|
Root dismisses the ideology in that chat so I don't know that he cares so much about Chris's race. It just so happens that he, as a rich white man, has access to the black slave auction. That's one aspect of the colorblind liberal racism on display. An unexplored form of colorblind racism is that the other white folks seem to think they'll be immune to racism in their new bodies because of their class status (ironically, an idea expressed by a sizable contingent of Marxists). Cut from the imaginary script is a scene of fake-Andre being arrested for breaking into his own home.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
i am the bird posted:Root dismisses the ideology in that chat so I don't know that he cares so much about Chris's race. It just so happens that he, as a rich white man, has access to the black slave auction. That's one aspect of the colorblind liberal racism on display. See, if he did a sequel that was the reverse, it would have to be Brother From Another Planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Even if we foolishly take the film 100% literally and examine it only in terms of its plot: why do you think the bad guys take the time to introduce themselves, explain their motivations - even enter into a long-term relationship with the protagonist? It's because they care. The dad even says outright that he considers this a 'green', 'ethical' alternative to just stuffing guys in trunks. Paternal racism helps shield a racist from their own monstrous activity. That's for their benefit; not Chris's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Paternal racism helps shield a racist from their own monstrous activity. That's for their benefit; not Chris's. "Paternal" racism doesn't work outside the conception of a nuclear family. Chris is a "junior".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Even if we foolishly take the film 100% literally and examine it only in terms of its plot: why do you think the bad guys take the time to introduce themselves, explain their motivations - even enter into a long-term relationship with the protagonist? It's because they care. The dad even says outright that he considers this a 'green', 'ethical' alternative to just stuffing guys in trunks. No? The in-universe explanation is that "mutual understanding of the procedure helps," meaning the black body will reject the implanted white brain less with the introduction and explanation of motives, as brutal as they are. Foolishly taking the film 100% literally is not because they "care" about Chris, it's because they care about the end result, did you miss that expository dialogue? Andre is shown to be more fragile than others, it's implied that his procedure was harsher, and he's the first one broken out by a camera, grabs the offered fist instead of bumping as a sign of distress. It's somewhat implied that Georgina is in less control than grandpa. She keeps pouring the tea, she can't hold herself together during the unplugged phone explanation. I thought those breaks were interference of the original "host."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:"Paternal" racism doesn't work outside the conception of a nuclear family. Chris is a "junior". Paternal racism describes the entirety of Progressive Era racial social programs. It's white-man's-burden poo poo. That's the exact language being used by the white family.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Paternal racism helps shield a racist from their own monstrous activity. That's for their benefit; not Chris's. Ok good: you agree that the bad guys are well meaning idiots, and that there is a gulf between their perspective (of themselves as nice people) and Chris' perspective (of himself as victim of an illuminati conspiracy).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Ok good: you agree that the bad guys are well meaning idiots, and that there is a gulf between their perspective (of themselves as nice people) and Chris' perspective (of himself as victim of an illuminati conspiracy). Deliberately committing personal violence for your own benefit isn't well meaning just because you feel bad about it. That's the entire point of mythbusting 'well meaning racism.' They are not trying to better Chris. They are trying to better themselves. Progressive Era public health reformers weren't interested in helping poor black people to improve their lives. They were operating on a 'germs have no color line' principle and were worried about the lives of middle class/upper class white people. The end result was, in some cases, better public health for poor black people but that was entirely tangential to preserving white health.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Paternal racism describes the entirety of Progressive Era racial social programs. It's white-man's-burden poo poo. That's the exact language being used by the white family. "Paternal" implies that there are children. The white father provides for and trains up his children/inferiors. Not that it is tough love, not that he is doing you a favor, but that you should accept this order (the nuclear family, no more "natural" than a racial heirarchy) because this is the way things "should be". This is obviously grossly offensive. However, if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory (that is to say, rationalize it to yourself rather than understanding it), one logical conclusion is that ultimately, all such social programs are paternal. Any social program becomes patronizing and dependent. Well meaning liberals are, strangely, not only not threatened by this - they are completely comfortable with this worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Deliberately committing personal violence for your own benefit isn't well meaning just because you feel bad about it. That's the entire point of mythbusting 'well meaning racism.' They are not trying to better Chris. They are trying to better themselves. But they don't feel bad about it. Everything in the movie points to them believing that this is the best not just for black people, but for themselves as well. In their mind, it's a win-win situation, not unlike how westerners perceive that other cultures aren't "good" until it's heavily influenced and homogenized by their influence. Note that there aren't any "good" white people in the movie, because in their own view, they ARE the good guys. quote:Progressive Era public health reformers weren't interested in helping poor black people to improve their lives. The real question is do you think Reagan was a pure Evil, twirling mustache supervillain, or was he the grandpa in Get Out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:But they don't feel bad about it. Everything in the movie points to them believing that this is the best not just for black people, but for themselves as well. In their mind, it's a win-win situation, not unlike how westerners perceive that other cultures aren't "good" until it's heavily influenced and homogenized by their influence. Yup. Post-hoc rationalizations do more than make people feel better. They harden and reinforce themselves and take on a life of their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Deliberately committing personal violence for your own benefit isn't well meaning just because you feel bad about it. That's the entire point of mythbusting 'well meaning racism.' They are not trying to better Chris. They are trying to better themselves. False. The characters repeatedly insist that they are trying to help Chris "unlock his potential". Hence the little brother's whole MMA speech. You're letting the various characters' perspectives blur together with your own. The bad-guy characters do not perceive themselves as violent - except for Root, who is unique in that he is a cynic. i am the bird posted:Progressive Era public health reformers weren't interested in helping poor black people to improve their lives. They were operating on a 'germs have no color line' principle and were worried about the lives of middle class/upper class white people. And good: you are now agreeing that racial conflict is just a mask for class struggle. We're making a lot of progress here!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:But they don't feel bad about it. Everything in the movie points to them believing that this is the best not just for black people, but for themselves as well. In their mind, it's a win-win situation, not unlike how westerners perceive that other cultures aren't "good" until it's heavily influenced and homogenized by their influence. They do feel bad enough to offer him sympathy for his emotional reaction -- both Rose and her father offer him comfort, and that requires recognition of pain -- but their paternalistic attitude is reassurance to know that what they're doing is 'correct.' quote:The real question is do you think Reagan was a pure Evil, twirling mustache supervillain, or was he the grandpa in Get Out. It's not an either/or, which, again, is why we should be rejecting the 'well meaning white folks' idea just as the movie suggests. Reagan was deliberately violent to black people. Dismissing that as a conspiracy theory is ahistorical. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:"Paternal" implies that there are children. The white father provides for and trains up his children/inferiors. Not that it is tough love, not that he is doing you a favor, but that you should accept this order (the nuclear family, no more "natural" than a racial heirarchy) because this is the way things "should be". This is obviously grossly offensive. However, if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory (that is to say, rationalize it to yourself rather than understanding it), one logical conclusion is that ultimately, all such social programs are paternal. Any social program becomes patronizing and dependent. Paternal racism implies that poor black people are children and that white saviors (or black saviors if we want to just focus on the paternalism, re: racial uplift ideology) need to teach them how to live properly because they are incapable otherwise. And yes, that is the obvious critique of liberalism. Social programs tend to be paternalistic because they dictate, in some form or another, how a person should act in order to receive benefits. That's not a logical argument against social programs because it ignores the context of inequality, but plenty of people are materially dependent on social programs. It's an illogical leap to argue that it makes them psychologically dependent, however, or to argue that benefitting from a social program makes someone a metaphorical child. SuperMechagodzilla posted:And good: you are now agreeing that racial conflict is just a mask for class struggle. We're making a lot of progress here! I never denied that economic conflict is a key component of racism, but I reject the ahistorical notion that class inequality is the sole reason for the perpetuation of racism. This movie and its conflicts cannot exist with a white protagonist. i am the bird fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:And yes, that is the obvious critique of liberalism. Social programs tend to be paternalistic because they dictate, in some form or another, how a person should act in order to receive benefits. That's not a logical argument against social programs because it ignores the context of inequality, but plenty of people are materially dependent on social programs. It's an illogical leap to argue that it makes them psychologically dependent, however, or to argue that benefitting from a social program makes someone a metaphorical child. It is a justification for inequality and furthermore, a paternalistic heirarchy. This is why the concept of human rights exists and has to be argued for, as opposed to the "natural" system of treats bestowed on good little boys and girls. Social programs don't "tend" to be anything, because again, the current order is a condition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:I never denied that economic conflict is a key component of racism, but I reject the ahistorical notion that class inequality is the sole reason for the perpetuation of racism. This movie and its conflicts cannot exist with a white protagonist. In that case, you didn't understand your own examples. In your example, the rich adopted 'colourblind' policies to combat a 'colourblind' threat, but did nothing about the poverty - because poverty only threatens poor people. And Root, again, states outright that the victims being black is mostly arbitrary. The film's basic story not only can work with a white protagonist, it did work in countless examples (e.g. The Terminator).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It is a justification for inequality and furthermore, a paternalistic heirarchy. This is why the concept of human rights exists and has to be argued for, as opposed to the "natural" system of treats bestowed on good little boys and girls. Social programs don't "tend" to be anything, because again, the current order is a condition. Social programs tend to be paternalistic because they are designed by people with power and paternalism is one way to maintain power, as you indicated earlier. This is a basic leftist critique of social democracy as an institution, even if it is better than having no social programs whatsoever. It's not advocacy for libertarianism or a 'natural order.' i am the bird fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In that case, you didn't understand your own examples. In your example, the rich adopted 'colourblind' policies to combat a 'colourblind' threat, but did nothing about the poverty - because poverty only threatens poor people. Root's character says their race doesn't matter because he doesn't buy into the racial science. He doesn't say it's arbitrary. He outright dismisses the racial science of the Coagula family. But my argument is that race does ultimately matter for him because the white suppliers are explicitly targeting black people. Root thinks he's not being racist; yet he is. That's the point. And my tongue-in-cheek example of fake-Andre being arrested for breaking into his home is explicitly about the fact that fake-Andre's wealth/class status would not protect him from racism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Social programs tend to be paternalistic because they are designed by people with power and paternalism is one way to maintain power, as you indicated earlier. This is a basic leftist critique of social democracy as an institution. It's not advocacy for libertarianism. That's why the critique is of the system rather than its symptom. Otherwise you end up inadvertently advocating the idea that social programs are incompatible with antiracism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Root's character says their race doesn't matter because he doesn't buy into the racial science. He doesn't say it's arbitrary. He outright dismisses the racial science of the Coagula family. But my argument is that race does ultimately matter for him because the white suppliers are explicitly targeting black people. Root thinks he's not being racist; yet he is. That's the point. A specific example: in X-Files 2: I Want To Believe, the sexist bad guy abducts vulnerable white women so that he can his transplant his life-partner's brain into a desirable, 'perfect' body. Both films take a particular look at the same topic, which is fetishism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That's why the critique is of the system rather than its symptom. Otherwise you end up inadvertently advocating the idea that social programs are incompatible with antiracism. Yeah, no poo poo. That's why I've been talking about the people creating them and not the inherent idea of social programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Yeah, no poo poo. That's why I've been talking about the people creating them and not the inherent idea of social programs. So then, again, what Chris stands to lose is something he's mostly afraid he never had. That's the subtext of his relationship with Rose. Why are they a couple in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
I was really enjoying this thread-- the details, the parallels, the imagery, the racial commentary-- until SMG shat it up. Jesus, what a desperate stretchy reinterpretation, somewhere out there Derrida's ghost is rolling its eyes. And now the whole thread has turned into arguing about the one lovely boring interpretation. Let's try this: hooray SMG! You won! You have proved yourself right forever and racism no longer exists except as a self-hating class treachery inside black people's minds! Now please go somewhere else and let other folks talk about the symbolism and meaning of the rear end in a top hat brother's plate helmet and why he keeps it in his car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
It's much more deeply hosed up that the only way to become a successful person is to become white (which is pretty literally true) than it is to become white - becoming white is just a symptom of a more troubling illness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's much more deeply hosed up that the only way to become a successful person is to become white (which is pretty literally true) than it is to become white - becoming white is just a symptom of a more troubling illness. DeimosRising posted:Peele also already wrote another movie that's extremely concerned with how middle class African Americans relate to "authentic" ghetto Blackness. It's played for laughs but there's a lot of tension in Key and Peele's scenes arguing about whether they ever say "nigga" or listen to the "right" music. Yep. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:So then, again, what Chris stands to lose is something he's mostly afraid he never had. That's the subtext of his relationship with Rose. Why are they a couple in the first place? Peele also already wrote another movie that's extremely concerned with how middle class African Americans relate to "authentic" ghetto Blackness. It's played for laughs but there's a lot of tension in Key and Peele's scenes arguing about whether they ever say "nigga" or listen to the "right" music.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
elise the great posted:somewhere out there Derrida's ghost is rolling its eyes. It's interesting to see the various fantasies about me. I am explicitly not a post-structuralist. You cannot succeed unless you write truthfully and accurately. I have changed the course of things. Things will never be the same again. There is no going back to the way things were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
I use Derrida here as an example because, even though I can't read his work without uncontrollable jacking-off motions, his contributions to critical analysis are undeniable. Whereas the garbage you've posted in this thread has only "changed everything" in that the thread used to be good and now it's all shitted up. Seriously, though. Anybody got any interesting thoughts on the plate helmet? It's one of the things that gives me a "hmmmm this probably implies something" vibe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
elise the great posted:Seriously, though. Anybody got any interesting thoughts on the plate helmet? It's one of the things that gives me a "hmmmm this probably implies something" vibe. Same reason he has a dirtstache. He's a manchild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I totally agree that it's a nod to his character's image of himself. I just wonder if it's meant to hint that he sees himself as a knight-errant, a holy warrior in a sense, or if it's supposed to serve a "Freddy mask" function in the movie. Either way it worked well as a callback to make sure you know he's the one that kidnapped Andre, and the audience in my theater actually laughed a bit at Chris's reaction to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
elise the great posted:I use Derrida here as an example because, even though I can't read his work without uncontrollable jacking-off motions, his contributions to critical analysis are undeniable. Whereas the garbage you've posted in this thread has only "changed everything" in that the thread used to be good and now it's all shitted up. Actually, the thread was fine until the same whiny goons who can't handle a little critical thinking got their panties in a bunch over a deeper reading of the movie. SMG wasn't even the first one to bring it up, which brings me to question if you've even been reading this thread, or just glancing at the plot summaries in the spoiler text. The low effort you've put into your own reading of the movie (what's the deal with the younger brother? HE'SO GODDAMN KOOKY!) is as apparent as your low-effort burn against SMG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Peele also already wrote another movie that's extremely concerned with how middle class African Americans relate to "authentic" ghetto Blackness. It's played for laughs but there's a lot of tension in Key and Peele's scenes arguing about whether they ever say "nigga" or listen to the "right" music. And that kind of stuff comes from things like microaggressions and cultural assumptions - if you're too far off the mark from "normal" people will treat you differently. Get Out is just the maximal version of that experience, and I see it all the time in the gay community. If you're too wispy or femme or whatever in a public setting or around people who have power over you, you'll be treated like scum, so people put on a closeted face because acting like that actively devalues you, even among people who are really nice and well-meaning. There's a million examples, and the way "normies" act in lockstep absolutely feels borderline conspiratorial. It's the same with women with ambiguously gendered names being treated differently over email vs the phone, or the things thin people say to fat people when they think they're being helpful, or the massive difference in the way a "passing" trans person is treated vs someone who successfully blends in, and these are all symptoms of a sick culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
elise the great posted:I totally agree that it's a nod to his character's image of himself. I just wonder if it's meant to hint that he sees himself as a knight-errant, a holy warrior in a sense, or if it's supposed to serve a "Freddy mask" function in the movie. Either way it worked well as a callback to make sure you know he's the one that kidnapped Andre, and the audience in my theater actually laughed a bit at Chris's reaction to it. Freddy doesn't wear a mask. Kid wears the mask because he has low self-esteem, believes that he will never be 'good enough' despite his training. There's a line of dialogue about his going to med school - to follow in his dad's footsteps, even though he's clearly not suited for it. The choice of a black mask to psych himself up is obviously important. This leads to the significant 'plot hole' that none of the people in the family used the brain-swap technology on themselves - even though they have every reason to do so. It's another aspect of the film where the logic of the narrative breaks down to serve the metaphor, exposing the falsity of the scenario. Truth is that the kid wishes he was 'cool enough' to go around doing nonlethal takedowns in his hip car. The mask is likely in the car because it's part of his collection of swords and nerf rifles, not because he actually uses it. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Freddy doesn't wear a mask. And the helmet is straight out of the White Knights, is that just me projecting southern heritage where there wasn't any? It's certainly not a "black mask" in any sense except just erasing footage and replacing your own. He's shown wearing it in the intro. SuperMechagodzilla posted:This leads to the significant 'plot hole' that none of the people in the family used the brain-swap technology on themselves - even though they have every reason to do so. It's another aspect of the film where the logic of the narrative breaks down to serve the metaphor, exposing the falsity of the scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Nah, I've actually really enjoyed some of the other in-depth analyses, and it's totally worth examining the theme of Chris's fears of losing what makes him himself. SMG has just chosen to die on a hill that's more boring and one-dimensional the more they talk about it, and which guts discussion of all other dimension and character because its reductionism tries to compress the entire movie to a hallucination within a series of events that the audience has no access to. Other people have been able to discuss this reading without making GBS threads up the thread, but SMG is just plain bad at discussing it. So I'm interested in readings of characters from within a different interpretation, since this one's been discussed to death. I don't think the brother is a particularly profound character, but he does present a contrast with the rest of his family. His hostility and violence make a good foil for the family's outward "cool liberal" image-- does he feel the urge to justify, to pretend he means well, or did he just learn to adopt the thin veneer of his parents' "progressiveness" as a way to keep his urges from getting him in trouble? Is he more human than Rose, or just more honest? I like the ideas of intellectual heredity and the natural progression through generations of benefit from racism that this implies. You start with grandparents who dream of immortality at the cost of whatever group is vulnerable enough to exploit, and who raise their offspring to develop skills and seek partnerships that will further that goal; then you get parents who dream of something more than mere immortality, and raise their offspring to be sociopathic, sexually exploited and exploitative, violent and racist, even as they try to convince themselves that there's no racism, sociopathy, or sexual exploitation in their own drive. No, their children are tools just as they were tools, and they don't want to think about what kind of work requires tools like these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
"'Kindly let me help you or you'll drown', said the monkey safely putting the fish up a tree." Also, this is a good thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
SMG's always been kind of bad at discussion, his posts are distant, declamatory billboards.RCarr posted:When he is talking to him through the TV right before the procedure he literally says "I want your eyes, man." Because his eyes have "soul", that black MSG, which he deduced from a photograph he's never seen. It's like a white band hiring a black guy and saying "yeah, we really just want your soulful sound" - it's just another gag but it ties in nicely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:And that kind of stuff comes from things like microaggressions and cultural assumptions - if you're too far off the mark from "normal" people will treat you differently. Get Out is just the maximal version of that experience, and I see it all the time in the gay community. If you're too wispy or femme or whatever in a public setting or around people who have power over you, you'll be treated like scum, so people put on a closeted face because acting like that actively devalues you, even among people who are really nice and well-meaning. There's a million examples, and the way "normies" act in lockstep absolutely feels borderline conspiratorial. It's the same with women with ambiguously gendered names being treated differently over email vs the phone, or the things thin people say to fat people when they think they're being helpful, or the massive difference in the way a "passing" trans person is treated vs someone who successfully blends in, and these are all symptoms of a sick culture. I work on a television show about trans teens and it blows my mind how ultra-macho people start talking when they're in my edit bay while I'm working on it. People get easily riled when something unfamiliar threatens what they view as "normalcy" and we as Americans are indoctrinated with that mindset at such a young age, it's hard to break out of that cycle when you're older, even if you're a progressive and "should know better".
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:I work on a television show about trans teens and it blows my mind how ultra-macho people start talking when they're in my edit bay while I'm working on it. People get easily riled when something unfamiliar threatens what they view as "normalcy" and we as Americans are indoctrinated with that mindset at such a young age, it's hard to break out of that cycle when you're older, even if you're a progressive and "should know better". Ask anyone in a visibly distinguishable underclass and they'll have a story like that, usually with similar signifiers, which really underlines the "pod people" feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Wait, I must've missed this, how are you currently dispatching the grandparents? The "false" reading you continually show derision for has an entire narrative showing who they "used" it on and why those two characters strange behavior is explained by their "old" selves relishing the new bodies. I'm obviously referring to the nuclear family made up of the mom, dad and two kids - not their ambiguously 'like family' servants that replaced the original grandparents. Kid obviously wants to be black, so why isn't he? Why does he need a mask instead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
You know, this makes me wonder if the plate helmet was specifically chosen over a "tough guy" black balaclava to avoid the implication that the brother is trying to commit violence in blackface. Whether it means he doesn't want to be black at all, I haven't really decided. He definitely leans more toward "I want to hurt black people" than "I want to be black people" in the narrative-- even when he's praising Chris's ~innate potential for toughness~ he really just seems to be angling for a chance to beat him up. Almost a sick continuation of the grandfather's obsession-- brother wants black people to be strong and skilled specifically so he can validate his own strength and skill by defeating them. I figure the parents are selling something they don't want for themselves because it's not perfect yet. Grandma blanks out over iced tea and has to be reset, I'm assuming regularly; Andre's "rider" has to avoid camera flashes forever. The tech can fail and the surgery is still experimental... and the violent brother seems to be the only available apprentice if Dad ever wants to teach someone to body-swap him. And how will Mom do her teacupping if she's in a body that flips out over teacups? And why bother swapping the kids' bodies if they're in the prime of life, haven't demonstrated any aging or major shortcoming that can be fixed with a body swap, and are still useful for bringing in piles of cash in the form of human flesh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:00
|
|