In Defence of Nope

I am appalled by my peers and the general film-going audiences in making this article feel closer to a necessity than a light-hearted passion project. One of the UK’s most beloved film reviewers, Mark Kermode, described Nope to be ‘a better film to talk about than to watch’.

Now, as much fun as it is to talk about the beauty of Nope, from its performances to its sound design and cinematography, a unanimously understood theme of the film is that of ‘spectacle’. Let this be clear, Nope’s sound design and mix are the most enticing I’ve ever had the pleasure of experiencing in a cinema. Flat out. No competition. The only film to come close would be Nolan’s Dunkirk. So amuse me as I map out my love for this film as both, a spectacle and a talking point.

Nope’s interpolation of Steven Spielberg’s 1975 classic Jaws is no secret. Peele so cleverly maintains the simplicity of the terror Spielberg wields in Jaws, but in disguising the 1975 film, creates such a multi-faceted subtext for his succinct screenplay.

Horror film directors tend to know ignorance isn’t always bliss. The fear of the unknown is constitutive to any horror or thriller script. How many films of this genre have you watched recently? And now ask yourself how many of these films were set past dusk? Nightscapes are a functional crutch for most horrors to explore this fear of the unknown — limiting the empirical; opening us up to deceit and surprises. Nope has its fair share of scenes in the dark. But without depending on the night as a singular setting for his movie, Peele has tapped into a fear of the unknown that we may constantly carry.

This humanity and counter-horror narrative is what I found made me so willing to connect with the film and its characters. Yes, it’s a subversion — and not an entirely original one at that — but it’s executed brilliantly. Peele finds ways to entangle themes and inquiries of socio-political unrest, generational bruises, everyday psychology and trauma porn into a UFO film.

Peele questions the very draw to horror itself. He’s looking his audiences in the eyes to ask ‘Why are you even here? Are you not disturbed? What’s wrong with you? You disgust me.’ A cynical move only someone with an established background in comedy could conceive and pull off.

Beyond immediately being hooked on this subversion — the characters!! Forget the social commentary and the madness these people are grappling with. They’re so incredibly loveable. Ok, hear me out…

From left to right — Kramer the creative maniac; Elaine the performer; Jerry the voice of reason; Newman the villain; George the stupidly curious?

You may disagree with my interpretation of the roles these characters play within Nope’s narrative, but what I aim to illustrate here is that there’s an undeniable familiarity to these characters. They all serve a purpose and justify their presence. There’s a piece of us in each character — as is the same with cosy sitcoms such as Seinfeld.

YouTube film reviewer Andrew Klavan found that Nope ‘[didn’t] stick the landing’. And as much as I can appreciate what Klavan is conveying here, I believe these words are symptomatic of his lack of appreciation for the film. Nope can feel like an inconclusive film and I won’t fight those claims, but I don’t feel there’s more value in conclusions than in questions. In fact, how would we reach conclusions; what would they be; and how would they change depending on the questions we ask?

The possibility that Jordan Peele may well be a people pleaser deeply saddens me. He has carefully crafted a film that a casual horror fan should be able to enjoy, but also a critic should love. To top it off, he put some easter eggs in just for himself and the rewatching tryhards — so maybe not a people pleaser to the core. There was definitely a balance he was aiming to attain, and despite his delicate hands, was still greeted with a mixed reception. I pity those who fail to see the merit in Nope’s grandiose spectacle and simultaneously subtle mystique.