Jeffrey Wright, Oscar nod, American Fiction: reflects on receiving his initial Oscar nomination for 'American Fiction' while staying true to himself.
Jeffrey Wright, Oscar nod, American Fiction: After being a reliable supporting actor for years, Jeffrey Wright secured his first Oscar nomination for his leading role in "American Fiction." The movie also earned nods for best picture, adapted screenplay by writer-director Cord Jefferson, supporting actor Sterling K. Brown, and original score by Laura Karpman.
Adapted from Percival Everett's 2001 novel "Erasure," the film gained attention by winning the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival, often a precursor to Oscar success. Wright also received nominations for a Gotham Award, a Golden Globe, a Spirit Award, and a SAG Award.
In this clever satire, Wright portrays Thelonious “Monk” Ellison, a professor and writer facing criticism that his work isn't "Black enough." Balancing care for his mother with Alzheimer’s (Leslie Uggams) and coping with the sudden death of his sister Lisa (Tracee Ellis Ross), Monk, and his brother Cliff (Brown) navigate the aftermath. Frustrated, Monk writes a book under the alias “Stagg R. Leigh” as a parody of Black life depictions in literature, but it unexpectedly becomes a hit. Now, Monk must decide whether to reveal his true identity or continue the charade.
Wright, a Tony and Emmy winner for "Angels in America," spoke with The Times about his Oscar nomination. He was at home in Brooklyn during the announcements, opting to stay away from screens until he got the news, stating, “I just wandered around my house and kept an eye on the phone.”
What does receiving your first nomination mean to you?
Getting my first nomination is a form of recognition from my colleagues and the academy, affirming that the work has been well-received. I'm particularly thrilled that the film, as well as Cord’s, Sterling’s, and Laura’s contributions, were acknowledged. What I truly cherish about filmmaking is its collaborative nature, especially when working with generous, intelligent, and passionate collaborators – which was the case with this project. While making the film, there was a feeling that we might be creating something special, and this acknowledgment validates that feeling.
Moreover, considering we're a small-scale production with a tight shooting schedule of 25 days (26 with an extra day for edits), this nomination brings more attention to our film. Hopefully, this recognition will attract audiences, allowing them to experience the story and be moved by it, just as we were while creating it. Overall, it's a positive outcome.
Especially since you frequently take on supporting roles, does it hold greater significance for you that this nomination is for a leading role?
I'm not picky. If they're giving them away, I'll gladly accept. Whether it's an Oscar or just a nomination, it's still an honor.
When you mentioned the film felt unique during production, what specifically made this project stand out for you?
Cord Jefferson crafted a sharp, timely, and clever script adapted from Percival Everett’s novel “Erasure.” It drew in a dedicated group of actors and crew who were eager to help Cord bring this story to life. As we delved into the film, there was a collective feeling that the work we were doing deserved extra attention. The crew's pride in their work seemed to grow a few notches throughout production.
This doesn't always happen, but when you sense that extra pride, it's a sign that things are going well. That was the atmosphere on the set in Boston for this project. It turned out to be one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had working on a film, to the point where it even made me develop a fondness for Boston – a personal miracle for me.
What do you believe is the reason for the robust audience response to the film?
I believe audiences have an appetite for story-driven films. We haven’t had as many as we once did make it to cinemas. This movie in some ways harkens back to films of one of the golden ages of American cinema, films in the ’70s that were about characters and story and done in ways that probed current trends and interests in society — and in a way that was buoyant. Our film is funny, but at the same time, there’s a deep thread of emotion that runs through it. And I think all of that lends it an accessibility and it lends the content of the film, conversations around race and identity and representation, a greater palatability. So there’s just a wonderful stew that we were able to cook up, it was a recipe that seems to work.
As you mentioned, the film addresses media portrayals of Black life while simultaneously unfolding a family's narrative. In a sense, the movie engages in a dialogue with itself. As a performer, how do you navigate the various layers within those scenes?
For me, it was entirely organic. There was no disparity between one side, if you will, of the film and another. They each blended together and had a kind of symbiotic relationship to one another. The absurdity of Monk’s dual life is tied to the ordinary humanness of his family life because it is to some degree born of the necessity of the responsibilities to family. So these are not two stories that exist on parallel tracks. They’re intimately connected. And there’s a fluidity to it that was really plain on the page, and I just played that.
You've mentioned a personal connection to aspects of Monk's story based on experiences with your own family. How does that personal aspect influence your performance?
Initially, my personal connection to the character and the narrative was profound on an intimate, emotional level. However, what I perhaps didn't realize was the depth to which it was working, possibly even on a subconscious level. The experience has been a powerful journey of self-reflection. It's been less prominent during the film's production and more pronounced since its release, understanding its impact on the audience and, more significantly, on myself.
There's a peculiar disconnect from the audience while working on films, and it's only when they see the finished product that the story truly hits home. So, yes, there was an understanding of Monk’s situation based on my own experiences. Yet, what I contributed to telling the story was more substantial than I was consciously aware of at the time.
The film delves into a man's relationship with love – for others, oneself, and family. It also serves as a contemplation on grief, loss, frustration, and the potential for emergence from those challenges. This narrative houses a profound emotional and psychological depth, and I find myself appreciating it more each day as I reflect on my familiarity with this character.
Did Monk's frustration with questions about the "Black enough" nature of his work also strike a chord with you?
Throughout my life, I've encountered different perspectives on my identity and how I fit into our cultural norms. Sure, I understand the external pressures and perceptions, or sometimes misperceptions. Despite all that, I strive to be true to myself, just like Monk faces in the film. Living my life based on others' ideas of who I am isn't feasible, and that holds true for all of us. As an actor and a creative individual, a crucial responsibility is to discover and express one's authentic voice. I've made an effort to do just that.
Not every choice in my work is solely driven by creative instincts; practical considerations, like family responsibilities, also play a role. However, over time, I've found comfort in my own skin and in my voice.
You've mentioned that you find the film amusing, but you don't categorize it as a comedy. What's the difference, in your view?
I see it as a tragedy wearing the mask of comedy, where satire serves as a response to tragic absurdity and foolishness that's more appropriately met with humor than outright anger. The film carries an undercurrent of grief and crisis stemming from tragic circumstances. We find ourselves laughing not because it's purely joyful, but as a way to fend off tears right from the beginning.
Did watching Cord Jefferson in interviews and promoting the movie influence your portrayal of Monk in any way?
Not really. As Sammy Davis Jr. would put it, sometimes you just have to be yourself. I went through the script and read parts of the novel both early on and later in the process. However, the main source material, in a sense, was the book of my own life. It's both fortunate and unfortunate in its own ways.
As a busy actor, it seems like you're always on the go. With the recent actors' strike, did it provide a moment for reflection?
That break was beneficial, I must admit. I needed a bit of time off. So, it became a period for introspection, a bit of relaxation, and getting reenergized.
Comments