude honest art. One artist is concerned with expressing their passion, the other is concerned with satisfying the demand for a market. You do the math, I’m sure you’ll realise who is the truly bitter person in this scene.
Not sure about that. Who says "art" should only be judged by the critics? Why are the "masses who buy the art's" opinion worthless?
@@drdiscostu I never said art should be judged by critics, even judged at all. I think we should judge the reasons why people create art, in my experience it’s always been a good indicator of its ingenuity and integrity.
@@drdiscostuI’ll be real too, there’s a lot of nuance and subjectivity commentary about art in this film. We follow a man trying to write stories he enjoys and he is bombarded with forces of the publishing market. It seems as the film progresses he appears to be more out of touch than he did in the beginning.
I don't think there's any debate over who's bitter, more so who is right or wrong, or if either of them is even right or wrong.
Basically, it’s a very interesting story how these right the same kinda “pandering white guilt” type of novels for 2 seperate reasons. She does it because she’s trying to make a living, and to some extent believes what she’s writing, but is also aware of what she’s pandering to. While he merely wrote his book to prove how easy and stupid these types of books are, not expecting it to be his lynchpin for actually being recognized for his work. He clearly doesn’t believe in what he’s writing, but enjoys the attention, while she does enjoy writing it, while not enjoying the attention.
Both wrote the same book, for different reasons.
Congrats to Cord Jefferson on his Oscar win for American Fiction. The attached scene is the most powerful one in the film from my perspective, because it demonstrates the dilemma most Baby boom and Gen X BIPOC creatives face e.g., Wright's dialogue vs. the prism in which Millennials and Gen Zers see things i.e., Issa Rae's dialogue, that allows her character to simply create. Brilliant wordsmithing.
You incorporating that recent, Millennial, sheep-like term "BIPOC" is sheer irony.
I guess only millennials and Gen-Z see ‘things’ through a prism? I’m not sure Issa Rae’s character is representative of young ppl?? She certainly represents a certain sort of creative who appeals to market and mainstream tastes, no idea how that’s supposed to mean all ppl under 30 though, aren’t they the ones who usually complain about that stuff?
@@2conscioustoorecent to you. Not recent to informed people. Also the world is bigger than America
This was a wholesome scene. It’s beautiful how they both pointed out the hypocrisy of the other without delving into personal insults. A classy discourse. Shoulda won O-sssss-Kah!
No they definitely got personal 😭
She basically said you're implying i'm not good enough at the end. Don't see how that's not personal.
"Ivory tower" felt a little personal.
It did win. Best Adapted Screenplay, which goes to your point about the writing.
That is a very interesting conversation. However Bret Easton Ellis has never written about the downtrodden. He’s an upper class white writer and his work reflects this. Which helps the male characters point. Very interesting
Yeah, when I saw the movie I found that reference really bizarre and puzzling. And watching this scene again, I still don't get it.
It's so completely the wrong name to throw out for the point she's making, and then it goes uncommented on by Jeffrey Wright's character, who surely would know that. Is the point that... Issa Rae's character is so disinterested in these white writers that she can't tell one from another? Or that her conception of "the downtrodden" is so artificial and insincere that when she tries to apply it to white people she gets it exactly backward? Given what we know about her character, I don't really believe that either of those things would be true.
It's so strange that I had to wonder if it might actually be a genuine mistake on the screenwriter's part. But if he thought to include Bret Easton Ellis's name at all, you'd think it would be because he knew his work, so.... can anyone explain this?
(I guess if she said something like "Do you get angry at Bret Easton Ellis or Charles Bukowski for writing about damaged, troubled people? People who aren't role models?" then it would make more sense. Maybe he thought he could get away with calling that "the downtrodden"? But it just doesn't sound right.)
@@burtcolkrewatching that part right now, monk does give a confused look when she mentions ellis, and in his retort he only mentions bukowski. maybe it was a subtle way of saying that sintara is dangerously out of the loop and doesn't know what she's even saying.
@@hazardousjazzgasm129I actually think you’re right about that. Like I feel the dialogue between them was simplistic, reflected ignorance, goalpost shifting, and ultimately unproductive to subtly expose that both are being somewhat ignorant to what is out there. Because he does state “don’t take this the wrong way” and she continues making it personal and accusatory like “you think my book is trash?” And “is your ire strictly directed to black women?” Shes ultimately part of a new brainwashed generation that takes criticism personally and doesn’t truly value intellectual honesty.
Yeah Bret Easton Ellis is very famous for his writings about upper class white ppl, which makes this dialogue even more interesting for those who actually know what she’s referring to and how skewed her viewpoint seems
I was waiting for thos encounter the entire movie and it delivered. Both made valid points and it is really up to each individual to decide.
This will be a scene to study in the future. The movie managed to create a debate that's been for years, but as in 2024 due to social media has only intensified: will this get me likes and views? Gotta do it, no matter if I don't guarantee it's quality.
3:09 this is an amazing piece of acting from Jeffrey Wright. Just that subtle reaction as he takes in her words.
That happy lady coming in at the end is just so perfect.
As much as I like this movie I feel like this scene in particular is a cop out and although Issa Rae’s character makes a valid point it still doesn’t relinquish her from her accountability in pandering to an audience. As much as I enjoyed the film, the overarching message and themes of it made it feel like a toothless version of Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled.”
He's right.
So is she... yt boy
@randommthrfkr6568 Nobody is "Good enough" saying we can't be better than what we are is idiocy.
@@randommthrfkr6568 idk how you're seeing this as she's on the side of black people and he's not. She's a sellout.
@@randommthrfkr6568damn you didn’t get the point of the movie
No he's not she completely cooked him
I met Cord Jefferson at a panel a week after he won his Oscar, he said this scene was his favorite in the film. He added that one personal experience that connected him to the story was when he was working on a script in pre-production. One note he got from an exec was to make one of the characters "more black." Cord sent the message back via his agent, saying he'd do so if the exec could meet with him in person and explain what blackness means. The note immediately disappeared.
When he found the book Erasure, he described it as feeling likes someone had written the story for him, he really resonated with Monk and the complexities of what he was going through. When he pitched the script, he was told there would be a demand for it. He only got two offers, and the only one that was viable was from Orion, where the studio lead was Alana Mayo, a black woman.
It infuriates me to no end when people complain about wokeness in media, especially as someone who grew up never seeing anyone who looked like me in my favorite stories as a multiracial kid (bad, narrow or a complete lack of representation repeated overtime can have a pretty damaging effect on your self-esteem). Getting people from different perspectives behind the scenes is exactly how we get out of putting people in boxes, this movie's existence is proof of that. Imagine what we'd miss out on, what else we are missing out on.
This scene and movie as a whole was so thought provoking. In particular the theme of black artistry in many forms sometimes caving in to society’s distorted appetite for black trauma content. This is something that’s been so discouraging to see especially in the genre of film cinema . Kudos for this incredible piece of storytelling and all involved with bringing American Fiction to both light and life.
So the only difference was one was based on research and actual interviews and yet if one read both how would they know the difference? Who the hell gives her the right to say that ONLY she does the research. I call out her BS!!
I view this conservation as these two are two sides of the same coin, and the err is the misdirected anger at each other versus the gatekeepers in the industry
If people didn't pander at all though then the people in power would simply have to find something else to finance/publish/etc. The fact that some people are pandering make it so everyone has to or no one will make any money.
They did such a good job of building up to this showdown... but ultimately the Issa Ray side of the argument totally fumbled and made only mildly salient points. Her character still came out of this scene as opportunistic rather than opening his mind to a different point of view. It hurts more when a movie doesn't finish strong when it is otherwise so good.
Loved this excerpt❤😂
Best scene in the movie! ❤
This movie is so good. This message is facts
The funny things is both of them could be equally right or wrong in this conversation.
First of all, Monk did not even read her book to voice an actual opinion about it.
Second of all, Issa's character did not even have the same background she wrote a novel about.
This movie was just so entertaining!
But that also touches upon another problem with writing: people automatically equate skill, talent and aptitude with lived experience and will summarily dismiss what's otherwise a well executed story simply because of not having the background.
It’s funny how, despite being a big hypocrite, she still has a point to a large degree. If potential was all that for her their, then she wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. No, she uses all that she’s been given to her advantage and by that logic she’s no different from Monk. Yet she judges him all the same. Quite ironic.
Glad that the argument here is nuanced enough that you can see both sides of their arguments.
Looks like an excellent movie and I will definitely have to watch!
I might be the only commenter here to take issa Rae’s character’s side, but hear me out: monk didn’t do research for his book, he just wrote it as a joke. She did. He hasn’t read her book, projecting onto it what he thinks it’s about. She’s read his book. He is out of touch about what middle class and poor Black people face. His experience is valid, but so is theirs. She amplifies their experiences. They both have really valid points, but I think in this instance Monk needs to learn that: yes, white people often have a skewed and unfair perspective of Black people- BUT does that mean we ignore those stories? Does that mean we push those tales out of the public eye?
It’s an interesting and complicated conversation, and I find it fascinating that they included this conversation in the script bc to me, it signals that Monk still has some learning to do.
I don't think his point was to push away the "common" view of black people.
It was more about his frustration of this being the major view.
@@leandromadeireira8840 But again, how can he know that that’s the view being shown in her book when he hasn’t even read it?
@@knightmare5097 that's a fair point, he never gave it a chance to her book, so his views are limited.
@@leandromadeireira8840 What I did like about the scene was that Golden wasn’t perfect, but neither was Monk. They had their own biases, their own faults, but what really came out of that scene, was about how much Monk had assumed about Golden and her book before even talking to the woman. Really big character development here.
@@knightmare5097 that's true, i actually disagree with her about potential, i understood her point, but my view of potential is more about seeing a person can achieve so much more, and not being unsatisfied with what we see in front of us.
Best scene in the whole movie. The issue of diversity that folks are complaining about, this conversation holds key 🔑. Both have valid points and dropping bars on the image of Black people in media. Oscar winning Screenplay right here 🏆. Bravo 👏🏾 .
Why was this so short. They really could have gone farther with this. It needed more than just this scene. It was a missed moment.
Cool! Rational discourse!
Ok I need to check out that book
BRUH, I gotta watch this.
We Are Monk lol
It's not clear to me how the film views her explanation/ defense of her book. "Giving the market what it wants" is open to interpretation, but she also seems to defend her writing as writing. I think the film ultimately looks down on her book, especially her performance/ reading of it in the beginning. The film shows her reading such an exaggerated piece compared to her own personality and background. But I'm not 100% sure.
i agree with you, to me this scene and her explanation are the screenwriter trying to play devil's advocate and genuinely try to make her justification as good as possible.
I think the purpose of the scene is that the entire movie we've been given Monk's perspective, but this scene shows us his reasoning isn't flawless or objectively right, and everyone who disagrees with him isn't just a cynical opportunist. It's an honest disagreement over writing about how things are vs how we wish to be seen.
@@XandateOfHeaven Well the 'give the market what it wants' line seems to point to her being a cynical opportunist. In that sense, her reasoning isn't much different from Monk's for selling his own book. He tells himself he wants it to fail, but on the other hand he really needs the money. The difference between the two, from Monk's perspective, is that he at least has the decency to feel ashamed about it, but at the same time, perhaps he sees her is brave for actually being willing to put her name to her book, unlike him, who insisted on using a pen name.
@@MDoorpsy I agree with your reading. I don't know if it makes Monk better, but I take your point. There is no real ivory tower of academia anymore, certainly not more so than the publishing industry. Also, I don't think her reading earlier in the movie is Monk's hallucination; I think we're invited to see her reading the same way he does, because it's actually taking place. Finally, and speaking only for myself as a writer, I certainly want the potential to get better..
This part was omgg
2:00 Drugs and poison are two different things
1:58 You can think that drugs should be legal, but you are deeply mistaken if you think that somehow means drug dealers no longer bear any moral culpability. Tobacco, alcohol, and prostitution are legal in countries all over the globe; that doesn’t mean the people who run these enterprises are somehow no longer morally corrupt. In other words, Issa Rae’s character doesn’t get to write what she writes and critique Monk’s joke book.
First I agreed with him, then I agreed with her.
Nice exchange. Monk could've finished her statement with Maybe it isn't (good enough). Not a week goes by when you see someone trying to get ahead via crime and the comments read usual suspects or how come they are never jazz or classical music lovers doing these deeds? Then someone notes that studio heads push the lowest element of gangster rap and criminality over a best with the big picture, the catalyst to continue the cycle. You ever see 45 year old bee bopping about with young clothes and more childish mindsets
Interesting that you bring up jazz because jazz actually used to be associated with drug use and crime. It's only now that it's considered to be on the level of classical music.
@@davidjones7879 that's a half-truth because jazz managed to separate the art from the subculture, unlike say hip hop. and jazz has been considered american or black classical music since at least the 1920s thanks to stuff like the third stream movement, it's not "only now"
@@davidjones7879gosh that’s a shallow take
I used to think this movie was poorly written, because of how depicts both black and white people in a binary. But I think that may have been done to show how people see each other. Ultimately every person is flawed, especially Monk who himself stated that he didn’t see race. And white people being banal and bland is just to depict an audience wanting business and satisfaction without actually understanding the meat under the shell
It is an adaptation. Why do y’all ignore the novel it’s based on?
She can't be consistent for three whole minutes.
“And I think drugs should be legal.” Ooof. Ask Oregon how that’s going
And Colorado. 3yr + residents getting free state college off those massive taxes. Tourism rocking in all legalised states. It’s going rarely well, thanks for asking
@@lizziebkennedy7505. Do you really think I’m talking about legalized weed ??
If I followed along correctly........... she never answered his question
I feel the dialogue between them was simplistic, reflected ignorance, goalpost shifting, and ultimately unproductive to subtly expose that both are being somewhat ignorant to what is out there. Because he does state “don’t take this the wrong way” and she continues making it personal and accusatory like “you think my book is trash?” And “is your ire strictly directed to black women?” Shes ultimately part of a new brainwashed generation that takes criticism personally and doesn’t truly value intellectual honesty.
Well said and I agree. This scene really had me wondering what happened to him?! He had an audience with someone he has been complaining about and tosses softball, passive aggressive nonsense at hee only for her to immediately act the victim. *Nope.*
It Just threatened you. Which means it did its job superbly. Stay in the kids section.
Saying: "Don't take this the wrong way" does not absolve you from a negative reaction if what you say afterwards warrants said reaction.
❤
*chewing sounds*
Monk: "do you mind...?"
Sintara: "sure"
I felt triggered for Monk 😂A renowned writer should know better how to answer that question properly
What’s the answer to ‘do you mind’?
Grammatically, it would be "no" or "I don't mind"
watershed film!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the movie over-woke America needs to see!
Way over your head. Go back to sleep hon.
@@lizziebkennedy7505 I'm not so sure it was over his head. The movie absolutely takes aim at wokeness, which is especially apropos as the word "woke" has its origins in black culture, was appropriated by white culture, bastardized, defanged and eventually became an insult.
@@Ben-pd2bx But it also takes aim at the “anti-woke” like Monk, who criticizes writings he hasn’t even read.
Now if white people were talking like this saying write for black people it'd be racist
If your post is what YOU got from watching this clip then you are cognitively impaired.
You just watched a well written, well considered, thoughtful scene of two black people in the midst of a nuanced debate about complex matters pertaining to racial dynamics in America, and your first thought was that it depicted a racial double standard that aggrieves you as a (presumably) white person. I do not wish to deny you your experience, or background, or personal sensitivities, but I encourage you to watch the scene again and to try to do so with curiosity and empathy. Try to connect with it from the perspective of the characters, and their histories and hurts and stories, without needing to rally your own defenses too much, or at least not to the extent that you can't find yourself in it other than with respect to how it makes you feel resentful. One thing this exchange seems to be saying to me is that there is "room at the table" (ha!) for more than one perspective on these issues. That includes yours. If these conversations are to advance productively, however, we have to be able to connect with each other, and to empathize with each other's human experience; to see the other in ourselves, and ourselves in the other, in vastly more meaningful ways than merely being agitated by implied double standards. If nothing else, you are cheating yourself out of enjoying a scene that, in my opinion, movingly strives for that very kind of empathy, and is the better for it. We all have hurts, and we all have grievances, and we all need those grievances to be heard so we can feel known and understood, but the paradox is, by viewing the world *exclusively* through the windshield of those grievances, we often miss out on the chance to know and understand others in *their* pain, which is the other part of what we need. To deny empathy to others is, in a funny way, to deny it to ourselves.
youre the person the movie is making fun of
@@Ben-pd2bxThank you!!!
HUH!!? As an Educator, I can clearly see you lack listening comprehension skills. Furthermore, you're projecting your insecurities onto this segment.
Just two mfs yappin about nothin
Nothin you can understand that is
@@lizziebkennedy7505his brain can only handle fast and furious movies