get out critical essay

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

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.

• University Statistics
• University Leadership
• University Strategic Plan
• Bethlehem & the Lehigh Valley
• Events & Venues
• Maps & Directions
• Diversity, Inclusion & Equity

• 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

Bone Research Studies Romanian Social Structure, Health in Aging

Bioarchaeologist Armando Anzellini’s work includes using Raman spectroscopy and isotope ratio analysis to study human remains.

Lehigh Receives NSF Grant to Train Senior Doctoral Students for Administrative Research Roles

New Pathways for Graduate Students to the Research Enterprise is a pilot training model that aims to prepare senior doctoral students for careers within the research enterprise or as more well-rounded faculty.

New Biomarker Research Thaws Understanding of Cold-Induced Pediatric Asthma

Linchen He, assistant professor in the Department of Community and Population Health, leads panel study.

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.

68 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

How Get Out deconstructs racism for white people

“Stay woke.”

by Aja Romano

Jordan Peele opens his superb new horror film Get Out with the refrain of Childish Gambino’s “Redbone”: “Stay woke.”

It’s a straightforward message from the film to its protagonist, Chris ( Daniel Kaluuya ), a black man whose visit to his girlfriend’s parents’ house quickly turns into a nightmare of suburban racism. Unlike your average clueless horror protagonist, Chris is woke as hell to what’s happening to him.

Get Out ingeniously uses common horror tropes to reveal truths about how pernicious racism is in the world. It doesn’t walk back any of its condemnations by inserting a “white savior” or making overtures to pacifism and tolerance. No: In this film, white society is a conscious purveyor of evil, and Chris must remain alert to its benevolent racism. He has to in order to survive.

Major spoilers for Get Out follow.

With Get Out, writer-director Peele doesn’t just present a standard horror film with a black protagonist; he’s not just subverting the hoary “black guy always dies first” trope. What Peele is doing is much more elaborate and complex. Get Out is a movie laden with standard horror tropes — creepy suburban artifice, attempts to gaslight the protagonist, mind control, bizarre medical experiments, you name it. What keeps those tropes from being rote is that Peele uses the modes of horror to make viewers feel what daily life is like for real black men and women.

Mainstream moviegoing audiences rarely get to see this viewpoint onscreen, let alone presented this unapologetically. But the horror genre has long been ripe for social commentary precisely because it subverts the idea of what is “villainous” by allowing us to subtly empathize with the thing we fear while exploring why we fear it.

Horror fans know and respond to this subtext within the genre — they expect the “other” to be humanized even as it’s being confronted and destroyed. (See, for example, the ways in which last year’s horror hit Don’t Breathe allowed its villain to be a three-dimensional, and therefore all the more terrifying, antagonist.)

In Get Out , the “other” is a rich white dude who is fully unknown and unknowable in a way cinema rarely allows; the viewer has to interact with him solely on the genre’s terms. That is, if we’re to take Chris on as our avatar, we are forced to see white society as the terror it is through his eyes.

Through the framing of horror, Get Out invites an unprecedented level of audience empathy with black characters. White audience members eagerly respond to Chris as the protagonist because they accept his narrative as part of the genre they already enjoy.

But Peele’s film is doing double duty: It’s also explaining to white horror fans — like me — the things young black men have to do in order to survive our white society.

Here’s how the director does it.

1) Get Out frames violent black resistance as a necessity born of desperation

To talk about the tools and horror tropes Get Out uses, it’s helpful to understand the basic plot. Chris’s white girlfriend, Rose ( Allison Williams ), invites him to spend the weekend at her family’s house in suburbia.

Everyone there, from her parents to her parents’ white friends and neighbors to her family’s black servants, are acting strangely. Increasingly suspicious and scared, Chris eventually falls victim to a community-wide plot to abduct black men and women and fuse their brains with those of older white men and women in a horrific eugenics experiment. His only option becomes escape by any means necessary — which in Get Out ’s case means open violence .

Mainstream American culture considers violence heroic in certain socially sanctioned contexts — “just” wars, certain sporting events, self-defense, etc. This view extends, for the most part, to our pop culture, too: Our heroes from movies, television, and video games are often loners standing up to an unjust system, using violence to accomplish whatever they need.

But when violence is used as a means of resistance by minorities or the disenfranchised, culture and pop culture tend totake a different view — it becomes something to be avoided at all costs. (See, for example, the recent wave of anti-protest laws currently sweeping the US.)

Black resistance movements in the US have long been demonized and punished for even the hint of potential violence. This has remained true whether the resistance has taken the form of organizations like the Black Panthers, spontaneous protests like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, desperate survival tactics like those used by the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or ongoing activism like the Black Lives Matter movement sparked by the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri. Black citizens are not allowed, within the cultural narrative, to be “heroic through defiance.”

Hollywood echoes this narrative, reinforcing the idea that violence is bad and minorities should only use it as a means of attaining harmony and unity. Even in horror, a genre teeming with sanctioned violence, black characters are typically only allowed to use violence when they’re working alongside white characters.

For example: Even though the recent Purge franchise is savvy about the way violent power structures dehumanize minorities and the working class, it explicitly condemns minorities who attempt to resist rather than work with the white establishment. The series’ radical black protester evolves into a terrorist, leads a violent resistance group against the ruling all-white patriarchy, and has to be stopped by our heroes. These heroes include a band of black men working with a white savior, a senator for whom one of the black men heroically sacrifices himself. As I wrote in my review of The Purge: Election Year , the franchise “only values violence as a tool of resistance as long as it helps white people.”

Get Out obliterates this narrative completely. Through the first two-thirds of the film, Chris is strategically silent while enduring a fusillade of casually racist behaviors, and it’s clear he’s learned this maneuver through countless social interactions. Chris’s silence is deliberately designed to avoid hostility and create an appearance of politeness and compliance. He remains nonviolent until the last possible second, to his peril.

The film emphasizes Chris’s rising levels of fear and his patient attempts to remain calm and be on his best behavior in order to contextualize the escalating, life-threatening danger of his situation. In real life, the dominant narrative about black struggles to coexist within white society is that the black individual is the troublemaker, the source of agitation, and the problem to be dealt with. But because we’re so conditioned by horror as a genre to the trope of the “guy trying to convince himself everything’s fine when things are clearly not fine,” the audience remains on Chris’s side, even as his pushback against white suburbia escalates.

When Chris finally does resort to violence, it’s a cathartic and empowering moment, and there’s no platitude about peacemaking to be found. In Get Out , black violence isn’t a temporary step to harmonious assimilation with white people; rather, white people are intensely racist and need to be stopped. By making audience members — including white ones — relate to this feeling of desperation so clearly, Get Out challenges views on real-life black resistance and protest.

2) White feminism is portrayed as a bluff

The femme fatale is a huge trope — not just in cinema but in real life (see Amanda Knox ). In horror, she’s often a young woman who uses her apparent naiveté to mask savvy manipulation of the people around her, particularly her lovers (see Haute Tension , All the Boys Love Mandy Lane ).

On the surface, Rose seems warm, progressive, and awake to the realities of racism. She seems like the perfect kind of person to support Chris in surviving andfighting the white racist community he finds at her parents’ house.

But Rose is the embodiment of “white feminism,” which prioritizeswhat white women want and need while ignoring social issues faced by minorities. Rose is consistently dismissive of Chris’s concerns about her family, asserting that her family is not racist in the least, citing her father’s love of Barack Obama as evidence. And when she defends him against the suspicions of a racist local police officer, she does so by speaking for him and over his objections. In one scene, she professes to be baffled by her family’s apparently oblivious racist aggressions toward Chris, which shows how well she recognizes and pays lip service to the act of being a good ally, even as she secretly uses that knowledge to further her family’s racist agenda.

A common criticism of white feminism is that white women want to be seen as supportive of minorities as long as their interests align, but when crisis moments arise, they support their own interests at the expense of minority groups.Rose’s behavior in the film is consistent with this critique, and when the crisis moment arrives in Get Out , this pattern is made crystal clear: She’s only been superficially supportive of Chris in order to manipulate him into aligning his interests with hers.

When push comes to shove, she betrays him. Worse, she never had his back to begin with.Beneath her winning exterior, she’s just as complicit in Chris’s oppression as the rest of her family. This twist reflects a larger, longstanding argument that white feminism has never prioritized racial equality as part of its agenda and has often actively worked against the cause. Rose’s feminism might be a more polite version of racism, but it’s still racism.

3) White microaggressions are framed as masking real dehumanization

Making someone believe their perception of reality and their interpretation of events is wrong is a universal psychological tool for establishing control over someone else. It’s a common practice that we haven’t really had a word for until recently, as the concept of “gaslighting” has gradually entered the broader cultural consciousness from modern psychology. And the term “gaslighting” comes from a famous horror film — 1944’s Gaslight .

One of the most common ways gaslighting plays out is through the use of microaggressions. A microaggression is a seemingly innocuous casual comment or gesture that’s typically used to dismiss and degrade the experience and identities of women and minorities and other marginalized people. The power of a microaggression is that it’s often framed as casual ignorance — so if you get mad about it, you look like the oversensitive one. It’s used to consistently wear down and dehumanize your identity, while creating plausible deniability that can be used to make you look, well, crazy. And the “I’m not crazy, really!” narrative is the foundational trope of nearly all horror.

In Get Out, as in real life, white people’s seemingly innocuous comments on Chris’s race are not innocuous at all — though at first they’re presented that way. Chris endures a social nightmare: a garden party full of rich white people who invade his space, touch him without permission, prod him, and explicitly objectify him physically and sexually. They do all this while expecting him to approve of their benevolent approval of black people.

All of this is initially portrayed as well-meaning, if annoying; as my colleague Alissa Wilkinson wrote in her review of the film, “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.” But this is how microaggressions are calculated to come across — they’re statements and actions made with the intent to pass for clueless behavior while masking deeper forms of racism.

And ultimately that’s exactly what they’re revealed to be in Get Out . All those comments at the garden party have a specific purpose — they’re about assessing Chris as a physical specimen, assessing the quality of body parts that are about to be placed on a literal auction block. Even his spiritual attributes, like his artistic talent, are explicitly broken down into objectified physical parts; his talent as a photographer becomes reduced to his artistic “eyes,” which are commodified just like the rest of him.

The comments Chris endures in good faith aren’t attempts to genuinely interact with him; they’re buyer inquiries from a horrific parade of consumers inspecting new merchandise. Get Out portrays the partygoers’ “benevolent” racism as what it actually is: a cover for a system of dehumanization.

4) Code switching is portrayed as a tool to make white people more comfortable

The trope of unnatural artifice set against a weirdly dystopic suburban backdrop is one of horror’s most common. It has been memorably deployed as a statement about feminism ( The Stepford Wives ) and the nature of conformity ( The Burbs, Disturbia ). Get Out also uses this trope to explore the danger of conformity, but applies it to a specific conformist act black men and women perform every day in real life: Code switching , or the act of adjusting your speech and mannerisms to adapt to different cultural or social contexts.

We all code-switch in different situations, but within black culture, code switching is often crucial to fitting into white-dominated professional and social environments. Before he wrote and directed Get Out , Peele referenced code switching frequently on his sketch comedy show Key & Peele , and he uses it here to create one of the film’s creepiest aspects: the brainwashing of the black men and women Rose’s neighborhood has previously abducted.

Chris first suspects something is off about the community because of how strangely its few black members are behaving. They all look, speak, act, and dress extremely oddly, even anachronistically; basically, they sound like old white people. There’s a reason for that. The men and women who are behaving this way have been forcibly abducted, and their bodies are being used as vessels for the brains of elderly white men and women.

Get Out frames code switching as a skill that can work against the self-interests of black men and women because it can make social interactions all about white people’s comfort rather than their own. Chris’s own code switching does nothing but increase the danger he’s in. And the horrific medical experiments that silence the film’s other black victims are an extrapolation of the real-life assimilations that happen when black men and women move within white culture.

In a crucial moment, one of the victims is able to break free of his brainwashing and warn Chris that he’s in danger. In that moment, he switches back to the person he used to be, and Chris realizes that he knows and recognizes him — he’s a guy Chris used to know who dropped off the map. This becomes the key moment that allows Chris to figure out that something is seriously wrong. Seeing through code switching to a more authentic identity becomes a vital survival tool.

Get Out ’s literalism is its core strength

In Get Out , as in many horror films, there is no overarching fantasy metaphor. Instead, the bad thing is the real-life thing that was threatening to be bad all along. Small social slights and tiny injustices of casual racism are heightened and intensified and finally revealed to be masking the most hideous form of racism there is: slavery.

The film’s overarching theme is that its horrors are literal. In real life, the politenesses of casual racism — what Wilkinson describes as “racist behavior that tries to be aggressively unscary” — are consciously deployed efforts to reinforce prejudice. Words and actions that seem banal turn out to mask gargantuan evils in Get Out because in real life, those tiny, trivial things are born of a larger system of devaluing human lives.

By framing that system as a horror film, Peele makes audience members of all races understand, in a visceral, unprecedented way, how demoralizing its effects are on the people it targets. In real life, minorities caught within that system can’t get out. But by outlining some of the tools with which racism perpetuates itself, Get Out also suggests that we can all use our newfound awareness to demolish that system and build something better.

Most Popular

Web3 is the future, or a scam, or both, stop setting your thermostat at 72, what do we do about alice munro now, this tiny doll is making everyone so happy, take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, today, explained.

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

More in Culture

Can Paris fix its poop problem before the Olympics?

America’s obsession with hot dogs, explained

This summer, all hail the “non-wedding wedding”

Having an Asian Bachelorette is a milestone. It’s also about power.

How do you know it’s time to retire?

Iran’s new president can only change the country so much

Are we actually in the middle of a generosity crisis?

What the world can learn from Indian liberalism

TikTok Shop is annoying on purpose

The glorious return of the skort

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, black writers week.

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

This Closeness

The Human Surge 3

Carlos aguilar.

Simon Abrams

Trigger Warning

Robert daniels.

Black Barbie

Carla renata, 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

Anchorman Wouldn’t Have Been Nearly as Great Without Christina Applegate

Sausage Party: Foodtopia Goes Bad Long Before It's Over

Flying to the Moon: Ten Films About the Apollo Program

Big, Big, Big, Big Movies: Jon Landau (1960-2024)

“What’s Actually Happening”: Looking for History in Jordan Peele’s “Get Out”

By ryan coleman june 24, 2020.

Get Out by Jordan Peele and Tananarive Due

LARB Contributor

LARB Staff Recommendations

Her sentimental properties.

White women have trafficked in Black women’s milk.

Sarah Mesle Jun 22, 2020

Politics and Economics

The Shell Game: From “Get Out” to “Parasite”

Juxtaposing "Get Out" and "Parasite" raises uneasy questions about how American audiences process racial injury versus economic injury.

Anne Anlin Cheng Feb 21, 2020

Translation

Did you know LARB is a reader-supported nonprofit?

LARB  publishes daily without a paywall as part of our mission to make rigorous, incisive, and engaging writing on every aspect of literature, culture, and the arts freely accessible to the public. Help us continue this work with your tax-deductible donation today!

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 .

Get Out as Fugue of Double Meanings

It’s said that the best jokes, like the best mysteries, are ones where the punchline is contained in the set-up. Jordan Peele’s Get Out offers a sinister reworking of this maxim.

Jordan Peele’s 2017 directorial debut Get Out is a fugue of double meaning. It might be about one evil family; it might be about racism in America. The film takes time to reveal itself, and a second viewing is far more informative, and disturbing, than the initial one. The movie follows a black photographer named Chris who goes to visit his white girlfriend’s folks (the Armitage family) for the weekend. On the first viewing, it seems that Chris has stumbled into an awkward gathering filled to the brim with out-of-touch white people. Though the movie’s violent opening scene hints that something untoward is afoot, the Armitages’ behavior is easily written off as tepid racism, a backdrop of microaggressions and inappropriate questions with which Chris is already intimately familiar.

Spoiler alert! There is nothing benign about the Armitages. Long story short, these people brought Chris to their annual retreat so they could steal his body and turn it into a vessel in which to preserve the brain of an aging, blind white man. By the end of the film, it’s clear that what Chris regarded as casually racist offhand remarks were actually a sinister preamble to the purchase and seizure of his body.

At a particularly uncomfortable cocktail party, for example, a woman remarks about Chris’s apparent strength, and takes a quick grope of his biceps. Chris presumably is used to this kind of behavior from white people; he thinks that the comment stems from the pervasive stereotype of the superhuman black man . Because of Chris’s, and the viewer’s, social expectations, the arm grope is easily ignored. But a second viewing of the film reveals that the Armitage family brazenly announced their intentions through prying questions, only the true nature of Chris’s predicament goes unnoticed because the behavior is nothing out of the ordinary—offensive, racist, and undeniably normal.

It’s said that the best jokes, like the best mysteries, are ones where the punchline is contained in the set-up. Get Out proves the adage true. By concealing the film’s twist behind commonplace racism, Peele created a masterpiece that is best appreciated with hindsight. Knowing the ending, nearly every line of the movie takes on a sinister double meaning.

“Words are useful only because they can be brought to the fore, then swept aside to make room for other words,” the literary scholar Edward Jayne writes in “Metaphoric Hypersignification and Metonymic Designification.” When an artist deploys a metaphor, words can be placed within a new context to make room for new meanings in the same words.

That’s because words and symbols—like those used in the (largely visual) vocabulary of film—don’t have inherent meanings. The process of analysis, then, can and does change the meanings we derive from works of art in predictable ways. Thus, the way information is encoded into language can be as important as the information itself. Form can determine content.

In Get Out , a semiotic analysis reveals what makes the work so impactful. Metaphor, a device wielded liberally by Peele, requires a commitment to lexical fluidity on the part of the viewer. That is, one must discard one’s previous understanding of symbols to appreciate the meaning behind Peele’s metaphors.

According to Jayne, the indeterminacy of metaphor can be a treacherous obstacle for storytellers. By its very nature, metaphor obscures the narrative. Janye wonders: “Which, then, is more important—the verbal matrix of literature that erupts and disperses with new word combinations or its narrative organization that survives in the long-term memory?” It is the author’s job to navigate this duality, coming up with plotting that engages long-term memory while constructing layered meanings that obligate the reader to forget the significance of words and symbols.

The great works of fiction, Jayne contends, achieve a perfect balance between these two opposing forces. But perhaps the best ones reject the premise.

Peele, for one, navigates the natural tension between plot and interpretation with ease. His metaphors don’t disrupt the narrative; Get Out ’s double meanings are understood after a gestalt shift in the viewer’s perspective. The retrospective obviousness of Chris’s dire circumstances underscores the overarching metaphor for American society that Peele has constructed. The slow reveal, and the fact that double meanings were hiding in plain sight throughout the entire film, drives home the allegory.

As an audience, we notice the racist remarks, and yet it takes a murderous cabal of brain surgeons literally kidnapping and stealing black bodies for us to glance back and really see these people for what they were. In Get Out , the ordinary injustices obscure the extraordinary ones.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

The French Historian Who Invented the Olympics

The Coldest Cream

Wooden Kings and Winds of Change in Tonga

The Impact JSTOR in Prison Has Made on Me

Recent posts.

• Legal Personhood: Extending Rights to Nature?
• The Barrier-Breaking Ozark Club of Great Falls, Montana
• Building the Olympic Games
• Windmills, Arabic, and an Environmental Victory
• The Stickiness of Teflon

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Review by Brian Eggert February 24, 2017

Get Out marks the filmmaking debut of Jordan Peele, who offers a rare, exceptional addition to the Blumhouse Productions label. Jason Blum’s factory of schlocky supernatural horror—steeped in franchises like Insidious , Paranormal Activity , and The Purge —receives a much-needed injection of vitality and vision here. Serving as both writer and director, Peele puts his apparent love of genre films into something far more searing than a common homage; instead, he engages an unnerving shocker that doubles as a burning sociopolitical satire about the racist state of America. From the first scene that evokes the fate of Trayvon Martin, to the sinking feeling of the final sequence when a cop car arrives at an uncertain moment, Get Out seems inspired by headlines yet not dependent on them. But like the best genre films, Peele’s debut does not sacrifice its story or entertainment value to stand on a soapbox and proclaim its commentary.

Alongside Keegan-Michael Key, Peele followed his five-year run on the lauded sketch-comedy show Key & Peele with 2016’s serviceable laugher Keanu . Comedy aside, fans will remember Key and Peele’s passion for horror flicks from Halloween episodes, while movie spoofs in general were a regular function of their show. Suffice it to say, Peele is a movie geek. To underscore this, the first-time filmmaker saturates Get Out with influence from Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner , The Stepford Wives , and The Manchurian Candidate . An argument could also be made for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre , since both films involve unwitting victims walking into a veritable house of horrors. Indeed, Peele has since announced (to Variety ) his intention to remain behind the camera, exploring the “human demon” with a series of social thrillers. The demon of Get Out is racism, and Peele has remarked that his experiences growing up biracial in America were a nightmare.

In the eerie prologue, a Black man (Keith Stanfield) follows some bad directions into a wealthy white community whose quiet, empty streets emanate a sense of dread. The sequence flips the cliché of white people driving through a “bad urban neighborhood” on its head when a car pulls up alongside him and, as you might guess, it doesn’t end well. This opener echoes Peele’s theme of Get Out : being black in America is a living horror show. The film settles on young photographer Chris (Daniel Kaluuya, from the Black Mirror episode “Fifteen Million Merits”), who prepares for a weekend trip to meet his girlfriend’s family. Rose (Allison Williams, from Girls ) maintains that her affluent parents aren’t racist, though she concedes her father will probably mention to Chris how he would vote for Obama a third time if he could. So just casually racist.

When they arrive at the elaborate, secluded estate of Rose’s parents, Chris finds himself in the company of white liberals who seem desperate to bond with their new Black guest. Rose’s father Dean (Bradley Whitford) uses phrases like “my man” and “ thang ,” while her mother Missy (Catherine Keener), a hypnotherapist, seems oddly preoccupied with helping Chris kick his smoking habit. Less well-meaning is Rose’s unstable brother (Caleb Landry Jones) and his allusions to Chris’ “genetic” physical superiority. Chris reacts to this nonchalantly racist behavior with subtle, often silent reactions. Kaluuya does a lot with his eyes and slight expressions that suggest Chris has been in similar circumstances before, even as he preserves some disbelief over the awkward situation. It’s an understated, rather brilliant performance.

Peele has loaded Get Out with secrets and twists galore, beyond what any audience could ever hope to guess. He reveals them in disturbing ways and, at every turn, he also comments on the social divisions between races, as well as economic divisions between the upper one-percent and, well, everyone else . In the last year, race has come to the forefront of most political discussions: Relations between police officers and African-American groups have intensified and grown tragically violent, a demonstrably racist commander-in-chief has been voted into the White House, Black Lives Matter continues to call for awareness, and talk of diversity seems painfully urgent everywhere you look. When Peele was writing his screenplay prior to 2015, he could not have known what was coming; and while recent headlines may bring the conversation into the media spotlight, it’s important to note: these are not new conversations, nor should the impassioned debate stop if ever the volatile political climate calms.

Though Peele’s film has plenty to say about people of color living in white-dominated society, he also follows several well-treaded tropes of the horror genre. Savvy viewers will see evidence of Rosemary’s Baby not only in the paranoid-nightmare-come-true scenario but also the humor Peele brings to the material. Chris’ best friend Rod (Lil Rel Howery) cuts the tension with humor; he launches his own investigation after learning about several disappearances of Black men in the area where Rose’s family lives. (He reports his findings to a detective, played by Living Single ’s Erika Alexander, and her reaction is priceless.) Rod echoes that voice in the viewer’s head—the one shouting at Chris to “Get out!” before it’s too late—and his conspiracy theories about what’s going on prove funny, if surprisingly semi-accurate. Besides a comic relief sidekick, Peele relies on other clichés; however, each time he embraces a known formula he reinvigorates it.

On a formal level, Get Out shows Peele making smart choices about shadows and brooding camera movements alongside cinematographer Toby Oliver. He also incorporates chilling music, some of it piercing strings by Michael Abels, some of it just the right song for the scene (the old-timey tune “Run Rabbit Run” by Flanagan and Allen is appropriately unsettling). Most impressive is how well this freshman effort demonstrates Peele’s complete vision: his technique has an individual style, he exhibits his love of classic horror films without becoming overtly derivative, his personal touches and grim sense of humor are evident, and all while exploiting the evil beneath varying degrees of racism—from subtle to monstrous—in a thriller with germane overtones. Get Out is essential viewing for the socially conscious horror fan.

Related Titles

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• The Inheritance 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• MaXXXine 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Mother, Couch 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Kinds of Kindness 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• A Quiet Place: Day One 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Janet Planet 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Short Take: Daddio 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Marry My Dead Body 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Bikeriders 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Inside Out 2 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Tuesday 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Tiger Stripes 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Zombi Child 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Watchers 1 Star ☆

Recent Articles

• The Definitives: Kagemusha
• The Scrappy Independents of Mumblegore
• Reader's Choice: Creep 2
• Reader's Choice: The Innkeepers
• Reader's Choice: The House of the Devil
• Reader's Choice: Creep
• Reader's Choice: A Horrible Way to Die
• Reader's Choice: The Royal Hotel
• Reader's Choice: Last Action Hero
• Reader's Choice: Anatomy of a Fall

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

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

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.

• “Cleopatra” Movie by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
• "The Baader Meinhof Complex" Film Analysis
• First Draft of Policeman of the World Paper
• The United States as a Policeman of the World
• American Movies: Racial and Gender Issues
• 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
• 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/.

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.

The Personal Statement Topics Ivy League Hopefuls Should Avoid

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Yale University

A compelling personal statement is a critical component of an Ivy League application, as it offers students the unique opportunity to showcase their personality, experiences, and aspirations. Kickstarting the writing process in the summer can give students a critical advantage in the admissions process, allowing them more time to brainstorm, edit, and polish standout essays. However, as students begin drafting their essays this summer, they should bear in mind that selecting the right topic is crucial to writing a successful essay. Particularly for students with Ivy League aspirations, submitting an essay that is cliche, unoriginal, or inauthentic can make the difference between standing out to admissions officers or blending into the sea of other applicants.

As ambitious students embark on the college application process, here are the personal statement topics they should avoid:

1. The Trauma Dump

Many students overcome significant hurdles by the time they begin the college application process, and some assume that the grisliest and most traumatic stories will attract attention and sympathy from admissions committees. While vulnerability can be powerful, sharing overly personal or sensitive information can make readers uncomfortable and shift focus away from a student’s unique strengths. Students should embrace authenticity and be honest about the struggles they have faced on their path to college, while still recognizing that the personal statement is a professional piece of writing, not a diary entry. Students should first consider why they want to share a particular tragic or traumatic experience and how that story might lend insight into the kind of student and community member they will be on campus. As a general rule, if the story will truly enrich the admissions committee’s understanding of their candidacy, students should thoughtfully include it; if it is a means of proving that they are more deserving or seeking to engender pity, students should consider selecting a different topic. Students should adopt a similar, critical approach as they write about difficult or sensitive topics in their supplemental essays, excluding unnecessary detail and focusing on how the experience shaped who they are today.

2. The Travelogue

Travel experiences can be enriching, but essays that merely recount a trip to a foreign country without deeper reflection often fall flat. Additionally, travel stories can often unintentionally convey white saviorism , particularly if students are recounting experiences from their charity work or mission trips in a foreign place. If a student does wish to write about an experience from their travels, they should prioritize depth not breadth—the personal statement is not the place to detail an entire itinerary or document every aspect of a trip. Instead, students should focus on one specific and meaningful experience from their travels with vivid detail and creative storytelling, expounding on how the event changed their worldview, instilled new values, or inspired their future goals.

3. The Superhero Narrative

Ivy League and other top colleges are looking for students who are introspective and teachable—no applicant is perfect (admissions officers know this!). Therefore, it’s crucial that students be aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and open about the areas in which they hope to grow. They should avoid grandiose narratives in which they cast themselves as flawless heroes. While students should seek to put their best foot forward, depicting themselves as protagonists who single-handedly resolve complex issues can make them appear exaggerated and lacking in humility. For instance, rather than telling the story about being the sole onlooker to stand up for a peer being bullied at the lunch table, perhaps a student could share about an experience that emboldened them to advocate for themselves and others. Doing so will add dimension and dynamism to their essay, rather than convey a static story of heroism.

Northern Lights Alert: Beware ‘Head-On’ Aurora Displays Say Scientists

Nyt ‘strands’ hints, spangram and answers for wednesday, july 10th, michael bennet is the first democratic senator to publicly question biden’s candidacy—here’s who has called on him to end campaign, 4. the plan for world peace.

Similarly, many students feel compelled to declare their intention to solve global issues like world hunger or climate change. While noble, these proclamations can come across as unrealistic and insincere, and they can distract from the tangible achievements and experiences that a student brings to the table. Instead, applicants should focus on demonstrable steps they’ve taken or plan to take within their local community to enact positive change, demonstrating their commitment and practical approach to making a difference. For instance, instead of stating a desire to eradicate poverty, students could describe their extended involvement in a local charity and how it has helped them to discover their values and actualize their passions.

5. The Sports Story

While sports can teach valuable lessons, essays that focus solely on athletic achievements or the importance of a particular game can be overdone and lack depth. Admissions officers have read countless essays about students scoring the winning goal, dealing with the hardship of an injury, or learning teamwork from sports. Students should keep in mind that the personal essay should relay a story that only they can tell—perhaps a student has a particularly unique story about bringing competitive pickleball to their high school and uniting unlikely friend groups or starting a community initiative to repair and donate golf gear for students who couldn’t otherwise afford to play. However, if their sports-related essay could have been written by any high school point guard or soccer team captain, it’s time to brainstorm new ideas.

6. The Pick-Me Monologue

Students may feel the need to list their accomplishments and standout qualities in an effort to appear impressive to Ivy League admissions officers. This removes any depth, introspection, and creativity from a student’s essay and flattens their experiences to line items on a resume. Admissions officers already have students’ Activities Lists and resumes; the personal statement should add texture and dimension to their applications, revealing aspects of their character, values and voice not otherwise obvious through the quantitative aspects of their applications. Instead of listing all of their extracurricular involvements, students should identify a particularly meaningful encounter or event they experienced through one of the activities that matters most to them, and reflect on the ways in which their participation impacted their development as a student and person.

7. The Pandemic Sob Story

The Covid-19 pandemic was a traumatic and formative experience for many students, and it is therefore understandable that applicants draw inspiration from these transformative years as they choose their essay topics. However, while the pandemic affected individuals differently, an essay about the difficulties faced during this time will likely come across as unoriginal and generic. Admissions officers have likely read hundreds of essays about remote learning challenges, social isolation, and the general disruptions caused by Covid-19. These narratives can start to blend together, making it difficult for any single essay to stand out. Instead of centering the essay on the pandemic's challenges, students should consider how they adapted, grew, or made a positive impact during this time. For example, rather than writing about the difficulties of remote learning, a student could describe how they created a virtual study group to support classmates struggling with online classes. Similarly, an applicant might write about developing a new skill such as coding or painting during lockdown and how this pursuit has influenced their academic or career goals. Focusing on resilience, innovation, and personal development can make for a more compelling narrative.

Crafting a standout personal statement requires dedicated time, careful thought, and honest reflection. The most impactful essays are those that toe the lines between vulnerability and professionalism, introspection and action, championing one’s strengths and acknowledging weaknesses. Starting early and striving to avoid overused and unoriginal topics will level up a student’s essay and increase their chances of standing out.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Why Orion Acaba Left Critical Role

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Quick Links

Why did orion leave critical role, apparently, there were issues at the gaming table, why fans think orion acaba left critical role, closing out tiberius' arc, will critical role ever get another permanent member.

• Orion Acaba left Critical Role due to health reasons, although fans have speculated about other potential reasons for his departure.
• Acaba's behavior at the table, including frustrations with other players and arguments about the rules, caused tension and rubbed fans the wrong way.
• Fans have pointed out instances of cheating and metagaming as possible reasons for Acaba's departure, although these have not been confirmed by the cast or crew.

Critical Role , a long-running Dungeons & Dragons web series, is a gem on the Internet, with loyal fans eagerly awaiting weekly updates to the group's running campaigns. While several guest appearances have occurred throughout Critical Role , the main cast has largely remained the same over the years that the show has been going on, with one glaring exception. Orion Acaba, who played Tiberius Stormwind, departed from the show before finishing out the first campaign, while they were still a part of Geek & Sundry.

With its first campaign beginning nine years ago, Critical Role introduced its viewers to a cast of nine party members from a variety of D&D races and classes. Since then, eight of the nine cast members have remained consistent, taking on different characters through three different campaigns. Former cast member Orion Acaba left the show a quarter of the way into their very first campaign. Though it was several years ago, the reason for his exit is still discussed and debated by fans.

Updated on July 7, 2024 by Robbie Robinson: Orion Acaba is a name that's been lost in the years of CR's runtime. Plenty of new fans to the campaigns have no idea who he is or was to Vox Machina. While his departure has long since been settled, new fans still might want to look into what could've happened to lead to a main cast member dropping off. This article has been updated to reflect current CBR formatting standards and to explore CR's history with recurring guest stars.

Fans May Never Get a Clear Answer

Orion Acaba's Prominent Voice Roles:

10 Best Critical Role One-Shots, Ranked

Highlighting everything fans love about Critical Role's talented cast, one-shots like Generation Nord and Dalen's Closet were memorable adventures.

Orion Acaba left Critical Role 27 episodes into the show's very first campaign, which obviously led to his character Tiberius Stormwind, a Dragonborn Sorceror , exiting the party, Vox Machina. Since his departure, Acaba attempted to launch a spin-off series wherein his character Tiberius returns to his homeland. However, the show was not successful and episodes of it were purged from YouTube. Additionally, due to legal reasons, Tiberius is not included in adaptations of the campaign, such as Amazon Prime's The Legend of Vox Machina .

While 27 episodes is a significant amount of time, the show has released hundreds since then, making his appearance less significant for newer fans, albeit still mysterious. While at first, the reasons for Acaba's departure were shrouded in mystery, Acaba himself officially acknowledged that he was leaving the show due to health reasons. Despite this official reason given by Acaba, fan speculation has run rampant and many suspect that these health-related issues were provided to cover up the true reasons for his departure.

Acaba Always Seemed Like the Odd Man Out - By Choice

Critical Role: What Makes Matt Mercer A Great DM?

The preeminent Dungeon Master within the world of Dungeons & Dragons, Matthew Mercer is considered to be one of the best DMs ever.

Live plays, or actual plays, weren't very popular before Critical Role came onto the scene, and whenever a new format is coming about, there will always be a few kinks to work out in the early days. While the entire CR cast was trying to figure out how everything worked at the start of the first campaign, it was clear that one player wasn't always playing in the spirit of the game: Orion Acaba.

Fans love to speculate about what might have been going on between Acaba and his fellow castmates off-screen, but there were plenty of instances during the game itself when Acaba seemed to be at odds with the other players, rather than working with them. For example, there are multiple instances in the show's early episodes where Acaba appears to become frustrated or angry with other players, which rubbed many fans the wrong way upon viewing. Some on Reddit have also accused him of stealing the spotlight from other players, or simply being outright rude to others at the table, but that's entirely up to interpretation. Acaba's character Tiberius would go off on his own quests that were completely separate from the group's main goals. He would spend minutes at a time arguing about the rules with DM Matt Mercer, which didn't make for very fun viewing.

Some viewers also voiced their discomfort at Tiberius' pursuit of one of the game's NPCs, Allura. While she and Tiberius had built up a rapport pre-stream, the romance between Allura and another character, Kima, had started to blossom during the first arc of the show. Upon the development of this relationship, some fans found it unsavory that Tiberius continued to persue Allura in spite of this relationship, and after it appeared to make her a bit uncomfortable. While these behaviors weren't egregious, the compounding effect of all of these separate issues started to grate on players after a while.

One of the more specific reasons that fans point to when discussing Orion's exit is cheating. While it has never been confirmed by anyone in the cast or crew of Critical Role , many fans have suggested that Orion would cheat when rolling dice to the point that other party members would check his roles. Perhaps easier to corroborate, fans have pointed out his heavy use of metagaming , which is when a player uses outside knowledge that their character should not know while playing the game. This is highly frowned upon when it comes to role-playing games and is considered a form of cheating.

There Were Many Instances of Him Making the Table Uncomfortable

Why Critical Role Left Geek & Sundry

After beginning as a Geek & Sundry production, Critical Role left the company in 2019. Here's why that likely happened between the two groups.

Since Acaba's departure, fans have speculated about the true reasons for this abrupt exit. Some fans think that his exit had to do with the disagreements with other cast members. This theory is backed by opinions that he had a harsh temper, and as a result, his outbursts embarrassed the cast and crew of the show. Various other reasons for his exit have been discussed throughout the years. These span from scamming rumors regarding a crowdfunding project he started for a fan to sexual comments made during games, many of these being regularly and commonly discussed in fan spaces.

Acaba himself put out an official statement that cited health issues as the reason for his departure , while The Geek & Sundry Twitch channel simply stated that the two had parted ways on mutual terms. Since Acaba's exit, he has expressed a desire to return to the campaign. However, Critical Role has formally stated that he will not be returning.

While he was a memorable character in the early days of the Vox Machina campaign, the show has evolved since his appearance, and as such, his role in the show has minimized as time has gone by. Also, fan interest in Acaba has lowered significantly. His position as a debated and controversial figure among Critical Role fans has persisted, though he may not have a place in the show anymore. However, many fans refrain from discussing him with the desire to move on from Acaba entirely as they feel he is no longer relevant to Critical Role .

Tiberius Ends With a Farewell Burial

A Complete Critical Role Timeline (& Where to Start)

Critical Role has evolved a lot over the years, growing from a small stream of friends to a multi-media empire. Here's everything you need to know.

While Acaba never returned to Critical Role , Tiberius made one last appearance in the show's first campaign after the player's departure. In episode 64, "The Frigid Doom," which is in the middle of the Chroma Conclave arc, the party comes across Tiberius' dead body. The Dragonborn was discovered by Percy as the party passed by Draconia. Tiberius had been frozen by one of the powerful dragons of the Chroma Conclave, Vorugal, as he tried to defend his home city. Vox Machina wasn't able to move his body at the time of discovery, but still performed a short burial service in his honor. After they defeated Vorugal, Scanlan arranged for Tiberius' body to be retrieved and to have a proper burial, with a tombstone that read "I Encourage Peace," a subversion of his catchphrase, "I encourage violence."

While it would have been easy for the cast of Critical Role to completely ignore Tiberius after Acaba left the show, giving him a proper hero's ending seems fitting for his character. Tiberius may not have always been a team player when it came to Vox Machina, but he was always looking out for his fellow Dragonborns and Draconians. It was satisfying for viewers to get a clear ending to Tiberius' story, and to see how he played his part against the dragons that were wreaking havok on Tal'Dorei.

Fans will never know the true nature of what caused Acaba's departure in full , but ultimately, it seems that all parties have moved on amicably enough. Critical Role has continued on into its third campaign , and on top of the animated adaptation of the first campaign, the company now has its own publishing company to create their own tabletop games. Acaba has also continued his own voice acting career, with his most recent work found in Dead Island 2 and Honkai: Star Rail .

There Are Some Guests Fans Wish Never Left

CR has always had an abundance of guest stars throughout its run . While some guest characters are only around for a couple episodes or even only one, there have been many characters that have played perfectly with the synergy of the main CR cast. Robbie Daymond is a perfect example of a guest that a lot of fans wouldn't have minded becoming a fulltime character. Robbie played the air genasi, Dorian Storm. Dorian was introduced in the miniseries, Exandria Unlimited Prime, and then appears in the first 14 episodes of the third campaign. Considering his role in the third campaign was attached to characters like Fern and Orym, fans were hopeful that Dorian would have a long stay in the campaign.

Others guests have had many recurring roles in the campaigns, such as Kashaw and Zahra, though again, never became permanent members at the table. At this point, it's unclear if the main cast is interested in having any new fulltime members. Granted, the cast is large enough, so it's not really necessary. However, fans have to wonder if there's hesitation from the main cast simply because of what did or didn't happen with Orion Acaba. The main cast have been playing with each other for years and are beyond comfortable playing with one another. It's possible there have never been any new additions simply because of the effort, time and scheduling that goes into having streamed campaigns that last for years. Though, it's also possible that the team behind CR doesn't want to have a repeat of what happened with Acaba. Acaba has been gone long enough that he's hardly left a mark on Critical Role , but any newer disruptions could be catastrophic for everything that Critical Role has since become.

Critical Role

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'

Millions of Texans face third day without power in summer heat

Power companies and Texas officials say restoration efforts could take days. Experts say Texans without electricity are facing a dangerous situation.

Sign up for The Brief , The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Millions of Texans were without power for a third summer day after Hurricane Beryl wreaked havoc through several counties — including the state’s most populous one — and temperatures again rose dangerously into the 90s.

Power companies have deployed thousands of workers to restore power but progress is slow and questions linger about whether the state and its primary power utilities were adequately prepared for the storm. Residents still without electricity were frustrated at what’s becoming routine in Texas: massive power outages after winter storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes or hurricanes.

As of Wednesday afternoon, more than 1.5 million electricity customers concentrated in the southeastern corner of the state that bore the brunt of Beryl’s fierce winds still didn’t have power. Most of those customers receive electricity through CenterPoint Energy, the utility that delivers electricity in Houston and its surrounding communities.

Power companies and elected officials said it could be days before everyone has electricity again. Matagorda County Judge Bobby Seiferman said Wednesday some 2,500 households in the coastal community of Sargent may be without power for another two weeks . CenterPoint has yet to provide an estimate on when thousands of their customers will have power back.

That means people without air conditioning will have to figure out how to cope with the heat. The heat index was projected to push past 100 degrees in some areas, compounding the risk for an already battered and worn out area.

“The power system is a life saving critical infrastructure — it’s the difference between life and death,” said Costa Samaras, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. “The era of nobody could have foreseen these conditions is over.”

The Public Utility Commission of Texas, which regulates electricity in the state, called utilities impacted by Beryl to join a Thursday morning public meeting to discuss recovery efforts.

Heat is known as a silent killer . The harm it causes can be more complex than, say, a tornado or fire. But extreme heat causes more deaths per year than any other weather-related hazard, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Heat can make people weak, dizzy and faint. In severe cases, people develop heat stroke that causes organ damage or death.

“When you factor in not only having no A/C, warmer temperatures, and then also a higher heat index, that increases humidity, that muggy feeling out there, which adds to the uncomfortable feeling,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Ryan Knapp. “With the heat index being higher, it can definitely lead to heat stress and heat related illness. It makes it feel like it's significantly warmer out there than it actually is.”

Related Story

How to stay safe in the texas heat.

July 2, 2024

As of Wednesday afternoon, most electricity customers in coastal Brazoria County lacked power, as did most of Polk, San Jacinto and Trinity counties outside of Houston. A sizable portion of Harris County, the state’s most populous, also remained without power.

It was initially unclear exactly how many customers were without power in greater Houston because CenterPoint Energy’s outage tracker was unavailable. The company published a map late Tuesday showing the status of power restoration the Houston area, though some customers said the map inaccurately shows their neighborhood's power has been restored. CenterPoint maintains the power poles and wires that deliver electricity in Houston and its surrounding communities.

Restoring power to Texans is the state’s No. 1 priority, officials emphasized during a Tuesday press briefing in Galveston County, where at least 32% of people still lack power, based on estimates from PowerOutage.us, which is not tracking customers who rely on CenterPoint. About 60% of Galveston customers who rely on CenterPoint didn't have power Tuesday afternoon, based on CenterPoint's county-level data.

Hurricane Beryl formed in the Atlantic in June, set records for its strength and devastated several Caribbean islands days before landing on Texas’ coastline in the early morning hours of July 8. Beryl was initially forecast to hit South Texas. It took a turn east before moving inland while retaining its hurricane-force winds as it walloped the Houston area.

Tropical Storm Beryl: How to get help and help Texans

Updated: July 9, 2024

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick emphasized that the state had been gearing up for the storm as early as July 4. Patrick said he texted Texas Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd on the holiday and expressed concern about the storm and an urgent need for preparation.

“In my text, I said, ‘I'm not comfortable with this track. I'm not comfortable with this storm. It reminds me of Ike,’” he said in reference to the 2008 hurricane that ravaged Galveston and flooded parts of Harris County.

CenterPoint said in a Monday press release that the storm more heavily impacted the company’s infrastructure and customers than it anticipated based on earlier storm path projections.

On Tuesday, Patrick said that he would be “shocked and surprised if someone didn't say you should be ready for that.”

The utility rejected the idea that it wasn’t sufficiently prepared for the storm, saying during a Tuesday news conference that it had readied thousands of extra crews and resources. The company said it was not able to deploy them until after the storm cleared its service territory around 3 p.m. on Monday.

“I can share with full confidence that we were prepared,” CenterPoint Vice President of Regulatory Policy Brad Tutunjian said.

Thousands of crews had to be “trained, onboarded, fed, put to bed” before the storm cleared, he said, and the utility’s systems had to be de-energized before its workers could be safely deployed.

As of 5:24 p.m. Wednesday, the utility had restored power to about a million customers, according to their online tracker. But 1.26 million customers still didn't have power. A timeline detailing when all customers can expect to have power back has not yet been released. A Wednesday news release said more detailed restoration times would be released Thursday morning.

The combination of a hurricane and extreme heat makes it all the more imperative for utilities to design for the climate of the future, not the climate of the past, said Samaras, the Carnegie Mellon professor. Climate change driven by people burning fossil fuels has only exacerbated the danger that heat poses — especially without air conditioning.

Utilities can take several measures to ensure resilience in the power systems: put power lines underground where appropriate, have backup power lines in areas that suffer more blackouts and encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient by weatherizing them.

Regulators would face the difficult equation of balancing the cost of improvements versus benefit against extreme weather and deciding what risk they were comfortable with facing.

Patrick said the state will conduct an assessment of CenterPoint’s preparation and restoration. Patrick is filling in for Gov. Greg Abbott while he is out of the country.

"My focus is right now to get power on as quickly as we can to those who do not have power,” Patrick said at a Tuesday afternoon press briefing in Houston. “We will decide after the fact to go back and look, could they have done better? Could they have been positioned better? We'll figure that out later.”

The Public Utility Commission of Texas said in a statement that its staff had been working “around the clock” to help with recovery efforts and that thousands of crews were working to restore power across the region while utilities tried to assess the extent of the damage and how long repairs would take. The PUC maintains an electric outages viewer for people to monitor where power is out.

“Just my luck”: Houston begins clean up after Beryl rips through Gulf Coast

July 9, 2024

Temperatures are projected to rise steadily over the coming days, said Knapp, the meteorologist. That could leave the most vulnerable Texans at particular risk. Temperatures in the 80s and 90s can create unsafe conditions, especially in a home with no power, and finding ways to keep cool will be paramount, he said.

“The upper 80s can obviously heat the inside of the home pretty quickly,” Knapp said.

Heat doesn’t impact all communities equally. Older people, children and people who have chronic illnesses can be more at risk for heat-related illnesses. Some neighborhoods in Houston already have more health risks and may have fewer options for how to stay safe, said Stefania Tomaskovic, executive director of the Coalition for Environment, Equity and Resilience.

Many in the region already lost power or dealt with damages when a strong wind storm hit in May.

“We’re concerned about the heat issues because when power outages happen a lot of vulnerable people are left even more vulnerable,” Tomaskovic said.

One woman in Galveston County died when her oxygen machine ran out of battery. In Harris County, two people died from carbon monoxide poisoning from their generators.

Along the coast, hospitals and assisted living facilities lost power and flooded on Monday, leaving county officials to transport vulnerable patients to safety. Not everyone has found safety, though.

On Tuesday, as more than 2.1 million electricity customers lacked power, public spaces that typically serve as cooling centers could not always be counted on as safe havens. In Brazoria County, most libraries were closed Tuesday morning due to power outages.

"It's chaotic, as it always is with any natural disaster," Brazoria County Judge Matt Sebesta said. "We are dealing with it as best we can."

North of Houston, 81.6% of Montgomery County customers served by Sam Houston Electric Cooperative were without power Wednesday morning, as were 88.5% of Polk County customers and all of Trinity County's customers, according to Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, which maintains the poles and wires for that region. By the afternoon, the utility had made some progress, restoring power to about 30% of Trinity County customers and to 24,000 members across their service area with the help of more than 1,000 linemen from other states, according to posts on X .

Some people whose power hasn't been restored have found safety in churches, like in Houston where a pastor opened his doors to residents. But experts worry about those who might be left behind.

“The next few days are decisive,” said Mark Hollis, spokesperson for the AARP. “First responders, utility operators and those who care for vulnerable people have a heavy burden right now, but it’s imperative that everything possible is done to protect older and other infirm residents from hazards, such as long durations of heat exposure.”

Disclosure: CenterPoint Energy has beena financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here .

Big news: director and screenwriter Richard Linklater ; NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher ; U.S. Rep. Pete Aguilar , D-California; and Luci Baines Johnson will take the stage at The Texas Tribune Festival , Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Buy tickets today!

Jess Huff and Kayla Guo contributed to this report.

Texans need truth. Help us report it.

Independent Texas reporting needs your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans — and our community of members, the readers who donate, make our work possible. Help us bring you and millions of others in-depth news and information. Will you support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?

Support independent Texas news

Become a member. Join today.

Choose an amount or learn more about membership .

Information about the authors

Pooja Salhotra

General assignment reporter.

[email protected]

@PoojaSalhotra

Emily Foxhall

Climate reporter.

[email protected]

Alejandra Martinez

Environmental reporter.

[email protected]

@alereports

Contributors

East Texas Reporter

[email protected]

@JessHuff16

[email protected]

Learn about The Texas Tribune’s policies , including our partnership with The Trust Project to increase transparency in news.

Explore related story topics

Economy Energy Environment State government Hurricanes

Knowing when to call it quits takes courage and confidence - 3 case studies

Professor of Political Science, Trinity College

Chairperson and Associate Professor of Law, College of Staten Island, CUNY

Disclosure statement

Michael Paris occasionally volunteers with Democratic organizations.

Kevin J. McMahon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Trinity College provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

After President Joe Biden’s disastrous performance at the June 27, 2024, debate, many Democrats have raced to ring the alarm bell, proclaiming that it’s time for him to step aside, time to let someone else take the reins in hopes of defeating Donald Trump in November.

With that in mind, as political scientists with a side interest in sports, we recount three moments from history when men and women faced the difficult decision to stay or go. We hope they will help inform the current discussion.

We begin with two who worked at the highest levels of power in the U.S.:

President Lyndon Johnson, 1968

On the final night of March 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson, known universally as “LBJ,” spoke to the nation from the Oval Office to say that the United States would unilaterally halt nearly all its bombing in North Vietnam.

But as his address came to a close, he had something more to say:

Shocking his audience, LBJ added : “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

Johnson was 59 years old. Three-and-a-half years earlier, he had scored one of the greatest landslides in American history, winning 61% of the vote and 44 states in the 1964 presidential election .

A scant few individuals so aptly defined the term “political animal” as LBJ. He had come to Washington as a young man bursting with ambition and succeeded like few others.

Indeed, since becoming president after John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination , Johnson had ushered through Congress an avalanche of progressive legislation , including the historic 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights acts. With the possible exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt, no other president had achieved so much legislatively.

But on that March day in 1968, at a time of growing antiwar protests and the accelerating pull of rival candidates for the Democratic nomination, he understood that he now led a country coming apart at the seams. Despite having declared his candidacy for reelection, seeking another term might make things worse.

It was time for someone else to have a turn.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2013

As one of us recounts in his book, “ A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other: The Deepening Divide Between the Justices and the People ,” President Barack Obama invited Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a private lunch at the White House in the summer of 2013.

Obama wanted to nudge Ginsburg into retirement. The 80-year-old justice was a two-time survivor of pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest of all cancers. She had already served on the high court for two decades and had carved out a legacy as a staunch liberal and champion of women’s equality.

Additionally, Obama was concerned about the upcoming midterm elections. If the Democrats lost the Senate, he would not be able to replace her with a like-minded justice, because a GOP-run Senate would not confirm such a nominee.

Ginsburg didn’t take Obama’s hint.

Soon after the lunch, she noted, “ I think one should stay as long as she can do the job .” She added shortly after , “There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president.”

That next president was Donald Trump.

Ginsburg died in mid-September 2020, just weeks before Joe Biden would oust Trump from the White House. But significantly, Trump had sufficient time to fill Ginsburg’s seat with the conservative Amy Coney Barrett .

In 2022, Barrett provided the fifth and decisive vote in the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade’s federal protection of abortion rights .

Deciding when to step away or stay may have deep consequences in the political world.

The consequences are big in sports, as well, but at a more personal level.

Philadelphia Eagle Jason Kelce, 2024

Skeptics said he was too small to play among the giants on an offensive line in the NFL. Not strong enough. Not tough enough. A former walk-on who had been drafted in 2011 in the sixth round .

But in a short space of time, Jason Kelce redefined the position of center and helped guide his team to its first-ever Super Bowl win.

In 2024, Kelce’s team, the Philadelphia Eagles, was still one of the best in the NFL. It had been to the Super Bowl just a year earlier, and Kelce was still considered to be playing near the top of his game.

But Kelce had had enough. It was time for him to end his playing days.

Sitting before a packed room of reporters and family members, the bare-armed and burly-chested 36-year-old Kelce set out to say goodbye .

But before he could even get a sentence out, his emotions took over, forcing him to pause for several moments. He held his head in his hands, sobbing, sniffling, snorting, taking deep breaths. Tears streamed down his face throughout the news conference. Repeatedly, he had to stop and wipe them away with a washcloth someone tossed to him.

As he struggled to get through his statement, listeners could hear him motivate himself several times with the phrase, “Come on.”

The ‘courage to call it quits’

Kelce’s retirement announcement is both difficult and extraordinarily captivating to watch. During those 40 minutes, he displays the courage it takes to call it quits when there is still something to be gained.

The picture was of a man coming to terms with his fate. Not because of injury or lack of skill, but because he believed it was necessary to take this step before those things forced him out.

Are there moments when we can judge for another when it is time to bow out? Most assuredly, there are. Hopefully, we do so with compassion and gratitude, but there are simply times when conscience demands an honest reckoning and unflinching truth-telling.

• Lyndon Baines Johnson
• Voting Rights Act
• US Constitution
• Political conventions
• US presidency
• Mental ageing
• 25th Amendment
• Philadelphia Eagles
• Civil Rights Act
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• US democracy

Management Information Systems & Analytics – Limited Term Contract

Publications Manager

Audience Insight Officer

Academic Programs Officer, Scheduling

Director, Student Administration

Advertisement

Supported by

Critic’s Notebook

I Saw My Anxiety Reflected in ‘Inside Out 2.’ It Floored Me.

In a way that’s both cathartic and devastating, Pixar’s latest portrays how anxiety can take hold, our critic writes.

• Share full article

By Maya Phillips

At the climax of Pixar’s “Inside Out 2,” Riley, a freshly pubescent teen with a gaggle of new personified emotions, becomes so overwhelmed with anxiety that she has a panic attack.

In the theater, I whispered to my friend that I’d forgotten to bring my panic attack medication. I’d said it as a joke — but at the sight of this anxious animated teenager, my whole body’s choreography changed. My muscles tensed. I pressed my right palm down hard to my chest and took a few deep yoga breaths, trying to cut off the familiar beginnings of an attack.

This depiction of how quickly anxiety can take hold was overwhelming. I saw my own experiences reflected in Riley’s. “Inside Out 2” felt personal to me in a way that was equally cathartic and devastating: It’s a movie that so intimately understands how my anxiety disorder upends my everyday life.

“Inside Out 2” picks up two years after the 2015 film “Inside Out,” as Riley is about to start high school. With puberty comes a group of new emotions, led by Anxiety. A manic orange sprite voiced by Maya Hawke, Anxiety bumps out the old emotions and inadvertently wreaks havoc on Riley’s belief system and self-esteem as she tries to manage the stress of a weekend hockey camp.

When an emotion takes over in the “Inside Out” movies, a control board in Riley’s mind changes to that feeling’s color; Anxiety’s takeover, however, is more absolute. She creates a stronghold in Riley’s imagination, where she forces mind workers to illustrate negative hypothetical scenarios for Riley’s future. Soon, Riley’s chief inner belief is of her inadequacy; the emotions hear “I’m not good enough” as a low, rumbling refrain in her mind.

I’m familiar with anxiety’s hold on the imagination; my mind is always writing the script to the next worst day of my life. It’s already embraced all possibilities of failure. And my anxiety’s ruthless demands for perfection often turn my thoughts into an unrelenting roll-call of self-criticisms and insecurities.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .