What else can you draw on from the Farrell chapter to build on and/or challenge your partner’s initial post analysis?
In The Power of the Playwright’s Vision, Gordon Farell outlines romanticism as a dramatic art movement. Through the lens of Farrell’s text, one can analyze how one of 2017’s most critically acclaimed films, Jordan Peele’s Get Out, both possesses aspects of romanticism and operates beyond it. First, it is important to distinguish a work that strictly adheres to the structure of dramatic romanticism and one that simply exists within the romantic world. Romantic playwrights created texts which placed focus on “developing deeply complex characters full of contradictions, creating a moody atmosphere onstage, and then allowing the characters to give vent to their emotions in the most elevated language possible” (93). Get Out only slightly resembles a dramatic structure: the characters are not full of contradictions (the Armitages are clearly delineated as bad and Chris as good); instead of “moody,” a chilling or uncanny atmosphere permeates the film; and lyrical, elevated language is not employed. Alternatively, when one broadens their scope to works which only utilize a romantic vision, which is not a structure but a general set of principles, it is much easier to see how Get Out may somewhat align with the aesthetic. One of the main tenets of romanticism is the pursuit of things we can never have (90). Usually, as in the romantic play Cyrano de Bergerac, the “thing” is love, which the romantic hero strives for relentlessly. In Get Out, one does not find this exact match. Though Chris is trying to keep intact his relationship with Rose for the first half of the film, once Chris unmasks the Armitages’ charade, survival is his only concern. Additionally, in many romantic works the hero could, hypothetically, choose to abandon their ideals, which would free them from the dilemma they face. Very quickly, (perhaps as soon as Chris steps onto the Armitages’ property) the viewer realizes Chris possesses little, if any, agency. As Rose’s photo collection of her past conquests shows, escaping is not as simple as choosing to. Another major aspect of romanticism is the idea that “emotions can always be trusted” (92), especially by the romantic hero. In Get Out, Chris’ emotions and intuitions are essential: they hint that something sinister is transpiring. For example, comments made to Chris tick him off about the Armitages and their friends: Jeremy, ogling at Chris, urges him to pursue professional fighting because of his “superior genetic makeup”; Dean tells Chris he would have voted for Obama for a third time; one of the guests at the Armitage party compliments Chris’ body and then repeatedly expresses his admiration for Tiger Woods. Additionally, the strange behavior of the “black” people Chris meets while at the Armitage home is even more disconcerting: they do not understand the vernacular Chris uses, employ dated language themselves, and overall seem distant and disconnected. Later, Georgina unplugs Chris’ phone, Walter charges at him in the middle of the night, and, most notably, Andre/Logan screams at Chris to “get out” and becomes hysterical. The culmination of all these unsettling experiences makes Chris want to leave. At the same time, however, Rose continually gaslights Chris and explains away the signs he recognizes and that rightfully unsettle him. Farrell warns about this, stating that “intellect is not to be trusted,” as reason and logic are usually manipulated by romantic villains to facilitate evil (92). Rose claims Dean only says the Obama-thing because he is a goofy dad and that the white people at the party just “suck,” belittling Chris’ experiences and the severity of the racism these white people harbor. Further, once Chris tells Rose he wants to leave, she attempts to make him the bad guy and herself the victim, becoming teary-eyed and trying to make Chris feel guilty for leaving her. Overall, Get Out does follow the romantic principle that “the world is full of good and bad people–with very little in between” (91). The Armitages and their cult are very obviously bad and Chris is very obviously good. And while the dramatic sketch of the murderous Armitages is a tool characteristically utilized in horror films, and one which makes Get Out very successful, it is important to note that this easy identification is not always readily apparent in our real lives. American racism takes the shapes of police brutality and the industrial prison complex, high mortality rates for black mothers, sexual violence against black trans women, environmental racism, the school-to-prison pipeline, misogynoir, the War on Drugs, and more. The viewer gasps when the police car appears once Chris has finally escaped– for good reason. It is essential that we are able to recognize the more nuanced and often institutionalized versions of racism, so that we may combat and dismantle them. Thus, as this analysis has shown, while many romantic aspects of Get Out make the film very compelling, it is important to expand our conception of racism beyond how it may be defined under a romantic vision. What else can you draw on from the Farrell chapter to build on and/or challenge your partner’s initial post analysis? If you agree with your partner, how can you help develop their arguments further using Farrell? If you disagreed, what evidence from Farrell and the episode are you using to support your position? Important: Your response post should be in dialogue with what your partner actually wrote; it’s not just an opportunity to repeat the same arguments you already made in your own initial post. That’s a cop out! In other words, your response should give clear evidence of your having read and thought about what your partner had to say.
