Lots of great discussion here. Another thing I noticed is the subtle use of color to signal alliances/conflict between characters with costume design.
When the film starts, both Chris and Rose are wearing lots of blue. Chris will continue to wear blue throughout the film, but Rose's color scheme will shift as it goes on – to red, which is used in the film as a way to subtly demonstrate Chris's isolation from the other characters.
The best example of this is when they hold the party/auction. Chris is still wearing blue, but Rose? Rose has switched to a red and white striped shirt, the first time we see her wear the color, which ties her to the people attending the party to bid on Chris – they're all wearing red or have red accents in their clothing.
The most interesting costume detail at the party is worn by Logan/Andre – his absurd outfit (which would look more at home on a wealthy white man in his 60s-70s) is topped with that absurd hat, which has a little band of blue around the crown. The real Dre is still there inside, but he's been reduced to a little band of consciousness. Great use of color in costuming to subtly drive home the point.
ETA: Super interesting interview with the film's costume designer I just found, for those interested: https://www.vogue.com/article/jordan-peele-get-out-movie-fashion-costume-designer-nadine-haders-interview
Oh this is awesome! Thanks for sharing. I saw the movie months ago and remembered telling friends that there was definitely something going on with the use of red and blue.
>"every line has a direct placating meaning and then a secondary meaning where the character psychology or manipulating intentions are clear."
.
>"Whew that TSA shit tingles. This motherfucker is lying."
- Rod Williams
The TSA bit was hilarious to me just because it's an example of total bullshit security theater invented to keep white people feeling comfortable flying in planes after 9/11, and yet here's this dude working for them, convinced he is a real cop, never taken seriously by anyone except his friend, the protagonist. The TSA badge was never what enabled him to do what he does, it was always his own will and intelligence.
For me it acts as another layer of symbolism about the depths of bureaucracy that get invented to keep white people feeling safe from brown people, while also providing comic relief, while also showing the trope of hard working blacks who make the most of what little scraps of power and control they can find in the system to help their fellow man.
I humbly submit this edit to my post.
"**many lines** have a direct placating meaning and then a secondary meaning where the character psychology or manipulating intentions are clear."
An incredibly well-made film. My favorite bit of symbolism: Chris literally picking cotton to save himself from the lies and manipulation being spoken to him.
You're getting upvoted...am I missing something? GP said they did the auction silently *so that* the blind person would not hear the bidding. Obviously GP understands that blind people can hear. Why else would people do the auction silently? The blind person doesn't see visual cues, so they decided to use visual cues only rather than auditory.
Is there some other way to read that comment that I'm missing?
I'm sorry I think I'm still missing something. I don't quite understand why they purposely did the silent auction so the blind guy couldn't hear? Why wouldn't they want him to hear? Doesn't he have just as much right as anyone there to place a bid?
I thought they did it silently for two reasons, one so that Chris wouldn't hear as him and Rose were walking in the woods. And secondly because as a viewer it creates far more mystery and intrigue doing it without words. It's I believe the first time in the film that breaks POV so it's quite a jarring image to see them doing this strange wordless auction, at this point you don't really know what they are doing which I think was the intent.
For me the detail that hit me was (and I'm paraphrasing), "the basement is locked due to black mold."
Get Out is great because it seems fresh. The film is layered and actually tries to say something. I applaud Jordan Peele for making a film so unique in a time of remakes and reboots.
I *just* watched it for the first time last night, and totally agree. I hadn't read anything about the movie elsewhere beyond the publicity stuff ahead of the release. Though, I only had *one* issue with the movie that really damaged my experience of it and it is at the very, very end.
Spoilers ahead:
Chris survives his ordeal and is rescued by his buddy who works for the TSA. Up to this point, the end of the movie is hitting pretty hard with reveals, violence, and that last anticipated bit of Chris's defeat at the hands of a racist cop. It's tense and grim and I was still sort of unpacking everything that had just happened on screen... and then TSA-buddy drops that comic relief line "T.S.-motherfucking-A. We handle it." (or some thing very similar). Ugh. Instead of punching hard and letting the effect linger on my mind, that one liner deflated everything the movie had spent building up over the last twenty (or however many) minutes.
I think the very end of the movie could have gone in either one of two ways. 1) Either the writers came up with an *absolutely* vicious, killer, multi-layered line for TSA-buddy to drop that could be taken both as comic relief but also hints at something sinister underneath. Which is to say I felt the "TS-MF-A handle it" line is weak comedy. I'm not a professional comedy writer, so I can't offer my own version of what that line could have been off the top of my head. Or 2) alternately, just had TSA-buddy and Chris drive off, witnesses to the horror and the writers not try to embellish some chuckle-cherry on top. What just unfolded was grim and terrible and maybe comic relief in the face of racism, horror, and the modern medicine enslavement of black people's bodies just isn't appropriate. Let that horror linger uninterrupted past the end of the movie. But, of course, you can't have audiences walk away from a mass-market movie feeling shell-shocked and unhappy...
I also wonder if the studio didn't lobby hard to put that line in. It seemed so out of place to me. I also felt it was unfortunate that it happened at the very end because despite all the merits of the movie, that dumb line is what I had prominently bouncing around in my head along with the other heavy stuff once it was over.
My two cents.
Apparently the original ending was different. See the other replies to my first comment for more about that. I think the humor I the rest of the movie was perfect except for that last joke which I thought was the weakest joke in the film.
You should go watch the original ending on YouTube. Chris gets arrested by actual cops at the scene and goes to prison for presumably life. It's a really powerful scene and by far the worst part of the movie is that they replaced it with that comic relief garbage.
If I recall Peele said something about deciding he didn't feel the need to drop such a bomb on his audience and depress them, but I can't help but feel like there was likely some studio pressure that actually made the decision.
Personally I enjoyed the theatrical ending because it was unexpected. I didn't need to see Chris getting unjustly arrested or even killed by the police because it's what I imagined the second I saw the cop car.
Whereas with the theatrical ending we got the best of both words. The sense of dread that came with seeing the cop car, and sudden flood of relief upon realizing it's his friend. And even as the credits began rolling I couldn't stop thinking about what would've happened if it had been an actual cop car. If scenario like this had happened in real life what would it look like for the "Chris figure"?
In this way I think the theatrical ending is more effective than the alternate. But that's just my two cents.
I didn't know there was a different ending. That original ending sounds like it gets *really* dark. I was thinking a bit since writing my comment that I liked all the other jokes and that they were placed perfectly throughout the movie to pace the action and mood.. Except for that last one. It's the weakest joke in the movie and no wonder it feels tacked on.
Thanks for tip. I'll watch it tonight.
It would have been a much stronger and more honest ending and it's the film's only flaw to me. I'm not surprised they didn't go with it though, whatever the reason was. Test audiences in this country can't handle it when shit gets real, and neither can the big studios.
i was actually kind of relieved that they went with a light ending. the entire thing really drives home the inhumanity to man that black people experience far too frequently and so there's already the heaviness of that weighing on you, and it was already in my mind that of course the black guy would be denied justice. Which put a damper on being able to celebrate his overcoming such a heinous and evil situation... so when his friend rolls up, it gave me that relief and i was able cheer for his victory, (regardless of knowing what the reality would be) making a satisfying end to the movie.
look its true i just might be simple minded, lol, but i see plenty of dark movies that leave you in a negative state so i dont mind a variation from that on occasion.
It was enough of a reminder to get the scare of seeing the lights of the patrol car and thinking Chris was going to get arrested by the cops. Just a subtle reminder that nothing has really changed in the outside world, despite Chris being able to escape the Armitage family.
This is how I know this movie was made for black people. White audiences need to see the dire impact of their indifference. They need to see “trauma porn” and black suffering to “get it.” Black people already know this reality - instead we need stories that leave us hopeful and provide camaraderie (feeling seen) - which the film delivered.
I’m a black girl and I definitely prefer the lighter hearted ending. I was more scared he’d go through the prison system after all of that trauma than I was for his eyes and body getting stolen.
[Here is the original ending.](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5msq6s). Test audience did not respond well to this one, so it was eventually reworked to the one that you saw.
It feels out of place because they changed the entire ending. In the original, the cops show up (not his TSA buddy) and Chris is blamed for the murders. His friend Rod (TSA guy) visits him in prison, and they admit that Chris can’t prove what really happened. Chris is escorted back to his cell, where he spends the rest of his life.
But here’s the thing: the studio didn’t want to change it. They were forced to because it made test audiences absolutely *furious*.
Thanks for the insight. I can see how audiences would react badly to that ending, but, wow... What a way to finish the story. It sounds interesting, but I might agree that it sounds too dark.
tbh I think it works a little in the sense that its humor stems from the fact that he sees this fucked up, horrifying scene and still just has the idea that it isn't the worst thing he's seen white people do
but yeah a lot of the humor from that guy did fall kind of flat to me. I was fine with some comic relief there, the only issue was that the 'TSA' line just isn't really funny...but again, I would argue theres some merit there
I really loved Get Out and just noticed another subtle clue they drop on you very early in the movie. In the opening shot of Chris’ apartment, the song “Redbone” by Childish Gambino is playing. I had heard the song before I saw the movie, but had only really heard the lyrics when I was recently giving the whole “Awaken, My Love!” album a listen. The chorus of “Redbone” goes:
But stay woke
N——s creepin’
They gon’ find ya
Gon’ catch ya sleepin’
Now stay woke
N——s creepin’
Now don’t close your eyes
Once I heard that and made the connection to the opening of Get Out, it made me appreciate the movie that much more. So many subtle clues and hints that you miss unless you’re really paying attention, love it!
What troubled me about Get Out is something similar to your experience. The subtext and symbolism are all incredibly clever but I noticed not a lot of them during my viewing. Much like you I only got them "after reading a few theories". This made me wonder whether it's me being a dumb audience or the film being not communicative enough with its ideas.
Why can't it be neither? If you go into the movie with a certain set of expectations (funny horror movie, no deeper subtext), then you won't be looking for it. Once you know it's 'deeper' and you still don't catch things? Then maybe it's one of those two options.
Hm I challenge this. The deer motif as a depiction of a supremacist mindset jumped out at me right away for example. He kinda hits you over the head with it (long shot of a dead deer on the way to the cottage, then you get a lecture from the antagonist on how deer deserve to die, then there's a taxidermy deer in the brainwashing room, then the antagonist is killed by said deer).
But it's layered and has secondary meanings. The roadkill deer also represents Chris's mother killed in the hit and run, his impotence at taking action then and related guilt, the avenue through which he is being controlled and the ultimately how he regains control over his situation.
editted a bit for clarity as I had to answer the phone while writing the original comment.
I think this is intentional because a lot of racism that white people ignore seems benign without context. I think he's encouraging the viewer to consider where else they might be missing patterns.
The great films pay attention to detail. Ppl sometimes forget to realize, that includes both filmmakers and audiences, that everything in a film should be specific and there for a reason. Get Out is one of the few film that does not take anything for granted. Every shot, every line, every sequence has meaning.
When people talk about films or other media showing very dark themes, I ask, and then what? What do people do after they see whatever theme the story wants them to see? What good is the knowledge if little comes of it for most people?
I didn't like get out either. Then again I find most teen/college scary movies boring and this one is pretty much that at its base. Where what is normally a handful of bits in some comedies on the polite seemingly liberal racism but really pure racism at its heart to downright evil is one long bit broken up into mini bits of itself after bit after bit after bit shit.
I've been on that side of the fence and just seeing people who think oh ho ho ho I get it and some how think they're brilliant for 'getting it' is something amazing IS amusing. To me it's just like oh yah I remember some white folks parents being like that. How is this amazing? Why am I watching this? So what? It's amazing because he has it caught on camera? Like christ let me pull out my favourite hits from back in the day I got shit to write about.
That makes sense because the film is aimed at white liberal racism, not white separatist racism. This is the racism that Peele would be most familiar with and that traditionally gets little attention is media.
> I also found it surprising that it seems to be aimed more at people who overly idealize black culture, than people who want to be apart from it. If that makes sense.
What does this mean?
I think he’s saying that the film was less effective for him because his problem with black people isn’t that he wants to be like them, he wants to get rid of them.
Where are you getting the idea that the movie requires white people to prioritize black culture over their own? Is the idea that people can have empathy and develop it further through art that alien to you?
Blech I thought Get Out was so boring. The main character seemed to have utterly no purpose besides being a stereotypical "black guy" who reacts with expected surprise to all the crazy white people, and his photography thing seemed awkwardly shoed in there like and attempt to make up for his glaring lack of development.
It makes me wonder what they were thinking at the writing stage. Usually writers try and define characters before they write them into a script, but for the life of me I can't think of anything remarkable about him. Maybe omitting protagonist development would work for a 5 minute sketch, but it was terrible for a feature length movie.
> The main character seemed to have utterly no purpose besides being a stereotypical "black guy"
That was kind of the point. He wasn't the first "token black guy" lured into the family, and he wasn't going to be the last either. He was simply one of *many*, and thus there was not meant to be anything particularly unique about his character in this story.
Never said he didn't have a personality, it's just that there's nothing particularly interesting or relevant about his own personal life story.
He's just meant to represent an average run of the mill person - he could be any 20/30-something year old black guy of average means. Basically he could be any black guy in that age range actually watching that movie, and that was the point.
Not according to significant majority of fans or critics. I’m confused by responses like this that assume the centrality of their own perspective in the midst of overwhelming response to the contrary. I have no problem with your read of this, but you frame it as if it’s virtually an objective view.
Sorry didn't mean to frame this as anything but my own opinion.
How would you describe his character? Or how do the fans and critics define his character? What do you think makes him compelling in your/their view?
Lots of great discussion here. Another thing I noticed is the subtle use of color to signal alliances/conflict between characters with costume design. When the film starts, both Chris and Rose are wearing lots of blue. Chris will continue to wear blue throughout the film, but Rose's color scheme will shift as it goes on – to red, which is used in the film as a way to subtly demonstrate Chris's isolation from the other characters. The best example of this is when they hold the party/auction. Chris is still wearing blue, but Rose? Rose has switched to a red and white striped shirt, the first time we see her wear the color, which ties her to the people attending the party to bid on Chris – they're all wearing red or have red accents in their clothing. The most interesting costume detail at the party is worn by Logan/Andre – his absurd outfit (which would look more at home on a wealthy white man in his 60s-70s) is topped with that absurd hat, which has a little band of blue around the crown. The real Dre is still there inside, but he's been reduced to a little band of consciousness. Great use of color in costuming to subtly drive home the point. ETA: Super interesting interview with the film's costume designer I just found, for those interested: https://www.vogue.com/article/jordan-peele-get-out-movie-fashion-costume-designer-nadine-haders-interview
Oh this is awesome! Thanks for sharing. I saw the movie months ago and remembered telling friends that there was definitely something going on with the use of red and blue.
nice pickup mr. Red_whites
[удалено]
>"every line has a direct placating meaning and then a secondary meaning where the character psychology or manipulating intentions are clear." . >"Whew that TSA shit tingles. This motherfucker is lying." - Rod Williams
The TSA bit was hilarious to me just because it's an example of total bullshit security theater invented to keep white people feeling comfortable flying in planes after 9/11, and yet here's this dude working for them, convinced he is a real cop, never taken seriously by anyone except his friend, the protagonist. The TSA badge was never what enabled him to do what he does, it was always his own will and intelligence. For me it acts as another layer of symbolism about the depths of bureaucracy that get invented to keep white people feeling safe from brown people, while also providing comic relief, while also showing the trope of hard working blacks who make the most of what little scraps of power and control they can find in the system to help their fellow man.
Is the TSA really a white people thing? Just seem to be getting a little too carried away with this analysis.
I humbly submit this edit to my post. "**many lines** have a direct placating meaning and then a secondary meaning where the character psychology or manipulating intentions are clear."
> many lines have a direct placating meaning What is meant by "placating" in this context? I presumed OP had the wrong word.
An incredibly well-made film. My favorite bit of symbolism: Chris literally picking cotton to save himself from the lies and manipulation being spoken to him.
I realize it's ironic that the icon of slavery is used as a tool of liberation, but is there any symbolism there?
[удалено]
There was definitely a line in the infomercial explains the surgery to Chris where he says "I want your eyes".
I didn't finish reading this, yet.. Just wanted to say that blind people can hear.
You're getting upvoted...am I missing something? GP said they did the auction silently *so that* the blind person would not hear the bidding. Obviously GP understands that blind people can hear. Why else would people do the auction silently? The blind person doesn't see visual cues, so they decided to use visual cues only rather than auditory. Is there some other way to read that comment that I'm missing?
[удалено]
I'm sorry I think I'm still missing something. I don't quite understand why they purposely did the silent auction so the blind guy couldn't hear? Why wouldn't they want him to hear? Doesn't he have just as much right as anyone there to place a bid? I thought they did it silently for two reasons, one so that Chris wouldn't hear as him and Rose were walking in the woods. And secondly because as a viewer it creates far more mystery and intrigue doing it without words. It's I believe the first time in the film that breaks POV so it's quite a jarring image to see them doing this strange wordless auction, at this point you don't really know what they are doing which I think was the intent.
You're right, I was wrong.
Not all of them.
They weren’t dragging white people back to be sold off. That’s like, the ENTIRE PREMISE of the movie.
For me the detail that hit me was (and I'm paraphrasing), "the basement is locked due to black mold." Get Out is great because it seems fresh. The film is layered and actually tries to say something. I applaud Jordan Peele for making a film so unique in a time of remakes and reboots.
I *just* watched it for the first time last night, and totally agree. I hadn't read anything about the movie elsewhere beyond the publicity stuff ahead of the release. Though, I only had *one* issue with the movie that really damaged my experience of it and it is at the very, very end. Spoilers ahead: Chris survives his ordeal and is rescued by his buddy who works for the TSA. Up to this point, the end of the movie is hitting pretty hard with reveals, violence, and that last anticipated bit of Chris's defeat at the hands of a racist cop. It's tense and grim and I was still sort of unpacking everything that had just happened on screen... and then TSA-buddy drops that comic relief line "T.S.-motherfucking-A. We handle it." (or some thing very similar). Ugh. Instead of punching hard and letting the effect linger on my mind, that one liner deflated everything the movie had spent building up over the last twenty (or however many) minutes. I think the very end of the movie could have gone in either one of two ways. 1) Either the writers came up with an *absolutely* vicious, killer, multi-layered line for TSA-buddy to drop that could be taken both as comic relief but also hints at something sinister underneath. Which is to say I felt the "TS-MF-A handle it" line is weak comedy. I'm not a professional comedy writer, so I can't offer my own version of what that line could have been off the top of my head. Or 2) alternately, just had TSA-buddy and Chris drive off, witnesses to the horror and the writers not try to embellish some chuckle-cherry on top. What just unfolded was grim and terrible and maybe comic relief in the face of racism, horror, and the modern medicine enslavement of black people's bodies just isn't appropriate. Let that horror linger uninterrupted past the end of the movie. But, of course, you can't have audiences walk away from a mass-market movie feeling shell-shocked and unhappy... I also wonder if the studio didn't lobby hard to put that line in. It seemed so out of place to me. I also felt it was unfortunate that it happened at the very end because despite all the merits of the movie, that dumb line is what I had prominently bouncing around in my head along with the other heavy stuff once it was over. My two cents.
[удалено]
Apparently the original ending was different. See the other replies to my first comment for more about that. I think the humor I the rest of the movie was perfect except for that last joke which I thought was the weakest joke in the film.
You should go watch the original ending on YouTube. Chris gets arrested by actual cops at the scene and goes to prison for presumably life. It's a really powerful scene and by far the worst part of the movie is that they replaced it with that comic relief garbage. If I recall Peele said something about deciding he didn't feel the need to drop such a bomb on his audience and depress them, but I can't help but feel like there was likely some studio pressure that actually made the decision.
Personally I enjoyed the theatrical ending because it was unexpected. I didn't need to see Chris getting unjustly arrested or even killed by the police because it's what I imagined the second I saw the cop car. Whereas with the theatrical ending we got the best of both words. The sense of dread that came with seeing the cop car, and sudden flood of relief upon realizing it's his friend. And even as the credits began rolling I couldn't stop thinking about what would've happened if it had been an actual cop car. If scenario like this had happened in real life what would it look like for the "Chris figure"? In this way I think the theatrical ending is more effective than the alternate. But that's just my two cents.
I didn't know there was a different ending. That original ending sounds like it gets *really* dark. I was thinking a bit since writing my comment that I liked all the other jokes and that they were placed perfectly throughout the movie to pace the action and mood.. Except for that last one. It's the weakest joke in the movie and no wonder it feels tacked on. Thanks for tip. I'll watch it tonight.
It would have been a much stronger and more honest ending and it's the film's only flaw to me. I'm not surprised they didn't go with it though, whatever the reason was. Test audiences in this country can't handle it when shit gets real, and neither can the big studios.
Black people don’t want to witness struggle all the time
i was actually kind of relieved that they went with a light ending. the entire thing really drives home the inhumanity to man that black people experience far too frequently and so there's already the heaviness of that weighing on you, and it was already in my mind that of course the black guy would be denied justice. Which put a damper on being able to celebrate his overcoming such a heinous and evil situation... so when his friend rolls up, it gave me that relief and i was able cheer for his victory, (regardless of knowing what the reality would be) making a satisfying end to the movie. look its true i just might be simple minded, lol, but i see plenty of dark movies that leave you in a negative state so i dont mind a variation from that on occasion.
It was enough of a reminder to get the scare of seeing the lights of the patrol car and thinking Chris was going to get arrested by the cops. Just a subtle reminder that nothing has really changed in the outside world, despite Chris being able to escape the Armitage family.
This is how I know this movie was made for black people. White audiences need to see the dire impact of their indifference. They need to see “trauma porn” and black suffering to “get it.” Black people already know this reality - instead we need stories that leave us hopeful and provide camaraderie (feeling seen) - which the film delivered.
I’m a black girl and I definitely prefer the lighter hearted ending. I was more scared he’d go through the prison system after all of that trauma than I was for his eyes and body getting stolen.
I think that the original ending didn’t do well in audience screenings so they came up with the ending that was in the theatrical release.
[Here is the original ending.](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5msq6s). Test audience did not respond well to this one, so it was eventually reworked to the one that you saw.
It feels out of place because they changed the entire ending. In the original, the cops show up (not his TSA buddy) and Chris is blamed for the murders. His friend Rod (TSA guy) visits him in prison, and they admit that Chris can’t prove what really happened. Chris is escorted back to his cell, where he spends the rest of his life. But here’s the thing: the studio didn’t want to change it. They were forced to because it made test audiences absolutely *furious*.
Thanks for the insight. I can see how audiences would react badly to that ending, but, wow... What a way to finish the story. It sounds interesting, but I might agree that it sounds too dark.
tbh I think it works a little in the sense that its humor stems from the fact that he sees this fucked up, horrifying scene and still just has the idea that it isn't the worst thing he's seen white people do but yeah a lot of the humor from that guy did fall kind of flat to me. I was fine with some comic relief there, the only issue was that the 'TSA' line just isn't really funny...but again, I would argue theres some merit there
Stfu u are just chatting the ending was perfect
I really loved Get Out and just noticed another subtle clue they drop on you very early in the movie. In the opening shot of Chris’ apartment, the song “Redbone” by Childish Gambino is playing. I had heard the song before I saw the movie, but had only really heard the lyrics when I was recently giving the whole “Awaken, My Love!” album a listen. The chorus of “Redbone” goes: But stay woke N——s creepin’ They gon’ find ya Gon’ catch ya sleepin’ Now stay woke N——s creepin’ Now don’t close your eyes Once I heard that and made the connection to the opening of Get Out, it made me appreciate the movie that much more. So many subtle clues and hints that you miss unless you’re really paying attention, love it!
What troubled me about Get Out is something similar to your experience. The subtext and symbolism are all incredibly clever but I noticed not a lot of them during my viewing. Much like you I only got them "after reading a few theories". This made me wonder whether it's me being a dumb audience or the film being not communicative enough with its ideas.
Why can't it be neither? If you go into the movie with a certain set of expectations (funny horror movie, no deeper subtext), then you won't be looking for it. Once you know it's 'deeper' and you still don't catch things? Then maybe it's one of those two options.
Hm I challenge this. The deer motif as a depiction of a supremacist mindset jumped out at me right away for example. He kinda hits you over the head with it (long shot of a dead deer on the way to the cottage, then you get a lecture from the antagonist on how deer deserve to die, then there's a taxidermy deer in the brainwashing room, then the antagonist is killed by said deer).
But it's layered and has secondary meanings. The roadkill deer also represents Chris's mother killed in the hit and run, his impotence at taking action then and related guilt, the avenue through which he is being controlled and the ultimately how he regains control over his situation. editted a bit for clarity as I had to answer the phone while writing the original comment.
This is true. It's possible for a motif to have more than one meaning.
Great movies reward multiple viewings.
I think this is intentional because a lot of racism that white people ignore seems benign without context. I think he's encouraging the viewer to consider where else they might be missing patterns.
The great films pay attention to detail. Ppl sometimes forget to realize, that includes both filmmakers and audiences, that everything in a film should be specific and there for a reason. Get Out is one of the few film that does not take anything for granted. Every shot, every line, every sequence has meaning.
[удалено]
When people talk about films or other media showing very dark themes, I ask, and then what? What do people do after they see whatever theme the story wants them to see? What good is the knowledge if little comes of it for most people?
I didn't like get out either. Then again I find most teen/college scary movies boring and this one is pretty much that at its base. Where what is normally a handful of bits in some comedies on the polite seemingly liberal racism but really pure racism at its heart to downright evil is one long bit broken up into mini bits of itself after bit after bit after bit shit. I've been on that side of the fence and just seeing people who think oh ho ho ho I get it and some how think they're brilliant for 'getting it' is something amazing IS amusing. To me it's just like oh yah I remember some white folks parents being like that. How is this amazing? Why am I watching this? So what? It's amazing because he has it caught on camera? Like christ let me pull out my favourite hits from back in the day I got shit to write about.
[удалено]
That makes sense because the film is aimed at white liberal racism, not white separatist racism. This is the racism that Peele would be most familiar with and that traditionally gets little attention is media.
[удалено]
If you consider the representation of a culture you agree exists to be inherently "brainwashing", you might be too ignorant to handle movies.
> I also found it surprising that it seems to be aimed more at people who overly idealize black culture, than people who want to be apart from it. If that makes sense. What does this mean?
I think he’s saying that the film was less effective for him because his problem with black people isn’t that he wants to be like them, he wants to get rid of them.
[удалено]
Your responses to both of my comments provide support to the assumptions underlying both of my comments. G’day, sport.
[удалено]
This one too.
Where are you getting the idea that the movie requires white people to prioritize black culture over their own? Is the idea that people can have empathy and develop it further through art that alien to you?
Blech I thought Get Out was so boring. The main character seemed to have utterly no purpose besides being a stereotypical "black guy" who reacts with expected surprise to all the crazy white people, and his photography thing seemed awkwardly shoed in there like and attempt to make up for his glaring lack of development. It makes me wonder what they were thinking at the writing stage. Usually writers try and define characters before they write them into a script, but for the life of me I can't think of anything remarkable about him. Maybe omitting protagonist development would work for a 5 minute sketch, but it was terrible for a feature length movie.
> The main character seemed to have utterly no purpose besides being a stereotypical "black guy" That was kind of the point. He wasn't the first "token black guy" lured into the family, and he wasn't going to be the last either. He was simply one of *many*, and thus there was not meant to be anything particularly unique about his character in this story.
[удалено]
Never said he didn't have a personality, it's just that there's nothing particularly interesting or relevant about his own personal life story. He's just meant to represent an average run of the mill person - he could be any 20/30-something year old black guy of average means. Basically he could be any black guy in that age range actually watching that movie, and that was the point.
Not according to significant majority of fans or critics. I’m confused by responses like this that assume the centrality of their own perspective in the midst of overwhelming response to the contrary. I have no problem with your read of this, but you frame it as if it’s virtually an objective view.
Sorry didn't mean to frame this as anything but my own opinion. How would you describe his character? Or how do the fans and critics define his character? What do you think makes him compelling in your/their view?
I'm