"The M. Night Shyamalaning of Jordan Peele"

"A Real Life horror movie - Based on A True Story and Lots of Internet Experts..."

I'd been pondering this for sometime; the release and reaction to NOPE seems to be the perfect time to bring it into the light.

It appears that Jordan Peele is now 3 for 3 with GET OUT - US - NOPE, although there are those who will claim that math is faulty; that GET OUT was overrated at best, or that GET OUT was fine, but US was proof that he wasn't all that. Anyway one might feel about it, there's no doubt that as far as box-office receipts go, Everybody is onboard the Peele Train - for now at least.

But there's an active danger amidst all this success, a process I termed 'The M Night Shyamalaning of Jordan Peele', which I thought was rather clever while processing NOPE after watching it. (Apparently, I'm not the only clever person in the audience, as I came across this from an established critic.)

Everyone knows Shyamalan's story, right? The 'Twist Guy' who was on Top Of The World for a few years until his own hackery caught up with him... or at least that's the perception you'd have following fanboys and Internet critics for the past 18 years since the release of THE VILLAGE. The reality is far more interesting: Shyamalan was an established screenwriter/director when THE SIXTH SENSE hit; it's actually his third feature film - just the first to have had major box-office success and get him onto Hollywood's A-List. Then came UNBREAKABLE, SIGNS, etc. Out of all his filmography up to/including last year's OLD, there's been only one outright financial failure - LADY IN THE WATER. AFTER EARTH was a box office disappointment, but it DID make its costs back and some money.

The real Shyamalan backlash started with SIGNS, gained traction with THE VILLAGE and paid off with the hubris supper that was LADY IN THE WATER. The success of THE SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE led to Shyamalan being put into a box, as most successful people & things are, that box being 'The Twist Guy' - and thus 'a Known Quantity'. People would watch his films and/or projects he produced with the expectation of 'The Twist' coming in at some point, which was to the detriment of SIGNS and THE VILLAGE - both good films for a good portion of their running times, but with fatal flaws that damaged the story logic and making the films in retrospect, seem a lot less than they were seeing them the first time. LADY IN THE WATER, half-baked and rushed into production didn't connect with audiences and was embraced by the haters as irrefutable proof that Shyamalan was a hack charlatan who just got lucky with four films but whose luck had finally run out and was not to be taken seriously in any way onward - a perception that still dogs him to the present day.

Peele was hot straight out of the gate, although with some side-eye towards his directing skills and his writing something other than comedy. With the success of GET OUT (including Academy Award® nominations, which he won for Best Screenplay), the box designated for Peele was "The Woke [Horror, Comedy, etc.] Guy". Comparing how the two handle genre, Shyamalan appears to work well within the boundaries of genre parameters with rather surface stories (THE VILLAGE probably is the closest to being a statement/parable in the manner of a TZ story; SIGNS is rooted in faith & belief, but doesn't really develop that in a satisfactory way). Peele does more of a mashup of genre (marketed as 'horror' but his films are a blend of horror/sci-fi/satire) with many layers; and unlike Shyamalan who didn't seem to mind being in a box, Peele seems to revel in defying audience expectations, especially those who expect him to do endless variations of GET OUT or something Woke™®. That Peele decided to stretch himself following up with US, which didn't fit comfortably into that box - that led to some declaring 'charlatan' at that point (motivated primarily as backlash to the Oscar® win, IMO).

A cinematographer friend of mine called Peele "The Modern Mel Brooks", which although he surely meant it in full snark, actually is fitting, if you're also taking in account the Mel Brooks who also produced THE ELEPHANT MAN, THE DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS and THE VAGRANT. Peele's comedy background also accounts for that and there IS an element of parodying certain tropes in instances, usually in tandem with the social commentary - like Brooks, but unlike Brooks, Peele doesn't go for the vulgar to get a belly laugh.

So you have two American filmmakers with different backgrounds (Eastern Indian; African-American) who are very successful working in Hollywood Genre Cinema - other directors, such as Spielberg, Ridley Scott, John Carpenter... you can come up with your own listings - who have also had success in Genre Cinema have been actively encouraged to continue in genre, sometimes against their inclinations and in spite of their own recurring flaws (or as some might say, 'style'), like Scott's emphasis on the visual & neglecting elements of the story/script.

Shyamalan and Peele, on the other hand, have had an increasing amount of negative pushback since their initial successes, with it succeeding in hurting Shyamalan's reputation (despite his films continuing to generate successful box-office receipts). Peele has weathered that pushback so far; whereas his movie work has proven to be extremely successful, projects for television that he has executive-produced have had lukewarm reception at best (HUNTERS for Netflix and the latest revival of THE TWILIGHT ZONE for CBS All Access/Paramount Plus).