So then why are we talking about side characters as if they are the main show?Lisa is not the protagonist in the book either.
It's a side piece that was being over represented in the films critique by the poster I was initially responding to.
The film isn't about Issa either it's about Monks disdain for the elevation of her content.... But again as I said to the other dude... either way... THIS FILM IS NOT THE BOOK... Jesus Christ man it's like you dudes either refuse to accept that and/or have never heard of a film having differences from the original source material... Have you even watched the Shinning? And read the book? Two very different pieces of work.
The Shining Book Spoilers: 11 Biggest Differences From The Movie
The Shining makes some major changes.
screenrant.com
This is very very very common.
So what?...she understood basic supply/demand principles and wasn't going to let white intellectualism serve as the north star for her content choices... I Ironically tho as we come to find out Monk was trying to "Get a Bag too" which is even worse because he supposedly was principly against this content... And regardless of reasoning he consciously put his holier than thou ethics on pause to move forward with reaping the financial benefits of producing the kind of content his supposedly felt was beneath him...
He's a confused self hating fraud and she identified that in him during that conversation which is why he immediately realized where he faltered with his GF and tried to apologize to her right after that talk.
The movie was a character study about a product of the black upper middle class detached from all other classes of blackness.... Monk definitely hated that group which is why he had such vitriol for the amplification of anything associated with it including Issa's books... At the end of the movie he realizes that his pretentiousness and inflated sense of self particularly in relation to that group of black folks was at the very least uneccesary which is what the tip of the cap to the black slave actor at the end suggested... Before that he would have brow beat that indivual he certainly wouldn't have been personable.
1. You have the book already this is a film
2. Has Cord been asked to discuss intraracial class dynamics and he's avoided the question... or like I mentioned before do people need him to hit them over the heads in his interviews about it for it to actually be presented to him as a piece of discourse.... You seem very in tune with all of his interviews post/pre release which admittedly I am not so ill lean on you here for that context.
Why does he hate that book man lol you talking in circles... He doesn't hate the book itself just for no reason bro... He specifically hates that book for it's content and not wanting to have others associate him with the people included in those kinds of stories. Issa reminded his Oreo ass of this during their discussion by saying "why shouldn't these stories be told... Are they not worthy of being put into a book to you?" He had no answers....this is the part that I want you to really think about...what was his actual problem with the content?
His middle class upbringing had detached him from any connection with black experiences outside of his own... That shyt Issa was pumping out made him uncomfortable specifically because of the kinds of people she was doing her stories on... These are folks he wasn't used to seeing or being around while taking his psyc classes at Havard or whatever Ivy League college he went to... It's not just that he "hates" lower class blacks... He is worried about being associated with blacks below his class and having them be a representative for him in front of the whites due to upbringing.... You are making the argument that Issas specific content was nebulous and non central to his ire as if he would have had an issue with someone like her regardless of what her books were about... which I don't believe to be an accurate reading of his character
And why hadn't he chosen to simply meet "market demand" prior to MyPafology... remind us again?
You are presenting this depiction of the film as if his decisions are all just by happenstance and not intentionally done.
Everybody ain't "writing about the same shyt" in the non-fiction section either
but this nikka would OK with his shyt being over there.You think it was the supposed misfilling of his content style and not the association with other "black" content that he felt like was beneath his writing that had him upset?
nikka I don't give a dam about what his alleged tear jerking reasoning for cheating in his wife was lol... His ass is still an adulter who cheated point blank period... He ain't no "good guy" or some Uncle Phil ass model of morality regardless
of whether or not he felt like this was the love of his life... that storyline of cheating is dysfunctional either way bro and makes the last posters claim that his family structure was presented as being on some "happy days" shyt still sound silly.
I think the movie is great also ... I just think a lot of people are missing the irony Jefferson included around Monks character...I think the duplicity and contradictions of his character are actually the heart of the film and what makes it so interesting.... The superficial satire is just the draw or a tool to entertain the audience so the movie wouldn't be so dry imo
I'll still go through the book but as I said I'll go through it with a fresh lense not expecting it to be a carbon copy of other adaptations...which is what I would suggest everyone to do in these cases..
Last edited:
