USA, 2022. On the edge of a Californian ranch, a UFO is seen abducting a horse. A brother and his sister then try to film this strange phenomenon in order to take advantage of it. For some, this film is a total fiasco, a heterogeneous mix of several mind-boggling stories dragging on an insurmountable length. But yet, it is a misunderstood masterpiece that once again falls under the genius of its director, Jordan Peele. A mysterious film, an award-winning director and a storyline typical of American science fiction films, how could Nope fail, according to critics, where many others have succeeded?
A complex scenario reusing a well-known schema
The scripts of Jordan Peele are so singular that one could summarize the genre of his films by its simple director. Nope and its plurality of genres fits perfectly in the line of his films: between horror, science fiction and western. But he’s not lost. Unlike his two previous films, the understanding of the story is not just a reversal of the final situation. Here, the viewer’s emotions are driven by the baton. The tension is constant. The argument can also be taken the other way around. Indeed, many spectators complained of a departure of the film far too long, considering the arrival of the UFO as the real beginning of the plot. Many critics also insisted that the scenario is complex and difficult to access.
However, the main subject of the film is not a simple attempt to invade the planet, it is actually a critique of Hollywood and our current society. This is a subject that has come up quite often in recent times in several different film genres, including Pinocchio by Guillermo Del Toro, Elvis, etc. We systematically find the pattern of the fairground beast and the greedy manipulator of fame and money: innocent characters are corrupted by Hollywood and will turn into circus acts. This is also the case several times in the film. First of all with the famous opening scene about the chimpanzee: the animal, having had enough of being mistreated on a film set, rebels very violently against (almost) the whole team. Here, the diagram is quite visible.
Later in the film, Skirt (played by Steven Yeun), the surviving child, manager and entertainer of a carnival, understood that the famous creature in the sky feeds on horses. So, in order to show it at a show, he uses a horse to bait the beast. He is not the only one who wants to use the commercial potential of the UFO as a circus beast. Indeed, OJ and Emerald, the main characters of the film, played respectively by Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer, wish to set up their “Oprah plan”. The goal is to get a video of the creature in order to present it on television and thus, earn recognition and money. We can also highlight this obsession with recording these images using the character of Holst, played by Michael Wincott. He gives his life in order to obtain the image of the UFO: he is devoured by it while he was filming it.
Thus, the unhealthy Hollywood scheme is reproduced perpetually in the film, quite significantly while making a very successful satire of our image-obsessed society. This pattern seems very important today. It allows a demystification of Hollywood and a return to reality. The American dream is highlighted and becomes a nightmare. Finally, Jordan Peele brilliantly reappropriates elements typical of alien movies in his own way. And this is not without the help of his talented cast.
A simple acting game in the face of an extraordinary demand
Another criticism came back a lot: that of Daniel Kaluuya’s game considered too modest, or even non-existent. Indeed, we see few emotions on the actor’s face. But it is important to put these criticisms into context. This is a withdrawn character, shy and dodging looks at all costs. If we refer to the introduction scene of the character, we might even risk saying that he is anti-social. He struggles to make a speech in front of a film crew and has very little dialogue. This is the criticism of his sister. Nowadays, spectators seem to judge the performance of an actor only during intense emotions. If an actor does not play his great game, does not cry all the tears of his body, he is considered bad. However, if for each film the actors all delivered a breathtaking performance, would we still believe them? Wouldn’t these performances become deafening?
A successful aesthetic but not according to the expectations of the spectators
One of the particularities of the film, if not its script, is its visual beauty. Each shot is worked with precision. This is the work of cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, known for his numerous collaborations with Christopher Nolan. The aesthetics of the film plunges us directly into a western atmosphere, always keeping plans associated with horror. The tension is also reinforced by several long shots, which tense us with anxiety. Especially the scene of the chimpanzee’s carnage, which provoked strong reactions. We have a plan of a child’s subjective view, hidden under a table. In addition to being a visually beautiful plan, it is very surprising. Indeed, in the middle of the scene stands out a child’s shoe, standing on its heel, as if by magic… or by witchcraft. This plan leaves some mystery and will make some people want to try to dissect the film. What does this shoe really mean? For others, it’s just an incomprehensible scene among many others. Yet it’s the very essence of the film that is shown. Jordan Peele plays on the offbeat side of the situation in the face of the characters' reaction: just after the carnage, the child greets the chimpanzee with a “check”. This strong discrepancy is thus shown by the reactions of the characters but also by this unusual plan.
The other most memorable scenes are certainly those featuring the UFO, nicknamed Jean Jacket. Indeed, the latter is immense and a large number of plans show its impressive size. However, many have criticized the appearance of Jean Jacket. Indeed, if we are used to UFOs worthy of the American 60s in the middle of the Cold War, we will necessarily be disappointed. Here, the UFO has a saucer shape, but when it really reveals itself, it presents long white veils, certainly referring to the famous dress of Marilyn Monroe. Some found that the creature was not scary. True, but the UFO was never presented as such. He appears as a wild animal that OJ and Skirt each try to tame in their turn. Skirt tries to tame him awkwardly, amateur, while OJ, does it more professionally. He runs a ranch and is used to looking after and caring for animals. In the same way as with his horses, he tames it by avoiding to cross his gaze. This idea of an animal UFO is confirmed by a very important scene of the film. Jean Jacket, like a predator, deploys, for example to impress his prey.
A fatal marketing error that is increasingly recurring
The film did not make many admissions and disappointed many spectators. Despite its high quality, little has been revealed to the public during marketing. The poster leaves perplexed: a horse floating in the direction of the sky. The trailer, too, did not allow the viewer to understand with certainty what the film was about. This is the case of many films today, which, despite a good narrative construction and a very successful direction, have a promotion so bad that it leads to a very low audience in theaters. For example, we can think of Damien Chazelle’s Babylon. It was a total failure at its release, partly because of a very bad promotion that gave a totally different image to what the film was in reality. So this is by no means a problem related to the film and its construction but rather a problem related to the film, in particular its promotion and distribution.
While some appreciate this mysterious side when releasing a film, others are rejected. Bad reviews can also be explained by bad reviews of Hollywood. The industry would have shunned Nope on its release, vexed to be so shown, preferring to give all the Oscars to Everything Everywhere All at Once.
Comments