Just when I thought Singin’ in the Rain was commentary on moviemaking, I watched NOPE: a patchwork quilt of genres. Sci-fi, horror, western, thriller, comedy—without Emerald Haywood’s (Keke Palmer) humor, we would be left watching her brother OJ (Daniel Kaluuya) remain tortured and brooding for 130 minutes. However, in the final act, the threat posed by the sentient organism known as “Jean Jacket” grows too intense for her to deflect with humor, and viewers subsequently bare witness to an emotionally nuanced Emerald that they will hold their breath rooting for…I know I did.
As much as I would love to shove my obsession with Palmer down everyone’s throats—or interstellar maw cavities—I must look down…and move onto Olivia Rutigliano’s article “Nope is a Masterclass on Our Relationship to Entertainment,” which offers a clever, concise take on the meta-commentary of the film.
Born into the Haywood’s Hollywood Horses business, OJ and Emerald specialize in training and supplying horses for film and TV productions. NOPE is centered around them attempting to capture footage of—film—a “UFO” that circulates above their home. This is the first film I have watched where the characters are more interested in documenting horror than trying to understand and escape it. I found myself wondering: where are the stereotypical scenes of them doubting, investigating, or expressing disbelief about the extraterrestrial activity? Well, Rutigliano suggests that director Jordan Peele intentionally omitted these to pose an ethical question.
She acknowledges the film industry’s tendency to commodify and package danger into digestible, disposable narratives. The constant filming in NOPE—from employing a Fry’s worker named Angel Torres (Brandon Perea) to install basic security cameras to enlisting the renowned cinematographer Antlers Holst (Michael Wincott) to utilize specialized equipment to capture the phenomenon—showcases a shift from amateur surveillance to a high-stakes pursuit of achieving spectacle rather than safety.
By the end of the film, the characters antagonize the “UFO”—which is revealed to be a living entity—by setting up dozens of inflatable wide-eyed tube men across their land. Yes, they are still at home and seeking out something that could kill them. Their desensitization to mortal danger emphasizes just how much filmmaking—and immortalizing something—supersedes their concerns for survival. OJ and Emerald risk their lives for the latter to get a picture of the entity. After all, the Haywood family is tied to the first motion picture ever produced…this obsession is in their blood.
Building on Rutigliano’s analysis, the act of them physically lowering their gazes in the face of danger—only engaging with it through a lens—mirrors the audience’s passive consumption of peril through a screen. The film is as much about the audience as it is about the characters.
*Two side notes: 1) I appreciated Rutigliano’s mention of Jaws, another film where the terror of the unseen serves as a reflection of society’s fascination with spectacle / 2) I had trouble understanding the significance of Steven Yeun’s character Ricky “Jupe” Park. Sure, he also came close to death and continued to work in the same industry that exposed him to that, but I am itching for the greater meaning behind the horses and Gordy. Could Gordy symbolize society’s futile attempts to control the uncontrollable, foreshadowing the characters’ reckless pursuit of the entity?