Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
I actually really dug the police station scene.

Here's a black guy spelling out, almost word for word, an actual crime that is happening repeatedly to other black people. But he's telling the police, an authority formed to preserve white supremacy and property rights. It doesn't matter that he's talking to other black people; they're cops. They put the institution in institutional racism. And it doesn't matter that he's right, because racism and racial violence are conspiracy theories and black lives don't matter.

Rod talking about hypnosis and sex slavery sounds crazy, just like many people think it sounds crazy to hear 'shopping/driving/[verb]ing while black' or any other material instance of racism in America.



The movie is loving brilliant. I can't wait to see it again, and horror/thriller makes me incredibly uncomfortable as a genre.


edit: also, for the ending scenes

there's a lot going on with the deer in this movie but all I could think of was Reagan's welfare myth of the "strapping young buck" when Chris kills the dad, aka literally the paternalist racist

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Mar 1, 2017

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
re: deer

And as someone up-thread mentioned, the dad goes on and on about how deer are an invasive species and it would be best if they were just killed off. The deer is a trophy and now Chris will be a trophy.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
The shoebox reveal is the one flub in the movie. That could've been handled better.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
I'm a historian and I would say that I encounter that idea often when I talk about my field with people. They're convinced that society works as a pendulum. It's usually applied to political shifts because a surface reading of presidential elections can support the idea that factions just keep tossing power back and forth. It's utter nonsense, just like narratives of unilinear progress, used to keep power in the hands of the entrenched elite.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The truth is, of course, that Chris was 'a sellout' from the beginning, making his modest success with palatable images of children and animals. Like, those are what he uses to convey 'the black experience': children and animals. Think about that for a second.

Chris is black; ipso facto, his photography is about 'the black experience.' Cool cool cool. Great point.

Your entire reading involves essentializing blackness.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

What would be the cigar in this case.

Racism.

The not-cigar is "racism isn't real; only class struggle exists because I'm a crude Marxist from a century ago"

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
A better critique would emphasize capitalist exploitation of black bodies -- that black bodies only become profitable when used by white people (slavery being the obvious parallel but the more modern critique would be black celebrities/athletes, which is why the NCAA browsing has a powerful double-meaning) -- and Chris struggling with that via his art and Stephen Root's character and being around conservatives. And I think that's closer to how y'all are interpreting SMG.

Instead, SMG is getting to that via an argument about essentialized blackness -- that Chris concocts a fantasy to comfort his own transition into "whiteness" because his art isn't 'truly black' if it's accepted by the white upper class, or that Chris and Rodney are traitors because the film doesn't show them saving Andre. That's loving stupid and racist, and it pins a lot of blame on Chris's internal struggle instead of the institutions in which he is operating.

TheHan posted:

It's just whenever he brought up his concerns to his white girlfriend she immediately deflected his suspicions and made it seem like HE was crazy, or that he's the one acting unreasonable. It's reminded me at least of how white society will invalidate a black person's feelings when that person feels that something is wrong, or when that black person isn't acting "naturally". So to then argue that a large part of the conspiracy is just Chris being unreasonable kind of argues in favor of what Rose was saying the whole movie.

and also this.

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Mar 16, 2017

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

K. Waste posted:

the collective pressure upon a '60s urban creative class

I don't think I've ever heard anyone summarize Rosemary's Baby from Guy's point of view.

While I agree that the "conspiracy/paranoia that also happens to be real" ideas influenced Peele, Get Out gives us POV from Andre and Rod that discount any chance of the film taking place in Chris's imagination. Rod's scenes are explicitly about hammering that point home. He sounds crazy but he's almost entirely correct in his claims.

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Mar 16, 2017

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

K. Waste posted:

Your statement is very confusing. Could you clarify what this means? How do the words you've quoted have anything to do with "Guy's point of view," or whatever?

I guess I'd ask you to clarify what you mean by "collective pressures on the urban creative class" because that sounds like you're framing Guy's pursuits as the focal point as opposed to Rosemary and the exploitation of women's bodies/denial of female autonomy.

If you're using Rosemary's Baby as a point of comparison and not putting women at the fore, then I don't know what to say.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

DeimosRising posted:

I think this is a good thread ATM and the arguement that the movie is about Chris's struggle with his own sense of "blackness" didn't originate with SMG iirc

That may be true but I'm responding directly to these exemplary assertions by SMG:

quote:

Chris believes, to some extent, that his talent comes from his blackness.

quote:

The truth is, of course, that Chris was 'a sellout' from the beginning, making his modest success with palatable images of children and animals. Like, those are what he uses to convey 'the black experience': children and animals. Think about that for a second.

Absolutely nothing in the film supports this reading of Chris's mindset.

quote:

Chris sincerely believes that 'selling out' in the photography world is as bad as getting Trayvon Martin'd.

And this is just loving crazy.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

ruddiger posted:

Don't forget on Lupita N'yongo, even though she's technically Mexican.

She's an interesting example, too, because of how many outlets published stories about how beautiful, dark, and 'exotic' she was after the release of 12 Years A Slave.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
Chris -- who delivers an offscreen soliloquy about how he wishes he could be as black as Trayvon Martin, check the script -- expresses his internalized racism through classist reactions to Walter and Georgina by being unnerved by their "odd" (read: working class) behavior.

Meanwhile, the well-meaning white folks have welcomed the black working class into their home and treated them as family, even calling them grandpa and grandma. They try to help Chris, but he has been brainwashed by liberalism.

Chris, by focusing on race (which is not real), is a class traitor. The postracial white family, however, threw distracting identity politics to the side and emerged as the modern vanguard of class consciousness. Had Chris not gone on a murderous rampage, the white family would have soon ushered in communism.

The original script has the father putting his arm on Chris and asking, "Bro, do you even read Hegel?"

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

800peepee51doodoo posted:

You're gonna have to derive that equation, professor.

I assumed Hundu was making some sort of a joke because that poo poo makes absolutely no sense

Hundu and SMG don't know poo poo about race and their reading depends on essential truths of whiteness and blackness; people are entertaining their reading because there's a kernel of truth about capitalist exploitation, but to accept the whole you have to believe some real dumb poo poo like the family being "well-meaning" and Chris wishing he was murdered by George Zimmerman.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Magic Hate Ball posted:

Isnt Hundu black?

I don't know. I'd never question their personal experience but anyone can have a poo poo understanding of race theory, and their posts indicate exactly that.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Critical race theory is specifically about the intersection of race and power. I don't need to tell you what "power" is in the United States of America.

Actually, I'll say it's unfair to say you don't know what you're talking about in conjunction with SMG (who does not know what he's talking about) because I'm on board with your earlier posts. I don't understand for a second how you can so carelessly dismiss the antagonists as "well meaning white folks" or that people are reading the movie as anti-miscegenation.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Because that's literally the point of tension. They're well meaning white folks. They don't wear hoods. They want Chris to be comfortable with the idea of joining their community.

No, they don't. They don't want Chris. They want Chris's body.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

I did not claim anything about the director. I wrote that the Rod character's message is that race-mixing is bad, and that uncritical audiences agree with Rod.

Note: Rod literally believes that there is a conspiracy by white women to steal black men's essence.

Setting aside that this is literally what happens in the movie, do you believe that when people discuss "whiteness" they're actually talking about every single individual white person?

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 20, 2017

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

ruddiger posted:

They make the conceit within the plot itself that they know they'll never be fully rid of Chris's mind, so your circular logic is already wrong within the plot of the movie.

Do you think that's by design? You think they want Chris to retain any autonomy? You think they want Andre waking up to a flash? That line is an admission of their work-in-progress technology.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

ruddiger posted:

Absolutely, because it's what was written in the script. This isn't hard science. It's a magic/ghost story ala the Twilight Zone. Peele already pointed out that the ending of the movie is a fantasy because the way it was originally written was too dour because it reflected the real world too much. There's not much in this movie that ISN'T by design, including the "it was all in his head" ending.

I'm not asking if it's in the script by design. I'm asking if you think the motivation of the white racist characters is to keep the mental remnants of Chris, Andre, Walter, Georgina, etc. when that clearly goes against their stated intentions (the white mind, black body) and when it leads to issues of Andre 'waking up.'

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

ruddiger posted:

- a well meaning goon

This is a fun joke but you're misreading what I'm saying. I know that they're supposed to be 'well meaning white folk.' The movie is destroying the myth of the 'well meaning white folk.' The family reduces Chris to their understanding of 'blackness' within seconds. But we can't reject 'well meaning white folk' AND say 'they just wanted to welcome him into the community in a misguided way.' That's contradictory.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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.

Note that there aren't any "good" white people in the movie, because in their own view, they ARE the good guys.

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.

Well meaning liberals are, strangely, not only not threatened by this - they are completely comfortable with this worldview.

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

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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.

And Root, again, states outright that the victims being black is mostly arbitrary.

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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
edit: n/m, not going to participate anymore.


Did we see any actual conservative thinkpieces about this or was it just the typical right-wing troll reaction about reverse racism?

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Mar 22, 2017

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

This man isn't a "conservative" but it turns out you don't need to be one to be a critic:

http://www.okayplayer.com/news/okaymuva-002-going-in-on-jordan-peele-get-out.html

Sure, but I was asking if anyone had seen specific conservative critiques. Thank you for being condescending, though!

It's fascinating how deeply people read into Chris's relationship with Rose, immediately assuming that dating Rose is all about throwing away his black identity and getting access to white supremacy, or that Rose is meant to be a stand in for white supremacy itself (because, you know, individuals and institutions are totally the same). That review also conveniently ignores that Stephen Root's character addresses most of the poo poo he wished was in the movie.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
^^ yes, and there are also more interesting and coherent ways to critique this movie than to say things like "this is just like Terminator 2;" but no no this is about being a baby who can't take criticism


:v:

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 22, 2017

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Which is the silly conspiracy-fantasy of racist white liberals wanting to snatch black bodies. For something hailed as such a masterstroke, it's actually so preposterous that reading it as a paranoid fantasy is more constructive.

Slavery, medical experimentation, and mass incarceration are also preposterous.

The crux of the film is Rod in the police station explaining to black cops what is happening and them mocking him in return. If we pretend that we only see Chris's point of view and completely ignore Rod and Stephen Root's character then maybe this critique makes sense. Even then, that's ignoring the fact that Rose turns on Chris once he tries to resist, a play that white liberals currently enact over and over again. Yes, she was in on it all along. So are white liberals. That's the loving point.

It's disappointing to see other leftists arguing that the movie's POV is bad because white liberals are obtuse, as if a) a single horror film should be expected to cut through 60+ years of modern "polite" racism (or 500 years of colonialism/racism) and b) the intended audience is solely white liberals.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
Anyone care to explain how Chris's photography is "black" and his apartment is "not black"?

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
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?

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
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.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

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?

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

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.

To be clear then, is Rod also a liberal who's concocting the fantasy?

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

he's doing pretty standard undergrad-type lit crit in a forum of people who get super loving mad if you make a post that's "markedly off from the popular reading of the film", and whether it's intended to be or not it's the best troll on the forums.

SMG's undergrad essay would be riddled with the question "evidence???" in all of the margins. Oppositional readings still require using the primary text.

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
SMG presents two recurring problems: misreading, ignoring, or concocting evidence; and contradicting himself when challenged on outlandish claims.

Problem #1

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Chris sincerely believes that 'selling out' in the photography world is as bad as getting Trayvon Martin'd.

No textual evidence about Chris "selling out."

quote:

Chris' reaction when this servant starts crying is to dismiss her as crazy. He later doesn't understand why she reacts badly to losing her home and job.

No textual evidence. Chris is scared of her reaction but he never dismisses her as crazy. In fact, he knows she's brainslugged and still tries to save her.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

In the logic of the film, he would literally have the brain of a white person, losing his talent in the process. Chris believes, to some extent, that his talent comes from his blackness.

No textual evidence about Chris believing anything about racial biotruths or essentialized blackness.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Of course, what I've just outlined is the opinion of Stephen Root's character - his idea that blackness gives Chris a superior 'eye'. He's not like those white dummies; he's inherently better because he's 'from the streets', or something. Root is, of course, a genuine reverse racist.

No textual evidence to this claim.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The part where Grandpa never interacts with anyone, or even enters the house? Or the part where Grandma is mentally ill and kept in a room adorned with scrawled drawings, except when she's made to do chores? The part where Grandpa instantly, defensively says 'I brought this on myself', like "I'm here of my own free will"? Or the part where they're both clearly miserable?

This willfully ignores parts of the movie in which a) grandpa IS happy and b) both grandma and grandpa are mingling with guests as friends, not servants, during the party.

Problem #2:

i am the bird posted:

like the family being "well-meaning"

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

"[Chris is] welcomed by the racists with open arms. "
"Those characters are racist in a boring, familiar way that Chris has learned to put up with."
"Nice people perpetuate racism."
-SuperMechagodzilla

Here he is pretending that 'nice racist' and 'well-meaning racist' are somehow different in this conversation

But it doesn't matter because a couple posts later he changes his mind:

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.

In SMG's claim, the family is not-well meaning but they do care about Chris and the other victims, or at least about making the world a better place (via the eradication of black bodies or blackness). Which is it?

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

And Root, again, states outright that the victims being black is mostly arbitrary.

Here he wrongfully extends Root's personal opinion, about how race is arbitrary to him re: body snatching, to argue that race is not important to the body snatchers. This is in effort to argue that the movie could've had a white protagonist.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Not 'eyes' - eye. Root doesn't want mere eye surgery. Blindness hasn't really held him back in life, you may have noticed. He wants the soul itself - literally, to have a little black guy (trapped as a disembodied gaze) inside him.

But here he claims that Root wants an essentialized blackness which not only has no textual evidence but also contradicts the previous post.



It's only frustrating because he's also capable of making good points. If he wasn't chained to his outdated Marxist philosophy or the belief that his arguments are Truth, then he'd be interesting.

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 12, 2017

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS
But also the kernel of truth and his relentless posting make him a fun troll, at least, so more power to him I guess.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

i am the bird
Mar 2, 2005

I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

"No textual evidence about Chris 'selling out.'"
Chris is initially open to working with Stephen Root's big-name art dealer, but then fears Root will steal his art and dumb it down. Root is then burned to death.

How does this relate to selling out his blackness?

quote:

"No textual evidence. Chris is scared of her reaction but he never dismisses her as crazy."
Direct transcription of dialogue from the film: "this Bitch is crazy."

Sure, you've got me here. I don't think it applies to the rest of the movie in which Chris is aware that something is actually, physically wrong with her and tries to save her, but sure, he does literally say the word "crazy" and I stretched too far.


Go on.

  • Locked thread