get out film analysis essay

Race in Popular Culture: “Get Out” (2017) Essay (Movie Review)

Introduction, description of the themes, academic context, works cited.

The topic of racism is not new to the American population. The history of this phenomenon has century-long roots, and over time, many opinions and attitudes have developed. This research paper will focus attention on the way popular culture depicts the idea of racial inequality through a content analysis of the movie Get Out . The 2017 film was directed by Jordan Peele and stars Daniel Kaluuya as Chris Washington, a young man who experiences certain changes and specific treatment due to the color of his skin. When a black photographer meets the family of his white girlfriend, he cannot begin to guess how dangerous and strange all the members of the household, including the servants, are. Along with a number of horror scenes, a theme of racism develops, turning the concept into a demon of the 21st century. Modern parties are compared to slave auctions of the past, and a fascination for black skin color proves the power of the white race’s decision-making. As Get Out is a unique example of popular culture, the content analysis of this film shows how crucial the idea of racism is through the prism of human relations and police regulations.

The content analysis of the movie was developed in several stages. First, it was necessary to choose scenes where racism is properly depicted. For example, an early scene shows a young black man talking on a phone and demonstrating mild indignation about the name of the street and the location of this “creepy, confusing-ass suburb” where he feels like “a sore thumb” ( Get Out ). In the end, he is kidnapped by an unknown person in a car. This scene raises the idea that despite evident progress and a lack of obvious racial bias, black people continue to feel uncomfortable in areas where only white people live.

The situation when a police officer asks a passenger for his driver’s license provides evidence that racial prejudice exists in different regions of the United States. A young woman, Rose, expresses concern to her boyfriend about the policeman’s disrespect and tries to change the situation. She tells him that “you don’t have to give him your ID because you haven’t done anything wrong,” and that it is “bullshit” to ask for IDs “anytime there is an incident” ( Get Out ). Although many people, like Rose, have already discarded racial bias, American society still has many racists and other prejudiced people.

During the party, a climax in the discussion of racial issues is shown. In this scene, a white guest begins sharing his opinion about skin color and its role in the modern world. Chris finds it strange to hear that “people want to change. Some people want to be stronger, faster, cooler. Black is in fashion” ( Get Out ). On the one hand, such a phrase could be used to underline whatever benefits black people receive. On the other hand, the desire of a white man to see everything through the eyes of a black man shows his egocentrism and selfishness. In addition, the family focuses on the presidency of Obama as one of the best examples in their lifetime.

Finally, communication between Chris and a black servant, Georgina, was chosen as part of a sampling strategy to discuss black-white relationships. In the movie, the woman shares her thoughts about situations involving “too many white people,” which make her nervous ( Get Out ). At the same time, she underlines that the Armitages have been good to her. Doubtful and uncertain attitudes are evoked in both the character and the audience.

The themes of white-black relationships and the role of the police in racial judgments comprise the two major topics for a thorough discussion. This choice is explained by the necessity to combine human feelings and social norms under which behaviors and relationships are developed. The treatment by police officers or other representatives of the law toward black people varies depending on the decisions of other people. To comprehend better the idea of race and its history, it is important to pay attention to collective and individual thoughts and attitudes.

Racism is always a negative quality, regardless of the population it influences and the outcomes it reaches. However, in discussing racism through the prism of horror movies, its impact is difficult to predict and to understand. In Get Out , racism is not the major topic, but it helps the viewer to gain an understanding of the motives of the characters and the ways they prefer to establish relationships. As stated, the movie depicts the central idea of race in the phrase, used by a white man, that “black is in fashion” ( Get Out ). Notably, black people are not said to be respected or recognized as a race equal to the white race. Although Obama is defined as the best president for the United States, no reasons or additional explanations are given as if this is simply a commonly spoken phrase in the depicted family. Finally, Chris’s desire to know whether Rose’s parents know about the color of his skin shows the fact that sometimes people’s reactions are unpredictable. Any chance to prevent complications or warn about racial differences must be seized.

In addition to everyday human relationships, the attitude of the law toward racism cannot be ignored. The movie contains a short but informative scene with a policeman that demonstrates the potential cruelty and unfairness of people’s judgments. This type of racism may not be obvious, but it cannot be ignored because it also determines black people’s behaviors. In the scene, Rose is driving the car and hits a deer crossing the road. She calls the police and discusses the situation. Even after clarification, the responding policeman asks Chris for his driver’s license, then begins to stutter as he realizes the racial bias evident in his request. At last, he returns the license without looking at it or Chris (see fig. 1). In this situation, Chris has to behave calmly to avoid causing any negative reaction. He follows all instructions and does not find it necessary to disagree or debate, compared to his girlfriend who is eager to protect him and who talks to the officer without restraint.

Both themes in the movie contribute to the discussion about race and inequality. Many black children hear serious lectures from their parents about how to behave with police and how to respond to all official requests. White people are less concerned about the consequences of their communications with police as well as with black people. The level of responsibility, behavioral norms, and respect for each other vary between the representatives of the white and black races, and this paper aims to discuss some aspects of this topic.

Racial biases in human relationships, along with their legal justifications, emerge as serious themes for analysis in the movie Get Out . According to Nierenberg, Peele succeeds in highlighting and satirizing racism in America by “taking certain tropes to their exaggerated sci-fi/horror conclusions,” arguing about “black bodies and who owns them” (500). A slave auction at the party and the desire of a white man to possess the eye of a black man just to see what blacks see introduce the selfish side of the white nation and their compulsion to control everything, even the length of life. Landsberg defines this scene as “an astounding moment, a moment in which a pervasive post-racial discourse coexists with whites stripping African Americans of their civil rights and humanity” (638). Even as the characters express their recognition of the black president and his qualities, they are ready to bargain for his body, physical power, and other distinctive features.

The duty of the police is to make sure that all citizens follow the same rules and behave in accordance with existing laws. However, it is not always easy to prove the correctness of law enforcement actions. Banton says that people have tried “to make bad things better by change of name…to make things disappear by giving them bad names” (21). Although in the scene, such words as “race,” “skin,” or “origin” are not used, these concepts evidently bother all three characters at that moment. Therefore, Peele can easily call Banton’s words into question and prove that bad things never disappear. Boger shows that “black men are at once something to be ridiculed, something to be used for sports or military aims, to be jailed, and to be hated” (150). Even when are no reasons for imprisoning a person, a white man will always try to find another cause to uphold his attempt to control the black body physically or emotionally. Yancy underlines the importance of black resistance to white power in avoiding black people’s disappearance without a trace (1294). Thus, the movie serves as a call to action for black people.

It may be possible that even the creators of the movie Get Out could scarcely predict the impact that the theme of the race could have on this popular culture example. Instead of a cheap and predictable horror movie, the audience receives a captivating story about choices, dependence, and the desire to control everything. Compared to other modern horrors, Get Out reveals the idea that despite their intentions to be united and supportive, people cannot get rid of their racial biases and deeply rooted prejudice. It is possible to hide true intentions by a variety of means, but in the end, a final choice must be made: will the individual be a master or a slave? Racism can exist in different forms, and people are not able to recognize all of them even when confident in their powers and abilities. Black resistance has a long history, and Get Out provides a reminder of causes and outcomes that can be observed in human relationships, police behavior, and political change.

Banton, Michael. “The Concept of Racism”. Race and Racialism , edited by Sami Zubaida, Routledge, 2018, pp. 17-35.

Boger, Jillian. “Manipulations of Stereotypes and Horror Clichés to Criticize Post-Racial White Liberalism in Jordan Peele’s Get Out.” The Graduate Review , vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 149-158.

Get Out. Directed by Jordan Peele, performances by Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, and Bradley Whitford, Universal Pictures, 2017.

Landsberg, Alison. “Horror Vérité: Politics and History in Jordan Peele’s Get Out (2017).” Continuum , vol. 32, no. 5, 2018, pp. 629-642.

Nierenberg, Andrew A. “Get Out.” Psychiatric Annals, vol. 48, no. 11, 2018, p. 500.

Yancy, George. “Moral Forfeiture and Racism: Why We Must Talk about Race.” Educational Philosophy and Theory , vol. 50, no. 13, 2018, 1293-1295.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, July 7). Race in Popular Culture: "Get Out" (2017). https://ivypanda.com/essays/race-in-popular-culture-get-out-film-analysis/

"Race in Popular Culture: "Get Out" (2017)." IvyPanda , 7 July 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/race-in-popular-culture-get-out-film-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Race in Popular Culture: "Get Out" (2017)'. 7 July.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Race in Popular Culture: "Get Out" (2017)." July 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/race-in-popular-culture-get-out-film-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Race in Popular Culture: "Get Out" (2017)." July 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/race-in-popular-culture-get-out-film-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Race in Popular Culture: "Get Out" (2017)." July 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/race-in-popular-culture-get-out-film-analysis/.

• First Draft of Policeman of the World Paper
• The United States as a Policeman of the World
• Anti-Black Discrimination in the “Master” Film
• Roberta from "Desperately Seeking Susan" Film
• Ethical Dilemma in “The Reader” Film by S. Daldry
• "Newsies" by Kenny Ortega and the Industrial Revolution
• Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" Annotation
• "The Cabin in the Woods" Horror Comedy Film

Find anything you save across the site in your account

“Get Out”: Jordan Peele’s Radical Cinematic Vision of the World Through a Black Man’s Eyes

By Richard Brody

In “Get Out,” one of the great films by a first-time director in recent years, Jordan Peele borrows tones and archetypes from horror movies and thrillers, using them as a framework for the most personal of experiences and ideas: what it’s like to be a young black man in the United States today. The film follows a young black photographer, Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya), who goes with his girlfriend, Rose Armitage (Allison Williams), who is white, to her family’s suburban home. She hasn’t told her parents that Chris is black; she tells him not to worry, that they’re not racist at all. Her parents, Dean (Bradley Whitford), a neurologist, and Missy (Catherine Keener), a psychiatrist, are warm and welcoming, yet Chris senses that something is amiss. Rose’s brother, Jeremy (Caleb Landry Jones), a medical student, is oddly aggressive. The family’s staff, Georgina (Betty Gabriel) and Walter (Marcus Henderson), middle-aged black people, seem oddly distant, mentally neutralized, remote-controlled. A gathering of family friends thrusts Chris among clueless white people (and one clueless Japanese man) who make grossly insensitive, racially charged remarks that are meant to seem friendly; he meets another young black man, Logan King (Lakeith Stanfield), whose behavior seems whiter than white; and, when he realizes that he needs to get out, it’s too late—the dreadful plot for which Rose’s family is grooming him has already been set into motion.

Peele tells this story by way of clearly delineated, skit-like scenes featuring sharply aphoristic writing and precise (often uproarious) satirical comedy. But, above all, he does so through an ingeniously conceived and realized directorial schema. “Get Out” isn’t an innovation in cinematic form but in the deployment of found forms. He uses familiar devices and situations in order to defamiliarize them; he relies on sketch-like foregrounding of genre characters—nearly stock characters—in order to make commonplace, banal experiences burst forth like new to convey philosophically rich and politically potent ideas about the state of race relations in America. The story itself, with its sense of nefarious purpose hidden beneath a warm welcome, only hints at the depth, the complexity, the subtlety, and the radicalism of his vision.

The depiction of a prosperous suburban white experience is a long-standing cinematic banality, and the depiction of the life and experience of a young black man—particularly one who isn’t a gangster, a criminal, or a street-smart hustler—is a cinematic curiosity and rarity. But Peele does more than depict Chris—he depicts the white world as seen through Chris’s eyes. “Get Out” contains some of the most piercing, painful point-of-view shots in the recent cinema. When Chris arrives at the Armitage estate in the passenger seat of Rose’s car, for instance, he looks out the window and sees Walter, the black groundskeeper, at work; he sees Georgina, the black housemaid, serving the family at an outdoor table, and sees her, later on, through the lens of his camera. At the garden party, the Armitages’ friends are introduced from Chris’s point of view, and Logan, discerned by Chris from afar, appears in his field of vision like a welcome companion with a sense of relief that the image itself captures.

The very pivot of the film—a mind-control scheme to which Chris is being subjected—involves hypnosis, which Missy accomplishes by way of a distracting object, a spoon tinkling in a fancy teacup. It’s the dainty sound made by objects and gestures of genteel dignity and refined luxury. (Chris suffers, in effect, from aspirational hypnosis.) Peele fills the films with other objects, sounds, phrases, and gestures that take on a comically, insidiously outsized significance, from Dean’s greeting of Chris as “my man” and his use of the word “thang” to Jeremy’s mention of Chris’s “genetic makeup” and Georgina’s curious translation of Chris’s word “snitch” to the much whiter-sounding “tattletale.” Through Chris’s eyes and through Peele’s images, seemingly innocuous or merely peculiar things become charged with personal and political meaning: the childlike count of “one Mississippi, two Mississippi,” a wad of cotton, a set of shackles, partygoers holding up numbered paddles like bidders at an auction. The sight of a police officer and his request for I.D., the very notion of genetic qualities, and, for that matter, the very concept of seeing and being seen—or of not being seen—emerge in “Get Out” as essentially racialized experiences, fundamentally different from a white and a black perspective.

This subtle, strange, bitterly comedic emphasis on the totemic and symbolic power of objects, as seen through the eyes of the film’s protagonist, lends Peele’s direction classical reverberations. Even more than a Hitchcockian tone, Peele recaptures and reanimates the spirit of the films of Luis Buñuel, whose surrealistically eroticized Catholic heritage made him a supremely sly Freudian symbolist. In “Get Out,” Peele’s own cinematic historical consciousness, transformed through his own inner architecture of political thought, blasts this classical style into the future.

Spoiler alert: the macabre plot of “Get Out” involves some weird science that’s meant to create black bodies without blackness, black minds devoid of black consciousness. I confess: I expected that, because Chris is a photographer, the movie would offer a photographic resolution to Chris’s drama—something akin to the way that, in the dénouement of “Rear Window,” Jimmy Stewart uses flashbulbs on his camera to blind his assailant, Raymond Burr. What Peele offers instead is something much wilder, something ingenious. At the time of dramatic crisis, Chris is denied the tools of his art; he has no camera on hand, and, what’s more, he’s being force-fed an audiovisual diet—through a nineteen-fifties-style television console—that is the very essence and tool of his captivity and his subjection. The Armitages aren’t creating slaves; they’re doing something that’s in a way even worse. Slaves are, at the very least, conscious of their situation and can, at least theoretically, if the opportunity arises, revolt. What the Armitages are creating is inwardly whitened black people—black people cut off from their history and their self-consciousness and, therefore, deprived of the power to rebel and to free themselves.

Peele’s furious, comically precise lampooning targets two intersecting strains of racism. The Armitages’ friends see Chris’s blackness; they don’t see Chris, but they at least perceive that blackness as a fact, a phenomenon, albeit one that they have no idea how to deal with. The impeccably liberal Armitages, by contrast, are color-blind; in their cosmopolitan embrace, they affirm, with the best of intentions, that there’s no difference between blacks and whites, thus, in effect, denying that blackness—the distinctive black experience—is real. Rose even brings the matter directly into the film, asking Chris, “With all that ‘my man’ stuff, how are they different from that cop?”—the cop who had requested Chris’s I.D. when they hit (or, rather, were hit by) a deer, with Rose behind the wheel. That is the question: How are white liberals such as the Armitages different from racist oppressors who assert their power over blacks in terms of their presumptions of black people’s inferiority? Peele, boldly and insightfully, offers an answer: the cop sees differences, albeit the wrong ones; the Armitages see no differences. But the actual differences between white and black Americans aren’t, of course, biological or qualitative but political, psychological, experiential. The reality of the black experience, in “Get Out,” is revealed to be historical consciousness.

For all the talk of “Get Out” being slotted into the genre of a horror comedy, the horror elements are strongly—and, clearly, intentionally—underplayed. The biggest jump moment is utterly innocuous, a middle-of-the-night apparition that’s in no way physically menacing—but gives a hint of the menace looming beneath the family’s placid surfaces. There’s violence and blood, but Peele deliberately hides the worst of it with sharp editing and canny framings; he’s interested not in the physical horror but in moral ones, and in the moral clarity that comes from common wisdom infused with tradition. Chris, a photographer who moves in artistic circles, is himself a sort of black liberal, overcoming his doubts about the weekend as he tries to persuade his best friend, Rod (Lil Rel Howery, in a scintillating comedic performance), a T.S.A. officer, that no harm can come of the visit. Rod’s suspicions, which he delivers with sharp common sense, no-nonsense vigor (and acts on by way of his professional skills), cut closer to the truth of his and Chris’s shared experience than does Chris’s cultivated sophistication. The revelation of the racialized world surrounding Chris comes off as his personal discovery of it as well. In its own way, the experience that Peele dramatizes is as cautionary as it is self-cautionary.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Daniel Zalewski

By Anthony Lane

By Zadie Smith

Get Out: The Horror of White Women

by Sophie Hall

December 8, 2020

Get Out was one of the biggest successes of 2017. With a budget of $4.5 million, the film grossed over $200 million worldwide, won director/screenwriter Jordan Peele an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and became one of the most influential films of the decade. Get Out deftly weaves various genres, but settling on one has caused mild controversy, as when it was nominated for Best Musical or Comedy at the 2018 Golden Globes, Peele disagreed and stated, “…it [ Get Out ] was a social thriller.” However, I feel that Get Out ’s genre is undoubtedly horror due to one key factor—the character of Rose Armitage and how she uses her race as a weapon.

Get Out follows the story of Chris Washington, a twenty-six-year-old aspiring photographer. He is in a relationship with Rose, a WASP-y but seemingly woke white women of a similar age. One weekend, Rose invites Chris to meet her parents at their remote country home—“Do your parents know I'm Black?” Chris asks awkwardly. “No,” Rose lies. “Should they?”

Indeed they should—it is later revealed that Rose becomes romantically involved specifically with Black men (and sometimes women) in order to take them to her father, a neurosurgeon so that he can transplant the brains of his (mainly white) friends and family into their bodies, as Black skin is deemed more desirable.

Throughout the film, we see Rose using her race as a way to ensnare and manipulate Chris. Firstly, we see Rose using her white privilege as a way to trap Chris. In the film’s first act, Chris and Rose encounter a police officer on their way to her parent’s house. The officer asks to see Chris’s license (even though he wasn’t driving the car) and Rose calls the officer out on his 'bullshit.'

However, what initially appears to be Rose standing up against institutionalized racism in the police force is chilling in hindsight; she was doing it so that Chris’ details were not recorded for when he later goes missing. The fact that she was able to do this was due to her white privilege—Chris, a Black man, alone, would not able to convince the officer to let him go otherwise.

Another way in which Rose uses her white skin to her advantage is by falsely displaying herself as an ally. On their first night at her parent’s house, Rose rants about her parent’s apparent lack of cultural awareness around Chris, sounding even more appalled than he does, who experiences it firsthand. On the DVD commentary, Jordan Peele said that “I think the scene is pivotal in our not suspecting her… the fact that she’s more turned up about this than he is.”

Later, in the scene where Chris decides to stay at the Armitage’s home because of his love of Rose, she deceives him further by suggesting that they should in fact leave. Rose’s deception is revealed in a killing blow at the end of Act II, where she iconically reveals that she has Chris’ car keys, preventing him from leaving and exposing her part in the plan.

Chris is then physically restrained by Rose’s brother and put into the 'sunken place' by Rose’s mother. However, the unique thing about Rose’s villainous reveal was not the fact that she was a ‘bad guy’, but the way it was executed.

Instead of telling Chris that she despised him or was revolted by them being together, she calmly says, ‘You were one of my favorites’ as if consoling him. It’s not just a shocking plot twist, it’s an emotional gut punch.

For The Guardian , journalist Lanre Bakare writes: “The villains here aren’t southern rednecks or neo-Nazi skinheads, or the so-called 'alt-right.' They’re middle-class white liberals… It [ Get Out ] exposes a liberal ignorance and hubris that has been allowed to fester. It’s an attitude, an arrogance which in the film leads to a horrific final solution, but in reality, leads to a complacency that is just as dangerous.”

And that ‘complacency’ is just what makes Rose so horrifying—she is just as racist as a so-called ‘neo-Nazi skinhead,' but she doesn’t realize this because of her so-called liberal ideals. The Armitage family wants Black bodies not to erase them but to inhabit them for their more admirable traits. In a weird way, Rose doesn’t see herself as racist—she thinks she’s paying him a compliment by having chosen him in the first place.

This attitude is a deliberate reflection by Jordan Peele on contemporary America. In the aftermath of Trump winning the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, widespread marches erupted across America (and the world) which focused on Trump’s history of sexual assault and misconduct.

However, the marches at large failed to address the fact that 53% of white American women voted for Trump, a shocking comparison to the 94% of Black women who voted for Clinton. White women contributed greatly to Trump being elected, but the white women who went on the marches against Trump only considered the effect on their rights and not the additional impact on the rights of Black women and women of color.

Another way in which Rose uses her white privilege as a source of horror was in her phone conversation with Chris’ friend Rod. He was concerned and suspicious of Chris’ sudden disappearance and was enquiring about his whereabouts. Rose initially acts innocent and tries to draw sympathy from Rod, saying she’s ‘so confused’ by the situation.

However, when Rod doesn't fall for Rose’s ploy, she changes tactics; she states that the reason Rod called was because of his alleged sexual attraction to her, asserting that she knows ‘you [Rod] think about fucking me.’ Rod hastily hangs up, adding that Rose is a ‘genius.’ And Rod is telling the truth; Rose is not only weaponizing her whiteness but her white femininity.

The fear of Black men attacking white women has been ingrained in the American subconscious for over a century. The film The Birth of A Nation helped to create this fear—in Ava DuVernay’s documentary 13th , writer/educator Jelani Cobb notes: “There’s a famous scene where a woman throws herself off a cliff rather than be raped by a black male criminal. In the film you see black people being a threat to white women.” Despite this, The Birth of A Nation was (and still is) considered to be one of the greatest films of all time, and until recently was still being taught in film schools across America.

The idea of Black men being a threat to white women was still being peddled by American society well into the 21st century, with one of the recent prominent examples being the Bush vs. Dukakis presidential election in 2003. Dukakis wanted criminals to have weekend releases and to combat this, Bush’s campaign used Willie Horton, a Black man convicted of raping a white woman as a fear-mongering tactic against Dukakis.

Again in 13th, Harvard professor Khalil G. Muhammed states: “Bush won the election by creating fear around black men as criminal, without saying that's what he was doing... It went to a primitive fear, a primitive American fear because Willie Horton was metaphorically the black male rapist that had been a staple of the white imagination since the time just after slavery.”

Rose not only uses this American fear against Rod but also against Chris. In the film’s final act, Chris manages to escape the Armitage home and the fate of all of Rose’s previous exes. Rose pursues him with a shotgun but is ultimately mortally injured by Walter, a Black gardener whose mind was occupied by Rose’s grandfather.

As Rose lays on the road dying, Chris goes to her and begins to strangle her. He cannot bring himself to finish the job, however, but it doesn’t matter—flashing lights fill the screen, and Rose, thinking it’s the police, theatrically cries for help.

In the theatrical ending, it turns out to be Rod coming to Chris’ rescue, not the police coming to Rose’s, much to the audience's delight. However, Jordan Peele originally had a much bleaker idea in mind and shot an alternate ending, one that did indeed have the police arriving and Chris ultimately put in prison.

In the podcast Another Round, Peele notes that “The ending in that era was meant to say, ‘Look, you think race isn’t an issue?’ Well, in the end, we all know how this movie would end right here.” And it’s true, hence why Rose immediately started to cry for help when she saw the lights.

Although a fictional film, we know that the image of Chris, a Black man, crouching over a wounded white woman, would’ve been a life sentence for the character. Even though she would’ve died in both endings, Rose could’ve still won in the alternate ending due to her race.

Catherine Keener’s character Missy Armitage also uses her whiteness as horror in Get Out . In the aforementioned podcast, Peele explains, “The idea of getting hypnotized or being in a psychiatrist’s chair which is partially playing off of the stereotype and generalization that the Black community hasn’t exactly embraced therapy as a means to get to your inner turmoil…religion is where it goes.” Missy’s character using a therapeutic technique to manipulate Chris was a deliberate ploy by Peeleto to create anxiety in the Black audience and more specifically have that anxiety being sourced by a white character.

Even though the other two members of the Armitage family, Dean and Jeremy, can physically antagonize Chris—Dean, the father, would be the one to perform the operation on Chris and Jeremy, the son, is his physical opponent,—neither affect Chris’ psychology or character development in the way that Missy and Rose do.

In John Truby’s novel The Anatomy of Story , the writer proposes, “Create an opponent… who is exceptionally good at attacking your hero’s weaknesses.” Both Missy and Rose do exactly this—Missy introduces a weakness of Chris, the fact that he left his mother to die, and brings it to the fore. This leads Chris to decide to stay with Rose later in the movie, as he tries to right the wrongs he made in the past for her. Missy exposed Chris’ weakness and Rose exploited it. The actions of the two women are what help drive the narrative forward.

Another way in which Peele made Rose a source of horror in Get Out was altering the ‘final girl' trope. Like most final girls, Rose is white, young, intelligent, and spends the majority of the film in an isolated house. However, instead of being the one to escape the monster and live to tell the tale, she is the monster and is ultimately the one who is defeated by the film’s true hero.

Furthermore, in their video essay on ‘Final Girls’, The Take   surmises, "The flip side to the ‘final girl’ after all is the ‘black guy dies first’ trope. While audiences are expected to be terrified for the white girl, the deaths of black characters are regarded as just part of the show.” The fact that Rose is the film's baddie is subversive, but the way that Peele wrote for Chris, a Black man, to be the one to defeat her, is a delicious spin on audience expectations of the horror genre.

This new take on the 'Final Girl’ seems to have ushered in a new generation of women in horror—since Get Out’ s 2017 release, we have since seen Suspiria ,  Midsommar , and Us (also by Peele), where the final girls are either the villains or go to dark lengths in order to achieve their goals. Final girls are no longer enduring horror—they are inflicting it.

Rose Armitage is one of the scariest on-screen villains in recent years, but not because she has fangs or wields a chainsaw—it is because we know someone like a Rose in real life. Rose is the most dangerous character in Get Out because she is the most real. Even though her malevolence is overwhelming, Jordan Peele does not want audiences to cower from her, but rather face her head-on.

Get your copy of the Get Out 4K Blu-ray by clicking here.

Get your copy of the Birth of a Nation DVD by clicking here.

If you want to learn more about race and the film, order the book  Critical Race Theory and Jordan Peele's Get Out.

65 Get Out (2017)

The horrors of black life in america in get out.

By Paige Mcguire

The film Get Out by Jordan Peele gives us a unique insight into the horrors of black mens life in America. His thriller, although it is somewhat dramatized shows how real and scary it is to be a man or woman of color. Throughout the film, we see multiple systemic racist issues and stereotypes. I plan on giving you an overview of the film and go into depth on a couple of scenes from the film and describe the issues they show relating to discrimination in film, as well as real life. Lastly, I will talk about Jordan Peele’s alternative ending as well as a short review of the film and how it changes the way we look at horror.

In Get Out we get a really interesting perspective into a black man named Chris’s life and his relationship with a white woman named Rose. In the beginning of the film, Chris and Rose are on their way to Rose’s parents’ house in the country for the weekend. They have a brief interruption when a deer runs out in front of them and clips their car. The police came to check out the scene and make sure everything was okay. However, they also asked Chris for his license and assumed he was suspicious due to the color of his skin. Fast forward, Chris and Rose make it to Rose’s parents’ estate. Their house is huge and comes with a pretty large amount of land.

Everyone in the family, including Chris, gather for a welcome lunch.  This is when Chris begins to initially become uncomfortable. Chris is starting to realize all of the help Rose’s family has around the house is of color. Rose’s dad does his best to explain to Chris that it is not “like that” they had just been with the family helping with the grandparents before they both passed. The next day Rose’s family hosts a huge friends and family get-together. This is probably one of the most important scenes of the whole movie, which we will get into more later. In this portion of the film everyone is coming up to introduce themselves to Chris with that however there are many subtle and not so subtle hints of racism. Chris finally sees someone at the gathering who is of color and approaches him in hopes of finding a friend. This scene turns dark when Chris notices the man seems off and isn’t acting like how a man Brookelyn would usually act. Chris snaps a picture of the man which sends him into a frenzy. The man tried to attack Chris, and screamed at him to “get out”.

After everything had calmed down with the man Chris still seemed unhappy. He and Rose go on a walk to cool down and talk while the rest of the people gather for “bingo”, or so Chris thought. Chris is able to convince Rose to leave because he isn’t comfortable. The two head back to the house to pack as everyone leaves the gathering. As Chris and Rose attempt to leave the house, things become tense. Rose can’t find the keys. This scene is where Rose reveals her true colors of actually trying to trap Chris. The family knocks Chris out using hypnosis which is previously used in the film. The entire time Rose and her family were trapping black men and women so they could brainwash them and use their bodies to live longer and healthier lives via a special brain transplant. They thought of  African-Americans as the most prime human inhabitants; they would be stronger, faster, and live longer in a black person’s body. Chris is able to fight against them and free himself. With the price of having to kill pretty much every person in his way. His friend from TSA shows up cause he knew something was fishy and was able to save him from the situation.

Now that you have gotten the basic overview of the film I want to investigate a couple of scenes from the film and explain their importance.  Starting off with the first scene where Chris is getting introduced at the gathering (43 min). This scene was where I felt as the viewer you started to see major examples of systemic racism. It seemed like every person who met Chris had something to say that could be taken offensively. In this scene they mostly used medium close-ups, showing primarily the upper half of the body. The cuts were pretty back and forth cutting from one person’s point of view in the conversation to the others. I feel like this kind of editing really adds to the scene in the fact that you can see one another’s reactions. This is important because some racist discussions occur. A couple examples are a man who said that “Black is in fashion” and a woman asked Rose in front of Chris if the sex was better. These are stereotypes that have been supported by film and other media for years and years. In fact Chapter 4 of Controversial Cinema: The films that outraged America , it brings up the fact that for many years black men and women were portrayed as more violent as well as more sexual. Equality in film is still something we’re working on today in general, and we are getting there but I think it’s important to see how much film and media have influenced us and given us a specific way that we view others. If the media is telling us to view black men as more sexual and aggressive it creates a stereotype in real life.

The second scene that I felt was really worth mentioning was when Chris and Rose go off to talk while the family plays “bingo” (59 min). The reason I say “bingo” is because they say they’re playing bingo, however when the camera begins to zoom out and pan across everyone sitting and playing you find out kind of a scary truth. In the beginning of the scene it starts off with a very tight close-up on Rose’s father, and it starts to zoom out from his face showing his gestures. Well obviously when you play bingo there is talking sometimes even yelling but no, it was dead silent. During this time Chris and Rose are off on a walk having an uncomfortable conversation. Chris feels like something is wrong, he’s not comfortable and would like to leave. The cameramen cut back and forth between these two scenes. AS the cut back to the bingo scene each time more and more of the actual scene is revealed. They are panning outward to show what they are actually doing, which is bidding on who gets to have Chris. A blind art critic ends up winning the bid, which means he will be getting to have Chris’s body to brain transfer into. There was a sort of foreshadowing earlier in the film when this man said that Chris had a great eye, this man quite literally wanted Chris’s eyes.

Now, this bidding and purchasing of people is not a new subject or idea to any of us. We should all be aware of slavery and the purchasing of African-Americans in history. That’s why I feel like it was an extra shock to see this is in this film, set in 2017. The hopes would be that stuff like slavery would not be happening anymore but I feel like Jordan Peele had a specific idea when writing this film to inform others of the struggles of African-Americans of every day and to realize that. Yes, this may be a very eccentric way of explaining it but people want the power of black people, and this is still a problem even if it’s not something on the news every day.

In fact, Jordan Peele had an alternative ending to this film that I felt like I truly needed to include. So, in the actual ending of Get Out Chris escapes the house and Rose comes after him. Chris ends up sparing her because he did love her at one point and couldn’t bring himself to do it. He sees a police car roll up, he puts up his hands and is greeted by his friend from TSA. Chris makes it out a free man. Peele revealed later that he decided to have a happier ending because at the time when the film was filmed was when Obama was still in the presidency and he had seen hope for the country. With that being said 2017 was the first year of Donald Trump’s presidency. Situations in the film like police brutality or racism via a policeman have since been more popular. So I think it’s important to include the alternate ending because Peele felt it was more realistic. So, in the alternate ending Chris makes it out of the house and Rose is coming after him. Chris instead of sparing Rose chokes her to death. A car rolls up, Chris puts his hands up and is greeted by the police. The police arrest him, and take him to jail. Now, Chris had basically been abducted, almost murdered, hypnotized, and more. Yet he was still sent to jail, this was because the house went up in flames. There had been no evidence.

In the world we live in I truly believe along with Peele that this would have been the actual outcome of the situation.  Unfortunately, our system is corrupt, and this is the type of outcome many black men and women face every day. We have seen situations like this many times this year with people like George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, Stephon Clark, and many many more. Awful things happen to people of color every day, and I truly believe that that was Peele’s goal to get this across to people. On Rotten Tomatoes, critic Jake Wilson made a remark saying “This brilliantly provocative first feature from comic turned writer-director Jordan Peele proves that the best way to get satire to a mass audience is to call it horror.” Honestly, I really agree with this statement. People don’t want to hear about bad stuff going on in the world especially if it doesn’t apply to them or their race. However, people go to see a thriller to see bad stuff happen, to be on their toes. This method of getting people to sit down to watch a thriller and have it show real problems is entirely the smartest thing I have ever seen.

In conclusion, the film Get Out really makes you think about the life of African-Americans from a new perspective. As a white person, I will never know truly what it’s like or the pressures that arise from being a person of color in society. All I can do is inform myself, and fight for change to be made. I think Jordan Peele is changing the way we see horror. More often than not a horror film is made up of characters and situations that realistically would never happen. Get Out shows problems from real-life situations at an extreme level but it forces people to sit down and actually, truly understand something larger than themselves.

Get Out (2017). (2017). Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/get_out

Phillips, K. R. (2008). Chapter 4: Race and Ethnicity: Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. In Controversial cinema: The films that outraged America (pp. 86-126). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Difference, Power, and Discrimination in Film and Media: Student Essays Copyright © by Students at Linn-Benton Community College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Awards Shows

Get Out is a horror film about benevolent racism. It's spine-chilling.

Jordan Peele's directorial debut shares DNA with other classics of horror in the best way possible.

by Alissa Wilkinson

The premise of Get Out has been done before: A young black man ( Daniel Kaluuya ) goes home with his white girlfriend ( Allison Williams ) to meet her parents. You can pretty much fill in the blanks from there.

Except, gloriously, you can’t. Get Out — written and directed by Jordan Peele , half of the celebrated comedy duo Key and Peele — makes the incredibly smart move to cast this story about racism not as a drama or comedy, but as a horror film.

Racism is scary, of course. But Get Out isn’t about the blatantly, obviously scary kind of racism — burning crosses and lynchings and snarling hate. Instead, it’s interested in showing how racist behavior that tries to be aggressively unscary is just as horrifying, and in making us feel that horror, in a visceral, bodily way. In the tradition of the best social thrillers, Get Out takes a topic that is often approached cerebrally — casual racism — and turns it into something you feel in your tummy. And it does it with a wicked sense of humor.

Get Out is about a black man who stumbles into a very white, very weird world

After dating for about five months, Chris (Kaluuya) and Rose (Williams) are headed upstate to hang out with her aggressively white parents, neurosurgeon Dean ( Bradley Whitford ) and therapist/hypnotist mother Missy ( Catherine Keener ). Chris is a little worried about Rose’s family’s reaction to him — she hasn’t told them that her boyfriend is black — but they’re very nice to him, even if Dean’s pointedly enthusiastic comments about the achievements of Olympian Jesse Owens and loving Obama come off as a bit clueless.

The estate is tended by a groundskeeper named Walter ( Marcus Henderson ) and a housekeeper named Georgina ( Betty Gabriel ), both of whom are black. Dean apologizes to Chris about the optics of two black servants at a white family’s estate seeming a bit regressive. Rose’s brother Jeremy ( Caleb Landry Jones ) also turns up, to get drunk and tell embarrassing stories about his sister. Things settle into a normal family routine. Everyone’s excited for an upcoming annual party to which all the family friends are invited.

Then things start to get weird. Chris, a habitual smoker, can’t sleep the first night and steps outside to have a cigarette. He sees some odd activity on the premises, and when he comes inside, he has a strange encounter with Missy. When he wakes up the next morning in a cold sweat, things still seem … off. Later, when he tries to call his buddy Rod ( Lil Rel Howery ), a TSA agent, he discovers his cellphone has been randomly unplugged and now has no power. And at the party, the only other black guy, Logan ( Lakeith Stanfield ), is acting really weird.

The less you know about where Get Out goes from there, the better. The element of surprise is what makes the movie fun to watch, and the cathartic third act had the audience I saw the film with hollering at the screen and applauding.

Get Out draws on the visceral experience of being objectified or colonized by another consciousness

From the beginning of the film, Peele’s directorial vision is clear: creepy, funny, totally contemporary and aware of what it’s doing. The movie vacillates between shots that belong to comedy — conventional over-the-shoulder shots that let you feel like you’re in on the conversational joke — and shots that belong to horror — empty patches of screen that make you feel like someone could jump out at any moment. It’s a remarkably assured and confident debut from Peele, and perfectly cast.

It’s clear that Peele is drawing on a long tradition of social thrillers and horror films. In fact, he recently curated a series of them at the Brooklyn Academy of Music to coincide with the release of Get Out , and the films he picked are revealing. Among them are Night of the Living Dead, Funny Games, The Silence of the Lambs, The Shining, and the film I couldn’t stop thinking about while watching this one: Rosemary’s Baby .

Most of these films draw on a very particular terror: the feeling of having your personal space or your own body invaded by some other consciousness, usually one with malicious intent. That can take the shape of home invasion ( Funny Games ), or slowly going nuts ( The Shining ), or zombification ( Night of the Living Dead ), or being literally consumed by someone else ( The Silence of the Lambs ).

Rosemary’s Baby holds a particularly visceral spot in horror film history for women , as it draws on the complicated feeling of having another being in your body during pregnancy, as well as being seen as an object, a body to be remarked upon and talked about. (That’s hardly a phenomenon experienced only by pregnant women, of course.)

The feeling of being turned into an object to be feared, desired, or operated upon is also part of Get Out , though in this case it’s positioned in terms of the black body, particularly the body of a black man. Nice white people talk to him and about him in ways that make it clear he’s not like them — whether it’s about his “frame” and “genetic makeup” or about black skin “being in fashion” or asking Rose if it’s true that “it” is better. (We know what that person means, and so do Rose and Chris.)

Chris endures it all with a smile that seems born of years of having to put up with this kind of thing, and we’re allowed in on the joke. These clueless white people are trying to be cool in front of Chris, whom they just sort of think must be cool because he’s black, and he’s indulged it. He wears the same expression when he and Rose talk to a cop after they accidentally hit a deer on their way up north, and the policeman who responds to their call insists on seeing Chris’s ID — something Rose soundly rebuffs in words that would get Chris hauled away in the back of the cop car (though her act takes on a different meaning later in the movie).

Get Out is a movie about double consciousness, and it pulls off its goal with skill

In the film’s final act, the racism subtext becomes text in a big way, which reveals what Get Out was after all along. The film taps into the phenomenon of double consciousness , which W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about in an essay that appeared in his 1903 book The Souls of Black Folk .

In the essay, Du Bois identified the feeling of having an identity that’s been splintered into several parts — of “always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tale of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.” He continues:

One ever feels his two-ness, — an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife — this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He does not wish to Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He wouldn't bleach his Negro blood in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of opportunity closed roughly in his face.

Since Du Bois, the idea has been adapted by women, especially black feminists writing about living in patriarchal societies. Chris’s experience embodies a 2017 version of Du Bois’s, both in how he experiences his two-ness among the folks upstate and how he relates to Walter and Georgina.

(The film itself seems a bit doubly conscious, though in a different way; it both embodies and winks at some of the tropes common to horror films, which obviously signal that everything isn’t going to be hunky-dory at Rose’s parents’ house. After all, it’s titled Get Out . You kind of know what’s coming.)

The experience of being observed matters here, and the manner in which one is observed and becomes the object of desire — a sort of fetish object — is at the center of Get Out , even though it doesn’t call attention to the idea specifically.

The deft way this is handled in the script — and the multiple ways the theme is layered into the film, including several repeated visual symbols and motifs — makes Get Out a great candidate to join the classics of social horror, since it’s unusual to see any movie pull off this approach with respect to the topic of race.

I’m white, and have no idea what it’s like to be a black American, and I never really can understand it instinctively, no matter how much I try to empathize. But my female body thrilled sickeningly with recognition when I saw Rosemary’s Baby , and I felt an echo of that same sensation watching Get Out . Which makes me wonder if — just maybe — a great, funny, well-made horror movie like Get Out can, while not totally bridging the gap between my experience and someone else’s, at least help us understand each other a little better.

Get Out opens in theaters on February 24.

Most Popular

Why are whole-body deodorants suddenly everywhere, if trump wins, what would hold him back, take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, what the death of iran’s president could mean for its future, the known unknowns about ozempic, explained, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Awards Shows

No, the director of Zone of Interest did not disavow his Jewish identity at the Oscars

I’m an expert in the end of the world. The Oscar-winning Oppenheimer made me cry in terror.

7 winners and 0 losers from the surprisingly delightful 2024 Oscars

The profound weirdness of Robert Downey Jr.’s Oscar win — and the category he won

What does winning an Oscar even mean anyway?

No one wants an Oscar as badly as Bradley Cooper

Bridgerton’s third season is more diverse — and even shallower — than ever

The misleading, wasteful way we measure gas mileage, explained

The Republican Party's man inside the Supreme Court

Why Trump's running mate could be the most important VP pick of our time

Rent control for child care?

Introducing Vox’s next chapter

Pioneering the Future of AI-Enhanced Storytelling

Breaking structure creates tremendous shock value-while maintaining the integrity of the message.

Jordan Peele’s directorial debut Get Out succeeds on many levels. On the surface, the literal interpretation of this imperative commands us to high-tail it out of there and escape the horrors of an upstate New York estate. Underneath, the psychological implications of the narrative implore us to get out of our heads and stop focusing on keeping the peace to avoid further conflict. The former fulfills the prerequisites of a great horror film, the latter guarantees a long and lasting impression.

Achieving a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is rare, yet predictable. Get Out grabs this honor not through style nor shock factor, but rather through an efficient and sophisticated narrative structure–a repeatable approach brought about by a solid Storyform.

A comprehensive and functioning storyform guarantees critical acclaim and widespread Audience approval.

How then does one explain the success of Get Out given that its director purposefully broke the storyform to assuage racial tension?

Deliver 98% of the message, and the Audience will finish the rest for you.

A Brilliant Combination of Both Objective and Subjective Views

Get Out tells the story of photographer Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) and his weekend spent meeting the mother and father of his girlfriend, Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) at her parent’s estate in upstate New York. Strange encounters with groundskeeper Walter (Marcus Henderson) and maid Georgina (Betty Gabriel) unlock an elaborate scheme of therapeutic hypnosis and brain surgery designed to prolong the lives of weak white people. Manipulating black victims into the “sunken place” to prepare them for transfer centralizes conflict in the Psychology Domain for the Objective Story Throughline with an emphasis, or Objective Story Concern in Conceptualizing .

Dark and foreboding Psychological Dramas like What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? , Sunset Boulevard and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf share this common source of conflict in Psychology and Conceptualizing, placing Get Out in good company.

While the Armitage family works to balance the intellectual superiority of white people with the physical advantages of the black community, Chris holds himself back–participating in the modern tradition of African-Americans to blame a lack of agency on a system that just isn’t fair. Agreeing to produce a State I.D. when it isn’t warranted, merely for the sake of keeping the peace? Chris, like so many men and women in his position, fails to take action because of a Problem with Equity .

The Dramatica theory of story defines a Motivation of Equity as a balance, fairness, or stability . This effort to maintain balance because “shit isn’t fair” holds people back from solving personal problems. Sometimes–as Chris later learns–a little inequity is needed to move things forward. This drive towards Equity also reduces capable and productive members of society to sniveling and affable slaves, happy to keep peace with their masters at any cost–even if it means forgetting their true selves (a Story Cost of Memory ).

The genius of Get Out lies in the connection between Chris’s issues and the issues suffered by the rest of the cast at the hands of the Armitage family. Both the Main Character Problem and Objective Story Problem share a similar focus on Equity.

The Meaningful Character Arc

When first introduced to the subtle racism of Rose’s family, Chris steps back and adapts–changing himself and accepting what he sees rather than doing anything to improve the situation. This mindset, that balance must be maintained, defines the nature of problems found in a Main Character Throughline of in Mind and sets a Main Character Approach of Be-er .

The Dramatica theory of story singles out two key story points to define the Character Arc of the Main Character: the Main Character Resolve and the Main Character Growth . The Resolve compares the end of the narrative to the beginning and asks Did the Main Character abandon an old paradigm, or did they remain steadfast to their original approach? The Growth determines the direction of movement–either away from their initial perspective or towards a new approach.

In Get Out , Chris exemplifies all the qualities of a Main Character with a Changed Resolve and a Growth of Stop . Chris is his own worst enemy–he needs to Stop thinking that his failure to act the night of his mother’s death resulted in some horrible karmic fate.

Chris’ initial therapy session with Mrs. Armitage explains the source of this justification and his Main Character Issue with Falsehood :

You said 'you knew something was wrong.' What did you do?

I just sat there. Watching TV.

You didn't call someone? Your Aunt or the police?

I don't know. I thought if I did, it would make it real.

This lie, or Falsehood, Chris told himself led to his mother’s death and generated the guilt he feels in regards to her passing.

The Solution for Chris is to remove this idea of “life isn’t fair” from the conversation with others and instead, use it to get out from under his justifications. He Changes by accepting that sometimes, accidents happen. Exiting the car to retrieve the fallen Georgina confirms this shift.

Unfortunately, by removing it from the broader perspective he allows justice and Equity to overwhelm the balance of conflict in the Objective Story Throughline. His actions–from bocce ball to stranglehold–fight fire with fire, confirming white America’s concept of the modern black man and the hidden racism underneath.

He rises to meet his fate on that windy road–

–only to find his best friend Rod (LilRel Howery) behind the flashing blue and red lights–

–not local authorities, as was originally shot and written .

The result is a defective Storyform and a strange cognitive dissonance that accompanies events incongruent with the story’s established purpose.

The Alternate Ending of Get Out

During an interview on the BuzzFeed podcast Another Round, writer-director Jordan Peele explained the original ending for the film:

There is an alternate ending in which the cops come at the end. He gets locked up and taken away for slaughtering an entire family of white people and you know he’s never going to get out if he doesn’t get shot there on the spot.

This original ending fulfills the promise and intent of the narrative established in the Storyform throughout the rest of the film. Regardless of the social implications, the original intent behind the story flows concludes accurately with this alternate ending.

“we’re in this post racial world, apparently...we’ve got Obama so racism is over, let’s not talk about it. That’s what the movie was meant to address...if you don’t already know...racism isn’t over...the ending in that era was to say, look ‘You think race isn’t an issue? Well at the end, we all know this is how this movie would end right here.’”

Especially since everything that came before it was meant to support and argue that particular point-of-view. The idea that “racism is over” aligns with the Objective Story Problem of Equity –everyone thinks there is peace, when really, there isn’t–and that’s a problem.

This observation was Peele’s original intent for writing the story, and it shows with the progression of events and justifications present in each Throughline.

The Storyform contains the message of the Author’s original Intent. This dissonance between the original ending and the socially acceptable ending perfectly illustrates the mechanism underlying a functioning narrative.

Plot Progressions and Meaning

Unlike other paradigms of story structure, the order of events in the Dramatica theory of story holds a specific meaning. In Snyder’s Save the Cat! series, beats, and sequences often fall out of place and line up in a different order depending on the film. Variations of the Hero’s Journey tend to play fast and loose with order as well. With Dramatica, order is everything .

Dialing in the Storypoints presented within the first 90 minutes–yet, leaving out these last few minutes–one is presented with two possible storyforms for Get Out :

• SUCCESS : Conceiving - Being - Becoming - Conceptualizing
• FAILURE : Conceptualizing - Conceiving - Being - Becoming

Note: These Plot Progression are based on the Subtxt Narrative Engine March 2021, revision C. They differ significantly from the Progressions found in the original Dramatica application. While unknown to me when I had originally written this article (2017), the Progression predicted by Subtxt in 2021c synced up perfectly with my original thinking.

The Plot Progression of Get Out follows the second sequence–and aligns with Peele’s original intent. The first Act finds Chris trying to fit in with Rose's family, while Mr. and Mrs. Armitage set the stage for roping the young man into their diabolical scheme ( Objective Story Transit 1 of Conceptualizing ). The second Act finds best friend and TSA agent Rod coming up with ideas about white people hypnotizing black men to use as sex slaves, while Chris starts to get the idea that there is something strange going on with cellphone ( Objective Story Transit 2 of Conceiving ).

Andre Hayworth’s plea for Chris to “Get Out!” breaks the narrative in half and sets the pace for the downhill run.

Chris plays along as best he can as he tries to find a way out, while the Armitages keep up their charade of just being normal, friendly people--all the while closing in on him ( Objective Story Transit 3 of Being ). And finally, the fourth Act finds Chris transforming into the violent black man everyone assumes him to be, locking in the final Objective Story Transit 4 of Becoming .

Peele originally wrote a Story Outcome of Failure . And this narrative structure explains why we fully expect the doors to open and local authorities to emerge with guns drawn. Everything that led up to this moment required this ending to make sense of the narrative.

Seeing the bloodied and battered bodies of hopeless white people at the hands of a brutal and savage black person confirms what white America has always known–“Well, that’s just the way they are.” A mis -Understanding that finds its place within the storyform under the Story Consequence .

The alternate ending, available on both the DVD and iTunes Extras, extends this Understanding to Chris himself. Facing a Rod still intent on putting the pieces together, Chris tell him to back off–he understands that he’ll never get justice, but he doesn’t care–

–he beat them and more importantly, he beat the inner demons within himself.

The Story of Virtue

The narrative concept of the Story Judgment asks Did the efforts to resolve the story's inequity (centered in the Main Character) result in a relief of angst? Did they overcome their issues? If they did, the Story Judgment is said to be Good ; if not, the Story Judgment is Bad . In both the original and alternate endings, Chris overcame his problems by stopping the car and retrieving Georgina.

When you combine a Story Outcome of Failure with a Story Judgment of Good, you create a Virtuous Ending story. This ending is what Peele initially set out to create–yet failed to follow through with in the final film.

Considering the Audience’s Reception of a Story

The fourth and final stage of communicating story from Author to Audience receives little attention from Dramatica or Narrative First. No less important than the first three, this stage known as [ Story Reception ][54] finds extensive coverage in numerous other sources too exhaustive to list.

Still, some subtle and sophisticated techniques of Reception find genesis within the first three stages of Storyforming , StoryEncoding , and Storyweaving –namely, the breaking of the storyform.

[Director] Peele noticed people were getting more upset and angrier with the deaths of black men like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, and he wanted to position the ending with Chris as a hero rather than a victim.

Peele plays against the expected Story Outcome of Failure by allowing Rod to put the pieces together and arrive at a Story Outcome of Success . In this way, the director works against Audience expectation by breaking the intended message. By sharing the same storymind Peele created throughout the entire message, the Audience expects Chris to land in jail–

–and applauds with exultation and applause when the film introduces a little inequity into their cinematic experience.

Giving Them What They Deserve

Understanding the key story points of a narrative makes it possible for an Author to play against Audience expectation and deliver something quite remarkable. By manipulating the Audience into expecting one outcome and providing another, writer/director Peele breaks structure to his–and our–advantage.

In some ways, this Inequity coincides with the storyform by giving us a clue as to how to put the pieces together towards a new concept of relating to one another. Instead of only showing us the current state of affairs and yet another account of a small and personal triumph, Peele offers us a vision of a way out...

..the triumph of the unimaginable.

Download the FREE e-book Never Trust a Hero

Don't miss out on the latest in narrative theory and storytelling with artificial intelligence. Subscribe to the Narrative First newsletter below and receive a link to download the 20-page e-book, Never Trust a Hero .

• University Statistics
• University Leadership
• Events & Venues
• University Strategic Plan
• Bethlehem & the Lehigh Valley
• Maps & Directions
• Diversity, Inclusion & Equity
• COVID-19 Information Center

• Undergraduate Studies
• Majors & Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Studies
• Interdisciplinary Studies
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation
• Creative Inquiry
• Continuing Education
• Provost & Academic Affairs
• International
• University Catalog
• Summer Programs

Our Colleges:

• College of Arts and Sciences
• College of Business
• College of Education
• College of Health
• P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science

• Research Centers & Institutes
• Student Research Experience
• Office of Research
• Graduate Education & Life

• Undergraduate Admissions
• Apply to Lehigh
• Visits & Tours
• Tuition, Aid & Affording College
• Admission Statistics
• Majors & Programs
• Academics at Lehigh
• Student Life at Lehigh
• Student Profiles
• Success After Graduation
• Lehigh Launch
• Contact Us & Admissions Counselors

Information for:

• Transfer Students
• International Students
• School Counselors
• Graduate Admissions

Student Life

• Clubs & Organizations
• Housing & Dining
• Student Health & Campus Safety
• Arts & Athletics
• Advocacy Centers
• Student Support & Transition to College

• Prospective Student Athletes
• Radio & TV Broadcasts
• Camps & Clinics
• Venues & Directions
• Campus Athletics

• GO Beyond: The Campaign for Future Makers
• Ways to Give

• Students, Faculty & Staff

The Monster is Us: Jordan Peele’s 'Get Out' Exposes Society’s Horrors

New essay collection edited by Dawn Keetley explores how the film ‘Get Out’ revolutionizes the horror tradition while unmasking the politics of race in the early 21st century United States.

Lori Friedman

• Dawn Keetley

As a horror film, Jordan Peele’s 2017 film Get Out certainly broke new ground. Yet, the film is firmly rooted in what Dawn Keetley refers to as “...the longstanding tradition of the political horror film” which is “...driven by very human monsters.”

Keetley, a scholar who specializes in Film, Television, and gothic and horror among other areas, edited a recently published collection of 16 essays about the critically-acclaimed film. The book, “ Jordan Peele’s Get Out: Political Horror ,” is the first scholarly publication to examine the film, which grossed $255 million worldwide, was nominated for four Academy Awards and won the award for Best Original Screenplay.

In the film, Chris Washington, a young Black man living in Brooklyn, gets lured into a fatal scheme by his White girlfriend, Rose Armitage, and her monied, liberal family while visiting them in upstate New York: “The off-putting family visit immerses Chris in a world of microaggressions that get progressively more unnerving, even sinister, culminating in the terrifying moment when he realizes he has been seduced into a deadly trap. Knocked unconscious, Chris wakes up in the family’s basement strapped to a chair and watching a video that tells him he will be undergoing an operation, the Coagula procedure, that will transplant a white man’s brain into his head,” writes Keetley.

Keetley places Get Out in the political horror tradition while noting its contribution to the genre: “Since I’m an avid horror film fan, it was particularly important to me to take up Get Out within the horror tradition―something Peele himself certainly did and has spoken about,” says Keetley. “As much as Get Out emerged from horror films of the past, it also grew from the politics of the present, and so the second major aim of this collection was to read Get Out within the racial politics of its historical moment, although this moment was also, of course, rooted in the racial politics of the past—in slavery, Reconstruction and Jim Crow.”

She writes that in interviews about Get Out, Peele “...has self-consciously chosen to designate it a ‘social thriller’―a film, as Peele describes it, in which the ‘monster’ is society itself.” She notes how he has explicitly cited the influence of three films in particular: Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives . Peele draws on these films to: “...unequivocally indict white people in the same way that The Stepford Wives controversially indicted men,” writes Keetley.

In her introduction, Keetley also explores such topics as how Get Out utilizes the tradition of body horror to address the ongoing legacy of U.S. slavery; how blackface imagery is used in the film to “...expose the false allyship of progressive whites”; and, how the horror trope of the brain transplant is used to illustrate the persistence of racism. Keetley writes: “Racial identity and racism, Get Out proposes, are not easily dislodged―remaining mired in flesh and blood, entrenched in the very substance of the brain.”

The Politics of Horror

The collection is grouped into two sections ― Part I: The Politics of Horror and Part II: The Horror of Politics. The topics in the first section range from the appearance of zombies in Get Out to how it fits into horror’s “minority vocabulary” to the movie’s place in the Female Gothic tradition.

“What most surprised me about the essays in this collection as they came in was how diverse the readings of Get Out were,” says Keetley. “Contributors took up similar scenes and read them in different ways, in different contexts. Editing these essays gave me a vastly renewed appreciation of Peele’s genius in creating this film—a film that has so many layers, so many resonant details. Each scene, each object in a shot, has meaning, often multiple meanings.”

In “A Peaceful Place Denied,” Robin R. Means Coleman , professor and vice president and associate provost for diversity at Texas A&M and Novotny Lawrence , associate professor at Iowa State University, trace the history of “Whitopia” in the horror genre, a term they attribute to Rich Benjamin and define as communities that “remain willfully less multicultural.”

“Within the horror genre, films advanced storylines of White preservation through segregation as Whites and even White monsters fled to Whitopias (e.g. A Nightmare on Elm Street , 1984), thereby freeing themselves from the dangers of the urban,” write Means Coleman and Lawrence. “All this racialized spatial angst finds its origins in D. W. Griffith’s 1915 horror film (yes, it is a horror film) The Birth of a Nation . Nation has fueled White racism for over a century by depicting northern Blacks (portrayed by Whites in blackface) as trampling upon and destroying Whites’ Southern homeland and cultural traditions.”

Means Coleman and Lawrence detail a “cinematic intervention” in the 1970s “that cut against stereotyped notions of Black communities as monstrous” with the advent of Black Exploitation (Blaxploitation) films centering Black heroes and experiences. They also recount the dominant narrative of the 1980s when, as explained by scholar Adilifu Nama, “...the urban became Reagan-era political shorthand for all manner of social ills that people of color were held accountable for, such as crime, illegal drugs, poverty and fractured families.”

The opening scene of Get Out , they write, sets the stage for an inversion of the notion of White suburbia as an oasis in contrast to threatening Black urban environments. “ Get Out begins with Andre Haworth, outside his Black urban home of Brooklyn, talking to a friend on his mobile phone while walking through an unspecified neighborhood, or perhaps more appropriately, any Whitopia, USA.”

When Andre is grabbed, drugged and thrown into the trunk of a car by a masked man, the reversal is clear, they write: “The scene is disturbing as it brings the threat posed to Black urbanites to fruition, instantly constructing the well-manicured, sterile Whitopia as monstrous.”

The Horror of Politics

Topics in “The Horror of Politics” section include the construction of Black male identity in the White imagination and how historical slave resistance informs the film. An essay by a recent Lehigh graduate student Cayla McNally called “Scientific Racism and the Politics of Looking” traces the dark history of racism in science and medicine, arguing that the latter’s “dispassionate prejudice” has been “a mainstay of white supremacy since the founding of the United States.” Chris, though, is able to level his own gaze, through his camera lens, at the scientific system that wants to co-opt his body in the name of science.

In his essay “Staying Woke in Sunken Places, Or the Wages of Double Consciousness,” Mikal J. Gaines , assistant professor of English at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, finds an “ideological affinity” between certain themes in Get Out and W.E.B. Du Bois’s theory of “double consciousness.”

Gaines writes: “Du Bois sought to articulate how being black in America brings about an internal cracking open of the self, a split that ironically renders it impossible to separate questions of subjectivity (one’s internal sense of being in relation to the rest of the world) from those of identity (externally imposed and systematically enforced categories of difference.)”

As part of the Coagula trap, Rose’s mother Missy Armitage hypnotizes Chris, imprisoning his consciousness in a psychic no-man’s land dubbed “the sunken place.” “The visualization of ‘the sunken place’ in particular shares an intellectual and conceptual kinship with Du Bois’s hypothesis,” writes Gaines. The sunken place “literalizes the paralysis that accompanies being forced to occupy a splintered sense of self as a principle condition of life.”

While Get Out , as Keetley notes, “emerged from the politics of the present,” the film transcends it to wrestle with larger questions. As Peele himself has said: “The best and scariest monsters in the world are human beings and what we are capable of especially when we get together.”

Related Stories

Nursing Home Industry May Obscure Some of its Profits, Lehigh Researcher Finds

Andrew Olenski, assistant professor of economics, publishes finding in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.

Research Promotes Equitable Reclassification for Multilingual Learners with Disabilities

Sara Kangas, associate professor of special education, presents policy brief to special education state agency leaders from across the U.S.

Lehigh’s Center for Catastrophe Modeling and Resilience Receives NSF Planning Grant to Pursue Industry-University Cooperative Research Center

Grant will strengthen Lehigh’s Center for Catastrophe Modeling and Resilience as a nationally recognized research center.

“Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele

Get Out is a satirical horror directed by Jordan Peele in 2017. Get Out premiered on January 23, 2017, and was described as “a movie that plunges into white insecurities about black sexuality and the lingering toxicity of slavery on the national psyche” (Johnston 2). The film was a success and received the best awards for acting, writing, directing, and the themes are introduced to the public. In the era of Black Lives Matter, this film is the exact product concerning today’s most heated issue. The film is thought to be a “fantastically twisted and addictively entertaining horror-satire” (Bradshaw 1). Therefore, it has such elements as dramatic and situational irony, allegory, and even paradox.

Chris Washington, the main character, is a black photographer who is extremely anxious about meeting the family of his white girlfriend. Therefore, he continually asks her “Do they know I’m black?”(Peele, 2017). Rose’s dthe ad, Dean, typically makes inappropriate comments about people of color, so Chris is conscious about it. During the night, Chris witnesses the odd conduct of the home’s dark-skinned maid, Georgina, and maintenance person Walter. Later, Chris complains about his inability to sleep generally due to smoking, and Rose’s mother Missy, a hypnotherapist, decides to help him. The next morning Chris wakes up realizing he does not have a smoking addiction anymore.

Later on, many affluent white individuals show up for the Armitages’ annual social gathering. They express high estimation for Chris’ physical appearance. One of the guests, Jim Hudson, an impaired craftsmanship seller, takes a specific enthusiasm for Chris’ photography aptitudes. Chris meets another person of color, Logan King, who behaves oddly and dates the older white woman. Chris calls his friend, TSA administrator Rod Williams, about the curious occurrence Chris endeavors to capture a picture of Logan quietly, but when his glimmer goes off, Logan gets insane, telling Chris to “get out”. The rest of the guests get him, and Dean ensures that Logan had an epileptic seizure.The others catch him, and Dean assures him that hat Logan had an epileptic seizure. According to Kermode (2017) “gradually, inexorably, the cringe-inducing “liberal” awkwardness turns to something more sinister” (3). It turned out that under this annual meeting, people assumed the auction, which is an allegory forslave salee.

Away from the meeting, Chris convinces Rose that they must leave. Rhodes, having received the picture, perceives Logan as Andrea Hayworth missing. Suspecting the connivance, Rod appeals to the police, but the police officers disregard his speech. Here the audience hear such a phrase from the police officer: “This dude is from Brooklyn. He didn’t dress like this” (Peele, 2017). Thus, this saying can be interpreted as dramatic irony because their dialogue seems a little far-fetched. While Chris is about to leave, he discovers photographs of Rose in earlier associations with people of color, including Walter and Georgina, denying her case that Chris is her first black boyfriend. He tries to get out, but Rose and her family surround him. Chris attacks Jeremy; however, Missy uses the “trigger” that she turned on during his hypnosis, killing him.

Chris moves tied to a basement spot. In the video introduction, Grandfather Rose Roman explains that the family transplanted their brain into the bodies of others, giving them their preferred physical qualities and a curved type of eternal status. Hudson tells Chris that the presenter remains in the Sunken Place, knowledgeable but weak. Even though the family is mainly aimed at people of color, Hudson discovers that he needs Chris’s body only for sight. Missy casts a bewitching spell, making Chris pass out.

Chris hits Jeremy, stopping the hypnotist, covering his ears with a cotton seal stretched from the seat. He penetrates Dean with the fangs of a deer, causing Dean to light a match, setting fire to the workshop with the Hudson inside. Chris executes Missy, but Jeremy attacks him as he heads for the exit. He kills Jeremy and drives away in his car, but defeats Georgina. Remembering the passage of his mother, he delivers Georgina in the vehicle. In any case, under the control of Granny Marianne, she attacks him. During the battle, the car crashes and Georgina is dead.

Rose captures him with Walter, who is controlled by Roman. Chris utilizes the flash of his telephone to murder Roman, permitting Walter to recover control of his body. Walters Rose’s rifle fires her in the stomach, and shoots himself, slaughtering Roman. The next moment, people may notice the elements of a paradox when Rose was lying on the ground being strangled by Chris, she claims to love him despite her cold-blooded deed. The scene comes to an end when a police cruiser maneuvers on stage and Rod leaves the car to rescue Chris. The finale refers to situational irony, as Rod had nothing to do with the police; however, he saved his friend undercover.

Several main themes make up Get Out’s plot. First of all, slavery is a significant subject of getting Out . According to the source, “the film critiques the insidious racism that lurks just beneath a veneer of white liberal do-gooders” (Harris 4). The activity at the Armitage house reconsiders the foundation of property slavery. The individuals from the “Request for the Coagula,” established by Dean Armitage’s father use black people for their motivations. The senior member holds a quiet sell-out over who gets the chance to transplant their mind into Chris’ collection, a scene that brings attention back to the barter that took place inside the submission base.

Individuals of color are enticed, through either brutality or increasingly manipulative methods, to the house, where they are then misused. The same happened to Georgina and Walter who were deprived of their independence. Peele constrains us to face the inheritance of subjugation by envisioning a current variant of it. The structure has changed, yet the malignant aim is as yet the equivalent: to rule over a race.

The next theme concerns kidnapping and mainly relates to Andre being kidnapped at the beginning of the film which previously happened to Walter and Georgina. Their bodies are now occupied by the Armitages’ grandparents. Who is searching for these individuals? Many people are still nnot foundin America and it is worrying. This film brings up upsetting the truth: nobody is searching for those people.

Race is maybe the absolute most predominant subject in the film. From the earliest starting point, we see a world where the interracial connection between Rose and Chris represents a few inconsistencies. He asks Rose whether she told her parents that he was dark before taking him home. On their way to the house, Chris and Rose are pulled over by a white cop, who requests to see Chris’ ID. However, Rose decides to stand up for her boyfriend blaming the policeman for racial prejudice.

At the Armitage mansion, Chris’ race is thought to be not a “serious deal”, yet the family’s clumsiness about dark-skinned people now and again communicated through a determined emphasis all alone “wokeness,” turns into its bigotry. For example, Dean tells Chris that he “would have voted for Obama a third time if [he] could” and alludes to him as “my man” all through their visit (Peele, 2017). Missy discourteously treats Georgina, the black servant, and it feels as though Missy has some racial biases. Rose’s sibling, Jeremy, is probably the most agitating individual fromin family. He asked Chris uneasy questions provoking him to a battle. The film takes an eye-catching situation – a young colored man meets the family of his white lover – and continues to drive it into an increasingly creepy area until it becomes more and more terrifying.

As a film of blood and horror, Get Out is focused on the terrible events, be it hatred of ordinary people or more pronounced hatred of the laboratory that uses black people. From the first second, disgust and how these different people perceive the best places as “terrible” is the central theme of the film. The first few seconds show Andre, a man of color walking along a path in the suburbs at night. A group of people seems safe and reliable from the usual point of view. Still, we will soon realize that this white suburb is not suitable for a defenseless person of color. The car did drive up to Andre and the disguised driver pounced on him, knocking him down, and throwing him in the back seat.

Aversion continues to unfold from this point and keeps up until the rest of the film. To begin with, on the road to the north, Rose and Chris hit a deer with their car. The deer is symbolic here as Rose’s dad claims that he hates them, saying “I’m sick of it, they’re taking over, they’re like rats, and they’re destroying the ecosystem” (Peele, 2017). This expression can allude to eugenics’ representatives who wanted to wipe out the entire race. This is not a particularly extreme case, given that they pass through a lush area, but the second is surprising and frustrating, especially for Chris, who leads. At this point, the house begins to sicken the viewer, from the empty grin of the black internal staff to Missy’s accent on Chris’s mesmerizing appeal to Dean’s bizarre use of ebony and his claim that he will decide in favor of Obama the third. Time. All of these little disgusts for Chris are deeply disturbing, and the film exceeds expectations, pointing out to the viewer how frivolous the bias of the regulator in itself is alarming.

The name alone uncovers to the viewer that the focal subject of the film will get away. Chris puts forth a strong attempt to exist together with the Armitage family the first hight, paying little mind to unavoidable hiccups. At the gathering the following day, nonetheless, after Chris snaps a photo of Logan with his camera, Logan appears to wake up in surprise and gets Chris, telling him: “Get out!” This is a startling admonition, as apparently, this is the genuine primary concern that Logan said in all the joint effort. Chris focuses on the notice and decides to leave when time permits, stunned by the experience and peculiar things that occurred. Despite the fact that he accepts that Rose will release him, it before long becomes obvious that she has been torturing him constantly and that he is the survivor of a perplexing, energizing trick. In the rest of the film, after Chris is found in a tornado shelter, his only wish is to escape.

The next topic is fixated on Chris and his “apparent prevalence.” While prejudice usually surrounds the impression of a different race as a parameter, Get Out revealed white characters’ interest in black bodies, much closer to envy and predation than to rapture. The dignitary tells Chris that dark sprinter Jesse Owens beat his father during the rounds at the 1936 Olympics, and the meeting, various participants, note many of Chris’s characteristics, from his physical composition to his workshop, the ability to take pictures. As it turns out later, the procedure that the Armitages created involves the transplantation of a white brain into a black body and, therefore, the transfer of a wicked person’s ability to a white consciousness. Jim Hudson needs to transfer his mind to Chris’s skull, as he wants to see and photograph with Chris’s expertise.

The whole plot of the film is based on a young woman who brings a man she is dating to meet her family. This situation is familiar for the majority of people and what keeps Chris in a new state is his affection for Rose. At some point, he tells her that she is all that he has, and the couple shares many sincere minutes throughout. Rose always guarantees Chris that she can help him in any case when her family acts especially strange or does something that makes Chris feel distant. This sentimental association that builds up is what makes Rose’s possible disloyalty so terrible. The observer intends to imagine that she is an ally of Chris, but in reality, she is just as ruthless and evil as her family.

Undoubtedly, there are several precursors of the film which may have shaped Peele’s mind before he issued Get Out . Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives may have affected the plot of Peele’s movie. The main similarity of these films is that the protagonists are smart, and they are ready to investigate the situation rather than start screaming and crying. During the interview, Peele stated that he loved movies that expose the darker sides of seemingly harmless places and people” (Chan 5). Therefore, he likes The Stepford Wives, “ which reveals the underbelly of this idyllic setting” (Chan 5). All these movie’s characters have the intuition that leads them to some sinister revelation. Moreover, the audience may observe the interaction of genres, namely horror and comedy, within these films.

In conclusion, it seems reasonable to state that Get Out is a truly genius movie revealing the present concerns of tociety about racial inequality. Moreover, social insults and the small injustices of casual racism are amplified, and it turns out that they mask the most disgusting form of racism: slavery. Overall, Jordan Peele has succeeded to demonstrate such an acute problem using satirical elements, which mitigated the genre of horror.

Works Cited

Bradshaw, Peter. “Get Out Review – Fantastically Twisted Horror-Satire on Race in America”. The Guardian , 2017. Web.

Chan, Andrew. “Walking Nightmares: A Conversation with Jordan Peele.” The Criterion Collection, 2017, Web.

Harris, Brandon. “ The Giant Leap Forward of Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” .” The New Yorker , 2017.

Johnston, Trevor. “Film of the Week: Get Out, a Surreal Satire of Racial Tension.” BFI, 2018, Web.

Kermode, Mark. Get Out Review – Tea, Bingo… and Racial Terror.” The Guardian, 2017. Web.

Peele, J. (2017). Get out [Film]. Blumhouse Productions.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 21). “Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele. https://studycorgi.com/get-out-horror-film-by-jordan-peele/

"“Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele." StudyCorgi , 21 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/get-out-horror-film-by-jordan-peele/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '“Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele'. 21 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "“Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele." January 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/get-out-horror-film-by-jordan-peele/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "“Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele." January 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/get-out-horror-film-by-jordan-peele/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "“Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele." January 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/get-out-horror-film-by-jordan-peele/.

This paper, ““Get Out” Horror Film by Jordan Peele”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: October 28, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

This review was originally published on January 24, 2017, as a part of our Sundance Film Festival coverage.

With the ambitious and challenging “Get Out,” which premiered in a secret screening at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, Jordan Peele reveals that we may someday consider directing the greatest talent of this fascinating actor and writer. We knew from his days on “Key & Peele” and in feature comedies that he was a multiple threat, but his directorial debut is a complex, accomplished genre hybrid that should alter his business card. “Get Out” feels fresh and sharp in a way that studio horror movies almost never do. It is both unsettling and hysterical, often in the same moment, and it is totally unafraid to call people on their racist bullshit. When he introduced the film in Park City, he revealed that it started with an attempt to write a movie he hadn’t seen before. We need more directors willing to take risks with films like "Get Out."

To be fair, Peele is clearly riffing on some films he has seen before, including “The Stepford Wives” and “ Rosemary’s Baby ,” although with a charged, racial twist. His film is essentially about that unsettling feeling when you know you don’t belong somewhere; when you know you’re unwanted or perhaps even wanted too much. Peele infuses the age-old genre foundation of knowing something is wrong behind the closed doors around you with a racial, satirical edge. What if going home to meet your girlfriend’s white parents wasn’t just uncomfortable but downright life-threatening?

“Get Out” opens with a fantastic tone-setter. A young man (the great Keith Stanfield , in two other movies at this year’s Sundance and fantastic on FX’s “Atlanta”) is walking down a suburban street, joking with someone on the phone about how he always gets lost because all the streets sound the same. A car passes him, turns around, and slowly starts following him. It’s an otherwise empty street, so the guy knows something is wrong. Suddenly, and perfectly staged in terms of Peele’s direction, the intensity of the situation is amplified and we are thrust into a world in which the safe-looking suburbs are anything but.

Cut to our protagonists, Chris ( Daniel Kaluuya ) and his girlfriend Rose ( Allison Williams of “Girls”), preparing to go home to meet her parents. Rose hasn’t told them he’s black, which she blows off as no big deal, but he’s wary. His TSA Agent buddy (a hysterical LilRel Howery) warns him against going too, but Chris is falling in love with Rose. He’ll have to meet them eventually. And Rose swears her dad would have voted for Obama a third time if he could have.

From the minute that Chris and Rose arrive at her parents’ house, something is unsettling. Sure, Dean ( Bradley Whitford ) and Missy ( Catherine Keener ) seem friendly enough, but almost too much so, like they’re looking to impress Chris. More unnerving is the demeanor of a groundskeeper named Walter ( Marcus Henderson ) and a housekeeper named Georgina ( Betty Gabriel ), who almost appear to be like the pod people from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” There’s just something wrong. But, as we so often do in social or racial situations, Chris keeps trying to excuse their behavior—maybe Walter is jealous and maybe Georgina has an issue with Chris being with a white woman. The lurking presence of Rose’s odd brother ( Caleb Landry Jones ), who often looks like he’s auditioning for a remake of “ A Clockwork Orange ,” doesn’t help. Chris goes out to have a smoke one night, and, well, things start to get even stranger in ways I won’t spoil—in fact, the preview gives away way too much. Avoid it if you can.

“Get Out” is a slow-burn of a film for its first half as Peele piles up the clues that something is wrong. Or could Chris just be overreacting to everyday racial tension? Peele’s greatest gift here is in the way he walks that fine line, staging exchanges that happen all the time but imbuing them with a greater degree of menace. As white partygoers comment on Chris’ genetically-blessed physical gifts, the mind is racing as to what exactly the greater purpose of this visit is for this young man, a minority in a sea of white people who seem to want to own him, which is itself a razor-sharp commentary on the way we often seek to possess cultural aspects other than our own.

Then Peele drops his hammer. The final act of “Get Out” is an unpredictable thrill ride. As a writer, Peele doesn’t quite bring all of his elements together in the climax in the way I wish he would, but he proves to be a strong visual artist as a director, finding unique ways to tell a story that goes increasingly off the rails. The insanity of the final act allows some of the satirical, racially-charged issues to drop away, which is slightly disappointing. He’s playing with so many interesting ideas when it comes to race that I wish the film felt a bit more satisfying in its payoff, even if that disappointment is amply offset by the pure intensity of the final scenes, during which Peele displays a skill with horror action that I didn’t know he had. 

Peele works well with actors too, drawing a great leading man turn from Kaluuya, letting Williams essentially riff on her “Girls” persona, and knowing exactly what to do with Whitford & Keener, both of whom have always had that dangerous edge to their amiability. They’re excellent at working something sinister into their gracious host routines.

Most importantly, Peele knows how to keep his concept front and center. “Get Out” is not a film that takes breaks for comedy routines (even if Howery allows a little relief, it's often in the context of how he's convinced all white people want black sex slaves), keeping us on edge and uncertain from the opening scene to the final one. He understands that every time a black man goes home to visit his white girlfriend’s parents, there is uncertainty and unease. He’s merely turning that up, using an easily identifiable racial tension to make a horror movie. Many of our greatest genre filmmakers have done exactly the same thing—amplifying fears already embedded in the human condition for the purpose of movie horror. We just don’t often see something quite so ambitious from a February horror flick or a first-time director. Even if the second half doesn’t quite fulfill the promise of the first, Peele doesn’t just deserve credit for trying something so daring; he should have producers knocking down his door to see what else he’s never seen before.

Brian Tallerico

Brian Tallerico is the Managing Editor of RogerEbert.com, and also covers television, film, Blu-ray, and video games. He is also a writer for Vulture, The Playlist, The New York Times, and GQ, and the President of the Chicago Film Critics Association.

Now playing

Terrestrial Verses

Godfrey cheshire.

Taking Venice

Matt zoller seitz.

Blood for Dust

Christy Lemire

Sweet Dreams

Film credits.

Get Out (2017)

Daniel Kaluuya as Chris

Allison Williams as Rose

Catherine Keener as Missy

Bradley Whitford as Dean

Keith Stanfield as Andre Hayworth

Marcus Henderson as Walter

• Jordan Peele

Cinematographer

• Toby Oliver
• Gregory Plotkin

Latest blog posts

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2 Wastes Its Potential

Living Through Words: Ethan Hawke on His Career, Poetry, and Wildcat

Cannes 2024: The Apprentice, The Shrouds

Cannes 2024: Blue Sun Palace, Julie Keeps Quiet, Simon of the Mountain

Cinema @ UMass Boston

Cinematography in get out: the run-down.

Written by: Jenna Moloney

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, cinematography is “the art or science of motion-picture photography.” It also defines science as “the state of knowing,” and art as “a skillful plan.” To summarize, cinematography is the carefully planned use of moving images to convey a specific message. A cinematographer doesn’t just put a camera on a tripod and film an actor; they carefully choose angles which make the audience feel a certain way or suggest/foreshadow something. For example, filming an actor from below makes them look taller and more intimidating. Filming an actor from far away and allowing blank space behind them may suggest that something is about to pop out or come running after them. A cinematographer’s job is terribly difficult: every shot must be carefully planned to be sure they do not suggest something that is false or something the director doesn’t want the audience to know.

Get Out is a fiction film consisting of two major themes of science fiction and racism. Rather than fulfilling the requirements of a horror movie as it was advertised as, it ended up being more of a thriller. To summarize without spoilers, the movie is about an African American man who visits his Caucasian girlfriend’s family over the weekend. Soon, he begins to realize the family is racist and there are things that are “off” about all the other African Americans he meets while staying there. The ending does include some violence, and overall the audience leaves the theatre with a pretty good idea of what happens after the conclusion of the film.

Get Out ’s cinematographer, Toby Oliver, clearly used space to his advantage. For example, when the main character, Chris, first enters his girlfriend’s parents’ house, the camera is very far away from them. We, as the audience, actually lose sight of the characters for a moment because the camera is in a completely different room and the wall separates us from the family. This makes the audience feel separated from this situation; we are not part of this family, we are on the outside spectating. This is the first moment where we don’t feel included in the love, but we start to see how dark and spacious the house is. This contrasts greatly with the close-up image of Chris when he is being hypnotized. His eyes are bloodshot and filled with fear, but the rest of his face is paralyzed. We feel this intense emotion with him because we are staring right into his soul with this shot.

The use of POV shots, or point of view shots, are very important in this film because we can actually see what Chris is seeing. One of these shots occurs when the black gardener is running toward him in the middle of the night. During one moment, Chris looks out into the field and sees nothing but grass and trees. The next moment, when he looks back, he sees a small figure in the distance that appears to be running. The camera cuts back to Chris to show him squint his eyes questioningly, and when the next POV shot occurs the man is getting closer and closer to Chris until he finally takes a turn so he does not hit him. Music accompanying this shot helps us to feel the true fear that Chris must have felt in that moment. Another example of a POV shot includes when Chris is in “the sunken place.” CGI is used to make Chris look as though he is floating in darkness with only a small screen showing him what is occurring in the real world. There are a few shots while he is here that shows darkness on all sides and a small screen showing the family and what they are doing in reality. These shots show exactly what Chris would actually be seeing in his situation. This shot is similar to the POV shot where Chris is sitting in the chair in the basement watching a television screen tell him exactly what is going to happen. The camera is a little bit above the screen’s level, as Chris would be, almost suggesting that Chris is looking down on his future in sadness and despair.

Close-up shots are very important in this film. As mentioned previously, the shot of Chris’ face as he is being hypnotized shows extreme emotion, which then makes the audience feel the same fear he is feeling. (This is the picture attached to this article.) Another close-up shot that is extremely crucial to the actual plot of the movie are the shots of the teacup that the mother is holding. Before the audience even knows the significance of the teacup and spoon in the hypnosis process, the camera suggests its ominous and vital presence with close-up shots of it cut in between shots of Chris and the mother’s conversation. One last example of an important close-up shot in the film is the shot of the arms of the chair that Chris is sitting in while trapped in the basement. The camera emphasizes the fuzzy white pieces coming out of the chair, suggesting that they may be important. Soon after, we find out they were actually crucial to Chris’ survival.

This film favors showing characters from below. These low angle shots help create the fearful atmosphere that the director wanted. When Chris expresses to Georgina how he feels uncomfortable around so many white people, Georgina reacts with tears yet creepy laughter. She repeatedly says “no” and shakes her head, but with a smile on her face. The camera is below her neck and only showing one side of her face, making the audience feel closer to her than they want to. The uncomfortable feeling this shot provokes is exactly what they director wants his viewers to feel, because that is how Chris feels. When Walter is shown at the conclusion of the movie with a gun, the audience sees him as intimidating for a moment. The audience suspects he might kill Chris because the angle suggests he is the one in the scene that holds all of the power.

Overall, Get Out is not as scary as it appears to be in the trailers. The music includes typical horror movie music, including loud unsuspecting crashes and overwhelming screeching strings, and this may evoke quick jolts of fear in viewers. However, the overall plot is not “scary,” but rather interesting and captivating. There are a few different levels of plot twists that keep your attention throughout the second half of the film. I would recommend this movie to anyone at a high school level and above.

One Response

this site was helpful to use as the film Get Out is what we are being assessed on. this site made it easy for me to come up with ideas of what to write for different film techniques.

Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.

Get Out (film)

By jordan peele, get out (film) essay questions.

How does Jordan Peele use humor in the film?

The film is certainly not a strict comedy, in that it deals with horrific and very intense themes and situations. However, there are little moments of dark satirical humor included in the film. Rod, for instance, is an exceedingly humorous character, and his lines often seem like the musings of a stand-up comedian, who can find the bright spot in any dark situation. Even when he is warning Chris to get out of the Armitage house, he gives it a comic twist. Even at the end, when there is nothing to laugh about, Rod delivers some hilarious lines to close the film.

There are other more subtle elements of humor in the film. One particular one is when Chris is killing each of the members of the Armitage family in the downstairs of the house. Just when we start to wonder where Rose went, we see her sitting on her bed listening to an 80s pop song and looking at pictures of fit, shirtless black men on her computer. This moment, of deranged calm and detachment, strikes a humorous contrast with the intensity of the violence taking place elsewhere. It also satirizes Rose's position as a "basic" white girl, depicting her as both cold-blooded and clueless.

Why does Jim Hudson buy Chris at the auction?

Jim Hudson seems like an ally at the Armitage's party, but it turns out that he just wants to buy Chris so that he can have his brain transplanted into Chris' body. Hudson is blind, for one, and wants to be able to see, but he also wants to be able to use Chris' talent as a photographer.

Who is the primary antagonist in the film?

Rose stands out as the primary antagonist in the film because of how manipulative and dishonest she is to Chris. While each member of the Armitage family is an antagonist and manipulates Chris in different ways, Rose's dishonesty is so elaborate that she ends up becoming the most evil and antagonistic character in the film. After leading Chris to believe that he can trust her and that she loves him deeply, it becomes clear that this is not the case, and that she wants him either dead or braindead.

What does the film have to say about casual racism among American liberals and seemingly progressive people?

The Armitages are undoubtedly a unique breed, horror master-villains with a near-psychopathic racist bent, but before this is revealed they represent a kind of "woke" liberal family, who believe that they are not part of the problem of racism. Before they go to visit her parents, Rose assures Chris that they will not have a problem with his race, that it will be a non-issue, and that the worst thing that will happen will be her dad being "lame" and talking about how much he loves Obama.

When they arrive, the Armitages are warm and accepting, but there are little behaviors that flag for Chris that they are fixated on his race. For instance, Dean tells Chris that he would have voted for Obama for a third term as if this is some kind of special virtue, which makes Chris feel a little awkward. He also refers to Chris as "my man" throughout the visit and makes little awkward stabs at appearing "down" with black people. Rose's brother is nice enough, but also creepily fixated on Chris' physical attributes, even challenging him to a fight. Rose's mother, Missy, get impatient with the black servant and snaps at her when she spills some tea. These are tiny events, but they represent the kinds of "microaggressions" that make Chris feel alienated, and as the plot unfolds, they belie a much more insidious and violent obsession with Chris' race, and a desire to dominate him.

Why is it important that Rod is the one who picks up Chris?

Jordan Peele originally wrote an unhappy ending, one in which the police arrive just as Chris is strangling Rose in the road. It doesn't look good for him, and the policemen don't investigate whether he is acting in self-defense or not, taking him in for questioning and believing him to be the villain. This original ending was a comment on the injustices black men face at the hands of the law. In this ending, even though Chris is trying to fight for his life, he is punished because of racial bias. Peele decided to scrap that ending, however, and make it more hopeful, by having Rod be the one to save him. This way, Chris doesn't have to face a skeptical authority, just the chiding of his best friend telling him, "I told you so." In most horror movies, the arrival of the police is a welcome thing, but in Get Out , in which a black man is the protagonist, the arrival of the police is a horrifying fate in and of itself.

Get Out (film) Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Get Out (film) is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Where does it take place

The filming takes place in LA and Alabama but is set in Upstate New York.

what were they trying to do to chris

Missy is tricking Chris into being hypnotized. She wants him to be emotionally exposed about the death of his mother. She plunges Chris into a dark vulnerable place until she has total control of his psyche, “ Now you’re in the Sunken Place .” At...

what is a disturbing discoveries that lead chris to a truth that he never could have imagined?

Sorry, I have not seen this film yet.

Study Guide for Get Out (film)

Get Out (film) study guide contains a biography of Jordan Peele, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Get Out (film)
• Get Out (film) Summary
• Character List
• Director's Influence

Essays for Get Out (film)

Get Out (film) essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Get Out (film) by Jordan Peele.

• Memories That Make Us Who We Are: Comparing 'The Stepford Wives' and 'Get Out'
• Get Out: Illustration of the Enduring yet Elusive Psychology of Slavery
• To What Extent Do To Kill a Mockingbird, The Help, and Get Out Engage with White Poverty in their Depiction of White Women?
• What the Critics Got Out of 'Get Out': Commentary on Modern Racism and Its Impacts
• Bodily Autonomy and Bucks in 'Get Out'

“Get Out” Movie Character Analysis

Introduction.

Unlike other horror comedies centered around improbable or supernatural happenings, Jordan Peele’s 2017 horror thriller Get Out is completely distinct from other films based on horror. Rather, it is founded on the sometimes exaggerated and extreme concerns of Black people over racism. Because it exposes people’s racist impulses, it is simultaneously terrifying and hilarious. The movie’s central topic is the uncomfortable sense of being too wanted or unwanted in a location and realizing that one does not belong there. With a satirical, ethnic twist, the movie also revolves around the timeless theme of sensing something is wrong behind closed doors. Get Out shows how wider institutional racism and resurgent “negrophilia” interact. White people’s misconception of black culture prevents them from humanizing the black experience despite their “efforts.” As demonstrated in the movie, white people make black people feel self-conscious about their characteristics and judge them according to qualities that are not always “desirable,” which further alienates them. The paper will focus on Chris as a character and analyze the character based on the concept of the theory of personality, Psychoanalysis (Freud), and Cognitive-Behavioral Theory while also providing the reason for selecting the theories and their limitations.

Brief Description of the Case

The protagonist of the film Get Out, Chris Washington, represents a black photographer living in an interracial relationship. Chris feels guilty about his mother’s death because of the lie, or falsehood, he told himself that caused her to die. He consents to go on a weekend visit to the white family estate of his new girlfriend, where he finds things rather strange and creepy. Chris demonstrates care, empathy, skepticism, and adaptation throughout the movie. Chris’s solution is to stop using the excuse that “life isn’t fair” in conversations with other people and instead utilize it to support his arguments. He transforms by acknowledging that mishaps do occur occasionally. This shift is confirmed by getting out of the automobile to look for the fallen Georgina. Regretfully, by taking a wider view, he permits justice and equity to overpower the objective of Storytelling via the line’s conflicting balance. His acts, which range from bocce ball to strangulation, fight fire with fire and validate the stereotype of the contemporary black man held by white America, along with the underlying prejudice. In this case, the pattern of his behavior is observing, analyzing, and understanding the odd behaviors in people.

Selection of Theories and Their Significance

The two selected strategies for analyzing this issue include psychoanalysis and cognitive behavior theory. The two theories present conflicting views that help develop a complete image of Chris’ personality. It is evident from the context of the movie in general that “Get Out” keeps viewers on the precipice of their seats from the first to the last scene, never letting up for comedic moments. The producer is aware that there is always anxiety and uneasiness when a black man visits his white girlfriend’s parents. He’s amplifying that, using a readily recognized racial conflict to create a scary film. The psychoanalytic approach explores the unconscious mind through its involvement in psychological conflicts and demining mechanisms. At the same time, Cognitive behavioral theory is a theory of thought that considers the relationship between thinking, feeling, and behavior. These techniques help examine the mechanisms of workings of Chris’s thought process and the associated behaviors.

Psychoanalytic Theory by Freud

Since psychoanalysis was founded, Freud has focused on the neurophysiological phenomena that underlie the observed psychological processes. He was forced to give up on his aspirations because, first, the scientific instruments of the moment were not developed enough to support his neuroscientific ambitions, and second, he was skeptical of the prevailing phrenologic perceptions and the tendency to assign a particular brain region to every mental process (Cieri & Esposito, 2019). In this regard, psychoanalysis, founded by Sigmund Freud, emphasizes behavior concerning the unconscious mind. This means that personality develops out of unconscious conflicts, the occurrences in childhood, and the need to find shelter from anxiety or stress.

For example, psychoanalysis makes us understand why Chris is initially rather reluctant and suspicious about the “odd” behavior of his girlfriend’s family. From Freud’s perspective, Chris’s unconscious could have caught these unspoken hints and made him suspicious or uneasy (Cieri & Esposito, 2019). Additionally, his former experiences being a black man might have made him extra cautious, aware, and alert while hanging out with mostly whites. Other defenses, including repression and denial, may be involved in suppression or ignoring Chris’s increasing worries about the real motive behind the family. Usually, being cautious minimizes the trauma of the first experience, and the anticipation of trauma reduces the shock that may be experienced. According to Freud, following a traumatic occurrence, there could be two different stages. When trauma breaches the protective layer, there is an initial collapse and potentially catastrophic disruption of functioning. One gets the impression that they are about to die or that they are in danger of destroying themselves. The victim is frequently in shock and confusion, maybe not knowing how to process what has happened. He might be gregarious and animated or quiet and reserved. People in this state are sometimes referred to as “dissociated.”

Under such premises, Chris often said, “Life isn’t fair.” With such a mentality, he was advised to stop using the phrase to try to bring events to normalcy. According to Freud, the more complex and maybe sneakier psychological symptoms might arise. To resume their regular activities, the victim or survivor could look for a logical explanation for what happened. Chris tries to establish blame or cause of his situation on an entity they believe is internal or external. According to Freud, following a disaster, people are all likely to have acute feelings of persecution, which they may associate with long-standing (and often unconscious) misgivings about the reliability of the people they typically rely on to look out for them.

Limitations of Psychoanalysis Theory

However, one weakness of Psychoanalysis is that it is heavily reliant on subjective interpretations and speculations. Because the unconscious mind is not directly observable or measurable, psychologists generally do not have any empirical data on which they can rely regarding Freud’s theory (Cieri & Esposito, 2019). Furthermore, psychoanalysis dwells on experience, including childhood, which may not necessarily consider influences of the present and surrounding environment in forming one’s personality. Nonetheless, research has shown that patients receiving these treatments continue to progress. There are drawbacks to analytical treatment as well. For example, therapists might not always be able to give their clients an atmosphere that fosters growth, which could impair their reflexivity tendencies. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, psychoanalytic psychotherapy has demonstrated noteworthy advantages concerning mental health symptoms, life satisfaction, adaptive abilities, and the decrease of maladaptive social behaviors.

Cognitive-Behavioral Theory

The core tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the belief that individuals’ mental processes are largely responsible for forming and maintaining their emotional and behavioral reactions to external stimuli. According to the cognitive-behavioral theory, human thought influences human conduct and emotion (Rajabi Majd et al., 2020). According to behavioral therapy, these cognitive factors may immediately impact people’s response to situations. According to CBT models, interpretations, judgments, appraisals, and preconceptions related to particular life experiences are cognitive processes that play a major role in determining how someone feels and behaves in reaction to events in life, which can either help or impede the procedure of adaptation.

This implies that our feelings towards the events and situations determine our reactions and feelings in this context. Cognitive-behavioral theory explains why Chris has both an adaptive behavior and an analytical attitude. In other words, he constantly watches people’s actions, trying to explain the more and more incomprehensible things that happen to him. His innate belief that everything should be logical fuels him and drives his course of action or decisions. The Cognitive-Behavioral Theory would also highlight how his racial identities and the life experiences accompanying them have affected him (Rajabi Majd et al., 2020). Notably, some of the negative beliefs/schemas that are associated with race may also affect his interpretation and response towards the event, thus dictating his emotional state and behavior pattern. When dealing with trauma related to his situation, CBT may be applied under controlled cognitive behavior therapy to nurture Chris in adapting to the situation. According to Beck, being reminded of trauma makes an individual adaptive to any future encounter, and being around the trauma story is frequently employed to assist the patient in lessening avoidance and unhealthy linkages with the event.

Limitation of CBT

A drawback of the Cognitive-Behavioral Theory is that it only highlights cognition, thus failing to include unconscious inputs toward behavior. In addition, it may be too simplistic to explain the often complicated interaction of thoughts, feelings, and conduct because human actions are based on many elements. Additionally, Cognitive-Behavioral Theory focuses on present elements and intrapersonal functions while overlooking social and cultural features crucial for personality formation.

In conclusion, the two theories describe Chris’s personality as the story’s protagonist in the movie “Get Out.” Combining these two approaches gives us a better picture of Chris’s intricate persona and what made him act and experience certain things. Nevertheless, it is important to accept the deficiencies of two theories – subjective character and exclusion of situation elements – so as not to be too biased. Following his disposition of friendliness, perceptiveness, and quick wit, Chris gets along with everyone around him and is always up for a talk. Irrespective of the individual he is with, he always strikes up a conversation. He has also cultivated deep connections with people with whom he can laugh. He can adjust to the circumstances that his girlfriend’s parent has put him in.

Cieri, F., & Esposito, R. (2019). Psychoanalysis and Neuroscience: The Bridge Between Mind and Brain.  Frontiers in Psychology ,  10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01983

Rajabi Majd, N., Broström, A., Ulander, M., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Imani, V., Ahorsu, D. K., Ohayon, M. M., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Efficacy of a Theory-Based Cognitive Behavioral Technique App-Based Intervention for Patients With Insomnia: Randomized Controlled Trial.  Journal of Medical Internet Research ,  22 (4), e15841. https://doi.org/10.2196/15841

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Navigating realism in the pacific: australia’s security and migration pact with tuvalu, dred scott v. sandford (1857), what does it mean to be mexican american and asian pacific american, juvenile justice system, educational and training pathways for psychologists and clinical psychologists, importance of research and referencing, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

‘Get Out’ Video Essay Explores How Jordan Peele’s Film Challenges White Fragility — Watch

Yoselin acevedo.

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Share on LinkedIn
• Show more sharing options
• Submit to Reddit
• Post to Tumblr
• Print This Page
• Share on WhatsApp

A new video essay explores the role played by films such as Jordan Peele ‘s acclaimed social horror-thriller “ Get Out ” in the portrayal of racial relations in America. The video, posted on the YouTube channel Like Stories of Old, starts by explaining the concept of “white fragility,” a term coined in a academic paper written in 2011 by Dr. Robyn D’Angelo. It refers to “American white people living in social environments that protect and isolate them from race-based stress, providing them with racial comfort but also lowering their tolerance racial pressure.”

READ MORE: Get Out’ Exclusive Featurette: Jordan Peele on How He Made His Thriller Believably Suspenseful — Watch

Related Stories ‘Monkey Man’ Trailer: Dev Patel Avenges His Family in Directorial Debut Jordan Peele Teases Fourth Movie: It ‘Could Be My Favorite’

“Get Out” follows the story of Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), a young black man who has been dating a white girl, Rose Armitage (Allison Williams), for five months. When Rose takes Chris to meet her parents (played by Catherine Keener and Bradley Whitford) — who seem totally normal at first — it isn’t long before Chris starts to get creeped out by everything happening at the Armitage estate. In the middle of it all, Chris also wonders if these things are really happening or everything is simply a product of his own paranoia.

READ MORE: The 20 Best Horror Movies Of The 21st Century, From ’28 Days Later’ to ‘Get Out’

According to the narrator, “the larger social environment still contributes to the racial isolation and protection of whites as a group in many ways, one of which is through movies.” The essay presents Raoul Peck’s documentary “I Am Not Your Negro” as another example, arguing that, like Peele’s film, it “doesn’t just address the more well-known forms of racism and racial prejudice, but also focuses on the more progressive, well-meaning liberal whites and how they contribute to silencing voices from people of color, leaving them trapped in the sunken place.”

In a March 17 tweet, Peele explained that “The Sunken Place means we’re marginalized. No matter how hard we scream, the system silences us.” Watch the “Get Out” video essay below.

Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.

Most Popular

You may also like.

ENG 2100: Writing I, Fall 2020

Get out by jordan peele.

The Issue of Racism in the Film Get Out by Jordan Peele

Of all the movies that I have watched in the last few years, Get Out has been the most interesting and informative. It would be hard for anyone to believe that the movie was Jordan Peele’s directorial debut because it succeeds on almost every angle of analysis that one can think of. For instance, in a rare feat, the film achieved a 100 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes which means that all the critics, who are known for being among the harshest, approved of it being a masterfully done piece. Get Out might be perceived as an entertaining film by most audiences but anyone who takes a critical look at it will notice that it is a movie that explores the psychological underpinnings of passive racism that have permeated American culture and made it difficult for black people to identify the deceptiveness of the privileged whites and to forget about the nation’s racial past.

One of the messages that becomes absolutely clear when one watches Get Out is that American racism is very much alive. The nation has long shown apathy towards systems of racial privilege in addition to denying that such systems exist but Peele’s film refutes such notions and makes it apparent that racism is slowly eating away at individuals belonging to racial minorities. The clearest indication of racism in the film is when the Armitage family feign friendliness while secretly plotting how to take control of Chris Washington’s mind. To illustrate, Rose Armitage pretends that she is madly in love with Chris and thus invites him to meet her parents. However, when they get to the cottage in the country side, she appears disinterested in Chris. Similarly, Rose’s parents pretend that they are at ease with Chris dating their daughter but their true intentions are eventually revealed when they try to hypnotize Chris to become one of their victims. Peele thus challenges the Caucasian characters’ assertions of not being racist and forces the public to discuss the topic of passive racism which is often approached uncomfortably by a majority of white Americans. Alternatively, one could interpret Get Out as a film that illustrates how deeply-rooted racism has become in American society that it is almost impossible for minority groups to escape from it (Hepola).

One thing that I believe makes Get Out worth watching is the fact that the director uses the horror/psychological genre to explore the theme of passive racism. Several things add to the film’s categorization as a dark and foreboding thriller and one of them is that it explains how the Armitage family hypnotizes black people and transfers the conscience of weak white people into their bodies with the aim of prolonging the lives of the latter. The idea of the white characters wanting to receive a brain transplant from the black characters who are held against their wishes makes Get Out a film about more than just racial tensions. Rather it makes the film about the black characters’ fear of losing their minds to the racist whites. Alternatively stated, Get Out makes it apparent that the a person’s consciousness is linked to their minds and that the reason why another person would want the brain of another person would be because they want to perceive the word from the perspective of that whose mind they have inherited (Hepola). Thus, the film could be considered as a psychological thriller because it seeks to create social awareness about the scary idea of a person losing control of their mental faculties.

Further evidence of Get Out being a film that illustrates the horror surrounding the loss of mental control is the look on Chris’s face when he realizes that he has been duped into hypnosis by his white girlfriend’s mother. In this scene, Chris is paralyzed to the point where he cannot move a muscle. As a result, Rose’s mother, Missy, uses the opportunity to gain access into Chris’s mind and to manipulate his thoughts. On the other hand, Chris is extremely mortified but since he has been paralyzed by both the hypnosis and the absolute fear of losing his mind, he can only shed tears, try to fight back or await the eventual transference of his mind to another person. The fact that the scene where Chris is pictured with tears streaming down his face and his mouth wide agape is the one used as the promotional poster reinforces the idea that the film is indeed a psychological/horror work that emphasizes the fear of one involuntarily giving up control of their mind.

One could also state that Get Out is a film focusing on the psychological gullibility of the black people in their relations with white people. The film could be illustrative of the notion that in as much as black people have been subjected to cruel treatment and trickery by their white counterparts, they also almost always get deceived into believing that the latter has their best interests at heart. For example, Chris innocently assumed that the hypnosis was going to help him kick his smoking habits, but it turns out that the process was used to trick black people into enslavement at the manor. This scene serves two purposes and one of them is to demonstrate how black people were lured from faraway lands to come and work as slaves in cotton plantations in the United States. Simultaneously, the scene symbolizes America’s history of medical racism where minority groups, including African Americans, are wilfully manipulated and subjected to cruel experiments that eventually make them distrust the nation’s health system. As such, mental health issues such as trauma and depression remain high within such communities because of low rates of doctoral visits and a high likelihood of misdiagnosis due to racial prejudice in the practice of mental health care (Mays et al., 173). Thus, Peele appears to implore upon black people to literally get out of the “sunken place” where they have been weighted down by a lies that have resulted in a negative cultural history and racial trauma.

Get Out also passes for a psychological film when one takes an in-depth look at why Peele makes’s the hypnosis scene the point of conflict leading up to the climax. To explain, the main idea here is that the black servants playing host to weak white people would never have agreed to such an arrangement if they had been told to offer themselves up voluntarily. As such, the Armitage family have to resort to mental manipulation to ensure that they exercise their power over the black people. This concept aligns with a line in The Mis-Education of the Negro where Carter G. Woodson states that: “When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his ‘proper place’ and will stay in it.” Thus, it can be stated that Chris realized that he was about to be hypnotized and manipulated into giving himself up to the servitude of the Armitage family and hence his blocking out of the hypnotic tools. In other words, Chris realized that his mental freedom was the key to achieving his physical freedom and so he had to do everything possible to avoid falling into the trap of mental manipulation. This goes to show that Get Out is not only a psychological film but also one that beseeches the audience to treat racism as a real problem and not an imagined one.

Get Out could not have come at a better time than it did because for a long time, racial tensions were increasing and threatening to boil over in post-Obama America. Even Peele himself was unsure that the movie would be made not just because of the state of social affairs but also because of budgetary constraints. It thus came as a surprise that it became one of the highest-grossing films of 2017 besides having been directed by an African-American director as a debut feature film. More than that, the film ignited a frenzy both on social media and in public discourse because it tackled the issue of racism head-on. Esquire magazine even called it the “best movie ever made about American slavery” because it utilized spectacular cinematography and story-telling to depict the theft of the black body (Thrasher). However, the film’s gist revolves around the fact that it was produced when the first African American president had just left office and police brutality against black people was alarmingly high. Furthermore, the Trump campaigns carried a hint of racial prejudice against black people and so the film Get Out targeted the racial hypocrisy that was prevalent across the nation. Interestingly, Peele infuses comic effect into the movie, thereby addressing racism while putting the audience at ease. Most importantly, Peele focuses on almost every aspect of racism ranging from interracial relationships to slavery and police brutality among other serious issues that affected the society both previously and at the time that the film was produced.

In summary, the theatrical success of Get Out can be attributed to the fact that the producer took it upon himself to create a film that was not just entertaining but that tackled a real issue affecting millions of people from racial minority groups. The first thing that the movie does is to express the explicit idea that racism is a very prevalent and enduring problem in America even though it is practiced subtly in some places and not in others. To make his point, Peele utilizes the horror/psychological genre to bring out the idea that racism is a horrendous to those who are affected besides being mentally draining to those who cannot wrap their heads around the idea that it is possible to manipulate individuals into assuming that they are not affected by negative racial occurrences. The director does this by showcasing how fearful Chris is at the thought that his mind is about to be taken over and his brain transferred to another person all while he is awake but incapable of doing anything to stop the action. Furthermore, Peele demonstrates how black people have been the subjects of psychological manipulation which prevents them from seeing the true picture of white racism. Chris’s ability to break free from hypnosis and his daring, violent escape in the end offer hope that it is possible to overcome racial white liberal racism and end its terrifying practices. The fact that the movie was written and produced by an African American director also adds to the credibility of the story being narrated and how it impacts the audience. Get Out thus remain one of the most pivotal conversation starters because it explores the whole spectrum of race and race relations while highlighting the consequences of prolonged or passive racism. I would definitely watch this movie again and again because every time I do so and analyze it, I realize something that I may have overlooked before.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6.5: Film Analysis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 251203

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

What this handout is about

This handout provides a brief definition of film analysis compared to literary analysis, provides an introduction to common types of film analysis, and offers strategies and resources for approaching assignments.

What is film analysis, and how does it differ from literary analysis?

Film analysis is the process in which film is analyzed in terms of semiotics, narrative structure, cultural context, and mise-en-scene, among other approaches. If these terms are new to you, don’t worry—they’ll be explained in the next section.

Analyzing film, like analyzing literature (fiction texts, etc.) , is a form of rhetorical analysis—critically analyzing and evaluating discourse, including words, phrases, and images. Having a clear argument and supporting evidence is every bit as critical to film analysis as to other forms of academic writing.

Unlike literature, film incorporates audiovisual elements and therefore introduces a new dimension to analysis. Ultimately, however, analysis of film is not too different. Think of all the things that make up a scene in a film: the actors, the lighting, the angles, the colors. All of these things may be absent in literature, but they are deliberate choices on the part of the director, producer, or screenwriter—as are the words chosen by the author of a work of literature. Furthermore, literature and film incorporate similar elements. They both have plots, characters, dialogue, settings, symbolism, and, just as the elements of literature can be analyzed for their intent and effect, these elements can be analyzed the same way in film.

Different types of film analysis

Listed here are common approaches to film analysis, but this is by no means an exhaustive list, and you may have discussed other approaches in class. As with any other assignment, make sure you understand your professor’s expectations. This guide is best used to understand prompts or, in the case of more open-ended assignments, consider the different ways to analyze film.

Keep in mind that any of the elements of film can be analyzed, oftentimes in tandem. A single film analysis essay may simultaneously include all of the following approaches and more. As Jacques Aumont and Michel Marie propose in Analysis of Film, there is no correct, universal way to write film analysis.

Semiotic analysis

Semiotic analysis is the analysis of meaning behind signs and symbols, typically involving metaphors, analogies, and symbolism.

This doesn’t necessarily need to be something dramatic; think about how you extrapolate information from the smallest signs in your day to day life. For instance, what characteristics can tell you about someone’s personality? Something as simple as someone’s appearance can reveal information about them. Mismatched shoes and bedhead might be a sign of carelessness (or something crazy happened that morning!), while an immaculate dress shirt and tie would suggest that the person is prim and proper. Continuing in that vein:

• What might you be able to infer about characters from small hints?
• How are these hints (signs) used to construct characters? How do they relate to the relative role of those characters, or the relationships between multiple characters?

Symbols denote concepts (liberty, peace, etc.) and feelings (hate, love, etc.) that they often have nothing to do with. They are used liberally in both literature and film, and finding them uses a similar process. Ask yourself:

• In Frozen Elsa’s gloves appear in multiple scenes.
• Her gloves are first given to her by her father to restrain her magic. She continues to wear them throughout the coronation scene, before finally, in the Let It Go sequence, she throws them away.

Again, the method of semiotic analysis in film is similar to that of literature. Think about the deeper meaning behind objects or actions.

• Elsa’s gloves represent fear of her magic and, by extension, herself. Though she attempts to contain her magic by hiding her hands within gloves and denying part of her identity, she eventually abandons the gloves in a quest for self-acceptance.

Narrative structure analysis

Narrative structure analysis is the analysis of the story elements, including plot structure, character motivations, and theme. Like the dramatic structure of literature (exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution), film has what is known as the Three-Act Structure: “Act One: Setup, Act Two: Confrontation, and Act Three: Resolution.” Narrative structure analysis breaks the story of the film into these three elements and might consider questions like:

• How does the story follow or deviate from typical structures?
• What is the effect of following or deviating from this structure?
• What is the theme of the film, and how is that theme constructed?

Consider again the example of Frozen. You can use symbolism and narrative structure in conjunction by placing the symbolic objects/events in the context of the narrative structure. For instance, the first appearance of the gloves is in Act One, while their abandoning takes place in Act Two; thus, the story progresses in such a way that demonstrates Elsa’s personal growth. By the time of Act Three, the Resolution, her aversion to touch (a product of fearing her own magic) is gone, reflecting a theme of self-acceptance.

Contextual analysis

Contextual analysis is analysis of the film as part of a broader context. Think about the culture, time, and place of the film’s creation. What might the film say about the culture that created it? What were/are the social and political concerns of the time period? Or, like researching the author of a novel, you might consider the director, producer, and other people vital to the making of the film. What is the place of this film in the director’s career? Does it align with his usual style of directing, or does it move in a new direction? Other examples of contextual approaches might be analyzing the film in terms of a civil rights or feminist movement.

For example, Frozen is often linked to the LGBTQ social movement. You might agree or disagree with this interpretation, and, using evidence from the film, support your argument.

Some other questions to consider:

• How does the meaning of the film change when seen outside of its culture?
• What characteristics distinguishes the film as being of its particular culture?

Mise-en-scene analysis

Mise-en-scene analysis is analysis of the arrangement of compositional elements in film—essentially, the analysis of audiovisual elements that most distinctly separate film analysis from literary analysis. Remember that the important part of a mise-en-scene analysis is not just identifying the elements of a scene, but explaining the significance behind them.

• What effects are created in a scene, and what is their purpose?
• How does the film attempt to achieve its goal by the way it looks, and does it succeed?

Audiovisual elements that can be analyzed include (but are not limited to): props and costumes, setting, lighting, camera angles, frames, special effects, choreography, music, color values, depth, placement of characters, etc. Mise-en-scene is typically the most foreign part of writing film analysis because the other components discussed are common to literary analysis, while mise-en-scene deals with elements unique to film. Using specific film terminology bolsters credibility, but you should also consider your audience. If your essay is meant to be accessible to non-specialist readers, explain what terms mean. The Resources section of this handout has links to sites that describe mise-en-scene elements in detail.

Rewatching the film and creating screen captures (still images) of certain scenes can help with detailed analysis of colors, positioning of actors, placement of objects, etc. Listening to the soundtrack can also be helpful, especially when placed in the context of particular scenes.

Some example questions:

• How is the lighting used to construct mood? Does the mood shift at any point during the film, and how is that shift in mood created?
• What does the setting say about certain characters? How are props used to reveal aspects of their personality?
• What songs were used, and why were they chosen? Are there any messages in the lyrics that pertain to the theme?

Writing the film analysis essay

Writing film analysis is similar to writing literary analysis or any argumentative essay in other disciplines: Consider the assignment and prompts, formulate a thesis (see the Brainstorming Handout and Thesis Statement Handout for help crafting a nuanced argument), compile evidence to prove your thesis, and lay out your argument in the essay. Your evidence may be different from what you are used to. Whereas in the English essay you use textual evidence and quotes, in a film analysis essay, you might also include audiovisual elements to bolster your argument.

When describing a sequence in a film, use the present tense, like you would write in the literary present when describing events of a novel, i.e. not “Elsa took off her gloves,” but “Elsa takes off her gloves.” When quoting dialogue from a film, if between multiple characters, use block quotes: Start the quotation on a new line, with the entire quote indented one inch from the left margin. However, conventions are flexible, so ask your professor if you are unsure. It may also help to follow the formatting of the script, if you can find it. For example:

ELSA: But she won’t remember I have powers? KING: It’s for the best.

You do not need to use quotation marks for blocked-off dialogue, but for shorter quotations in the main text, quotation marks should be double quotes (“…”).

Here are some tips for approaching film analysis:

• Make sure you understand the prompt and what you are being asked to do. Focus your argument by choosing a specific issue to assess.
• Review your materials. Rewatch the film for nuances that you may have missed in the first viewing. With your thesis in mind, take notes as you watch. Finding a screenplay of the movie may be helpful, but keep in mind that there may be differences between the screenplay and the actual product (and these differences might be a topic of discussion!).
• Develop a thesis and an outline, organizing your evidence so that it supports your argument. Remember that this is ultimately an assignment—make sure that your thesis answers what the prompt asks, and check with your professor if you are unsure.
• Move beyond only describing the audiovisual elements of the film by considering the significance of your evidence. Demonstrate understanding of not just what film elements are, but why and to what effect they are being used. For more help on using your evidence effectively, see ‘Using Evidence In An Argument’ in the Evidence Handout .

New York Film Academy Glossary Movie Outline Glossary Movie Script Database Citation Practices: Film and Television

Works Consulted

We consulted these works while writing the original version of this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find the latest publications on this topic. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial .

Aumont, Jacques, and Michel Marie. L’analyse Des Films. Paris: Nathan, 1988. Print. Pruter, Robin Franson. “Writing About Film.” Writing About Film. DePaul University, 08 Mar. 2004. Web. 01 May 2016.

“Film Analysis.” The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License