Dissecting Jordan Peele's 'Us'

If not consistently, then the set-up was established and paid off when the son actually had the opportunity to use that connection in a way that wasn't available for most of the time anyway.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

So you're saying the son could choose when to make this connection and when not to? How does he have/learn this power? And why doesn't anybody else in the movie's universe have such a power?

As Iro noted already, I think the boy learned in the closet where he led his shadow. He noticed the shadow sort of mirrored his hand motions. That's my take at least. I also think everyone else had the same ability just no one noticed for whatever reason. for example, when their shadows first entered the home, the dad pushes his glasses up against the bridge of his nose. His shadow did the same thing, not wearing glasses. Just the characters did not catch that.

__________________
"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

I personally have a hard time reading too much of a political allegory here. I guess one could interpret the 'wall' as a literal representation of red state border wall, but I don't buy that. That concept is just too obviously anchored to current events and will probably fade quickly as time passes, leaving this movie heavily tethered (lol?) to this decade. If that was the intention, I don't think the constant references to Hands Across America would have been necessary at all, linking more to the 80s for its wave of Africa-targeted charities. Writing this out now reminds me of the introductory text of unused tunnels under the U.S. If anything (for me), that references much more the underground railroad at least in a literal tunnel structure kind of play. Still though, that's tenuous if anything more than a nod.

I wonder if Peele just one day thought how fun it would be to build a dark story around something that was supposed to be so positive of a world charity event and worked backwards from there, constructing this script. Everything feels loose and casual, nodding to this or that but not really committing to anything specific except, of course, for the playful horror of it all. Doing so leaves the projecting up to the audience to take and run with whatever they choose. I mean, "running" with it was a theme, no? The daughter practicing track? The daughter's shadow running after her? My point is, it is easy enough to grab onto anything in a movie in which we expect to find layers of symbolism and meaning. My dog cocking her head to the left is cute, but doesn't mean she's contemplating astrophysics.

This movie was very fun for me. While I can appreciate all the reading into it angles viewers are taking from it, I don't think I buy it. Sure, hints are there, but nothing commits any more than having a character wear a Thriller shirt sets up the wide-eyed scary shadow Red (in red no less and don't forget the dancing, just like zombie Michael Jackson's reveal in his Thriller horror video). Is that any less of an interpretation? It was given as much service as anything else.


*EDIT*
To offer another approach on this, I feel these political possibilities were handled similarly to how characters could control their shadows discussed earlier. This ability (and arguably pivotal plot device) was not consistent nor was it really fleshed out as to how it works, why, or why the only character that discovered this ability was the son. Arbitrary stuff at play. Things are just there and, while they work in a moment, are never developed further than "because." Hey, that's totally fine! I enjoy it as I did this movie. I only offer this perspective as a cautionary example for those reading so much from so little.

I didn't notice the dad pushing his glasses, but again, this doesnt make consistent sense. Why did the Red dad mirror this 1 action/movement but not mirror the thousands of other actions/movements the dad participated in for the rest of the movie?

Seems kind of willy-nilly, not really making consistent sense but coming in handy when the screenwriter needed to tie up some loose ends.

I'm kind of in agreement with you. Since posting that, I wanted to elaborate a bit more in my following posts so there's two more comments from me running down that rabbit hole.

Well, a comment and an edit.

I think the burning car is also the first opportunity the son has had to actually exploit this connection with his tether. Like I said in an earlier post, I figure this is that kind of trope where the youngest and least skeptical member of a family is the first one to believe in the supernatural threat (he's the first to say "it's us") and also to figure out how to fight against it in a way that doesn't involve mere physical violence (like the father fighting his tether on the boat or the daughter running hers over with the car).

There is another thing in the plot I didn't understand. Why did the families tethers live so close to each other? Like it seems to be a rule that Red has ordered the tethers to go kill the families they are tethered from. Like for example Red goes after her tethered family, and the white tethers go after the white couple, etc.

But what if say a tether, had a person they are tethered to, that lived on the other side of the country or something like that? Would they just send a closer tether to kill that person off instead? Or does every tether have to kill the person they are tethered from, even if it's a huge travel inconvenience?

ROFL. I love the idea of killing being a huge travel inconvenience. Something like that should make it to SNL. It was not shown if the one who killed the guy making a video of the event was HIS or just random. However:

Yeah I guess the counterparts murdering their counterparts is not written in stone, but from what we know, the counterparts actually prefer to go after their own counterparts, or at least Red ordered them too, but Red would be causing huge travel inconveniences in her big domination plan by doing this, wouldn't she?

Another thing in the movie I don't understand, is that it was explained here before that whatever people do, that their tethers would do as well such as marry the same person and have the same kids.

But what if the government in this whole tether experiment, did not all the same people, and therefore, the tethers could not get together with all the same people, unless the government literally cloned everyone.

And, assuming the government cloned each other, then the shadows would possibly have created sub-clones as well having mirrored their actions!
;P

Well I want to see what everyone likes about the movie but it's just hard to get on board with the fact that Red could actually lead an invasion. Her plan is incredibly poorly thought out, and all the people she is leading seem to be mentally challenged, who's only weapons to battle the nation with are pairs of scissors. Is it believable that a country could be taken over so easily like that?

IMO, you have to give more slack to movies like this for the context of what the purpose of it is. Or at least what we might assume the purpose is. For example, I can't imagine you questioning A Nightmare on Elm Street on whether or not it could actually happen. With that said, I will admit that I was very disappointed in...

Okay thanks. I guess with A Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddy has more travel powers compared to these tethers, so I felt that maybe he had a huge plot advantage there, over the tethers.

But as far as context for what the purpose is, what is the context and purpose of this story? Some have made allegories to the trump age, but is that really it, as that seems like kind of a stretch.

Well, I don't really know, which is why I added the 'what we might assume' to my response. Personally, I think there's just enough information offered that anyone can project most anything based on what that viewer brings in to the theater. The problem there is that not enough information was offered to confirm anything. I guess it's up to you, the viewer, to decide if that's good or bad. It's on the fence for me, but as you said, "Freddy has more travel powers." Why?



Knowing that, is the movie enough to entertain you? It was for me, but wish I had not learned that.

Well a lot of people are saying I'm analyzing the plot to much and to just sit back and enjoy the ride, but since the movie is so plot heavy and relies on all these twists, why not just make a movie where you turn your brain off and enjoy the ride? If this was the movie's intention was to be a horror movie, where you don't have to think, then why bring in all these complicated twists and turns, that create more questions then?

In A Nightmare on Elm Street, it's about a ghost who wants revenge on the children of the people who killed him to get back at them. That's pretty much it. Not everything is explained, but the movie is all about scares and death scenarios.

This movie tries to pile on all these plot turns and questionable background, that it just goes over the top in comparison, I felt.

A lot of the questions in here are a little odd, to me, but it doesn't mean there aren't big logic problems with the film. How do they survive? There's some allusion to eating rabbits, but that wouldn't actually work. And who's providing them? Hell, how do they go to the bathroom?

I don't need answers to this. I'm fine with it being a weird film about symbolism that eschews details and just gives you broad, vague explanations without depicting the banal details. But let's at least be clear that it does kinda break down if you start to consider those. Which doesn't mean it isn't a good movie anyway.

I think for me the biggest issue is that I didn't find it scary. I don't need to be that scared to enjoy this sort of film, but I think I need to be at least a little scared, now and then. The ideas are interesting, though, and sufficiently broad that they don't feel, as others have said, like some hacky ripped-from-the-headlines allegory. Peele's too thoughtful for that, I think, and trying to make films that stand up a bit longer than something like that would.

Yeah I think it could have been more scary as well. Right now, Jordan Peele is the next M. Night Shyamalan it seems, but if you compare his two movies to Shyamalan's so far, Get Out is like The Sixth Sense, where as Us is like The Happening, if that makes sense.

Peele is a way more intellectual filmmaker than Shayalaman. His films have loads of layers that sprout in all different directions.

Oh okay. I'm not sure about that. In what way so far?