|
So has Rod been discussed at all? I take him as Peele himself. It just makes sense, he's a TSA, not a "real" police so he has imposter syndrome (first "real" movie), he's the comic relief so there is this layered/self-aware irony of the "blackness" of his humour being laughed at by white audiences because they finally have a mild caricature they "get" (Key and Peele anxiety), and then when he's in the detective's office trying to convince them what's going on, it's actually a metaphor for pitching/delivering the movie - ultimately to black people/"veterans" And then he shows up to rescue his character at the end. So good. Only the writer could actually rescue his character in the end. Sorry if this has all been pointed out and discussed, I went through the first few and last few pages and it got kind of annoying. probs posted already but Son of Baldwin published a transcript of a dialogue on the movie on medium that's a good read https://medium.com/@SonofBaldwin/get-the-gently caress-outta-here-a-dialogue-on-jordan-peeles-get-out-831fef18b2b3 anyway finally saw the movie today and it is loving brilliant e:sorry for all the 
Huggybear fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 2, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
^^^ I really like this take
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Hey everyone, remember me? I'm the guy from page 1 of the thread asking if it's too scary for me to watch. Anyways I saw it (the answer is "no," turns out I'm slightly tougher than I thought) and it's a real good movie. I don't have much to add, since so much has been covered already, but here are some points: 1. glam rock hammock's take in the OP and i am the bird's posts and Lil Mama Im Sorry's posts are all real good. 2. I might be forgetting (I read this thread over a couple of days) but I think a lot of the most blandly obvious symbolism hasn't been brought up at all, so I figured I'd throw it in here just in case anyone missed/forgot it: the white-rear end sports stuff, like the lacrosse stick the sketchy son uses to attack Chris and the bocce balls that Chris uses to attack the sketchy son; Rose keeping the whites and the coloreds segregated from each other when she's eating her cereal and drinking her milk; apparently the Japanese guy had the only yellow bingo card (someone else said this to me, I don't recall that). 3: SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's the problem: multiple people ITT have insisted that the movie is an allegory, so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Like we don't need to actually pay attention to the specifics of the narrative because we 'already knew', in advance, that white liberals are bad. So watching the film becomes an exercise in self-congratulation: "thank god that I'm not like them." Peele possibly didn't realize that Rian Johnson dropped an extreme burn on this film. You point out that they're actively encouraging their alt-right son to lynch random black men and say "ah hah, if this is literal they can't seriously be liberals, and it can't be a metaphor because liberals... something something" but no, that second option, the metaphorical one, is exactly right. Liberals don't do enough about the alt-right or about any goddamn thing. That's what the film's saying. Liberals just take a different route to literally auctioning off black people: one that's less focused on how black people are bad and more focused on how awesome they are and thus on how you gotta steal those bodies, because black people have the best bodies. 4: Again, one for SMG - how do you read that scene in the film when the grandparents are warmly greeting all the people who are arriving for the party? It's a quick shot, so maybe you missed it, but it struck me as being somewhat in tension with a lot of what you're saying about the grandparents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:It's weird as hell that Grandma and Grandpa would decide to be servants for the weekend instead of like, go to a bed and breakfast or something. I took it as they're just doing stuff they like to do anyway. Grandma was just being hospitable serving tea and stuff and grandpa liked chopping wood and doing physical stuff. It helped serve the overall artifice, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
"Nothing I don't want to be doing" Upon reflection it's a creepy as hell line. Second only to : "We keep a piece of her in the kitchen"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I can't quite understand what you're saying in this post, SMG. The message of the film is straightforwardly that 'white culture' and liberalism are incompatible. True racially-white liberals, in the ideology of the film, are those who are self-conscious / disdainful towards white culture in a way that goes beyond the Rose character. Again, the film implies that the true superhuman can be produced by putting black brains into white bodies. The whole brain/body dichotomy is used to express the difference between culture and race (respectively). Eliminate race and preserve culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The message of the film is straightforwardly that 'white culture' and liberalism are incompatible. True racially-white liberals, in the ideology of the film, are those who are self-conscious / disdainful towards white culture in a way that goes beyond the Rose character. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Again, the film implies that the true superhuman can be produced by putting black brains into white bodies. The whole brain/body dichotomy is used to express the difference between culture and race (respectively). Eliminate race and preserve culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Okay, and one of your reasons for thinking this is that true white liberals can't have a lovely son, right? No. I am referring to the film's entire narrative of the black race being, straightforwardly, infected with an unnatural 'white mentality' - white culture. TychoCelchuuu posted:Who is a superhuman in the film, and why? No-one. The cult attempted to create superhumans by infecting the black race with white culture, but failed. The cult only produced lame, sad people who dress poorly. Since white culture is the enemy, eliminating white culture is an implied solution. TychoCelchuuu posted:And how does putting a white brain in a black body eliminate race? Is the idea that the film suggests the transplants are white now? You're getting mixed up between the ideology of the villains and the ideology of the film. The villains do not wish to eliminate race. They desire black bodies because they fetishize race. Their victims are infected with an unnatural 'white mentality'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No. I am referring to the film's entire narrative of the black race being, straightforwardly, infected with an unnatural 'white mentality' - white culture. SuperMechagodzilla posted:No-one. The cult attempted to create superhumans by infecting the black race with white culture, but failed. The cult only produced lame, sad people who dress poorly. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Since white culture is the enemy, eliminating white culture is an implied solution. SuperMechagodzilla posted:You're getting mixed up between the ideology of the villains and the ideology of the film. The villains do not wish to eliminate race. They desire black bodies because they fetishize race. Their victims are infected with an unnatural 'white mentality'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Why does that mean white culture and liberalism are incompatible? Well, now I'm restating things. But, put simply: white liberals adore this film. They cheer along with the deaths of the white characters, and so-on. And this is fundamentally because they see themselves as Chris and Rod. Of course they do; white liberals dress hip, they use social media, they listen to rap, and they tell jokes about how white people suck. "White people, amirite?!" This is because liberal multiculturalism, as an ideology, is already 'colourblind'. Liberals already agree that their enemy is the figure of the old white patriarch - those clueless racists, with their monoculture. As a contrast, white liberals see themselves as multicultural, open to diverse influences, etc. They push for cultural diversity and tolerance as alternatives to antiracism. They're very careful to erase the 'economic' part of socioeconomic justice. As we've seen firsthand, people ITT have extreme difficulty accepting that the grandparents' labor is being exploited. That's because they don't particularly understand what exploitation is, let alone care about it. Once it's revealed that the servants are 'white inside', we get talk of how "well, they seem happy. Sure they don't get paid, but the management treats them pretty well...". So leftist! And, frankly, audiences are not entirely to blame. The film does little or nothing to provide political clarity. It's not helping people to understand what racism and exploitation even are. That one dude, fan of the film, didn't understand that race and culture are different things! There are only minute traces of authenticity in what is otherwise a wholly liberal-ideological fantasy narrative about a Republican conspiracy to destroy multiculturalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
I think I am a little lost. Are you saying the film is saying that white culture and liberalism are incompatible because white liberals like the film? But white liberals like lots of films without this demonstrating that white culture and liberalism are incompatible. So what I'm looking for is a reason that this film shows white culture and liberalism to be incompatible. I don't see what all your stuff about how white liberalism is ostensibly colorblind, or your what all your stuff about exploitation, has to do with white culture. Can you explain that more clearly? People are not saying the servants are fine because it turned out they are white inside, people are saying the servants are fine because it turns out they are old people who enjoy puttering around in the yard, there is the scene of them greeting the guests as equals, etc. Also, is there a reason you're only replying to a few (or one) of my questions each time? Is there something about some of my other questions that explains why you're ignoring them, or is just random happenstance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Been though the whole thread and have enjoyed discussion of the amazing collection of details, it's like the guy had an infinitely large collection of rabbits and hats, and kept escalating. Doesn't the whole movie turn on black people all knowing each other? That and black mold, implicitly the worst kind of mold. Completely missed the Neuromancer and Videodrome references though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:17
|
|
Remulak posted:Doesn't the whole movie turn on black people all knowing each other? I mean, not really. One character from Chris' childhood shows up, and it takes Chris a while to even recognize him. That's probably the only thing that gives him and Rod enough forewarning to foil the evil plans (that and quick thinking on Chris' part with the couch stuffing). There's a ton of black people Chris and Rod didn't know who got nabbed by the family before them, and they didn't know any of them.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Are you saying the film is saying that white culture and liberalism are incompatible because white liberals like the film? No. I wrote that the film presents white culture as a threat to the liberal multiculturalism. Consequently, there is effectively no criticism of liberalism in the film. (There is only criticism of white culture - e.g. "stuff white people like.") Consequently, liberals love the film. TychoCelchuuu posted:Also, is there a reason you're only replying to a few (or one) of my questions each time? Since you are having difficulty following the argument, I am clarifying the key misunderstandings as a way of minimizing redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No. I wrote that the film presents white culture as a threat to the liberal multiculturalism. Consequently, there is effectively no criticism of liberalism in the film. (There is only criticism of white culture - e.g. "stuff white people like.") Consequently, liberals love the film. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Since you are having difficulty following the argument, I am clarifying the key misunderstandings as a way of minimizing redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well, now I'm restating things. But, put simply: white liberals adore this film. They cheer along with the deaths of the white characters, and so-on. And this is fundamentally because they see themselves as Chris and Rod. Of course they do; white liberals dress hip, they use social media, they listen to rap, and they tell jokes about how white people suck. "White people, amirite?!" are you white?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
“You know, we fought long and hard for integration…But I tell you, Harry, I’ve come on a realization that really deeply troubles me. I’ve come to the realization that I think we may be integrating into a burning house.” -MLK to Harry Belafonte
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:“You know, we fought long and hard for integration…But I tell you, Harry, I’ve come on a realization that really deeply troubles me. I’ve come to the realization that I think we may be integrating into a burning house.” Hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Why doesn't the film criticize liberalism? As far as I can tell, this is a movie where liberals scoop the brains out of black people so that they can take their bodies. Well, now I'm restating myself again. But, again, there is only one character in the film who scoops out brains - and he does it so that brazenly racist Republicans can take the bodies. You may have noticed that he himself did not take a body. These details that you are omitting are important. The head villain is one of only four white liberal characters in the film. Meanwhile, the protagonists are also liberals. Both Chris and the father are diehard Obama voters. Consequently, the film is about a conflict within liberalism. Consequently, the film does not criticize liberalism itself. It is about the threat of corruption 'from outside' (specifically, the corruption of the liberal multiculture by 'white culture' - specifically, from the father's misguided collaboration with the Republicans). There is absolutely no talk of egalitarianism in the film. To be very clear: you say the film is against liberalism because it says orthodox racism is bad. But your premise is faulty; liberals already agree that orthodox racism is bad. Liberals already understand that you don't walk up to a black dude, grab his muscles and ask if his cock is huge. Hence, "thank god I'm not like them." SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well, now I'm restating myself again. But, again, there is only one character in the film who scoops out brains - and he does it so that brazenly racist Republicans can take the bodies. You may have noticed that he himself did not take a body. These details that you are omitting are important. So, perhaps when you say "liberal," you don't mean it in the sense that a critical theorist or that any other academic would mean it, but rather you mean it in the colloquial sense: liberals are Democrats who like Obama and Hilary and Bernie and hate Bush and McCain and Trump and whatever. If that's what you mean by "liberal," such that by default Republicans can't be liberal, then I would be interested in why we're assuming that all the party guests aren't liberals. Certainly nothing they say excludes them from being liberals, at least as far as I can tell - in fact, to the extent their words give us any clues at all, they sound closer to liberals than Republicans. I can't imagine a Republican, at least a stereotypical one, asking "is being black an advantage or a disadvantage in America?" I thought the Republican line is something like either "race doesn't matter" or "it's an advantage because of racist programs like affirmative action." I can't think of a (stereotypical) Republican copping to blackness being a disadvantage. Maybe the idea is that all of this is irrelevant because anyone who bids on a black guy in an auction so that they can steal his body is by fiat not a liberal unless explicitly proven otherwise. But that's simply to assume that the movie is not a critique of liberalism (against all evidence to the contrary) because surely liberals can't be as bad as the movie says they are. But they can be! At least as far as the movie is concerned, they can be exactly as bad as the movie says they are. To sum up then, it would help if you'd talk about two things. First, what do you mean by "liberal?" Who is a liberal and why? Second, why exactly are the party guests not liberals? SuperMechagodzilla posted:The head villain is one of only four white liberal characters in the film. Meanwhile, the protagonists are also liberals. Both Chris and the father are diehard Obama voters. Consequently, the film is about a conflict within liberalism. Consequently, the film does not criticize liberalism itself. It is about the threat of corruption 'from outside' (specifically, the corruption of the liberal multiculture by 'white culture' - specifically, from the father's misguided collaboration with the Republicans). Perhaps your point is that although it's possible for a film about a conflict within X to criticize X, this is not an example of that. Chris is the hero, Chris is a liberal, so liberalism can't be bad. But not all liberals can be swapped out for each other. There's a key difference between Chris and the other liberals in the film that make them not interchangeable. Chris, remember, is black. And the other people in the film aren't. So, we might want to keep this in mind. SuperMechagodzilla posted:There is absolutely no talk of egalitarianism in the film. SuperMechagodzilla posted:To be very clear: you say the film is against liberalism because it says orthodox racism is bad. But your premise is faulty; liberals already agree that orthodox racism is bad. Liberals already understand that you don't walk up to a black dude, grab his muscles and ask if his cock is huge. Hence, "thank god I'm not like them." Malignant racism is when you hate a person because they belong to a certain race, you have negative judgments about a person because they belong to a certain race, you think averse treatment is licensed because someone is a member of a certain race, etc. This is a category the KKK falls into. They hate black people, they think black people are lazy violent thugs, they think black people should be run out of town, etc. With the possible exception of the son, I don't think anyone is explicitly malignantly racist in this film. If you wanted to, you could read malignant racism into a number of the characters, but this sort of racism is extremely unfashionable these days, such that white liberals tend to try to avoid this sort of thing as much as possible. They castigate themselves if they find themselves tempted by malignant racism, disclaim any malignant racism that might be attributed to them, go out of their way to criticize malignant racists and distance themselves from malignant racists, fly off the handle if you accuse them of malignant racism, etc. So I don't think there is much cause to attribute any malignant racism to anyone except in the pedestrian sense that they go around scooping out the brains of black people, but as you point out, there's only one guy literally doing the scooping, and even he seems to be doing it on the basis of something other than hatred or other averse feelings towards a race. Admiring racism is when you admire a person because they belong to a certain race, you have positive judgments about a person because they belong to a certain race, you think beneficial treatment is licensed because someone is a member of a certain race, etc. This is a category of racism that many white liberals fall into. They admire black people (but for racist reasons, like their "natural athleticism" or their "huge cock"), they have positive judgments about black people solely because they're black, they (perhaps) think black people should get benefits just because they're black (which is why people don't like affirmative action, and which is why sophisticated defenses of affirmative action rely on a history of discrimination against a race rather than just someone's race in order to explain why benefits are justified), etc. Most of the white people in this movie display lots of admiring racism. Uncaring racism is when you don't care what race a person is, and you act in a way that ignores their race. This can be racism when this kind of thing systemically impacts people of a certain race non-accidentally. So for instance if I cut after school programs not because I hate black people but because I think they're a waste of money, but all the white kids in the suburbs have lots of other options whereas black kids in the projects end up with nothing to do, then I have acted in an uncaringly racist way. There is a good amount of uncaring racism in this film: I think the blind art dealer is supposed to be an example of someone who is just an uncaring racist as opposed to an admiring racist, although there's certainly a reading according to which he's lying about not seeing race and according to which he thinks Chris's eye is somehow better because "black." The "thank god I'm not them" reaction you mention, when we're talking about white liberals, is most commonly deployed in response to being presented with depictions of white people being malignant racists. You're suggesting that it can also be deployed against the other two kinds of racism. That's true, and as you've noted, it's pointed out well by the Rian Johnson tweet. But white liberals can say whatever they like! Lil Mama Im Sorry has pointed this out already. The question is whether the movie licenses their saying that sort of thing. Do you think the movie licenses it? Why or why not? My own view is that the movie licenses it if, in fact, white liberals aren't guilty of the sorts of things the movie charges them with. It's true if they aren't guilty of literally grabbing black people, asking about dick size, etc. You seem to think white liberals would never do that sort of bullshit, but you're ridiculously mistaken. Ask a black woman how often people try to touch her hair or spend some time talking with a black guy who's on Grindr. The movie also only licenses this view if white liberals aren't guilty of metaphorically scooping the brains out of black people and stealing their bodies. But they (and really I should be saying "we," since I'm a white liberal) are guilty of precisely this (metaphorically). So the movie is not letting white liberals off the hook. To some degree, when we (white liberals) like the movie, we're either disingenuous (when we say "I love the movie, but that's not me") or pretty unhappy ("I love the movie, but it's right that I'm effectively a murderer who bids on black people and steals their bodies"). That's my reading of the movie. I'm not super sure what your issue is with it. TychoCelchuuu fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Was there textual evidence that Chris is a liberal, diehard Obama voter or are we assuming this because he's black and because white people tried to bond with him over Obama?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:34
|
|
i am the bird posted:Was there textual evidence that Chris is a liberal, diehard Obama voter or are we assuming this because he's black and because white people tried to bond with him over Obama? After being amused by the father trying to bond with him over Obama like his girlfriend predicted, Chris agrees about how good a president Obama was in a way that came off as very genuine to me. I won't really try to infer too much of his politics from that single moment, but it probably disqualifies him from being an Obama-hating conservative.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Perhaps the idea is that none of the guests at the party would ever vote for Obama, the blind art dealer is an outlier, the Asian guy is an outlier, the people who profess to admire black people admire them in such a backwards way that they count as not liberal, etc. But I can't really square this with how someone like Zizek understands liberalism (or, for that matter, how any academic understands liberalism). This is a concrete example of what's going wrong here. You are mixing up my description of the film's liberal ideology of the film with Zizek's communist (critique of) ideology, when the film is obviously not communist. You are also treating all the causcasian characters as interchangeable for some reason (because academics?), so that the characters who sell and the characters who buy are all identical. I have already repeatedly said that the film is about a conflict within liberalism, where the heroic characters fight a corrupting white culture that they consider incompatible with liberalism. And you have already agreed with this: "There's a key difference between Chris and the other liberals in the film that make them not interchangeable. Chris, remember, is black. And the other people in the film aren't. So, we might want to keep this in mind." You have just unambiguously written that Chris's liberalism is not compatible with white culture. But you are presenting this idea as if you came up with it yourself!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:After being amused by the father trying to bond with him over Obama like his girlfriend predicted, Chris agrees about how good a president Obama was in a way that came off as very genuine to me. I won't really try to infer too much of his politics from that single moment, but it probably disqualifies him from being an Obama-hating conservative. He's also a professional black guy in an artistic field living in a metropolis. It'd be really bizzare for him to be right wing. That said I feel like posting that is replying to SMG which is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
The only options aren't right wing or liberal. I don't think there's actual evidence to assume Chris shares the political ideology of his attackers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Was there textual evidence that Chris is a liberal, diehard Obama voter or are we assuming this because he's black and because white people tried to bond with him over Obama? SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is a concrete example of what's going wrong here. You are mixing up my description of the film's liberal ideology of the film with Zizek's communist (critique of) ideology, when the film is obviously not communist. You are also treating all the causcasian characters as interchangeable for some reason (because academics?), so that the characters who sell and the characters who buy are all identical. edit: maybe for the sake of being slightly less "AND NOW IT'S OVER," the real reply to your argument here is that it can be a race thing and a liberalism thing at the same time. The salient difference between Chris and the others is his race. That doesn't mean anything that results from this difference is just about race. To think this would be to make the same mistake that people made back before anyone had ever thought about intersectionality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:I don't think there's actual evidence to assume Chris shares the political ideology of his attackers. Well I mean that's the entire point of the film: Chris shares an ideology with these people, and feels bad about it. But instead of simply rejecting liberalism, we transition into this outlandish conspiracy narrative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Here's why I reject SMG's "Chris is delusional" interpretation: When we're to understand that the events we see in a film are the delusion of a main character, we're generally shown one or more scenes explicitly showing what's really happening from the perspective of other characters or from the perspective of the omniscient viewer. Sometimes we'll see events twice - once from the main character's (hallucinated) perspective, then later as a flashback showing what actually happened. Sometimes supporting characters will watch on with bewilderment while the main character carries on a conversation with someone only he can see, or perhaps one supporting character will explain to another (or to the main character himself) that the main character is schizophrenic or has had a psychotic break. For example, in Brazil (1985), we understand that Sam has hallucinated his escape from his torturers and has in fact never left the torture chamber when we suddenly see him back in the torture chamber's chair singing to himself while the torturers remark on the fact that he is "gone." There isn't a scene like that in Get Out - every shot that isn't shown from Chris's perspective (Andre's abduction, the auction scene, Rose's night-time snack, maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting) only supports the idea that there really is a conspiracy of body-snatching rich white people. (I will note that there are some films where you could argue that the ending might be the main character's hallucination, but that isn't explicitly established in the film itself. In films like this, the main character is typically severely injured during the climax, but survives to heal and see all his problems solved as if by magic. The "dream sequence" theory posits that the non-fatal wound the main character received was actually fatal and that the scenes following the injury are to be understood as the character's dying hallucination. We generally understand that everything in the film prior the character's injury is canonical, however. Taxi Driver (1976) is a good example of this kind of film, though it's worth noting that director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader have rejected the "dream sequence" interpretation.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Here's why I reject SMG's "Chris is delusional" interpretation: We do get this perspective: it's the perspective of the black policewoman and her coworkers. I agree with her, that Rod and Chris are dumb. What's throwing you off is the phrase "when we're [supposed] to understand that...". I am designed to write truthfully and accurately regardless of what others might suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
To re-state: The oppositional interpretation is not that Chris is delusional or hallucinating. It's that the film is a spontaneous, projected illusion, which fundamentally stands not for an 'objective story,' but a symbolic order produced within a collaborative, commercial context. The reading is not that 'Chris imagined it all' - It's that the movie is, per the exploitation tagline, "only a movie," that Peele et al. imagined it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:We do get this perspective: it's the perspective of the black policewoman and her coworkers. I agree with her, that Rod and Chris are dumb. What do you make of the fact, then, that the only truthful observation comes from representatives of an institution designed to protect white supremacy and property rights?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:What do you make of the fact, then, that the only truthful observation comes from representatives of an institution designed to protect white supremacy and property rights? The policewoman doesn't see the truth; she's merely being objective. The truth is in the exploitation of 'Grandpa' and 'Grandma'. So the question of the film is, as you say, why this intelligent policewoman isn't doing anything to help those two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
If only he'd given her a Pepsi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It's that the movie is, per the exploitation tagline, "only a movie," But you can apply that to literally every movie, even to documentaries because no matter how hard a doc tries to be totally impartial it's always a reconstructed reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:But you can apply that to literally every movie, even to documentaries because no matter how hard a doc tries to be totally impartial it's always a reconstructed reality. Yes that's correct
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Nothing is real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:If only he'd given her a Pepsi. I wish it were like that flower in the gunbarrel parody from Watchmen and the cop blew her head off. Someone photo...gif...that. Please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:But you can apply that to literally every movie, even to documentaries because no matter how hard a doc tries to be totally impartial it's always a reconstructed reality. I fail to see the "but" side to this. Without that qualification, what you have written above is a truthful and accurate statement. With the case of Get Out, we have an independent horror film that has been both economically and critically successful, lauded for its engagement with topical political subject matter. Once we move beyond the superficial content of popularity, however, it is necessary to actually engage the politics of the text directly. In which case, it is imperative to recognize the basic structural reality that films are spontaneous, rhetorical fictions. The problem that Get Out fans have encountered with the oppositional reading of the film is that it takes too seriously the invective to "stay woke"; to not take the projected events within the space of the cinema as literal, but to perceive them as fundamentally ideological, speaking to more than merely the intent of the auteur. In response to this, the effort of fans is then to betray the 'secret meaning' of the stay woke meme, and double-down on the apparent psychological realism of the black comic sci-fi/horror movie. Stay woke becomes co-opted within consumer fetishism to actually mean 'keep dreaming,' a counter-cultural invective bent back deliberately towards the security of reactionary ideology. Suddenly, you have stopped writing about the fraught ideological space that the film occupies, to expressing concern that we would be behooved to extend our critical lens to all films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:But you can apply that to literally every movie, even to documentaries because no matter how hard a doc tries to be totally impartial it's always a reconstructed reality. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
I've realized that people base a Football team's offense's backbone on the quarterback... I have to ask why. I can understand if he can run, block, and throw a 50 yard touchdown pass. But to give most the credit to a quarterback when someone catches a touchdown pass is a little rediculous. First there are linemen. If linemen can't keep the defense out of the backfield to get the quarterback then he gets his rear end handed to him from about 4 or 5 huge motherfuckers that wanna rip him a new one. Think about that the next time you gently caress with your Center, Guard, and Tackle. They're your only protection in the pocket. Second is the Fullback. Occasionally you'll get one that can do everything a lineman can do... knock the poo poo out of someone. If he can't stop a blitz from a linebacker, then your quarterback gets a nice facefull of dirt. And there's the recievers. You have to be one fast motherfucker to burn your opposition when all they wanna do is take your knees out. They have to remember their route, know where the person covering him is, know when the ball will hit him, if he'll get the ball at all, and at the end of course catch the drat ball. Tight Ends... well, mainly just a slower and bigger wide reciever that can block a little. I understand a Quarterback has to know the play and know where everyone is at all times, but if the line's doing their thing right he won't get hit, and if the Wide Recievers are smarter than the average 5th grader they'll be where he wants them to be. Quarterbacks aren't always the best. IT IS A TEAM EFFORT!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 05:35
|
|