Get Out

This film has been almost universally praised, but I felt it was lame. I know it explores racism and even slavery and it is very important to do that, particularly in a country that seems desperate to forget that there ever was, or still is, racism. I just thought the movie was a lame horror flick. And I hate horror flicks. Perhaps my prejudice blinded my limited critical judgment. I wonder what others think. Was I wrong?

More broadly, the fact that this movie earned near universal applause makes me think that perhaps films are universally overrated as an art from. Films are still a very immature art form. Give them time to grow up. Is that true?

8 thoughts on “Get Out

  1. Dave and Rudy and I just watched this film together. We all liked it. Dave was watching it for a second time and found many subtle things he had missed on his first viewing. We thought this movie actually had an engaging plot, contrary to some other Oscar nominated films we have watched. We thought the music definitely added to the suspense and helped the plot along. I liked the way the director used foreshadowing to give me a creepy feeling in lots of little ways right from the start.There was too much violence for me but the black community has experienced so much violence and I think the director wanted to turn the tables on that. Dave thought there were probably lots of ‘insider’ things that you might only ‘get’ if you had experienced racism as a black person. Dave’s favorite character was the protagonist’s friend who worked for the Transportation Security Authority. Since your son does that too you must be pleased that the TSA guy was the real hero of the film.

    1. I agree that best part of the film was the TSA guy. He was hilarious. I found the music carrying. Typical horror music.It was a great technique 50 years ago, but it is time to move on. Watching a film (like reading a book) twice is always a good idea, but I am not sure I could take this one a second time, but I know I am in a distinct minority here. A good friend and one of my most knowledgeable movie buffs and an astute movie observer has strongly disagreed with me. (other than perhaps Dave). Is it possible I am wrong?

  2. your reaction seems a touch overdetermined. lame? hate?
    actually i don’t think it was a horror movie to begin with.
    i did think it was brilliant.
    and i do not think that film is an immature art. as opposed to what art form?
    unless you are saying that the species is immature and therefore by definition all art by the species is “thusly.”
    that we are immature is surely rather obvious. it strikes me that art might be one of our more mature responses to our immaturity. philosophy/theory as well.

    1. Immature compared to virtually others. eg painting, sculpture, literature, music, architecture. Film has been around for a puny century. I think film makers have a lot to learn. What was brilliant about it? I stick by “hate”
      (for the genre not the film) and “lame” for the film.

      1. get out aside, hitchcock is lame? misogynist yes, but not lame.
        as the funny guy that you are, i would have thought that you would appreciate the fine line between horror and comedy. go to a b horror movie full of african americans some time. it is nothing but laughter.
        if film is so puny as an art form why are you reviewing multiple movies per book review? and i don’t see any reviews of art or sculpture, apparently such mature forms in your blog. you like film bro, mature or not.
        also, maturity aside, various art forms are almost different within that form over time. the great renaissance italian sculptors were not exactly standing within a tradition of hundreds of years of that kind of sculpture. they were mature? no, they were doing things that had not been done before. nobody had even thought of that kind of representation. richard serra’s massive sculptures were never done before he did them. they are brilliant. that brilliance stands in no relationship to maturity.
        coltrane couldn’t possibly be compared to armstrong along the lines of maturity.
        i don’t quite see the relationship of maturity to aesthetics. “original” art can be more brilliant than ancient art. and visa versa. maturity has nothing to do with the brilliance of art.

  3. I confess I do love movies. (By the way I do have some comments on art in France). Sometimes though, I think films are pretty thin compared to novels. For example, I just finished Cormac McCarthy Cities of the Plain. Fantastic. I would not say Hitchock was lame. I can’t stand the thought of seeing a B horror film white or black.

    1. one of the problems with film is that capital has commercialized cinema to a greater extent than with some of the other art forms. the availability of so-called art film is significantly restricted for large numbers of individuals. clearly there are oceans of commercial film that are less than gripping.

      1. Once hundreds of millions of dollars are put into a film then by definition it is commercialized. No such huge investment is needed in books for example. Or a painting or a song.

Leave a Reply