|
Saw and liked the thematic elements. The symmetry between Gilliam giving up his arm to perpetuate the system (bringing a semblance of order to the underclass) and Curtis giving up his arm to destroy the system. Unlike say Elysium where the ending is sort of a cop out that "solves everything," this film makes hard choices, ends surprisingly bleakly and you have to applaud its courage. Also Tilda Swinton was amazing and stole the show for me when she took her dentures out  Did not like Chris Evans' permanent glower (oh I am so angsty the weight of my people's lives rests on my shoulders); I don't think he sells it, he just looks constantly annoyed and constipated. Minor irritations: his assortment of annoying disposable sidekicks, the gratuitous, long drawn-out action (the sniper duel, grand guignol in the sauna, grand guignol in the tunnel), and what on earth caused the partygoers to drop everything and start attacking the Korean dude and his daughter? On balance a better sci-fi movie than I have seen in a while
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Vermain posted:The reason my reading is predominantly anticapitalist instead of, say, antimonarchist is because the rest of the train is framed as being capitalist: it's a stateless, "global" entity (completely unlike feudalism) and it is founded, maintained and controlled by a wealthy businessman. The society on the train is stratified, but it's unclear whether or not it's a capitalist society. No one talks about money; you never see it change hands. Mason goes on about being in one's proper place, but that's not specific to capitalism. Yes, people had to be initially wealthy to get first-class seats, but who's to say money even means anything in the present day of the movie? It's no different from being born into a monarchic ruling class; what matters is that you're there. You could say that we're meant to interpret the train as a depiction of/allegory to today's capitalist society because it's what we all know, but I don't think that's directly supported in the text e> I think the movie is an excellent critique of any system of government/management that creates an exploited underclass/other to justify its own existence. IMO it's an overly narrow reading to just see it as a straight up Marxist/anti-capitalist film got off on a technicality fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 02:40
|
|