Dissecting Jordan Peele's 'Us'

I'd agree Peele is more intellectual and has more interesting subtext. But I'd say Shyamalan actually has a better natural grasp of horror, and even drama.

Shouldn't we wait for Peele's eventual fall from grace before we compare him to Shyamalan.

A link to my review of the film:


https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2014959-us.html

You either die a Kubrick, or you live long enough to see yourself become Shyamalan.

Kubrick was older than Shyamalan when he died, though.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

One most sometimes sacrifice accuracy for poetry.

I spent a few minutes trying to find a good choice for the first part of the line but there aren't that many examples that fit and are recognizable. Cazale seemed like the best choice, except that he was an actor and not a director.

I don't really understand the criticism of this film being confusing or too far fetched. Most horror films have ridiculous sub text or plot. I mean the girl in the Excorcist's head spun round 360 degrees!! That would like, totally never happen in real life! Some people believe Jack Torrence from The Shining was a reincarnated version of himself living out his hell over and over again!

Peele's ability to relate this movie to the current socio-political climate was very well thought out and very well conveyed. Even down to the dopplegangers holding hands across america creating a troublesome "wall" at the end.

Peele is saying that everyone's got a split personality there somewhere. A side that they rather not show in public. Even the murder weapon the dopplegangers used was a scissors, a symmetrical weapon. Everything in this movie is placed there on purpose. So many things that have been thought about. The 11: 11 constantly referred to - that's from Jeremiah in the bible that is basically the rapture, where evil is sent to destroy humankind. What's the score in the baseball game on the tv? 11- 11 and on and on and on.

It's twice the movie that Get Out was.

^I think people's issue comes down to how the film is compromised between being vague and explaining so it's not satisfying either way. You can just explain away anything that happens in The Exorcist as being the result of demonic power so it's easier to accept, whereas the issue with Us seems to be that it confirms just enough of a backstory (secret government experiment in mind control) while leaving the particulars a little too vague (like eating).

Heh, fair enough. Hard to think of too many filmmakers who are immediately recognisable for having short, non-prolific careers - the only one I can think of right now is Laughton.

I'm glad that you added that. I kind of wonder how much thoughtfulness there is on his part compared to how much credit has been given (or even really, projected) to his work. I'm not going to repeat all what I've typed before in this thread, as I mostly enjoyed the movie. I just question the ambiguity of so much of it. Intentional? Sure. It creates some form of mystery and curiosity. But run the logic and where do you end up? Where would these characters end up if bound by the rules implied? Sometimes they abide them, others not really. Unintentional? Well, if so then credit may be too high.

I'm noticing this is a running criticism for me in so much of what I'm watching lately. Maybe I'm just being obsessive for no reason.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

That's a fair question, and it's actually something that @Slappydavis and I talk about on the podcast a lot: how much symbolism and metaphor is intentional, and how much are we, as viewers, bringing to the production? Are we noticing patterns and references that aren't explicitly put there? And is it possible that being a talented storyteller is not just doing things intentionally, but just having a general sense of which topics and themes are likely to produce those connections, intentionally or not, and if so, isn't that itself a talent?

You could argue that talented storytellers have a general feeling of the kinds of things that produce resonance, and it doesn't entirely matter if they can articulate why, or do so with a specific aim. They just understand that life, death, love, identity, and betrayal will always be powerful topics with lots of natural connections between them.

It's an interesting question to ponder.

Also, I wanna be on record as coining whatever Jordan Peele does "Identity Horror."

Well when it comes to whether or not a theme is intentional or not in a movie, one movie I can think of is King Kong, where apparently a lot of people think it's an allegory on slavery because people bring Kong back to NYC in chains, but I think people are making a huge leap and probably looking too hard on that one. Perhaps they are doing the same thing for US as well, because I think that people who are science experiments who want to rebel against their government, is an old theme, with not much new to think about there.

Blade Runner comes to mind as well, so I don't think this premise should be analysed any differently than Blade Runner for example, unless I'm wrong?

I definitely had issues with this film, here's a link to my review:



https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2014959-us.html

I dont think US has any depth that is worth dissecting.

Did you read the other posts in the thread?

I think many of them are attributing stuff to the movie that it didn't earn..there no there there.

For some of it, perhaps (I suggested the same thing myself). But not all of it. Some of it's pretty clearly there. If you don't find it impressive anyway, fair enough. I'm mixed on the film, but I wouldn't suggest there's nothing going on.

Well one thing about the movie is a lot of the things people seem to like about it are it's themes. But the themes are hardly dealt with the directly, and are more hidden in the background. The foreground is a series of horror/chase sequences mostly, but if the themes of the movie are so important, wouldn't you rather see a deeper exploration of those, rather than have them hidden in the background, in favor of more fights and chases?

It’s quite hard to address ‘themes’ in another way. I definitely prefer Peele’s action approach to Michael Haneke’s endless talking and characters explaining their motives. ‘Funny Games’ would benefit from being more like ‘Us’ and telling the viewer less and showing more. Sometimes themes being dealt with ‘directly’ feels wooden.

Oh yeah, I didn't like Funny Games either, but haven't seen other Haneke movies. Well it seems to me that the themes of this movie, is people being oppressed by a hierarchy of other people. But there are movies that do this a lot better like some of the Planet of the Apes movies, or The Battle of Algiers for example, where that theme is just handled a lot better?

I thought it was the opposite where has keeping the themes in the background can feel wooden.