|
Lord Krangdar posted:Yeah I agree, although I don't know if the movie even needed that last bit. They totally did, that added push. Curtis realizing that his initial plan - "Kill them all," for which he even forsook the potential of securing the water supply and prisons, which no doubt harbored more political dissidents who were seeing through Wilford's mad game - is so easily exploited by Wilford's own system of violence is crucial. Ultimately, Curtis still believes in the train as a representation of humanity, because by 'killing them all,' he will have effectively brought a kind of 'balance' to the ecosystem, culling the majority to preserve the 'chosen few.' I mean, the train literally magically gives him information on how to take it over. The problem is, again, as Wilford deduces, Curtis is too good at being a killing Christ. Wilford believes he is God, and, thus, does not rise when he meets the messenger of God's judgment, the scourge who exists solely to do for the flock what they are compelled by their faith not to do. He's very much a Samson figure. The movie is very similar to Django Unchained, another film that was, admittedly, fairly criticized for what were seen as underwritten characters and plot cliches. But that film, too, featured a very cold spiritual outlook, not giving its protagonist the possibility of being a collectivist. Curtis and Django are meant to bring the sword of God upon those who perverted his sacrament, commoditized his temples, and defiled his people; but they can never be a part of what comes after, by virtue of what they are, which is killing machines.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You still haven't really touched on the film's failure in reference to its "fundamental aesthetic qualities". The mix of tones just didn't work for you. Don't you see the issue with criticizing others for not touching on that aspect when you're not really able to either? I think tone is a fundamental aesthetic quality. I think dialogue is fairly fundamental, too. Ceteris paribus, bad dialogue is a strike against a film, though of course there are good films with bad dialogue and bad films with good dialogue. And while my criticisms of the dialogue were tonally based, I think the babies remark in particular was bad for other reasons too, like its delivery. More than a few people in this thread have expressed the feeling that there was something off about that line. K. Waste posted:The problem I see here is the same one that I see every time there's a discussion about whether a film's appeal comes down to its 'subtext' or its 'cinematic merit.' You're condescending to your own enjoyment of "schlocky action movies," and as a result your forcing an arbitrary dichotomy between 'schlock' and "serious" film. You clearly acknowledge that a film can have both qualities, but you've failed to elucidate what precisely makes Inception a serious film with cinematic merit, and what makes Snowpiercer schlock. This points this up as a post-hoc assumption and not a reading of either film. Clearly, there are schlocky, purely allegorical and contrived elements in Inception, just as Snowpiercer is 'attempting' to be serious. You need to be more specific about what you think either film does or does not do. I actually think they're both schlocky action movies. I also believe Inception is better because Cobb's struggles are genuinely compelling. The characters in Snowpiercer are cartoons. I found it hard to connect to or care about any of them, especially once I realized they're just puppets being used to sketch a political allegory. But I do think there's a divide, or at least a continuum, between schlock and serious cinema, in the same way there's a divide between common genre fiction and serious literature. quote:But this prestige doesn't have anything to do with cinematic merit. It's a conscious creative decision that works within the context of the film. I know you're not a professional critic, but deriding Snowpiercer as schlock but holding up Inception as great action cinema in contrast is really just bad criticism. You're reducing the discussion of an individual film to its 'objective worth' based on a criteria which is already highly predicated on a vague aesthetic preference rather than anything that happens within either film. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't think it's incorrect to speak of 'good movies' and 'bad movies'. Certainly such judgments don't speak to facts that are completely objective in the way the laws of physics are objective, but I think we all share basic cultural norms about film that makes such talk meaningful. E.g. we wouldn't call a one-hour loop of a clip of a dog pissing a 'good film'. quote:Perhaps the test of Joon-ho's film and whether or not it is successfully 'cinematic' shouldn't be aspiration to the prestige of a work which is already assumed to be objectively superior. In fact, it would be really stupidly problematic and, dare I say it, anti-cinematic if a film about a caste revolt were to aspire to prestige and decadence. As much as you may prefer films that, I guess, fall more neatly into categories of 'schlock' and 'serious,' the cinematic strengths of Inception are really inappropriate to the subject of Joon-ho's film. I don't mean cinematic merit in the sense of production values. I mean it in the sense that one might talk about the literary merit of Crime and Punishment as compared to George R.R. Martin novels. One certainly doesn't need prestige or directorial decadence to have cinematic merit in this sense. e: More specifically, 'literary merit' is a semi-well-defined social construct (cf. Lamarque's Philosophy of Literature) and I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about 'good movies' and cinematic merit in the same way. We all roughly agree what constitutes literary merit, in the sense English professors might use the phrase (the work rewards extended study, touches the reader in some deep way, explores the human condition, etc), and our evaluations of written works as 'good' or 'bad' ('good as literature' as opposed to merely 'good at entertaining me') take place relative to this rough implicit background standard. Of course, you may not buy into this standard, or believe that evaluating works with respect to it is a worthwhile endeavor. But I think people buy into it a lot more than they think they do. Given how much it pervades our culture, it's almost impossible not subscribe to it to some degree. For example, you might want to argue that a looped clip of a dog pissing is not 'objectively' worse than Inception, and in one sense you are right, but there's a reason almost everyone is intuitively inclined to reject that judgment. Or to give a less contrived example, it's not a coincidence everyone in this thread would prefer to watch Showpiercer over Baby Geniuses 2. buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I think dialogue is fairly fundamental, too. Ceteris paribus, bad dialogue is a strike against a film, though of course there are good films with bad dialogue and bad films with good dialogue. And while my criticisms of the dialogue were tonally based, I think the babies remark in particular was bad for other reasons too, like its delivery. More than a few people in this thread have expressed the feeling that there was something off about that line. That bit of dialogue is the beginning of the section where the film finally shows its hand, so to speak, revealing to the audience what the story is really about and making us question our own judgements and allegiances of the situation and characters. Maybe some viewers wanted the film to end up being something else, but then that dialogue is only "off" in that it revealed their own desires or expectations to be off-track from where the actual film heads at that point. I don't see the value in any low-brow/high-brow dichotomies or continuums, and the fact that such thinking is common doesn't make it any closer to being objective, nor does vaguely referring to those common standards make your own emotional experiences (like "Cobb's struggles are genuinely compelling") any less subjective. Even if we could accept some objective standards for judging a film's merit, the question of whether one finds a certain character emotionally relatable or compelling will always be personal to each viewer. That doesn't mean we can't discuss this stuff or find common ground together, but declaring that we all agree on a "rough implicit background standard" doesn't work when its clear that here we do not. Have you actually seen Baby Geniuses 2? Is this serious literature? 
Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That bit of dialogue is the beginning of the section where the film finally shows its hand, so to speak, revealing to the audience what the story is really about and making us question our own judgements and allegiances of the situation and characters. Maybe some viewers wanted the film to end up being something else, but then that dialogue is only "off" in that it revealed their own desires or expectations to be off-track from where the actual film heads at that point. That's not the kind of "off" I'm referring to. It seems to me that many posters here judged it to be simply bad dialogue. I judged it to be bad dialogue. quote:I don't see the value in any low-brow/high-brow dichotomies or continuums, and the fact that such thinking is common doesn't make it any closer to being objective, nor does vaguely referring to those common standards make your own emotional experiences (like "Cobb's struggles are genuinely compelling") any less subjective. Even if we could accept some objective standards for judging a film's merit, the question of whether one finds a certain character emotionally relatable or compelling will always be personal to each viewer. I'm not claiming the high-brow/low-brow dichotomy is completely objective, nor am I claiming that my own personal experiences are objective. I just think we can make sense of "this movie is bad"-style talk in a way that doesn't devolve into radical subjectivism. quote:That doesn't mean we can't discuss this stuff or find common ground together, but declaring that we all agree on a "rough implicit background standard" doesn't work when its clear that here we do not. I believe we have a lot more in common than you might think. I think you believe that dialogue is important, that characterization is important, that cinematography is important, etc, and that you would be receptive to reasonable critiques aimed at these aspects. We may not agree on how to judge this particular movie, but I think we basically agree on the set of characteristics on which we should judge movies. E.g. you may think Snowpiercer rewards continued attention and study and I may not, but I believe we both agree that rewarding continued study is something that should count in favor of a movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I believe we have a lot more in common than you might think. I think you believe that dialogue is important, that characterization is important, that cinematography is important, etc, and that you would be receptive to reasonable critiques aimed at these aspects. We may not agree on how to judge this particular movie, but I think we basically agree on the set of characteristics on which we should judge movies. E.g. you may think Snowpiercer rewards continued attention and study and I may not, but I believe we both agree that rewarding continued study is something that should count in favor of a movie. Ok, sure, we have some things in common. But when you say something is "simply bad dialogue", especially in reply to me explaining why I think its significant, that doesn't mean anything to me or even tell me much about your own viewpoint. I don't believe in "just bad". Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok, sure, we have some things in common. But when you say something is "simply bad dialogue", especially in reply to me explaining why I think its significant, that doesn't mean anything to me or even tell me much about your own viewpoint. I don't believe in "just bad". Yes, so perhaps I should say what I mean by that. You're right that it serves an important purpose in the development of the story. But I don't think that's the proper evaluative scale to use here. Trite and poorly worded dialogue can serve the plot in crucial ways, but that doesn't make the dialogue itself any better. As a first approximation, I might say that the babies line was corny and unnatural, which made it lack the emotional grip the writer probably intended it to have. At least, it was inartfully worded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Yes, so perhaps I should say what I mean by that. You're right that it serves an important purpose in the development of the story. But I don't think that's the proper evaluative scale to use here. Trite and poorly worded dialogue can serve the plot in crucial ways, but that doesn't make the dialogue itself any better. As a first approximation, I might say that the babies line was corny and unnatural, which made it lack the emotional grip the writer probably intended it to have. At least, it was inartfully worded. Isn't "poorly worded" only another formulation of "just bad"? Seems to me a line like that should be "inartfully worded". It's not really an artful subject, and its an ugly and uncharismatic moment for the protagonist and ostensible hero.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Seems to me a line like that should be "inartfully worded". It's not really an artful subject, and its an ugly and uncharismatic moment for the protagonist and ostensible hero. A revelation that probably should be ugly and blunt, I agree. But I don't think it was blunt in the proper way. It wasn't ugly-blunt, it was comedic-blunt. The delivery didn't seem to be appropriate for the intended seriousness. buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:A revelation that probably should be ugly and blunt, I agree. But I don't think it was blunt in the proper way. It wasn't ugly-blunt, it was comedic-blunt. Are those opposed to eachother?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Are those opposed to eachother? Yes. Or at least here, they seemed to be working at cross purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Yes. Or at least here, they seemed to be working at cross purposes. Well at least now we know the crux of our disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Well at least now we know the crux of our disagreement. Out of curiosity, what do you think the intended effect of that line was? To make the audience cringe at Curtis's brutality? To make them laugh? A little bit of both?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Out of curiosity, what do you think the intended effect of that line was? To make the audience cringe at Curtis's brutality? To make them laugh? A little bit of both? I don't really know or care about the intentions (that said, I have read that the wild swings in tone are a common characteristic in the director's films). But it worked for me as an exaggeratedly blunt, darkly comic twist on what I had assumed Curtis to be (a relatable, likeable hero character). And, again, looking back at that point I saw how it was more of a gradual thing that I only fully noticed because of that blunt line. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:(that said, I have read that the wild swings in tone are a common characteristic in the director's films). This is pretty much it. I've seen all Bong Joon Ho films and he does this all the time so I didn't have any problems with that particular line and nobody laughed at our theatre. A good example from another of his movies would be the funeral/wake scene from The Host. And Mother would be way too loving dark if it weren't for some comedic release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Trite and poorly worded dialogue can serve the plot in crucial ways, but that doesn't make the dialogue itself any better. As a first approximation, I might say that the babies line was corny and unnatural, which made it lack the emotional grip the writer probably intended it to have. At least, it was inartfully worded. That's the thing, 'trite' very specifically describes an opinion or remark that is "overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness." By definition, any dialog that serves the tone and narrative of a film, is not trite. Trite itself is an overused word, akin to irony, that has basically become colloquially synonymous with 'bad,' which is unfortunate because it then no longer warrants elucidation, or a demonstration that something really is as derivative or gratuitous or vacant as the person implies. Triteness itself has become trite, a thing that we see as bad regardless of whether or not the subject in question actually is overused, of little import, or lacking in originality. The baby-eater scene, I thought, was one of the most palpable ones in the film, because, like the night-vision point-of-view hatchet battle, like the kindergarten scene, like the sushi scene, like the New Years scene, it contrasted the self-parody of the elites while underscoring the total lack of humor in the denigration of the Untouchables. I fail to see what about it was trite, which is to say, overused, lacking in import, or lacking in originality. I dare say, it's because of the freshness of Joon-ho's storytelling, his decision to not have Curtis convey his story 'artfully,' but to say it like a man who knows he's not a savior; his decision to carry out the scene with characters who, because they speak different languages, it is entirely uncertain how much of each other they explicitly understand; and his decision to reveal this - not in the second act, so that he could exploitatively 'humanize' Curtis (instead focusing on Curtis as a reluctant killing machine, conveyed almost entirely through Evans' physical performance) - at the climax right before it is revealed that the train eats babies. I find it hard to sympathize with the position that Joon-ho's direction of the film is trite or 'inartful' when it feels so spontaneous, natural, and consistent. This has nothing to do with allegory taking the place of story, either. The film and scene worked for me on an emotional level because of the artistry of what Joon-ho did, not in spite of it. I think at least one critic I've read brought up Brazil, and its actually a much better compare-contrast piece with Snowpiercer than Inception. Hell, there's even a character in Snowpiercer named Gilliam, who is the patriarch of the Untouchables. As soon as I heard the character's name, I instantly suspected that this was going to turn out to be a movie that chose to neither strike for a 'turn off your brain' action film or a totally oppressive dystopia. Maybe that expectation just carried over, but from Tilda Swinton's performance, to the deceptive incompetency of the totalitarians, to the climactic betrayal of the 'happy ending,' this movie had Gilliam's influence all over it. Fortunately, Joon-ho and Masterson also told a completely different story. But Joon-ho also clearly has a great deal of Spielberg influence, and the baby-eater scene was certainly the point at which this became most apparent. The barrier of language is something that is especially prominent in the war movie Saving Private Ryan. In that film, the barrier of language is the ultimate clarification of war as a battle of culture rather than political ideology. His characters occasionally give speeches, but they're never directly about the war, about the Nazis, etc. They speak and act with aggressive terseness. Obviously, there's nothing that's 'inartful' about this, because it's appropriate for the subject matter and for the way Spielberg wants to convey his story, which is actually something of a rejection of the formalized, dignified war films of classic Hollywood. In a similar way, Brazil is both an example of and a broad, parodist's rejection of dystopian fiction. The most crucial thing is that both films ultimately work on their own as self-contained films. But an immutable part of the strength of both films is specifically that they reject established formal conventions and pretenses of 'artful' or 'efficient' storytelling in order to suggest something new which implicitly defies these conventions and pretenses. That doesn't mean the product is going to be good. But it does mean the demand of experiencing and evaluating it necessarily involves being open to the idea that, say, the 'schlocky' way to do something is not always actually schlocky, and that this may indeed be tied more to our own prejudices against the subject matter itself and how we think it should be done, rather than the acknowledgment of what can be done in the service of good film-making. This is why I criticized your previous statements based on what I perceived to be the arbitrary prioritizing of objective worth rather than a fluid definition of what constitutes artistry. I wasn't saying we should suspend basic standards of criticism in favor of some dumb, "everything is subjective" delusion. (Everything is objective. We experience it subjectively. "I think," is both objective and subjective.) I'm refuting the opposite tendency in our culture -- embodied by, say, Academy voters who had never seen the film voting for 12 Years a Slave for Best Picture because it was 'more important' -- to predicate our critical standards based on our prejudices against certain works based on their superficial similarities to films we don't like; and on our prejudices for certain works based on their superficial similarity to films we do like. I criticize this because it implies a hierarchy of ways of being 'arty,' of certain techniques and approaches, when I think artfulness is much more like a spectrum of different approaches to different subject matter which is entirely dependent on the work itself, rather than innumerable works which did similar/different things worse/better. Now, of course, that doesn't mean we can't use other works to elucidate our understandings of another work, but you'll notice that my position is that it's not in any sense important whether or not Snowpiercer is as good a film, or even as 'artful,' as Brazil or Saving Private Ryan. I am only concerned with how art tangentially effects art. The hierarchy isn't important or even something I can demonstrate through the text; rather, I would have to defer to prejudices about certain kinds of stories. Your position in bringing up Inception, on the other hand, was that it constitutes 'good schlock,' and demonstrates effectively why Snowpiercer is 'bad schlock.' But what Nolan wanted and achieved doesn't have anything to do with what Joon-ho wanted and achieved unless we assume that both are schlock, at which point our arbitrary prejudices go on autopilot and we say, apparently, "Inception is more artful, while Snowpiercer is more inartful." If both are schlock, it doesn't matter, and this becomes a self-justifying system by which we don't actually have to pay attention to what either film is doing or not doing, because the subject matter itself has predetermined the level at which is warrants emotional investment as well as critical analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
I liked the baby-eater line. I totally get why people would find it hilarious and awkward, for all the same reasons it'd never be in a Nolan movie: it's uncomfortably direct, it's artless, it says something that would, in the day-to-day context of human existence, come off as a really tasteless adolescent joke. Like so much of the film, it presents something that's both horrible and absurd. But it's just a man sitting down and speaking plain about what he's done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:E.g. we wouldn't call a one-hour loop of a clip of a dog pissing a 'good film'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That's the thing, 'trite' very specifically describes an opinion or remark that is "overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness." By definition, any dialog that serves the tone and narrative of a film, is not trite. I don't think this, or your further comments about triteness, are correct. E.g. a cliché used by a character in explaining some plot point might serve the narrative of the film, but it would still be trite. Also, I think accusing something of being trite is a decent criticism when done accurately. Regarding your second paragraph, I was not accusing Snowpiercer or that line of being trite, merely giving an example of what would constitute bad dialogue. I think Snowpiercer was quite original. quote:But Joon-ho also clearly has a great deal of Spielberg influence, and the baby-eater scene was certainly the point at which this became most apparent. The barrier of language is something that is especially prominent in the war movie Saving Private Ryan. In that film, the barrier of language is the ultimate clarification of war as a battle of culture rather than political ideology. His characters occasionally give speeches, but they're never directly about the war, about the Nazis, etc. They speak and act with aggressive terseness. Sure, I've already agreed with Lord Krangdar that Curtis shouldn't be some master sophist. Some kind of ugly, terse delivery was appropriate, just not the one used in the movie. I'm not inclined to press this point much further because I don't have access to the source material. quote:In a similar way, Brazil is both an example of and a broad, parodist's rejection of dystopian fiction. The most crucial thing is that both films ultimately work on their own as self-contained films. But an immutable part of the strength of both films is specifically that they reject established formal conventions and pretenses of 'artful' or 'efficient' storytelling in order to suggest something new which implicitly defies these conventions and pretenses. That doesn't mean the product is going to be good. But it does mean the demand of experiencing and evaluating it necessarily involves being open to the idea that, say, the 'schlocky' way to do something is not always actually schlocky, and that this may indeed be tied more to our own prejudices against the subject matter itself and how we think it should be done, rather than the acknowledgment of what can be done in the service of good film-making. I agree here. In principle, something like Snowpiercer could have worked. I just don't think that it did here. quote:I'm refuting the opposite tendency in our culture -- embodied by, say, Academy voters who had never seen the film voting for 12 Years a Slave for Best Picture because it was 'more important' -- to predicate our critical standards based on our prejudices against certain works based on their superficial similarities to films we don't like; and on our prejudices for certain works based on their superficial similarity to films we do like. I criticize this because it implies a hierarchy of ways of being 'arty,' of certain techniques and approaches, when I think artfulness is much more like a spectrum of different approaches to different subject matter which is entirely dependent on the work itself, rather than innumerable works which did similar/different things worse/better. I don't understand your last sentence. We can compare movies to one other, based on superficial or substantial similarities, regardless of whether artfulness is spectrum or a hierarchy. The Inception comparison was just the first thing that came to mind and isn't something I'm prepared to defend in detail, though I think there's a hint of truth there. More generally, I think it's critically useful to say things "Movie X was like Movie Y in ways A,B,C, and succeeded/failed where Y didn't for reason Z." quote:Your position in bringing up Inception, on the other hand, was that it constitutes 'good schlock,' and demonstrates effectively why Snowpiercer is 'bad schlock.' But what Nolan wanted and achieved doesn't have anything to do with what Joon-ho wanted and achieved unless we assume that both are schlock, at which point our arbitrary prejudices go on autopilot and we say, apparently, "Inception is more artful, while Snowpiercer is more inartful." If both are schlock, it doesn't matter, and this becomes a self-justifying system by which we don't actually have to pay attention to what either film is doing or not doing, because the subject matter itself has predetermined the level at which is warrants emotional investment as well as critical analysis. I think you're misunderstanding my comments, though I admit they would've been clearer if I used a less loaded word than 'schlock.' So I'm going to avoid using that from now on. My point was something like this: if we strip away the action and the conceptual cleverness/'hook' that drives each movie (the shared dreaming in Inception, the train in Snowpiercer), do we have anything left? Do we have anything beyond that relatively superficial stuff, or is it just a stylish, violent thought experiment? And while there isn't anything wrong with a stylish, violent thought experiment, I think Inception goes beyond that by having at least one character with a struggle that is genuinely compelling, while Snowpiercer doesn't. Curtis, Gilliam, and the rest were hard to think of as real people that I should care about instead of human-shaped pawns. Maybe I don't want to claim that Inception was a better movie period, but I felt that it was at least better in that way. Also relevant is the fact that Snowpiercer obviously tried to do more than just be a dumb action flick, which makes this line of criticism a more appropriate than if it was directed at, say, The Raid. Slugworth posted:Unless Harmony Korrine directed it, at which point I would have to listen to assholes talk about how subversive it is. I laughed pretty hard at this. buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:And while there isn't anything wrong with a stylish, violent thought experiment, I think Inception goes beyond that by having at least one character with a struggle that is genuinely compelling, while Snowpiercer doesn't. Curtis, Gilliam, and the rest were hard to think of as real people that I should care about instead of human-shaped pawns. Maybe I don't want to claim that Inception was a better movie period, but I felt that it was at least better in that way. What made Cobb genuinely compelling to you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I laughed pretty hard at this. For what it's worth, I don't think Harmony Korine is very subversive either. Mr. Lonely is really, really good, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
I still don't know if I've heard a satisfactory explanation for this major part of the plot: What is the point of purposefully fomenting rebellion? Given the precise nature of the train, the absolute ability to cull the underclass, and the rather flawless propaganda efforts hoisted upon the middle-upper class, why does Wilford need an actual, physical rebellion? Further, why even support a larger underclass in the first place if you only need them to produce toddler-engineers? The train setup implies that the middle class never sees the underclass, so their physical existence makes no difference to the propaganda. The movie reminded me of typical young adult dystopian fiction in that the political message lacked nuance. I enjoyed the film, but I think its value is overstated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Naet posted:I still don't know if I've heard a satisfactory explanation for this major part of the plot: What is the point of purposefully fomenting rebellion? Given the precise nature of the train, the absolute ability to cull the underclass, and the rather flawless propaganda efforts hoisted upon the middle-upper class, why does Wilford need an actual, physical rebellion? Further, why even support a larger underclass in the first place if you only need them to produce toddler-engineers? The train setup implies that the middle class never sees the underclass, so their physical existence makes no difference to the propaganda. Because the presence of an actual threat actually helps to fortify cultural identity. Namgoong and Yona are proof that there are disaffected members of the middle-class or elites, as do the Club Kids to a certain extent. It's just fascism: Everything within this system is perfect and unassailable, but there are those outsiders who need to be kept in their place and controlled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Because the presence of an actual threat actually helps to fortify cultural identity. Namgoong and Yona are proof that there are disaffected members of the middle-class or elites, as do the Club Kids to a certain extent. It's just fascism: Everything within this system is perfect and unassailable, but there are those outsiders who need to be kept in their place and controlled. Wilford is also explicitly looking for a replacement who is dedicated and remorseless enough to keep the train running. Who better than a revolutionary leader? It's like a perverse version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Vermain posted:It's like a perverse version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  Really, people shouldn't be put off by the juxtaposition of oppression/caste struggle and grotesque humor. Children's writers do it quite frequently. See, also: The Sneetches and Other Stories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
One thing my brother brought up last night after he watched it Why would curtis give a poo poo about eating ground up insects if he ate babies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:One thing my brother brought up last night after he watched it Why would curtis give a poo poo about eating ground up insects if he ate babies? Only one of those tastes good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:One thing my brother brought up last night after he watched it Why would curtis give a poo poo about eating ground up insects if he ate babies? Babies taste best, cockroach blocks probably taste like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
I thought this was one of the, if not the, worst movie I have ever watched. The caveat there being I have started many films that are worse, but never actually sat all the way though them. I love South Korean films in general, but this was just boring. The 'political' points felt like they were delivered with a hammer, other film references felt shoved down my throat like a god drat soylent cock-roach green protein bar, the acting felt wooden (except Tilda Swanson), the humor fell short, and I loving had to actively try to not fall asleep throughout the whole damned affair, not to mention the complete lack of sense the whole thing made being on a train, but overall I'll forgive that point I feel like anyone who considered this original and innovative hasn't watched much film outside the hollywood. I really question anyone who thought anything in this entire film was subtle though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
I think the wooden acting comes from the director not speaking much English. A lot of lines sounds like it was the first take and they just kept it in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Some really great discussion going on in here, just wanted to toss in my two cents. I really liked the baby-eater line, because I thought it was a brilliant use of humor to underscore just how awful the situation is. For me, when I heard the line, I gave a short "ha", because it was just so absurd, which then emphasized in my brain "I am laughing at that because he said it so bluntly and it's so loving terrible," and then my brain followed that up with "oh poo poo that is actually the reality of his life, that awful terrible thing is part of who he is." The comedic bluntness of that line, for me, at least, I'm guessing for others as well, really served to emphasize exactly how terrible the situation is for the underclass, and really how far outside acceptable norms their desperation had pushed them. I felt similarly with the moment on the axe car when Curtis slips on the fish. It's such a silly thing, like a looney toon slipping on a banana peel, but I was so caught up in the scene that I was afraid falling and being momentarily defenseless would get him killed. That silly comedic thing provided a small release to an intense scene and highlighted for me that I actually cared what happened to this guy. Naet posted:I still don't know if I've heard a satisfactory explanation for this major part of the plot: What is the point of purposefully fomenting rebellion? Given the precise nature of the train, the absolute ability to cull the underclass, and the rather flawless propaganda efforts hoisted upon the middle-upper class, why does Wilford need an actual, physical rebellion? Further, why even support a larger underclass in the first place if you only need them to produce toddler-engineers? The train setup implies that the middle class never sees the underclass, so their physical existence makes no difference to the propaganda. I also think Snowpiercer does an excellent job of taking a political point/allegory and presenting it in a way that is accessible to a general audience, not all of whom may have the education or background to understand the finer points of political philosophy, but who can follow the plot threads in the film easily enough. I love the film's complete lack of subtlety in this respect. As a result you'll end up with people on either end who felt the film was either (a) too boring and dull because it has a lot of allegorical elements or (b) not nuanced enough to properly explore said allegorical elements, but I thought it struck the right balance between summer blockbuster and philosophical supposition. Also I thought Evans completely killed it in this film. His performance was great for the film's tone, and I loved watching the facets of his character unfold through various cars on the train until he completes his arc at the engine. And since we're making the comparison, I felt way more emotional resonance with Curtis (who's good with kids (ironically), has a mentor he deeply admires, desperately wants to do the right thing and feels immense guilt when he can't, etc.), than I ever did with Cobb. I don't mean this as a criticism of Inception, because I think they are very different films, I just think the criticism that Cobb's personal struggle is somehow more emotionally resonant than Curtis's and thus makes Inception a better film is pretty darn subjective. TwistedLadder fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Naet posted:I still don't know if I've heard a satisfactory explanation for this major part of the plot: What is the point of purposefully fomenting rebellion? Given the precise nature of the train, the absolute ability to cull the underclass, and the rather flawless propaganda efforts hoisted upon the middle-upper class, why does Wilford need an actual, physical rebellion? Further, why even support a larger underclass in the first place if you only need them to produce toddler-engineers? The train setup implies that the middle class never sees the underclass, so their physical existence makes no difference to the propaganda. Also watch this short doc about Thatchernomics - the idiot ruling class and abandoned lower class of Snowpiercer aren't too far from real life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0y0r3I0kAI
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying, but what system is Snowpiercer critiquing? It's not capitalism because capitalism doesn't exist on that train. What is the message here? That human nature is inherently evil and driven to construct inequality? I just don't understand the motivations of anyone in the middle or ruling class. i am the bird fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Naet posted:I understand what you're saying, but what system is Snowpiercer critiquing? It's not capitalism because capitalism doesn't exist on that train. Again: the train is the capitalist system made immanent - the "avatar" of capitalism, if you will. The perpetual motion engine sustained by slave labor is as clear of an analogy for capitalism that you can make in the context of a science fiction film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
I understand that reading, but capitalism is justified by ceaseless profits. The train is a closed system where nothing ever changes, so the ruling class isn't profiting through slave labor as much as it's just subsisting. The motivation behind capitalism is not subsistence. Although the film may be a fair surface critique of the exploitation of capitalism, it's a poor representation of how and why capitalism exists/functions/perpetuates. i am the bird fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
The movie doesn't directly depict a capitalist society, no. It's more about an exaggeratedly stratified class system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Sorry, I edited that post a thousand times so I'm just going to put it in a new reply to avoid confusion: One could easily respond sympathetically to the ruling class because Wilford's claims about the ecosystem are presented as truth: The survival of the train inhabitants is actually dependent upon eliminating part of the population and using toddler-engineers. We can question the morality of how to choose who dies, or whose kids are forced into slave labor. But, the film doesn't really allow us to question whether or not these two things should happen if we agree upon the necessity of human survival. The choice at the end is between killing off humanity because it's inherently evil, or making terrible moral choices to ensure that humans survive. This isn't a valid criticism of capitalism because that choice is a false dichotomy perpetuated by capitalism. In that way, the movie is operating on the assumptions of capitalism: that the world requires inequality to operate. I'll confess to purposefully ignoring the ending because I find it to be irrelevant: those kids are going to die almost immediately. I guess maybe I've talked myself into liking the movie for raising the philosophical question of whether or not we're relevant as a species, but I disagree with the popular reading of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Naet posted:I understand that reading, but capitalism is justified by ceaseless profits. Capitalism's existence is defined by its singular purpose: to perpetuate itself endlessly. The train represents this through a perpetual motion engine (remember: any other kind of mystical science-fiction engine could be used, so why an engine that spins itself?), which eventually keeps itself alive via human "parts." The critique of Snowpiercer is that a system which exists only to keep itself turning - without regard for human life and happiness - is not a good system, and must be destroyed. Snowpiercer doesn't intend to academically analyze the failure of capitalist production (the LTRPF, crisis theory, etc.), because it has already reached its conclusion: this system exists to keep itself alive, and gladly tolerates human misery in order to do so. Why allow it to keep existing? Naet posted:This isn't a valid criticism of capitalism because that choice is a false dichotomy perpetuated by capitalism. In that way, the movie is operating on the assumptions of capitalism: that the world requires inequality to operate. This is precisely why Curtis destroys the train: because it is impossible to create a world that is not sustained on misery within the capitalist system, represented here by the train. That's why there's the Garden of Eden imagery at the very end: it's a new world that's opened up because of the train's destruction. Again, taking them stepping outside the train in a literal way does not make sense given the highly allegorical nature of the rest of the work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Awesome movie from start to finish. The one thing I didn't understand was how the main badguy got back up after being impaled multiple times.  Other than that, near enough perfect. I would have liked Chris Evans character to have to make more of a choice though - I mean instead of the machine monkeys what if the kids were treated really well? But from the time you've got the horrific kids in machinery imagery the choice was obvious. The babies line got a "what the fuuuck  " out of me.Now to read this (probably) horrible thread. spikenigma fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Capitalism's existence is defined by its singular purpose: to perpetuate itself endlessly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
wyoak posted:You keep saying this but that description could be applied equally to any dominant power structure. The point of an economic system should be, in my view, to fulfill the needs of human beings and ensure their wellbeing. Capitalism performs this as a tertiary function. Its primary drive has always been to maintain the circulation of profit, thus keeping itself alive, with the fulfillment of human needs being incidental. You would find that I'm hardly a supporter of feudalism, either, for much the same reason. 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. Vermain fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:49
|
|