The film shows the descent of a young black male into the underworld of what appears to be a happy, liberal white family.

It’s like Eyes Wide Shut meets Meet The Parents. 

Did those references just confuse you?

A Dangerous Blend

This type of extreme genre mix is typically a recipe for disaster. But Get Out raked in nearly a quarter billion dollars in its first quarter at the BO.

It even made it into the all-time Top 20 for R-rated films.

So what made the movie so incredibly successful?

You can read it as a piece of racial propaganda, or even as a statement that whites are inferior:

            JEREMY
Cause, with your frame, your 
genetic make-up? If you pushed
your body, I mean really trained,
you’d be a beast.

Of course, in the quote above the speaker lacks authority, and his statement is part of the prejudice.

Because of the various points of view, and the topical nature of the theme, this movie provides an incredibly fertile base for heated debate. And that’s probably one of the elements that have fueled word of mouth.

But that’s not what I wanted to talk about.

At The End Of The Day…

What I found even more interesting as a filmmaker, is the story behind Get Out’s ending.

The production had wrapped, and the film followed the original screenplay. Then test screenings showed that audiences loved the movie, yet hated the ending.

It was not a matter of making a few edits. The studio requested an entirely new ending.

Trust me, this is not typically something a filmmaker is dying to do. After all, the original ending had remained consistent with everything preceding it, and the events play out closely to what you would expect would realistically happen in the real world.

The original ending was honest and true.

The new ending is the fairy tale.

It reflects what the audiences hope would happen in a better world, or perhaps in the future.

A Diamond Patch

To put it bluntly, Jordan Peele was asked to patch an ending to his movie that – on the surface – went straight against the very narrative he had built.

He may have had no choice, because the test screenings showed that the film could have easily flopped. Steven Spielberg is rumoured to claim that the most important part of a movie is its ending as it determines how people feel when they leave the theatre – and what they’ll say about it to others.

As a first-time filmmaker, it is not inconceivable that Peele’s contract with the studio stipulated that he had to make reasonable efforts to change the script, in case audience tests indicated the need.

To my taste, this is an example of the studio – or perhaps the tests – getting it right.

Three of my all-time favourite movies – Touch Of Evil, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and Blade Runner – have had re-releases that were closer to the director’s (initial) intentions.

None of these I enjoyed better than the original studio versions.

Studios step in all the time. These stories don’t always make it into the mainstream, though. In Hollywood, only a handful of directors enjoys final cut privilege.

Of course, the studios don’t always get it right. When they do, it is important to acknowledge this, and to study the differences between the original and the release versions.

Importantly, in the case of Get Out, the release ending may not be what was intended, ultimately it is still Jordan Peele’s.

5 Reasons Why Get Out Is A Classic

I love Get Out for many reasons. In some ways, I found it structurally similar to another fairly recent horror favourite: The Invitation. With that film, the parallels go all the way down to the animal-hit-on-the-road scene, which functions as a harbinger warning.

To name a movie an instant classic however, I need more than one point of excellence. In addition to a rock-solid single POV, I would point to the following:

1. It Transcends Horror – There is a term in the industry for films that offer something beyond pure genre, and therefore appeal to an audience larger than just the fans: elevated genre. Although it is a murky concept, this film certainly falls under that banner. I have heard of viewers who took their parents to see the movie. Unless your parents are horror buffs, I reckon this phenomenon doesn’t happen too often.
2. Incredible Mastery Of Tone – The hardest thing with genre blends, is to keep the tone in check. Scenes that play in one genre don’t always gel with the other. Even when you believe the script is fairly consistent in tone, the real challenges occur on set, and ultimately in the edit. How can a horror movie be scary if you have ample comic relief? And how can a truly dark movie be uplifting? I have a theory that comedy is not a genre but a tonal scale, applied to any genre. Remember Life Is Beautiful? And despite its upbeat ending, the discerning viewer will still leave Get Out with mixed emotions.
3. A Kickass Mid Point – I often say that once you have found your mid point, you have your story. Here, the MP has two important beats: First Andre yells “Get out!”, and minutes later Chris discovers the evidence of what is going on at the Armitage’s. After a first half that was more about building tension and figuring things out, the second half has tremendous momentum, sheer unbearable suspense, and razor-sharp focus.
4. Real Characters And Amazing Performances – No room for stock-horror cliché characters. Chris’ experience evokes that of millions of Americans, and the behaviour of the whites in Get Out reflects the omnipresence and the complexity of the issue. In terms of performance, nobody who has seen the film will ever forget the chilling performance by Betty Gabriel, when her character Grandma/Georgina goes up to Chris and apologises:

               GEORGINA
   I owe you an apology. I shouldn’t
   be touching things that don’t
   belong to me.

5. The End – See above. I cannot overstate how difficult it is to get a movie’s ending right. (For Little Miss Sunshine, I believe Michael Arndt wrote ten different versions, and they shot four.)

If you are a screenwriter, read the Get Out script and compare with the final film. If you’re a filmmaker, study the movie, its theme and its tone.

If you’re neither, just watch and enjoy.

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

The Gilroys can’t do much wrong in Hollywood.

But the saga started with The Bourne Identity (2002) (well, if we forget about the Robert Ludlum’s novels for a second. That source material was quite different anyway). The first Bourne movie brought a bunch of talent together, directed by Doug Liman, who had been doing hip, smallish character driven movies up to that point. In Identity the cast we see next to Matt Damon among others Franka Potente (the sexy redhead from Lola Rennt), as well as superb character actors Brian Cox and Chris Cooper. It all gave the movie a powerful ‘cachet’. The strategy worked: the film was received very well, both by audience and critics.

Mystery?

“I don’t know who I am. Do you know who I am? Do you have any idea who I am?” These are among the first few words ever spoken by Jason Bourne in the successful movie franchise. At this point in the screenplay, Jason is only referred to only as THE MAN. For a long time into the story, Jason keeps wondering. The irony is that the audience works it out quickly. This guy has a gun, money and fake passports, one of which has a name with the initials J.B.? I’d say he’s a spy. Not that we have to work to figure that out. The next thing we’re in Langley, at the CIA HQ. Within the first half hour we learn that something has gone very wrong, and Jason was not supposed to be alive still. The stakes are set, early on. The challenge now is to keep the tension.

“I don’t know who I am.
Do you know who I am?
Do you have any idea who I am?”
-Jason Bourne

From a metaphorical perspective, we clearly have a young man on a Hero Quest. The search for identity has been the stuff of many great movie characters. Often the audience is trying to figure out these characters too, e.g. look at Lawrence Of Arabia and Citizen Kane. In the first Bourne movie, the quest is presented as a mystery. A pure mystery would have almost certainly failed on the screen. Remember the movie adaptation of The Da Vince Code? No? Good. You’ve blocked it out.

We clearly have a young man on a Hero Quest.

Suspense

Remember how Hitchcock taught us that mystery is not something you should bring to the big screen. Instead, the master focused on suspense and surprise. In The Bourne Identity, we have all three – in spades, and a moment early in act two bundles all three, in one scene. The scene also demonstrates that surprise works really well if it is anticipated by suspense in the first place. (HBO fans know that surprise and suspense make mystery palatable, as was demonstrated in True Detective.)

The end of the first act of The Bourne Identity is in some way reminiscent of the same point in Hitchcock’s North By Northwest, starring another hero who is profoundly confused about his identity. Like a boy growing up to become a man, Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) has to escape from under his mother’s wings. In addition to the identity confusion, the audience learns that the baddies are coming after Thornhill, and it suits the CIA fine. This is revealed in a dramatic irony scene, where we learn the agency is not going to protect him.

The Bourne Identity goes one step further. At the end of Act One, in a similar dramatic ironic moment at the CIA offices, Bourne’s fate is sealed and he won’t be safe for another second. We witness how Chris Cooper’s character Conklin task his agents to bring Bourne in – in a body bag. The suspense is on.

Surprise!

This scene is not for the faint-hearted. It shows the first confrontation between Jason and the agents that are after him. The setting is the Paris flat, which Jason doesn’t even remember ever having lived at. He learns from a phone call to a hotel where he recently stayed that one of his aliases – John Michael Kane – was killed two weeks ago. He knows he has got to be vigilant now, and he grabs a kitchen knife, which he soon drops again to prevent Marie from panicking. Note that in an earlier draft of the screenplay, she does see the knife and it freaks her out. For the shooting draft, Gilroy preferred the dramatic irony take.

If the tension was palpable when the two entered the flat, after the phone call the suspense is sheer unbearable. The perfect foundation for the surprise that is to follow. Of the more than 5 minutes in the excerpt – the Paris flat scene lasts for much longer in the movie – only about 100 seconds are action (‘surprise’ if you wish). The rest is all suspense.

You tell which is more effective.

-Karel Segers

[vimeo 122814502 w=900 h=300]

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

:: The Four Best Ways To Add Character Depth
:: Screenplay Review – Labor Day
:: Creating Suspense & Dread
:: Amateur Friday – Commute

Script Perfection

:: 10 Screenplay Tips From The Greatest Sports Movie Ever – ‘Hoosiers!’
:: Q&A: The Writing Process
:: Interview – “The Conjuring” Screenwriters
:: Scriptnotes | Episode 99

Pitching & Selling

:: Some Scripts Are Perfectly Good Reads, But Aren’t Any Good on the Set…
:: Script Options and Sales
:: Warner Bros. – Black List Partnership
:: Older Intern?

Best of the Rest

:: Writers: You Might Be Doing It Wrong If…
:: WGA’s Greatest TV Shows of All Time
:: Young Adult… Not Just For The Young Adults… Or Is It?
:: Interview: Jay Eden — Part 1
:: Shouldn’t a Writer Figure out the Craft on Their Own?
:: Bryan Cranston Goes Russian in First ‘Cold Comes the Night’ Trailer
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie Campbell.

Enjoy!

Karel

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

:: How to Write by Vonnegut
:: Creating Suspense in the Thriller Genre
:: Action/Thriller Script Review: Burned
:: Exercises for Fiction Writers
:: Season-Ending TV Cliffhangers that Actually Paid Off
:: Video Interview: Sofia Coppola (“Somewhere”)
:: Q&A with Todd Solondz (“Dark Horse”)
:: Deliverance: James Dickey’s Experience

Script Perfection

:: ‘Unfilmables’ in Source Code
:: 101 Tips from the World’s Most Famous Writers
:: How I Went From Writing 2,000 Words a Day to 10,000 Words a Day
:: Screenwriting: Can You Break The Rules?
:: Make Sure the Character Who Nobly Sacrifices Himself…
:: Einstein said it…

Pitching & Selling

:: Interview with Tawnya Bhattacharya, NBC Writer
:: When You Wanna Shoot Rejection In The Face

Best of the Rest

:: Pixar’s ‘Brave’ Shoots Arrows in the Princess Ideal
:: Michael Bay Says a Reboot and Headed to Space: Transformers 4
:: Teaser Trailer for Monsters University
:: Books to Replace Your Favorite Cancelled TV Shows
:: Tim Burton’s Frankenweenie Character Images and Descriptions
:: These Characters have had Many Faces… who Played them Best?
:: Colours in Movie Posters Since 1914
:: If Studio Ghibli Made Adventure Time
:: Steve Ulfelder Talks Fathers From the Heart
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie C. and Brooke Trezise.

Enjoy!

Karel

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

by Karel Segers

BACK TO ENGLAND

After all, Hitchcock’s greatest successes were his American movies starring Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart. Yet, there’s something freshly unique and authentic about his British period that I found lacking in the American films. To me some of the English films had a greater sense of realism

In my view, Hitchcock delivered his last true master piece with the film that brought him back to England in 1972: Frenzy. I agree with Roger Ebert, when he writes

“FRENZY is a return to old forms by the master of suspense, whose newer forms have pleased movie critics but not his public. This is the kind of thriller Hitchcock was making in the 1940s”

At the most exciting moment in this movie, Hitchcock does something highly illegal… He breaks the rule of not showing a key dramatic story moment.

At the most exciting moment in this movie,
Hitchcock does something highly illegal…

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN [spoiler alert]

When the Coen brothers allowed the tragic climax of No Country For Old Men to unfold offscreen, a large part of the audience hated them for it. I was among them. Not only did I feel robbed of a character we had come to love over the course of the movie, I also felt robbed of what could have been a powerful dramatic scene.

In Frenzy, Alfred Hitchcock uses a similar technique – but it works a treat.

We see the killer and his next victim enter a house, climb the stairs to an apartment on the second floor. Once at the top, instead of staying with them, the camera retreats down the stairs and back onto the street. For a moment, nothing happens and we are left with the merchants and trades people outside. Only later in the film do we get to see the aftermath of the murder.

Why did it work?

ANTAGONIST POV

Some purists claim you can’t do this or that in movies: no voice over, no flashbacks, no out-of-POV-scenes. The truth is that you can do anything you like – provided you do it well… (even killing off your heroine halfway a movie).

In Frenzy, the offscreen tragedy is not the movie’s climax but the Mid Point. I tend to believe that some of the story’s key dramatic scenes belong on screen, such as the Inciting Incident, the Act One and the Act Three Climax. In any case, all the major events that involve the hero character should be on the screen.

The story’s key dramatic scenes belong on screen.

In the scene above however, it is not the protagonist but the antagonist who disappears off screen. Another good example that proves we need to be aware of who’s point of view the scene is told from, before making structural judgments. If the main character had been part of the offscreen action, the same trick would most likely not have worked as well as it does here.

By the way, Brian De Palma did something vaguely similar around the mid point of The Untouchables. I wonder who he might have learned it from…

– Karel Segers

(first published for ScripTips – with thanks to Brooke Trezise)

Karel Segers is a producer and script consultant who started in movies as a rights buyer for Europe’s largest pay TV group Canal+. Back then it was handy to speak 5 languages. Less so today in Australia.

Karel teaches, consults and lectures on screenwriting and the principles of storytelling to his 7-year old son Baxter and anyone else who listens.
He is also the boss of this blog.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Mercifully Short Review

by Jonathan Empson

Widowed and depressed lawyer Arthur (Daniel Radcliffe) is sent to a remote village to sort out the paperwork in a deceased woman’s crumbling old manor house. There, instead of supermarket coupons and catalogues full of velour comfortwear (this is vaguely Edwardian in setting) he discovers ghostly and malevolent goings-on, not to mention ominous violin music accompanying every step he takes.

The letters he finds point to some ugly family history, but he can’t get any information from the villagers, who are eager for him to leave as soon as possible.

This old-fashioned chiller is mildly suspenseful but doesn’t deliver too many jump-out-of-your-seat moments, and is a bit slow and unoriginal at times. It does represent one of Radcliffe’s better acting turns, though he’s hampered by the fact that even Arthur doesn’t seem very scared.

6/10

Released March 15, 2012.

Jonathan Empson’s TV script Chrome was nominated for an AWGIE in 2010.His recently completed historical drama-comedy feature Leonardo’s War is in circulation, and his black comedy-thriller Get Out of Here has been optioned.He is represented by Rick Raftos Management.

Personally I have always been fascinated with the debate whether or not horror has an adverse impact on the audience. In this clip, Craven explains that he is actually helping people.

And no matter how mediocre the films might sometimes get, I still think I believe him.

With thanks to Adrian Kok.

If you liked this, check out other videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!