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!

I’m now also sure the Untitled Blade Runner Project is in the best possible hands. (And I shall henceforth refrain from making derogatory remarks about Canadian film.)

Sicario shows an astonishing directorial discipline, bringing the very best out of its creatives. Roger Deakins’ 2.35 : 1 widescreen camera work is glorious, Emily Blunt gives her best performance ever, and I adore the movie’s score. This picture does full justice to the cinematic format, and reminded me why sometimes it is worth leaving your house to go celebrate theatrical films.

[box style=”rounded”]I may be spoiling some elements of the film, but I will attempt to discuss them in abstracto.

PLAYING WITH FORM

Given the issues of point of view, Sicario is a difficult story to tell for the screen, but Villeneuve delivers the movie with an elegance that belies its challenges.

We open from the POV of FBI agent Kate Macer (Blunt), who gradually learns more about the enigmatic character of Alejandro (Del Toro). When we are ready and we ‘get’ him, we step into his point of view, to witness his actions – including the film’s climactic finale – in the first person. This device, whereby we learn about the main character through the eyes of an ‘exposition character’ reminded me of the first half of the 2^nd act of Inception. In that movie, we learn about of Don Cobb (Di Caprio) from the character of Ariadne (Page).

Only, Villeneuve goes one step further.

Just after the mid point, Alejandro takes a decisive action that promotes him to the story’s Hero. At the end of act 2, he is the character who transitions into the last act, leaving Kate behind.

The final 24 minutes are entirely his, and all Kate does, is complete her Inner Journey in her final shot.

MARKS OF A HERO’S JOURNEY

It took me a while to get into this film. Twenty-five minutes to be precise. Before that time, we see FBI agents killed in a gruesome victim recovery operation at a gangster’s house. Next, we are left in the dark about the future of the team leader, agent Macer, just as much as she is, herself.

What are the FBI’s plans with Kate? Is this an art film? A docudrama? At the exact 25 minute mark, Sicario reveals itself as a mythical story. Not a traditional one, but a powerful journey including all the essential archetypes and plot points of a full-blown quest.

So what happens after twenty-five minutes?

The Sicario Threshold Sequence

The Threshold Journey is the Hero’s travel into the special world. This is often a geographical trip from one place to the next.

At the same time, it is a psychological journey, as the Hero prepares to go into psychological territory that is unfamiliar.

So in a sense, a Hero’s Journey pretty much always shows its protagonist as a fish-out-of-water.

In Raiders, Indie travels from the university to Nepal, and then to Cairo, where the story will take place. This double journey emphasises that the hero is far, far away from home. In Star Wars: A New Hope, Luke travels first to Mos Eisley, and next into deep space.

In the Sicario Threshold, Kate Macer flies to El Paso first, and from there she crosses the Mexican border towards ‘The Beast’: Juarez. This is a monumental sequence, lasting nearly fifteen minutes. All along, our heroine doesn’t do much more than watch, from her seat in a convoy of five fast-moving black chevy SUV’s.

Watching it in awe, I instantly fell in love with the movie. Structurally it threshold resembles a Russian doll, and the border represents the crossing into the second act … of the threshold. You still with me?

Through impressive helicopter shots we see the landscape change; from Kate’s POV we witness the gruesome dangers of the special world, and meanwhile we keep on moving deeper into this foreign territory. The travel becomes increasingly suspenseful, until the cars finally stop. We are now exactly halfway the sequence.

On the way back, the Sicario threshold gets its own hair-raising climax, at the return border crossing towards the US.

The filmmakers clearly understand their threshold journeys.

Needless to say, this time I didn’t walk out.

– Karel Segers

(The clip below doesn’t include the full Threshold Journey. We cut just before a shot that is R-rated.
However, if you watch the video to the end, you will get access to a draft of Taylor Sheridan’s screenplay.)

https://ozzywood.wistia.com/medias/ozgxsxl4iq?embedType=async&videoFoam=true&videoWidth=1080

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!

I’m not sure what attracts me more in The Parallax View: Warren Beatty’s flawless charm, the genuine sense of menace throughout the picture, or Pakula’s breathtaking direction. In terms of tone, Pakula manoeuvres from dead-cool suspense to straight-up fun, without blinking.

Somewhere early in the film, Beatty’s character Frady takes on a local redneck who turns out to be the deputy. It’s an odd combo of tough physical action, and a touch of vaudeville. Only in the seventies.

Movie With A View

[Spoilers] Pakula often frames his shots with large, angular shapes. The characters often drown, or disappear in them. In this film, it may well be a metaphor for the way the System consumes us. The individual is powerless.

A first example appears immediately in the Seattle opening sequence. In a nail-biting sequence, we witness the assassination of a popular senator, on the top of the Space Needle.

A metaphor for the way the System consumes us. The individual is powerless.

Can you imagine a chase on top of the domed Space Needle roof? Well, that’s what you get, in wide shots.

Mind-blowing.

If you wish, you can find a number of parallels with Chinatown (also released in 1974). In a scene that reminds of the water dumping in Chinatown, Frady visits the scene of a suspicious death with the sheriff.

Pakula frames the men with a long lens in a wide shot, against the backdrop of the dam. Suddenly, it opens and the white water thunders out. Spectacular.

The first half of the movie is a lot of fun to watch. The fun suitably comes to an end at the mid point.

You may have figured out that I am a sucker for mid points. This one is a mofo in its own league. To understand it, I need to tell you about a Russian who died nearly half a century ago.

The fun suitably comes to an end at the mid point.

Hitch And Lev

Film students know about Lev Kuleshov, or at least the effect named after him. If you saw Koyaanisqatsi, you saw eighty-six minutes of pure Kuleshov. Let me enlighten you.

The Kuleshov effect says that your perception of an image is coloured by what you see before or after. It’s essentially the principle of editing. It’s what people mean when they say “That was out of context”. Give anything context, and its meaning will change… Or it will GET meaning.

Lev Kuleshov showed the photo of an expressionless face to an audience, three times. First, in conjunction with a plate of soup, next with a woman on a divan, and finally with a coffin. The audience raved about the acting, believing the expression subtly changed from hunger to desire, to grief.

The Kuleshov effect says that your perception of an image is coloured by what you see before or after.

Hitchcock fans may remember how Hitch would look into the camera, squinting. Next follows footage of a woman with a baby, and Hitch smiling. He’s a kind old man. But when the woman and baby are replaced by a woman in bikini, Hitch becomes a dirty old man. That’s the power of Kuleshov effect.

At the Mid Point of The Parallax View, Frady gets to see his own mini-Koyaanisqatsi.

Kuleshov On Steroids

True to Kuleshov, this is not really a scene you can watch out of context. My apologies if you never saw The Parallax View. You will have to now (and I will guarantee you won’t regret it).

The mid point of this film is testimony to Pakula’s brawn. He put a six minute sequence with a barrage of still images at the centre of the film. Not only does it show he had balls, but he also had clout with the studio. There must have been some talk about this scene at Paramount before it made the final cut.

So before you watch it, I will give you a little context.

There must have been some talk at Paramount
about this scene before it made the final cut.

In his investigations about the murder of the senator, Journalist Frady traced suspicious documents back to a corporation that seems to recruit and train assassins. He infiltrates the ‘Parallax’ company. Next, as part of an induction test, he is made to watch this video.

During the video, his responses to the images are measured. Because we know that Frady doesn’t fit the profile of a murderer, some tension lies in the fact that this sequence may unmask him as a fake.

Just sit back, Nothing is required of you, except to observe the visual materials that are presented to you. Alright?

We hope you’ll find the test a pleasant experience.

-Karel Segers

https://ozzywood.wistia.com/medias/e65m0p5pqh?embedType=iframe&videoFoam=true&videoWidth=901

Sign up for our newsletter if you would like to download the Lorenzo Semple draft of The Parallax View screenplay .

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 Importance of Character Depth
:: The #1 Most Important Element In Developing A Character
:: Antagonists and ‘What About Bob’
:: Anatomy of a Contained Thriller
:: Scene Essentials

Script Perfection

:: How to Write with Style by Kurt Vonnegut, the 1980 Edition
:: Writer Podcast: Janine Sherman Barrois (Criminal Minds, ER, Third Watch)
:: The Voice of Doubt Is Not Truth
:: Website of the Week: Just Effing Entertain Me
:: Give Names Thematic Connections

Pitching & Selling

:: The Greatest Screenwriting Secret You Will Ever Learn
:: The Scoggins Report: September 2012 Pitch Sales Roundup
:: Percentage of Films Made in Each Genre by Year
:: The Executive – He’s Just Not That Into You
:: Screenwriting Webinar: How to Sell Your Film & TV Scripts

Best of the Rest

:: Rum, Guns & Cigars Part 2
:: Animated Looper Trailer Shoots Paint Bullets at You
:: Oliver Stone: ‘I loved The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’
:: 8 Epic Heroes Who Committed Mass Murder
:: Our Inner Voice
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie Campbell 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

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.