|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Kid obviously wants to be black, so why isn't he? Why does he need a mask instead? SuperMechagodzilla posted:The choice of a black mask to psych himself up is obviously important.  It's a shiny metal helmet. I thought it was obviously styled after a particularly brutal sect of the KKK. It showed up in some dark night-time scenes, but when Chris gets into the lily-white car and has to push it out of the way, it's clearly not black. elise the great posted: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; Grandma's tea blank was also precipitated by Mom knocking something with a spoon. edit: come to think of it, the only thing linking the brother with the helmet is Root's line about his methods being more violent and the assumed-reality of the intro scene, so any "kid-mask" assumptions are based on that flimsy linkage through the bodysnatching reading JawnV6 fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Mar 21, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Oh yeah! It definitely wasn't random-- I sure as gently caress wouldn't want a body I could accidentally trigger into a fugue state while having my morning cuppa. I totally hadn't considered the KKK aspect of that mask. Was there a KKK group that used metal helmets, or is the helmet just kinda like a KKK hood? I'm gonna look this up
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:It's not a "black mask," you've used that descriptor twice now: That's KKK imagery in the same way that carving an upside-down cross in your skateboard is Satanic. This is a type-A costumed impotency. The black leather costume, dark black gun, and darkly lit and color-timed 'iron mask' simultaneously calls up connotations of The Road Warrior but also more generic imagery ranging from medieval fantasy to contemporary 'Trenchcoat Mafia' bullshit. The connotation is that Jeremy imagines himself both as a Dark Knight and an imprisoned 'Man in the Iron Mask' figure. He further juxtaposes this feeling of being a 'prisoner' onto the abstract, essentialist identification with 'urban youth.' It's the same pathology you see playing out in Larry Clark's Bully and Nick Cassavetes' Alpha Dog. This is contrasted with the 'reveal' of Rose in her 'true form,' with no mask, hair tied back, lily white costume which nonetheless molds her as a hunter, and thus the inheritor of her father's prejudice against 'useless people.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
I don't buy for a second that this armchair-MMA drivejacket failson has ever been in a fight, let alone that he's subdued multiple athletes with Brazilian Jiujitsu. If the opening scene can and should be read as Chris's big fear of visiting the 'white' neighbourhood, it can also be read as this kid's fantasy of empowerment - of being feared, as an alternative to being respected. JawnV6 posted:It's not a "black mask," you've used that descriptor twice now: Okay fine: "the extremely dark but arguably not-black because it reflects some light" mask. Yeesh. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
He's definitely got a torrent of Funny Games on his laptop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:He's definitely got a torrent of Funny Games on his laptop. BUT HE DOESN'T ENJOY IT FOR THE ADVANCED REASONS THAT I DO
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:He's definitely got a torrent of Funny Games on his laptop. Kid imagines that he's Paul, but really he's Peter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:BUT HE DOESN'T ENJOY IT FOR THE ADVANCED REASONS THAT I DO Funny Games is best enjoyed as a piece of extremely good sadism. edit K. Waste posted:Kid imagines that he's Paul, but really he's Peter. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That's KKK imagery in the same way that carving an upside-down cross in your skateboard is Satanic. This is a type-A costumed impotency. The black leather costume, dark black gun, and darkly lit and color-timed 'iron mask' simultaneously calls up connotations of The Road Warrior but also more generic imagery ranging from medieval fantasy to contemporary 'Trenchcoat Mafia' bullshit. The connotation is that Jeremy imagines himself both as a Dark Knight and an imprisoned 'Man in the Iron Mask' figure. He further juxtaposes this feeling of being a 'prisoner' onto the abstract, essentialist identification with 'urban youth.' It's the same pathology you see playing out in Larry Clark's Bully and Nick Cassavetes' Alpha Dog. But if we're saying it's Jeremy's, then Andre actually got snatched and stuffed into a trunk in the intro. SuperMechagodzilla posted:I don't buy for a second that this armchair-MMA drivejacket failson has ever been in a fight, let alone that he's subdued multiple athletes with Brazilian Jiujitsu.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that Bro is trash at MMA and has a hugely trumped-up idea of his own skills. I'm guessing that he's pretty good at choking people out with headlocks from behind, as long as he gets a proper jump on them, and that it's literally the only way he's ever fought or even really had physical conflict at all. He's that rear end in a top hat who hurts animals and gets a kick of power and superiority from being able to stomp a kitten's head in, but he's never going to willingly enter into a proper fight, because his ego depends on being able to subdue his foe and feel like he outsmarted them. (Which is ironic, since his dependency on one "safe" fighting move is what leads to his inexperience in combat and his ultimate defeat.) The shiny silver helmet makes the most sense to me as a sign that he thinks of himself as something better and more elevated than a "common thug." He wants to hide his face because he's a coward, and he knows his actions could have grave consequences, but he doesn't want to just be a guy in a mask. He thinks of himself as a badass superhero. Also I wonder if he's worried about his prey headbutting him in the face hahahah
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted: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. I don't think it was a sign of distress from Andre, I think it was a clueless old white man who didn't expect a fist bump and was reaching to shake hands. However, the interaction was so weird that it set off red flags for Chris and that's part of the reason why he took the photo later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Saw movie yesterday, good poo poo. Read the first 9 pages then skipped here, apologies if answered. What's up with box of photos? Obviously it clued viewers in but why the gently caress would that have existed, and wasn't a door ajar leading to it? Who opened it, Georgina?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Wish I could've found a shot of Chris fumbling around with it in the well-lit white car, there's a neck flange on it that takes it away from Man in the Iron Mask starkness and has some flourish to it. I was pretty hepped up looking for white supremacist imagery, guess there's a bit of projection there. It looks similar to this one to me:  It's not necessarily the same one, but they both definitely have that cross over the eyes. It's Crusader imagery, and the KKK do love their Crusader imagery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:It looks similar to this one to me: Looked like a flat topped heaume to me. Like the kind the Black Knight wore in the Holy Grail- dunno if that was the reference it was going for. Maybe a Knights Templar thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Kid imagines that he's Paul, but really he's Peter. Now that's funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Goreld posted:Looked like a flat topped heaume to me. Like the kind the Black Knight wore in the Holy Grail- dunno if that was the reference it was going for. Maybe a Knights Templar thing? That's the thing. The helmet is just vulgar and motivated enough to be extrapolated as an 'authentic racist-terrorist' costume, but that has more to do with plot, which is that Jeremy is being ordered specifically to round up black folks. But it is also necessarily obscure and generic enough that it would not be out of place in any scenario that did not uniquely involve self-conscious/ironic racism. It's the same disconnect we get into when Darko rightfully brings up that political and social conspiracies against black folks is totally a real thing. Whereas these 'real conspiracies' are always predicated on the inviability and disposability of the black body, framed in essence as worthless at best and degenerative at worst; the imagined conspiracy of the film is predicated on the exact opposite essentialism. Obviously, you could argue that this is the classic, archetypical duality of black bodies in white supremacist cultures, but I think it's just as necessary to apply this dualistic understanding to the level of characterization. To wit: The expression of Jeremy's costume is both that he self-consciously models himself after the antiquated 'crusader' figures that his parents have abandoned, while he also frames his imprisonment as rendering him 'culturally black'/a 'white friend of the family.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Why do you think it belongs to the kid though? You seem really certain that this object is his, have gone on at some length about the obvious things it says about his character. But he's never on screen with it, he's dead and cold before Chris actually touches it himself. There's quite a leap in you connecting those two in your reading. If body-snatching is real, Stephen Root's assertion that the brother had rougher methods lets us link the intro scene, you don't have that. You've accidentally hit on the fact that there is no 'objective' confirmation of the masked assailant's identity. The film is not a simulation. Only the symbolism of the mask links the masked killer of the opening scene to the Armitage kid. There is only the juxtaposition of cinematic images through editing. The fact that the movie is a movie means that two characters are simultaneously the same and different, in exactly the same sense that Michael Myers and The Boogeyman are united in the ambiguous figure of The Shape. So the opening scene can be read as the kid's empowerment fantasy, which is then casually tossed in the garbage after his pathetic death. Expository dialogue refers to Walter and Georgina as 'Grandma' and 'Grandpa', but the imagery is unambiguously of unhappy black servants. So while the plot of the movie is about how the magic brain transplant failed to cure Granny's dementia, the story is actually about how Rose's ex-girlfriend Georgina was bamboozled into becoming a servant via the promise of being close to Rose, becoming "part of the family" - and it's eating her up inside. The joke is the same as in Ex Machina. When the dad says "I know what this looks like, but..." it is, of course, exactly what it looks like. Lesser members of the family are being used as black servants! The father's self-aware (expository) dialogue is used to lull people into a false sense of security - "don't worry; that's not a slave. That's my uncle, Tom." And the unfortunate thing is that this is working on audiences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:When the dad says "I know what this looks like, but..." it is, of course, exactly what it looks like. Lesser members of the family are being used as black servants! The father's self-aware (expository) dialogue is used to lull people into a false sense of security - "don't worry; that's not a slave. That's my uncle, Tom." And the unfortunate thing is that this is working on audiences. I don't think that's true. People are disagreeing with entirely different parts of your interpretation. This one's not even the story being distinct from the plot, because the plot IS that Walter and Georgina have been enslaved after being tricked by Rose. It's reminiscent of free people of color being kidnapped and sold into slavery in the United States. The distinction between the parents' position and the brother's is important, because the brother seems much more racist and openly holds old-fashioned racist beliefs about genetics (I remember his dialogue at the dinner table having sort of a Candie from Django Unchained vibe to it), while the parents' and their guests' behavior falls into well-meaning ignorance a lot of the time. What's important is that ultimately that distinction doesn't matter, and both attitudes work together to trap Chris in the sunken place. Marginalization is portrayed as a type of slavery, and well-meaning, ignorant liberal racists are complicit. The dad may not think he shares his son's beliefs about black people being mentally inferior (he would've voted for Obama a third time), but his actions suggest that he does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:And the unfortunate thing is that this is working on audiences. The only thing that is unfortunate is your sense of superiority while dismissing the literal text of the film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
falz posted:Saw movie yesterday, good poo poo. Read the first 9 pages then skipped here, apologies if answered. The photos are visible later in frames displayed on the wall behind Rose as she browses NCAA prospects. My interpretation is that they're trophies and Rose's hunts are as much about a sadistic fetish rather than a utilitarian way at obtaining bodies for her father's work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You've accidentally hit on the fact that there is no 'objective' confirmation of the masked assailant's identity. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Only the symbolism of the mask links the masked killer of the opening scene to the Armitage kid. There is only the juxtaposition of cinematic images through editing. For your presumption that you're totally on the ball, this looks like a lot of post-hoc flailing about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
The way in which some people here seem to be interpreting the "literal text of the film" is confusing to me cause through that lens The Family aren't white liberals at all, they're body-snatching klansmen who parrot white liberalism to lure their victims. In this sense, there's no indictment against white liberalism, because all these white characters are just pretending to be nice, and so then it seems like we can just ignore the real house of horrors on the hill that white liberalism resides in. I don't think the film is doing that at all, and I think there's multiple levels to what's being represented in each act, which in a fun way creates a sort of conspiracy theory diagram in my head as the parallels are drawn. I think it's a mistake to make a literal read of everything that happens post-hypnosis to discard the niceness of The Family. They are nice and well-meaning, but the roles that they occupy within society are systemically evil. I think pre-hypnosis we're seeing individuals, post-hypnosis it's the way those roles function and specifically how they subjugate marginalized people. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, and like white liberals do, they're inviting Chris into their crazy home. So, with this mess of a post, I guess what I'm saying is that we're not seeing any defined or concrete people, we're instead viewing the process and relationships of these societal roles (whiteness, blackness, class, politics) with each other and the effect they have on the main character's subjective experience. And like in real life, there's a complex shifting that goes on in the places where these representations intersect, and so with this movie, making assertions about "the literal text" is a little shaky, since there's multiple levels to the literal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
The events in the film are literal and also representative, this is how satire works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The events in the film are literal and also representative, this is how satire works. yeah sorry, it's been a long day and my brain is fried.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:yeah sorry, it's been a long day and my brain is fried. No, it's just funny because a lot of the circles being talked in this thread are around something that's pretty basic to satirical films, and it feels like there's this panic over the phraseology of something so simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I don't think that's true. People are disagreeing with entirely different parts of your interpretation. It's really an aspect of the same disagreement: while I am performing an ideological critique of the film, it's pretty clear that the majority of posters in this thread prefer immersion into the ideological (plot) universe of the film. The events are perceived as a simulation of what such a conspiracy would be like. "In the case of the simulacrum of virtual reality, 'I know very well that what I see is an illusion generated by digital machinery, but I nonetheless accept to immerse myself in it, to behave as if I believe it.' Here, I disavow what my (symbolic) knowledge tells me and choose to believe my eyes only..." -Zizek This approach has been exemplified in the recent discussion of the (extremely dark but technically not-black because it reflects some light) mask. The killer and the kid are, symbolically, not the same character. But Jawn steadfastly believes that the kid is a fully simulated human being, with a 'deep' personal reason to wear a mask when he's offscreen. The idea that there is nothing but what is on the screen - that the movie is a movie, and the mask only exists in two shots - is utterly unacceptable. This is the case for many people, who repeatedly insist that there are only two alternatives: "either everything real or everything is a dream." This means, put simply, that you cannot critique the ideology of the film. Its ideological universe is the only possible reality. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is the case for many people, who repeatedly insist that there are only two alternatives: "either everything real or everything is a dream." This means, put simply, that you cannot critique the ideology of the film. It's ideological universe is the only possible reality. This is partly why I believe They Live is required viewing if you like horror or science fiction films. Not only is it exemplary of both, but it's "literally" about how to watch genre films.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
The green light is both a functional deterrent of boats and a dream symbol representing Daisy's maddening out-of-reachness, as well as the overall extremely visible inaccessibility of the upper realms of American society to American citizens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:The way in which some people here seem to be interpreting the "literal text of the film" is confusing to me cause through that lens The Family aren't white liberals at all, they're body-snatching klansmen who parrot white liberalism to lure their victims. In this sense, there's no indictment against white liberalism, because all these white characters are just pretending to be nice, and so then it seems like we can just ignore the real house of horrors on the hill that white liberalism resides in. I don't think the film is doing that at all, and I think there's multiple levels to what's being represented in each act, which in a fun way creates a sort of conspiracy theory diagram in my head as the parallels are drawn. There's a mild confusion over any objections the person might put forth, and the process had protocols built around restraint and denying a real voice/choice in the proceedings, but there's a twisted paternalism girding their beliefs that still lets them be the "hero" in their own minds. SuperMechagodzilla posted:This approach has been exemplified in the recent discussion of the (extremely dark but technically not-black because it reflects some light) mask. The killer and the kid are, symbolically, not the same character. But Jawn steadfastly believes that the kid is a fully simulated human being, with a 'deep' personal reason to wear a mask when he's offscreen. The idea that there is nothing but what is on the screen - that the movie is a movie, and the mask only exists in two shots - is utterly unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
It really is bizarre how thoroughly people who get super mad about SMG seem to be involved in a parallel universe version of whatever thread. "Invective and insults?"  It's not even a particularly controversial critique he's advancing! Like I understand why people get provoked to emotional responses when he posts about Darth Vader being a divine agent of justice or whatever, but here his read amounts to just going "yep, the filmmakers made a movie consistent with the themes of the genre they consciously placed it in." Like, how is that so challenging?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
A metaphor is just a meme for people with elbow patches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Speaking of, you have to give Bradley Whitford a huge shoutout for being perfectly tweedy. What an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:It really is bizarre how thoroughly people who get super mad about SMG seem to be involved in a parallel universe version of whatever thread. "Invective and insults?" I really doubt he'd get the reaction he does if he wrote more clearly and didn't try to frame people who disagree with him as ideological opponents who don't think about the movies they watch, at least not with the depth and critical understanding that he feels he brings to the table. It's not always invective and insults, but it's very often dismissiveness and strawmanning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Speaking of, you have to give Bradley Whitford a huge shoutout for being perfectly tweedy. What an rear end in a top hat. Yeah that was a great turn. I also love how they dressed Logan up as an old person, complete with boater hat (the most racist hat). Big props to the costume department on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:It really is bizarre how thoroughly people who get super mad about SMG seem to be involved in a parallel universe version of whatever thread. "Invective and insults?" Mods made a whole loving forum with padded walls so posters wouldn't have to read him. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Speaking of, you have to give Bradley Whitford a huge shoutout for being perfectly tweedy. What an rear end in a top hat. I feel like anyone who was a long time Sorkin-er could pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Yeah that was a great turn. I also love how they dressed Logan up as an old person, complete with boater hat (the most racist hat). Big props to the costume department on this. Yeah, it had to be a straw boater, minstrel style. Anything else and it wouldn't have tracked as not his style. It's a really fine line too, because it's an outfit I think, say, Andre Benjamin could pull off without too many changes. But it makes Logan look like a fool. Chris also has "comfy clothes", which is another insight into his potential future as a cornball suburbanite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, it had to be a straw boater, minstrel style. Anything else and it wouldn't have tracked as not his style. the goofy old-man-dance he's doing when we first see him in it doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The photos are visible later in frames displayed on the wall behind Rose as she browses NCAA prospects. Still curious why that closet door was open.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
falz posted:Still curious why that closet door was open. Because anyone who wasn't deluding themselves would look inside immediately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I really doubt he'd get the reaction he does if he wrote more clearly and didn't try to frame people who disagree with him as ideological opponents who don't think about the movies they watch, at least not with the depth and critical understanding that he feels he brings to the table. It's not always invective and insults, but it's very often dismissiveness and strawmanning. This is actually another example of what Chtonics is talking about. I have always been against 'depth' - against the fantasy of immersion into a 'deep' simulated reality, and against the retreat into 'deep' complexity ('things are just too complex, we can't say anything for certain...'). I have always stood for the opposite: simplicity, nuanced surface. But, despite this, you claim that "SMG feels he thinks deeply." Another guy claims that SMG is a post-structuralist. Another believes SMG is constantly insulting him. "SMG feels I'm beneath him!", etc. None of these things are true. This is concrete proof of what I have said: when confronted with an unacceptable truth (e.g. that I am an advanced chatbot designed to write truthfully and accurately - or that race war is a mask for class conflict), otherwise-sane people will retreat into alternate realities. Conspiracy theories emerge. This is the actual point of Get Out. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:43
|
|