CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › GET OUT Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GET OUT Discussion - Page 5

post #201 of 283

for sure!

 

but they're no longer well-meaning on the surface of it!

 

they're literally doing knowingly parody-levels of evil!

post #202 of 283
And I really like the idea of these black people being passengers in their own bodies. In a sense programmed with "whiteness". If you notice, there is a specific manner of speech every non hijacked black person in the movie has, versus the hijacked ones. A kind of urban street venacular vs. dignified proper English. I hope Peele isn't trying to suggest that the former is authetic and the latter isn't. I find that this is something ONLY blacks understand, is hanging with the homies vs job interview. That every black person, or at least a great many of them have two people inside them that they have to selectively present to the word. Being black, I am 100% aware of and deal with this. When I am around other blacks I can literally feel myself splitting into a separate psyche...the memories and instincts from childhood and growing up in a black household and around black friends flood in and my manner of speech reflects that. Like it is expected... barely even conscious but more of a reflex.

Contrast this with being around whites and another psyche emerges automatically..one that understands and reflects "white culture" back onto the other person so they dont feel threatened. I wont go into how severely psychologically taxing this can be... I've met plenty of blacks who know and understand this intimately.

So the whole hypnosis and being two people aspect of the film was really driven home for me and I realized Peele was also one of those people. He has to be. That theme is too obvious for him not have an intimate familiarity with this phenomena.
post #203 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

for sure!

 

but they're no longer well-meaning on the surface of it!

 

they're literally doing knowingly parody-levels of evil!

 

It's (one assumes) Peele's worst nightmare of what's behind that well-meaning liberalism. It skewers the liberal racism but it's also a SECONDS-level satire of the inextricable othering behind all that polite "my man" shit.

post #204 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post



So the whole hypnosis and being two people aspect of the film was really driven home for me and I realized Peele was also one of those people. He has to be. That theme is too obvious for him not have an intimate familiarity with this phenomena.

My friend tells a story about a white woman who once made an observation about why Oprah is so much louder and boisterous when she has black guests on her show compared to white guests.  "Why does she have to put that on?"

 

And my friend's response:  "Why do you assume that THAT's the put-on?"

post #205 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
 

 

It's (one assumes) Peele's worst nightmare of what's behind that well-meaning liberalism. It skewers the liberal racism but it's also a SECONDS-level satire of the inextricable othering behind all that polite "my man" shit.

"how long has this been goin' onnnnnn... this... this thaaaaaaaaaaaangEHEHEHEHEHE!"

post #206 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

"how long has this been goin' onnnnnn... this... this thaaaaaaaaaaaangEHEHEHEHEHE!"

 

I loved that so much. I can only imagine how uncomfortable that awkward "trying to make you comfortable" stuff is for people of color; Peele goes full "step into my parlor" with it, and it just WORKS. Every little thing in the film that resonates like that feels earned and authentic. I'm guessing, but I think that's a huge part of why this film is connecting with so many people. It all feels true to itself, and correct.

post #207 of 283
"it's such a PRIVILEGE to explore another person's culture!"

"BLACK MOLD."
post #208 of 283
As to racists not seeing movies about racism, I get that. But this movie is flying under color of genre, and it struck me that this might be a film that creates more empathy with its black protagonist than, say, your average Will Smith film. By pushing those early microaggressions to a place where they're more foreboding than awkward, I think the movie spells out its casual racism in visceral terms. You can't miss the implied threat. I don't think it's just Daniel Kaluuya's charisma that made that character such a successful protagonist, or the last reel such a crowd pleaser. We're there with him, in a gut way, even a white audience.
post #209 of 283

That's true.  But I think perhaps filmmakers think they're enacting activism through filmmaking or something, or that perhaps there is this perception that films like Get Out are changing things, and I don't know if that's even possible.  You can say it's starting a conversation, but these conversations have been going on for decades.  I don't know for sure Peele's intentions beyond wanting to make a racially charged thriller, so this is just speaking in general on the subject.  That's why I said racists don't see movies about racism... it was a slight exaggeration to present a point about how you fight these things.  I don't think white liberals (in general) are going to have some epiphany watching this film and change.  Because to do that you have to first admit you're doing the scummy thing being presented in the film, and nobody believes they're actually bad... everybody justifies what it is they do no matter what it is, and the only way they change is when it becomes socially unacceptable or their livelihood is threatened.  In the cushy white liberal world, I don't know if there's the kind of urgency to shift those behaviors Peele is critiquing.  Those kinds of worldviews are deeply engrained and hard to excavate.  

 

There's a different kind of subtle liberalism Hollywood likes to do that can actually be pretty effective.  For instance, in the years leading up to Obama's Presidency, you saw some popular films and TV shows with black Presidents, which was unheard of before.  People started to get used to the idea of a black man being in the White House.  It became socially acceptable because it was presented as normal.  And if there's one thing people like, it's being normal.  

 

I think as soon as black people are no longer seen as this strange, impenetrable "other"... when they become just as "normal" (read: safe) as everything else (not necessarily anglo-ized)... that's when things may start to shift more powerfully.  This is a big subject because I have my own very strong views about blacks being a source of this very problem with the antagonistic and tribal mentality they create... the language barrier is a huge part of that.  And it's one of the reasons I was so uncomfortable with the TSA agent friend.  I know he was meant as comedic relief, but I didn't like this idea that his venacular is somehow the "correct" way black people are, and that speaking proper English is somehow "white" and "selling out".  I really hated that insinuation.  I wasn't sure that's what Peele was trying to say, but I hated it none the less.  When strangers talk to me on the phone, they assume I'm white, because I'm not speaking like the black characters in this film.  I've lived in Massachusets, California, Florida, Georgia, Washington and Illiinois, have had white, asian, latino and black friends... so the way I talk is kind of a melting pot of Americana.  There is this idea that speaking proper English is a white thing, and ugh... anyway, sorry.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I do think it's interesting making these kinds of films that aestheticize racism and turn it into film grammar to communicate ideas and create tension and dread.  I just hope this doesn't get confused with actual activism, and that films that "normalize" black people as doctors, lawyers, bankers, friendly neighbors, Presidents etc. and not just jive talking comedians, thugs, rappers and athletes... continue to get made.  

post #210 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

As to racists not seeing movies about racism, I get that. But this movie is flying under color of genre, and it struck me that this might be a film that creates more empathy with its black protagonist than, say, your average Will Smith film. By pushing those early microaggressions to a place where they're more foreboding than awkward, I think the movie spells out its casual racism in visceral terms. You can't miss the implied threat. I don't think it's just Daniel Kaluuya's charisma that made that character such a successful protagonist, or the last reel such a crowd pleaser. We're there with him, in a gut way, even a white audience.

 

Yeah, the movie walks this fine, brilliant line between both being about racism, and being incredibly tense. I got into an argument with someone on Facebook who insisted that it worked because of the choices made wrt the writing and filmmaking, not necessarily the subject matter. I responded that the genius of the movie is that it does both - that you can't have the intensity of that moment when those red and blue lights shine on Chris's face without knowing the experience of black men in America, but also because we're waiting for some kind of final twist. Peele's talked about how his aim is to put you in Chris's shoes, both in the experience of him as a character in the moment, and also of being black, and I think it succeeds tremendously. 

post #211 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

 

There's a different kind of subtle liberalism Hollywood likes to do that can actually be pretty effective.  For instance, in the years leading up to Obama's Presidency, you saw some popular films and TV shows with black Presidents, which was unheard of before.  People started to get used to the idea of a black man being in the White House.  It became socially acceptable because it was presented as normal.  And if there's one thing people like, it's being normal.  

 

....

 

Don't get me wrong.  I do think it's interesting making these kinds of films that aestheticize racism and turn it into film grammar to communicate ideas and create tension and dread.  I just hope this doesn't get confused with actual activism, and that films that "normalize" black people as doctors, lawyers, bankers, friendly neighbors, Presidents etc. and not just jive talking comedians, thugs, rappers and athletes... continue to get made.  

 

I find this kind of frustrating too, as I think the importance of that normalization factor can get lost in the eagerness to vivisect the specifics of this trope and that stereotype.  The, for lack of a better term, Bechdel-ization of analysis of representation on film can lead to these (entirely well-intentioned) insistences that it's not a "proper" female role if the woman in question is a girlfriend, or a mother, or expresses any particular feeling about childlessness.  And an Asian "can't" play a martial artist, or any kind of mystic, or a nerd.   And a black actor "can't" be a thug, or a sage, or the comic relief, or cannon fodder.  

 

And with all of those, I understand exactly how the individual concerns arose.  The normalization process worked for so long in the opposite direction, where they only doors open to minorities* were for these specific types that what became normalized was that process of othering.  The lack of well-rounded roles for black actors was/is a legitimate concern, but imo, the demand for more of them needs to be tempered by the awareness that the vast majority of movie roles are not well-rounded characters.  The bulk of faces on screen in any given movie are going to belong to one-dimensional figures that only exist to service the journeys of the main characters.  Supporting characters are the true majority in filmland, and equating that term with "stereotype" or "caricature" threatens to limit representation rather than advance it.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that the quality of roles is easier and more fun to debate, quantity matters just as much.  Not every role for a black actor is going to be Mr. Tibbs, just like not every role for a white actor is going to be Michael Corleone.  But the reason that the latter has never felt like much of an issue is that the full spectrum of supporting roles has always been open to the white dudes, and that made their status as The Norm unquestionable for a long time.  Which in turn makes them the default for the lead roles as well; of course White Guy can do anything, because white guys do do everything.

 

That may have gotten somewhat incoherent, but it was by way of agreeing with your point about the import of passively positive representation.  I think you can make a argument that Samuel L. Jackson playing a computer engineer (that gets eaten by the monsters the white heroes escape, no less) in Jurassic Park did "more" to improve black representation than when he played the ultimate boot in Whitey's ass in Shaft.  But then the entire point is that it shouldn't be an either/or thing.

 

*which in the context of Hollywood, can sometimes include white women too

post #212 of 283
this is why LEAD roles are important in the issue of representation...

as opposed to simple corporate-minded diversity, which is a weak, short term solution that will naturally cause all sorts of other problems due to the issue with supporting characters you describe
post #213 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

I think you can make a argument that Samuel L. Jackson playing a computer engineer (that gets eaten by the monsters the white heroes escape, no less) in Jurassic Park did "more" to improve black representation than when he played the ultimate boot in Whitey's ass in Shaft.  But then the entire point is that it shouldn't be an either/or thing.

 

Yeah I remember even seeing that as a kid and being impressed that a black guy was this calm, collected tech guy who knew more than everybody else.  This also goes back to Theo in the first Die Hard. Important black computer guys were pretty rare back then.

 

Then you have Michael's Bay's interpretation of this.... which is representative of how that positive progression got skewed in favor of gross stereotyping by big dumb Hollywood...

 

post #214 of 283
then you get Anthony Anderson's hacker character in the first Transformers movie he did...
post #215 of 283

Bay is kind of the worse when it comes to black people.  On the one hand he has two black leads, on the other, every other black character is so offensive it almost nullifies the progress.  I always thought the way he handled blacks was a pretty dead giveaway about how he feels about blacks in general.  Though to be fair, most every character in Bay's movies is the simplest most offensive version of that type of person.

post #216 of 283
yeah, Bay only works with the most basic signifiers to communicate anything

but it really really stands out when he applies it to any person of color

ASIAN WOMAN IN THE CAB:

"I want... to go... SHOPPING!!!"
post #217 of 283

I always thought she was related to the Asian lady in the hotel room in Enemy of the State....

post #218 of 283
I don't remember her...
post #219 of 283
post #220 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

Bay is kind of the worse when it comes to black people.  On the one hand he has two black leads, on the other, every other black character is so offensive it almost nullifies the progress.  I always thought the way he handled blacks was a pretty dead giveaway about how he feels about blacks in general.  Though to be fair, most every character in Bay's movies is the simplest most offensive version of that type of person.

 

Michael Bay is a live-action cartoon person that makes live-action cartoons, so in a way it almost seems unfair to blame him for cartoons trafficking in offensive stereotypes.

 

On the other hand, I have less qualms about being unfair to Michael Bay than pretty much any other person on the planet.

post #221 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

https://youtu.be/YT5Y6hy9JBQ?t=1h24m32s

if anything, that moment kinda breaks out of stereotypes???
post #222 of 283

You mean Asian women are just as horny as everybody else???

 

In all seriousness, that sprang to mind as the 90s not knowing what to do with Asian people.

 

I remembering seeing Saving Silverman in the theater and couldn't believe my eyes when this happened.

 

 

There had to be somebody on set going "she would really be doing this?".  Right?

post #223 of 283

YOU... SAW SAVING SILVERMAN IN THE THEATER???

 

 

of course, it doesn't get much better in 2012...

 

post #224 of 283

I like how I met your mother! It's gentle! 

post #225 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

I like how I met your mother! It's gentle! 

Eh?
post #226 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post


Eh?

never mind

post #227 of 283

Peele certainly isn't wasting any time...

 

http://www.darkhorizons.com/peele-plans-hbo-series-lovecraft-country/

post #228 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

Peele certainly isn't wasting any time...

 

http://www.darkhorizons.com/peele-plans-hbo-series-lovecraft-country/

 

Fuck YES. Sounds great.

post #229 of 283
but but... akira...

ahahahha
post #230 of 283

The amazing Zadie Smith takes on GET OUT: 

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/07/getting-in-and-out/

 

Quote:
We have been warned not to get under one another’s skin, to keep our distance. But Jordan Peele’s horror-fantasy—in which we are inside one another’s skin and intimately involved in one another’s suffering—is neither a horror nor a fantasy. It is a fact of our experience. The real fantasy is that we can get out of one another’s way, make a clean cut between black and white, a final cathartic separation between us and them. For the many of us in loving, mixed families, this is the true impossibility. There are people online who seem astounded that Get Out was written and directed by a man with a white wife and a white mother, a man who may soon have—depending on how the unpredictable phenotype lottery goes—a white-appearing child. But this is the history of race in America. Families can become black, then white, then black again within a few generations. And even when Americans are not genetically mixed, they live in a mixed society at the national level if no other. There is no getting out of our intertwined history.
post #231 of 283

This is great!

 

Finally got around to watching this last night, which should handle Erik Myers's "six months later" comment. It's a solid blend of dread and awkward humor, and overt humor, mixed in with social satire with a '70s bent. I worried early on that I had figured things out too quickly, and Chris was taking too long to pick up on the machinations around him.

 

Basically I had avoided any previews and writings on the movie in hopes of avoiding spoilers (even though MichaelM thinks I'm a spoiler fiend for some reason, just because I found out a few things by accident about Logan before seeing it), and it worked out. Did the same thing with Split and was also pleasantly surprised by that one!

 

My evolving sense of thinking that I knew what was going on was when Chris and Rose first arrive I figured the servants had been indoctrinated and were slaves. The introduction of the hypnosis seemed to confirm this, and the hints at Dean being a neurosurgeon meant there was probably a lobotomy aspect to things. So the second act actually lured me into a feeling that this was pretty pedestrian and there wasn't much opportunity for real horror.

 

Like, Chris being auctioned off to be a slave is of course horrifying, but doesn't have much nuance. The idea that this crowd of rich white people is just a bunch of white supremacists would be too simple (and I was having trouble reconciling the Japanese man being there, although I know Nooj is quick to point out just how racist Asians can be). But the idea that they wanted to steal their bodies, wow, that really grabbed me. Around the time of the party my wife leaned over to me and said, "I feel like these people are my dad. He's not overtly racist, but he's quick to point out how not racist he is." And that's perfect, the idea that it's the little ways we see and treat black people (men specifically) that perpetuate the problem. 

 

And I admit up until the box of photos, Rose seemed so genuine I thought it might turn out she wasn't part of everything. And that could have worked well as a metaphor about how blind even well-meaning white people can be to subtle, insidious racism. For instance, the scene with the cop was a nice flip of expectations. The cop seemed perfectly reasonable and Chris was content to go along with everything (although that in of itself could be a commentary on how a black man gets used to acquiescing to police requests), but Rose was the one that pushed things. And it felt like, when I thought her surface veneer was genuine, she was overcompensating. Or as the horrible fringes of the Internet would call, "virtue signaling." Or as Nooj puts better, being PERFORMATIVE. 

 

But then by the end we get another flip of expectations with the "Final Girl" actually turning out to be Terminator-esque villain. The imagery was so fascinating. Usually I'm bothered by characters turning out to be villains and suddenly the actor's performance becomes CA-RAZY with lots of googly eyes and manic movements. But kudos to Allison Williams, she uses restraint and coldness. 

 

And major kudos to Daniel Kaluuya. This movie could really only be made a Jordan Peele, a black man, because he doesn't shy away from portraying Chris as a black man. His background, his mannerisms, the way he talks. He's smart, he's a hip photographer, but he's a black man with black friends that is relieved to see another black man at the party (before said black man turns out to not be what he appears to be).

 

Compare this to, say, Luke Cage. I enjoyed the character on Jessica Jones and The Defenders, but I didn't finish his own show (watched about half) because he suddenly went from being a cool, no-nonsense character to a walking PSA. I saw criticisms online about how the Luke Cage show actually had a conservative bent that made Luke himself into too much of "one of the good ones." Or as Chris Rock said in "Raw", when talking about Colin Powell, "He's so well-spoken." 

 

And yeah, only Peele could've made this because when it turns out Chris and Rod knew Logan, I flashed back to 30 Rock when Liz and Tracy go to the Post Office and Liz wants Tracy to talk to a black woman because she, perhaps subconsciously, assumes all black people know each other. But then it turns out Tracy does know her! So if a white person had written a plot revelation that pivoted on two black guys just happening to know another black guy, oh the think pieces. 

 

Speaking of Rod, he's hilarious and I could envision Peele himself playing the character. He was kind of a walking, talking version of the stereotype of a black man watching a horror movie. The "bitch, don't you go up those stairs!" trope, or Jada Pinkett Smith in the opening of Scream 2. And although he shouldn't work here, and at times it felt like Peele was trying too hard to deflate the tension for the sake of the gentle audience, somehow he does. He's just so funny and likable. There is kind of a tonal dissonance as even his scenes back home and at the police station feel overly lit and out of a different movie, but in its own way that builds up Chris's part. Rod is back in the "real world" and Chris is stuck in this surreal heightened reality where brain transplants seem perfectly plausible because we're taken through the process step by step. 

 

In conclusion, sorry Erik, I dug this. One of my favorite of the year so far.

 

Also, in terms of the mumblegore movies of the last few years, I'd put this at the top. Let's say Get Out>The Witch>It Follows>The Babadook. 

post #232 of 283

I missed the mumblegore comment, which is such a funny framing. I've been thinking a lot about this movie in the broader context of "folk horror," and really fixating on what an American version of that looks like. This gets there, as does the Witch, as both are able to deftly combine genre elements with some of the deep, haunting socital ills that befell America specifically. #pretentious

post #233 of 283

Mumblegore is just kind of a catch-all phrase for low-budget indies that have a slow burn. Hush, The Guest, You're Next, Cheap Thrills, and The Innkeepers also fall into this category. Basically anything by Joe Swanberg or Ti West.

 

So I'm actually not sure if that's even the right categorization, as mumbleCore is characterized by young white people with white people problems sitting around talking a lot. And mumbleGore got lumped in with that due to its fixation on first-world problems, synthesizer music indebted to John Carpenter, and relatively grounded plots. 

 

So perhaps Get Out is a black man's response to mumblegore?

post #234 of 283

Huh, interesting. I didn't think of those as mumblegore at all - I think I would call something like that Duplass brothers film with the guy with the bag on his head or the one about the woman who puts on a mask and kills sexual predators as more in line with that. I think those films you mentioned -  at least something like THE GUEST, YOU'RE NEXT, IT FOLLOWS, and Ti West - as being more "vhscore." 

post #235 of 283

Obviously this is all nebulous and there's a lot of crossover. But both Joe Swanberg and Ti West directed segments of V/H/S and then act in You're Next, so it seems like although the former isn't strongly associated with horror he certainly pals around with that crowd. 

 

White people. Slow Burn. Naturalistic acting. Low Budgets. Indebtedness to '70s horror. That's what I think of with mumblegore. 

 

Get Out in its own way seems to be riffing on the same stuff, like The Stepford Wives, but with more of a social satire bent. 

post #236 of 283

Yeah, I guess that's what I was getting at with my "folk horror" comment - the peak of that as a genre, both in the US and in the UK - and one of its more modern framings, the whole idea of "hauntology" and this idea of "imagined pasts and futures." In the US, a lot of folk horror, particularly in stuff like HARVEST HOME or within the horror fiction boom, overlaps with social satire. 

post #237 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

 

Also, in terms of the mumblegore movies of the last few years, I'd put this at the top. Let's say Get Out>The Witch>It Follows>The Babadook. 

 

This is the correct ranking, though I'd put a good deal more distance between Get Out and The Witch. The latter is all atmosphere with either confused themes or almost no theme, as opposed to Get Out's refreshingly tight thematics and atmosphere.

post #238 of 283

The Witch?

 

So good. 

post #239 of 283

It's fine.

post #240 of 283

Live deliciously, motherfucker. 

post #241 of 283

It may have been talked about upthread, but one reason GET OUT is so tight is that Peele worked on the script for a long time. I think it was on the Nerdist podcast that he talked about the drafting process, and how he worked on it with a lot of focus over the course of a year. It reminded of what happene with Carpenter's version of The Thing: shortly after production started, they were forced to take nearly a year off, and during that time, Carpenter continued to work on the script. By the time production started up again, Carpenter had a tight, polished script.

 

My point? My own windmill tilting: what would happen if studios made a few fewer films and stressed the drafting process? Imagine the increase in quality of the movies we get.

post #242 of 283

Yeah, but Get Out was made for $4.5 million dollars. It could get away with being thoughtful and possibly controversial because the studio wasn't risking anything.

post #243 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

My point? My own windmill tilting: what would happen if studios made a few fewer films and stressed the drafting process? Imagine the increase in quality of the movies we get.

 

Follow-up: I think this is one advantage that mini-majors/true independents places like A24, Anapurna, Amazon, and Blumhouse have over some of the majors - they focus on filmmakers who have stories they want to tell, they're not set to a particular release schedule (less so with Blumhouse, but JB's whole thing seems to be getting capable filmmakers who can deliver a solid film and still do their own thing for the 'franchise' stuff like the Purge movies or the Ouija ones). 

post #244 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

It may have been talked about upthread, but one reason GET OUT is so tight is that Peele worked on the script for a long time. I think it was on the Nerdist podcast that he talked about the drafting process, and how he worked on it with a lot of focus over the course of a year. It reminded of what happene with Carpenter's version of The Thing: shortly after production started, they were forced to take nearly a year off, and during that time, Carpenter continued to work on the script. By the time production started up again, Carpenter had a tight, polished script.

 

My point? My own windmill tilting: what would happen if studios made a few fewer films and stressed the drafting process? Imagine the increase in quality of the movies we get.

 

I didn't find Get Out to be all that tight narratively.  Thematically, sure.  But I felt a sag in the pacing of the middle section, where it felt like it was hitting the same beat over and over with variations too mild to register as forward momentum.  It's a short movie as is, but it almost seems to me that there was an ideal for this story that would have taken about 70 or so minutes to tell.  But that's not quite considered a feature, so you have to stretch it out or cut it way, way down to fit a short film/TV format.  I'm not a huge gorehound, but I bet I'd notice the same thing if I revisited a lot of the horror I consumed in my younger days. 

post #245 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

 

he doesn't shy away from portraying Chris as a black man. His background, his mannerisms, the way he talks. He's smart, he's a hip photographer, but he's a black man with black friends that is relieved to see another black man at the party (before said black man turns out to not be what he appears to be).

 

I'm glad you liked the film and I agree with most of what you said, but this kind of forced me to comment.  Don't worry, I'm not blaming you for anything, but it relates to a bigger idea.

 

For some unknown reason, a few days ago I was watching an interview with Aries Spears where talked about Key and Peele not being authentic black people.  I'll post the interview, because it's alot easier for you (and anyone else interested) to understand my point better if it's in the context of this interview:

 

 

You don't have to watch all of it, but at least the first six minutes.

 

So when I saw your comment it immediately jumped out at me, because I took great issue with Spears' comments.  This idea of what it means to be a "black" person.  For the record, you cannot "act black", it's a misnomer.  There is no such thing as a "black portrayal", there are too many subcultures.  Entertainment and media is as much to blame for this anything else, but Chris is a specific type of black person that comes from a specific part of a black community that unfortunately gets represented as a "black thing", and the default mode for black people.  There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it tends to lump black people into one group and creates divisions among blacks.  There are alot of black people who don't speak the way he does.  But alot of black people can speak that way when around certain other blacks.  If this is confusing, then welcome to being black, as it's just another hurdle we have to deal with on top of everything else.  

 

And it's interesting because Key and Peele don't talk like that.  And according to Spears, there is something inauthentic about that.  What would Get Out be like if Peele had cast someone who speaks like Obama for instance?  These are relevant questions, because the level of "blackness" can affect how white people interact with you.  If you sound like Obama, you tend to get accepted more.  If you sound like Chris' friend, there's more of a disconnect, and white people can be caught off guard.  Key and Peele are both mixed, and have white/black parents... and it's interesting because they don't speak like "default black people", but identify as black, rather than white, even though they each have one white parent.  It's enough to turn your brain into mush.  Alot of it also depends on where you grow up... there are middle class blacks who sound more like Obama than DMX.

 

These are the kinds of deeper levels I kind of wish Peele had gone into, because they're very relevant.  Especially since the film gets repetitive in the 2nd act.

post #246 of 283

Yeah, those are good points, Ambler, since a key aspect of race in the Obama era was whether Obama was black enough - starting from the primary through the whole of his presidency. And of course there's the whole idea of "code switching," which the film addresses without actually naming. I think the film is flawless, but I can definitely see how those issues could have been addressed more in the picture. 

post #247 of 283

I appreciate the response! I'd like to think of myself as a sensitive guy, especially when it comes to issues of race and feminism, but I'll never get it right just because I can never have the experience. I've had a lot of black friends (he says knowingly), my old teacher, boss and mentor wrote this:

 

https://ohiostatepress.org/books/Book%20Pages/Caster%20Prisons.html

 

I love Dwayne McDuffie and what he has to say about race in comics. But this is just me being performative! 

 

What I can say is I made that comment specifically thinking about this:

 

 

And I was trying to ponder the intertextuality of Peele's previous work with Get Out. But I'd prefer to stumble and say the wrong thing because I know, around here, someone will correct me and I'll learn from it.

post #248 of 283

Watched this last night with my wife. Still the best film of the year for me. Just a masterpiece from start to finish. 

 

We don't watch new horror movies in the theater, and she'd managed to be totally unspoiled other than "it's a horror movie about race" so it was fun to watch her reactions knowing what was coming.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
In particular, she really highlighted how good Allison Williams is in the picture - she was totally on her side right up until the heel turn. She pointed out something really interesting - watching the movie as a white woman, having been taught to deescalate situations and be "nice," she totally thought her reactions were normal to Chris' freaking out. And the final moment when the cop car lights are on his face, she yelled "Oh, fuck!" 
post #249 of 283

Finally got around to seeing this.  I had intended to see it theatrically, and I'm not sure what my excuse was because it was in theaters for six months.  But hey, it didn't exactly need my help.

 

This was really entertaining.  I think the secret sauce of this movie that its runaway box office success demonstrates is there's a universal relatability to it.  There is no comparison to being on the receiving end of racism and merely witnessing it, but the fact is every white person has at the very least witnessed (if not engaged in) that sort of facile, overly ingratiating behavior toward minorities that is awkward and dehumanizing and in some ways more uncomfortable to look at than bald-faced bigotry.  The "I would have voted for Obama a third time if I could!" line would be hilarious if you couldn't so clearly imagine your society lady aunt saying it.  The movie beautifully traffics in that discomfort before taking it to the fantastically ridiculous extremes of Stephen Root and unsolicited brain transplants.  Aces.

 

On a mechanical level as a genre movie and an eccentric thriller, it's also a success, although I question the decision to be so upfront with the conspiracy angle.  The hypnotizing scene is a pretty big showing of the hand and it happens really early, and it makes a lot of the weird encounters during the family reunion (aka the whole second act) feel a little redundant instead of the slow burn it might have been.  I was also somewhat distracted by the choice to have Chris believe being hypnotized was just a bad dream until he's reminded about it.  It made me call Chris's reliability into question in a way the movie ultimately proves it didn't intend to.  In retrospect, the second act might have been more suspenseful if we were left wondering whether the simpering creepiness of everyone at the party is to be taken at face value or if it's Chris's paranoia filtered through whatever the mom did to screw with his head.  Ultimately the movie goes for dread rather than mystery, which I think still works pretty well.  As does the comedy.  Man, I bet this would have been fun to see with a crowd.

post #250 of 283
SO FUN to see with a crowd!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › GET OUT Discussion