I loved this book and there is always a risk when seeing a movie afterwards that it will fall short. Overall, I think the movie did a good job of unveiling Wilkerson's thesis in an impactful way. The personal story was interesting and certainly something you don't get when reading Wilkerson's nonfiction masterpiece.
I had two issues that I found jarring and disappointing. First, in the scene with the plumber (played by Nick Offerman), DuVernay failed to deliver on one of the most impactful stories in the text. It was truncated and failed to capture the vivid description Wilkerson gave as to how the plumber acted, especially with his body language. The "a-ha" moment where this individual supposedly softens and finds his humanity was not well conveyed. (By contrast, the story about the young boy at the pool was perfection.)
Second, Ana DuVernay strangely incorporated Suraj Yengde, Ph. D. as a character, with the actual man playing himself. There is a speech he gives (in the form of an interview to Wilkerson) that was politically charged and had nothing to do with Wilkerson's thesis. I also believe that his comment on the Palestine-Israel crisis (which is rooted in the Israel as oppressor narrative) was an affront to Wilkerson's poignant and considered treatment of Jewish history in her book.
Other than these hiccups I'm glad I saw the movie and I believe it was beautifully crafted.
I had two issues that I found jarring and disappointing. First, in the scene with the plumber (played by Nick Offerman), DuVernay failed to deliver on one of the most impactful stories in the text. It was truncated and failed to capture the vivid description Wilkerson gave as to how the plumber acted, especially with his body language. The "a-ha" moment where this individual supposedly softens and finds his humanity was not well conveyed. (By contrast, the story about the young boy at the pool was perfection.)
Second, Ana DuVernay strangely incorporated Suraj Yengde, Ph. D. as a character, with the actual man playing himself. There is a speech he gives (in the form of an interview to Wilkerson) that was politically charged and had nothing to do with Wilkerson's thesis. I also believe that his comment on the Palestine-Israel crisis (which is rooted in the Israel as oppressor narrative) was an affront to Wilkerson's poignant and considered treatment of Jewish history in her book.
Other than these hiccups I'm glad I saw the movie and I believe it was beautifully crafted.