|
MisterBibs posted:I think he meant in a more practical way. I was confused by that as well, since it really felt like a "Sure, he could've gotten the kid out just fine between the gears, but we needed something ~symbolic~ to happen" moment. But he couldn't get the kid out fine. It's explicitly stated that the engine room is full of crushing danger and only a nimble kid can (sometimes) avoid it. What's weird to me is that you would even be challenging this point, like was your head thinking about the practical engineering of that engine? It's a decaying torture machine run by oppressed weaklings the black husserl fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Dec 21, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Obviously you guys haven't read very many MisterBibs posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
My question is what was with that kid who rolled out of that wall compartment to get in the engine... Was he in Child Storage, or was he working in the wall and got a 'promotion' or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I must reiterate: the entire film is a symbolic representation. Complaining about how the ending fails to provide a "practical" solution is utterly at-odds with the highly metaphorical nature of the rest of the work. The theme of sacrificing limbs (especially arms and hands, things mostly used for performing manual labour) for the betterment of others is repeated throughout the rest of the film from nearly the very start; it's not some weird thing they introduce at the very end. I actually really love how this plays with Gilliam. First we learn that he's lost three of his limbs after Andrew has his arm smashed. The implication is that Gilliam has been repeatedly punished for infractions, and is some kind of great defiant leader. Towards the end, this is subverted when we are told that he cut his own limbs off to feed people. While it still shows Gilliam as making a sacrifice, it's now a very different sacrifice that he's made. It's now the case that he lost his limbs sustaining the system in the tail car rather than opposing it. This is a reductive way of framing things, but it sets the stage for the reveal that Gilliam was, to some extent, a partner with Wilford. Gilliam's sacrifice now begins to look at like a form of self-debasement - like a cost he had to pay to be accepted by Wilford.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:But he couldn't get the kid out fine. That's the thing, it really did look like that. The kid (who had just been taken not long previously, so we can throw any 'he was brainwashed' apologia aside) was sitting in the machine scooping poo poo out, not making any effort to get out when Evans was telling him to, and the gear over his head (the one Evans puts his arm in to stop) was moving at a snails pace. I can wrap my head around the Symbolic Reason why Evans did it, but I can't see any real reason why he had to do it. Incoherent practical actions under the auspices of Symbolism are still incoherent actions. Babadook ending spoilers: keeping the monster fed in the closet makes sense when it's symbolic of never being able to defeat grief/etc. It's completely bonkers to keep a hostile ghost in your basement, much less feeding it. the black husserl posted:Like was your head thinking about the practical engineering of that engine? It started to, when the engineering became the primary obstacle to getting the kid in question out, especially when said arm-blocking doesn't do anything detrimental to the train. The train derails and explodes because of an outside unrelated event, not because of any sacrifice from Evans. Symbolically, the society is destroyed by accident, not because any group wants to destroy it. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:That's the thing, it really did look like that. The kid (who had just been taken not long previously, so we can throw any 'he was brainwashed' apologia aside) was sitting in the machine scooping poo poo out, not making any effort to get out when Evans was telling him to, and the gear over his head (the one Evans puts his arm in to stop) was moving at a snails pace. That ending only doesn't make practical sense if you refuse to accept the premise that the Babadook can't be destroyed. There is no disjuncture between the symbolism of the film and the practical actions of the characters, the symbolism is predicated on those practical actions, which are predicated on the conflict those characters face as the film presents it and their subjective motivations. The symbolic structure of a film is not this nebulous other thing that distracts and covers up the incoherency of a film's dramatic structure, it is a function of that dramatic structure. By conceiving of these things as separate - as one being a negligible misdirection from the other - you are alienating yourself from what is actually going on within the dramatic structure of the film. For instance, you state that because the boy was "taken not long previously... we can throw any 'he was brainwashed' apologia aside." We actually can't because we importantly don't have any clue what happens to the boy between his being abducted from his mother and finding him again working in shifts with another traumatized orphan in the cogs of a machine run by an asympathetic man with a gun and fine dining (things he has never seen before). Furthermore, the time that elapses as the film itself is condensed does not denote the diegetic time that transpires over the course of a film's plot. You are thinking about these events in terms of a person who is constantly removed and watching the movie, not on the level of how the diegesis itself is being experienced by its characters. Similarly, you acknowledge that Curtis is trying to save this boy who is "not making any effort to get out," but then decide that because the dangerous gear is "moving at a snail's pace," that this interferes with the dramatic logic of Curtis sacrificing his arm. The dramatic logic of Curtis's actions isn't motivated by what the machine that he hates is doing, it's by his desperation to rescue the child. This is not something that requires the symbolic structure of the film to deduce or 'explain away,' but merely comprehending the actions and events within the film as being the product of subjective experience and motivation, and not from the vantage point of these events being experienced as a movie, which the characters aren't privy to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That ending only doesn't make practical sense if you refuse to accept the premise that the Babadook can't be destroyed. Well, yeah. You can't spit without having a movie where the Object of Evil Villainy claims it can't be destroyed. Even if you ignore other films, ending the movie with the living literally feeding the thing undermines any notion that it can't be destroyed. Yes, it can, you're just feeding it because the Symbolism demands it for a Grief Can't Be Defeated message. Makes sense in the Symbolic, is bonkers in the Practical.A Demon Monster that needs to feed is not a monster that can't be defeated. Even one of the iconic 80s slasher films got that right. K. Waste posted:For instance, you state that because the boy was "taken not long previously... we can throw any 'he was brainwashed' apologia aside." We actually can't because we importantly don't have any clue what happens to the boy between his being abducted from his mother and finding him again working in shifts with another traumatized orphan in the cogs of a machine run by an asympathetic man with a gun and fine dining (things he has never seen before). No, I'm confident in my reasoning that a little kid being forced from his mother, into the guts of a machine is going to have a bit more than a  expression to the dude telling him to get out, especially when the movie makes no attempt to imply that it's anything other than a few days. I offer the scene just after Evans puts his arm in the gear as an example, when another kid comes out and goes into the Engine. We don't know how long that other kid has been 'employed' in the Engine, but his refusal to listen to Evans (combined with his disheveled look) informs that he's been in it for long enough that he is literally a tool in service of the Engine. This sends a message as to how kids eventually react in service of The System. The assertion the film tries to make - that the little kid we're supposed to be emotionally invested in would be the same after days, requiring Evans to have to disrupt the gear with his arm to free him to free him - is beyond suspension of disbelief for me. K. Waste posted:Similarly, you acknowledge that Curtis is trying to save this boy who is "not making any effort to get out," but then decide that because the dangerous gear is "moving at a snail's pace," that this interferes with the dramatic logic of Curtis sacrificing his arm. Because it absolutely does. A gear moving at a slow pace is as threatening as a steamroller moving at full speed. Acting as if Evans needs to stick his hand in there to get the child out is like saying that the guard in that video is genuinely in unavoidable danger. K. Waste posted:The dramatic logic of Curtis's actions isn't motivated by what the machine that he hates is doing, it's by his desperation to rescue the child. But his desperation to rescue the child is undercut by the fact that he has no real motivation to sacrifice an arm to rescue the child. Symbolically, sure, but not in any practical way. A grown-rear end man desperate to save a child in that situation is going to wait for the slowly-moving gear to pass and hoist the kid up. Fundamentally, the only reason he did what he did was because the symbolism demanded it. They set up that sacrificing part of your self for others is a Good Noble Thing, drat it, and they are going to have their Hero Guy lose an arm helping someone come hell or high water, even if it doesn't make a lick of sense for him to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Well, yeah. You can't spit without having a movie where the Object of Evil Villainy claims it can't be destroyed. Even if you ignore other films, ending the movie with the living literally feeding the thing undermines any notion that it can't be destroyed. Yes, it can, you're just feeding it because the Symbolism demands it for a Grief Can't Be Defeated message. Makes sense in the Symbolic, is bonkers in the Practical.A Demon Monster that needs to feed is not a monster that can't be defeated. Even one of the iconic 80s slasher films got that right. What are you talking about? What in the movie leads you to believe that the Babadook can be destroyed? quote:No, I'm confident in my reasoning that a little kid being forced from his mother, into the guts of a machine is going to have a bit more than a This is a really weird thing to be confidant about. What are the stages of grief of a child being abducted from their mother and being forced to work inside a machine by a demagogue with a gun and a monomaniacal devotion to his own sense of how the world should remain? quote:I offer the scene just after Evans puts his arm in the gear as an example, when another kid comes out and goes into the Engine. We don't know how long that other kid has been 'employed' in the Engine, but his refusal to listen to Evans (combined with his disheveled look) informs that he's been in it for long enough that he is literally a tool in service of the Engine. This sends a message as to how kids eventually react in service of The System. What is the basis of your confidence in this position, that the diegetic time that passes within the story is not enough for Timmy to become as alienated as he is? quote:Because it absolutely does. A gear moving at a slow pace is as threatening as a steamroller moving at full speed. Acting as if Evans needs to stick his hand in there to get the child out is like saying that the guard in that video is genuinely in unavoidable danger. The reason he did what he did was because his motivation was that he was desperate to rescue the kid, he had no idea how much time he had to do so (not just talking about the speed of the gear), and he had just finished assassinating the Dear Leader. This has nothing to do with the symbolism of the scene, it's a basic inventory of the character's subjective experience which does not and does not need to have anything to do with the practicality of it as determined by someone who insists that these actions are only symbolic, as opposed to the symbolism stemming from the dramatic structure of what is occurring. Your suspension of disbelief is being problematized by a desperate, traumatized, former child-eating revolutionary not being able to take a step back, and say, "Oh, okay, I just need to wait until the gear goes around," like he's figuring a puzzle in a video game. That's not the way Curtis sees his situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That's not the way Curtis sees his situation. I think it would be easy to take this further and argue that Curtis might feel that he has to lose an arm because of the symbolism. We know he feels guilt about failing an earlier attempt to give his arm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:I think it would be easy to take this further and argue that Curtis might feel that he has to lose an arm because of the symbolism. We know he feels guilt about failing an earlier attempt to give his arm. Which, again, is to reiterate that symbolism in the film is not this thing that proceeds despite the dramatic structure, it is a function of it. Curtis's sacrifice of his arm is obviously a symbolic act, but this symbolism is a function of how his character is consistently defined throughout the movie as being driven continually forward in pursuit of a single objective though he doesn't fully understand what lies at the end. This action is not 'just symbolism,' it is a culmination of everything he has done and experienced. This is good dramatic structure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:What are you talking about? What in the movie leads you to believe that the Babadook can be destroyed? The ending of the movie tells us as such. The mom and son treat the Babadook as a pet, feeding it to ensure its survival. Unless I missed something about the Babadook being poisoned by earthworms, the only reason to feed something is to keep it alive. You know what you don't do to something trying to kill you? Feed it to keep it alive! Again, I understand (and even enjoy!) the symbolic message of the ending of Babadook: acknowledging grief rather than simply denying it. It's a great message. I just wish that such a compelling message would be written into a story in a way that makes sense for mom and a son dealing with some sort of tormenting entity. Because "In the end we decided to keep the ghostly entity that possessed us and poo poo as a pet, feeding it a diet of worms!" demands a  reaction.K. Waste posted:This is a really weird thing to be confidant about. What are the stages of grief of a child being abducted from their mother and being forced to work inside a machine by a demagogue with a gun and a monomaniacal devotion to his own sense of how the world should remain? Well, the first, second, and third stage would be "actively try and escape and/or not ignore someone you personally know is friends with your mom is trying to rescue you." K. Waste posted:What is the basis of your confidence in this position, that the diegetic time that passes within the story is not enough for Timmy to become as alienated as he is? I have high confidence that time didn't pass enough for Timmy to be alienated because the movie never makes an attempt frame the time between Timmy The Kid and Timmy The Engine Part That Has No Interest In Being Rescued as substantial. And, as I said before, the Other Kid in that scene looks abused and traumatized. He stands in contrast to the kid we're supposed to want to see saved. K. Waste posted:Your suspension of disbelief is being problematized by a desperate, traumatized, former child-eating revolutionary not being able to take a step back, and say, "Oh, okay, I just need to wait until the gear goes around," like he's figuring a puzzle in a video game. That's not the way Curtis sees his situation. I barely accept "Durr, he's just stupid!" excuses in zombie or slasher films. Why would I accept it from something trying to be something greater? I should say that I checked out the scene again and the gear moves faster than I had remembered, but we're still talking about a guy that throughout the film has shown to have more than two brain cells to bang together. It's a disservice to the film for the character to go "Huh I need/want to save this kid... I know, I'll jab one arm into a moving gear and then try and pull the kid out with the other!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Yeah it's like in Plato's Allegory of the cave it makes no sense for someone to keep a bunch of people chained facing a cave wall and some dudes walking past the fire with puppets for no real reason. I mean what possible use could that serve? It really breaks my suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Snowpiercer is a good movie that raises a lot of interesting questions, as a good movie should.FreudianSlippers posted:Yeah it's like in Plato's Allegory of the cave it makes no sense for someone to keep a bunch of people chained facing a cave wall and some dudes walking past the fire with puppets for no real reason. I mean what possible use could that serve? It really breaks my suspension of disbelief. Ugh, that's what I hate about philosophy. It's always just a bunch of white guys talking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:19
|
|
ME
|
I cannot possibly imagine why a human being who was talking in disgusted tones about his own inability to sacrifice his arm for the good of other people several minutes earlier in the film would, in a panic because of a whirlwind of emotions and the ensuing threat of the undead murder-man, stick his arm into the gear in a rash, redemptive action. Do you sincerely not understand the purpose of symbolism in the course of connecting a dramatic work, MisterBibs, or is this simple intellectual dishonesty? I am honestly completely aghast that someone could absolutely fail to understand its purpose so completely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Like, okay, what is your objection, here? That he should have found some kind of metal bar to wedge into it? Do you believe, honestly and truthfully, that this creates a stronger dramatic impact than sacrificing his own arm, a theme that has been repeated constantly throughout this film up to that point? What is your reasoning for its increased impact on the strength of the film's message and the emotional payoff of Curtis' sacrifice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The ending of the movie tells us as such. The mom and son treat the Babadook as a pet, feeding it to ensure its survival. Unless I missed something about the Babadook being poisoned by earthworms, the only reason to feed something is to keep it alive. You know what you don't do to something trying to kill you? Feed it to keep it alive! The ending doesn't actually tell us the Babadook can be destroyed, merely that it can be sated with basic compassion. The fact that she bothers feeding it at all rather than 'letting it starve' as it were suggests that the character thinks this is necessary. Why would this be the case if the Babadook can be destroyed? Is the character just stupid? quote:Again, I understand (and even enjoy!) the symbolic message of the ending of Babadook: acknowledging grief rather than simply denying it. It's a great message. I just wish that such a compelling message would be written into a story in a way that makes sense for mom and a son dealing with some sort of tormenting entity. Because "In the end we decided to keep the ghostly entity that possessed us and poo poo as a pet, feeding it a diet of worms!" demands a Stop saying this. Stop saying you understand the symbolism of something and then deducing that the only reason you don't understand why the dramatic structure of a film proceeds the way it does is because it patently doesn't make logical sense. Yeah, the end of the film is a 'What the Hell?' moment, but it's a logical conclusion that resolves the conflict of the film, which consistently points to the Babadook as a figure that can not be destroyed. Even when the mother makes her defiant, Hail Mary last attempt at sending it away, it doesn't leave. It can neither be destroyed nor compelled to leave. They're stuck with it. In your insistence that you understand and appreciate the symbolism of the film, you've missed the basic subtle beauty of its dramatic structure, which is that it takes a conventional horror movie ending--the "final scare" when it is proved that the evil cannot be done away with--and turns it on its head. This is not symbolism, it's the diegesis of the film being pursued logically while still finding ways to surprise and disturb the audience. All the stuff regarding Snowpiercer follows. Stop insisting that you understand the symbolism of the film and then insisting that the only reason Curtis has to act the way he does is because he suddenly gets struck with a case of the stupids. Or that a character who has literally disappeared from your sight and hearing, whose experiences you have no idea about because the filmmakers have deliberately made certain that you are not privy to it, is ruining your suspension of disbelief by acting in a way that you don't understand. You are over-confident about your sense of your ability to perceive aspects of a diegesis that the filmmakers haven't even shown you for deliberate dramatic reasons. Stop insisting you understand the 'symbolic meaning' of works when you don't even respect their basic dramatic structure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I cannot possibly imagine why a human being who was talking in disgusted tones about his own inability to sacrifice his arm for the good of other people several minutes earlier in the film would, in a panic because of a whirlwind of emotions and the ensuing threat of the undead murder-man, stick his arm into the gear in a rash, redemptive action. I guess we're at an impasse, because I can't imagine why a character who up until now has been seen as intelligent decides his best course of action to lift someone out of a space is to stick one of your kid-lifting appendages into a gear, when there's zero time pressure (the kid inside isn't about to die, his buddy is holding off the Enforcer Guy), hes knocked out the guy in charge, and there's a whole table worth of poo poo (not to mention a table) to cram into the space instead of his arm. It'd show that Harris picked the right guy to run the whole shebang. But dammit, we pushed the symbolism of arm-based sacrifice, so that's have him do that instead. K. Waste posted:Is the character just stupid? We're talking about a person who, when trying to deal with an actively-hostile human-possessing spirit, stuffs it in the basement and feeds it like a pet. So, yeah? Look, if you really wanna discuss the other movie, we can take it to the respective thread, but there's just no chance of trying to convince me that the end of the Babadook makes logical sense outside the symbolic message. K. Waste posted:All the stuff regarding Snowpiercer follows. Stop insisting that you understand the symbolism of the film and then insisting that the only reason Curtis has to act the way he does is because he suddenly gets struck with a case of the stupids. Maybe I'm just better at compartmentalizing the two natures of the film better than you? I can totally be onboard with Evans doing what he did because of the symbolic message in the film, while seeing that same effect as a case of The Stupids within the practical logic/world of the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I guess we're at an impasse, because I can't imagine why a character who up until now has been seen as intelligent decides his best course of action to lift someone out of a space is to stick one of your kid-lifting appendages into a gear, when there's zero time pressure (the kid inside isn't about to die, his buddy is holding off the Enforcer Guy), hes knocked out the guy in charge, and there's a whole table worth of poo poo (not to mention a table) to cram into the space instead of his arm. It'd show that Harris picked the right guy to run the whole shebang. Did you watch the film? Recently, perhaps? Namgoong was shot in the side. He's an (at best) middle-aged drug addict. There is a gang of ravers with weapons immediately behind him. Saying that there's no time pressure is a complete and utter lie in contradiction of the stated facts of the film. There is no other way to put this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:We're talking about a person who, when trying to deal with an actively-hostile human-possessing spirit, stuffs it in the basement and feeds it like a pet. So, yeah? Nice of you to extend the offer to engage in a discussion but make totally explicit your lack of any willingness to budge on the point that maybe the movie where the apparition explicitly can't be destroyed or gotten rid isn't making an error of dramatic logic by having its characters successfully live with it. quote:Maybe I'm just better at compartmentalizing the two natures of the film better than you? I can totally be onboard with Evans doing what he did because of the symbolic message in the film, while seeing that same effect as a case of The Stupids within the practical logic/world of the film. How can you respect the symbolic message of a film when you don't respect the drama upon which it's predicated? How can you be onboard with something when you find its basis implicitly pretentious and un-substantive? How can you engage the drama of a film if you adamantly refuse to respect the possibility that things you aren't shown would have the diegetic effect that they do? How can you watch a movie where a desperate revolutionary conducts a Hail Mary campaign towards the front of a lateral dystopia based solely on scraps of paper that have been smuggled back to him from what turns out to be the architect of the very system he's fighting against, and then say that his rash, desperate actions at the film's climax aren't consistent with who that character is? K. Waste fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Did you watch the film? Recently, perhaps? Namgoong was shot in the side. He's an (at best) middle-aged drug addict. There is a gang of ravers with weapons immediately behind him. Saying that there's no time pressure is a complete and utter lie in contradiction of the stated facts of the film. There is no other way to put this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I thought it was revealed that Namgoong wasn't ever an addict. He'd been stealing the stuff to make a bomb since before he was imprisoned. No? It's kept ambiguous, but the fact that he only wakes up to the smell of kronol is a tad suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I thought it was revealed that Namgoong wasn't ever an addict. He'd been stealing the stuff to make a bomb since before he was imprisoned. No? I don't see why it can't be both, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:I don't see why it can't be both, honestly. Yeah, that was my impression. They were addicts with plans, but addicts nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
He literally tells Curtis that he wasn't "only" doing it because he was an addict. So yes, he's an addict.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Why are people still spoiling things? This movie has been out for a long time and we're deep in the thread.Hand Knit posted:I actually really love how this plays with Gilliam. 1. He's been in the back since the beginning. 2. He cut off limbs in order to sacrifice himself rather than have cannibals eat the young. 3. He probably has had some contact with Wilford at some point. (Because Gilliam warns Chris to cut out Wilford's tongue immediately.) Honestly, that's about it. Everything else we get on him comes from Wilford. It's been a while since I saw the movie, so I may be misremembering it, but I was deeply suspicious of everything Wilford says. He's a man with a specific plan and goal in mind, which is to break Chris down so that he can remold him as a successor and heir. I don't think we should take it at face value that Gilliam was some sort of co-conspirator, working with Wilford the whole time. Because Gilliam warns of Wilford's silver tongue, that means he has some knowledge. It doesn't mean they were having weekly phone calls. Do we actually see any of that happening, or are we running entirely on Wilford's word?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Grifter posted:Why are people still spoiling things? This movie has been out for a long time and we're deep in the thread. I think you're right to be suspicious of Wilford, and I don't think that Gilliam was a completely equal and willing partner, but I do think the film gives us enough to tilt things in favour of concluding that Gilliam was in on it. The biggest story point, I think, is that it was definitely Wilford writing the messages in the capsules. While this doesn't conclusively prove that Gilliam was working with Wilford, it does show that Wilford was in some way provoking and seeking to bring about the rebellion. There are a few smaller things with Gilliam, too. Like there's how he tells Mason to tell Wilford that they need to talk, the time he snidely tells Mason to call Wilford which implies that he knows that Wilford won't respond, or how his attitude changes and he appears to become quite regretful when Curtis says that he's envious of Gilliam's sacrifice and leadership. Then there's also stuff like this shot, which I came across today:  Property of Wilford I agree with you that it's not conclusive, but I do think that the evidence tilts in favour of Gilliam collaborating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
There's a particular scene near the start where Curtis is talking to Gilliam in Gilliam's quarters, and Curtis makes the comment, "I'm not who [Edgar] thinks I am." Gilliam says, "Few of us ever are." He pointedly looks away from Curtis while saying this. There's a bunch of red flags that pop up all throughout the film that point towards him working with Wilford. This character reading also fits into the whole schema of the film's "revolutionary" theme. Gilliam is the aged peacemaker, a dude whose concern is only for others to survive (indicated by his willingness to chop off his own arm and leg to feed the tail). This desire, however, is constantly compromised as a consequence of the environment he lives in, where the tail section has no effective bargaining power - they've nothing to offer the front except for the occasional child and the rare "promotion" (like the violin player). His unwillingness to see more lives lost leads him to take the "least evil" path, coordinating with Wilford to let the population stabilize at the level Wilford wants in exchange for the rest of the tail section surviving. This, however, only prolongs the suffering of the tail section, allowing the existing class relations to remain in place, and there's no sign of it stopping. The tail section is basically doomed to suffer forever, unless there is a dramatic change. What changes in him, I think, is the presence of Curtis. The reason he tells him to cut Wilford's tongue out isn't because he's afraid of Wilford lying to him; he's afraid that he'll tell the truth about Gilliam's deceit. Curtis is the sort of once-in-a-lifetime leader that Gilliam realizes could very well help to change everything, and losing his respect is what Gilliam ends up fearing the most. It's why, despite his council about only taking the water car earlier on, he gives Curtis his blessing and tells him to go on after. Curtis has the strength and conviction to make the sort of sacrifices (like letting Edgar die to capture Mason) needed to see the revolution through. That doesn't seem like something that Gilliam could have ever done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Vermain posted:(like letting Edgar die to capture Mason) I'm not wholly sure how I stand on this scene. I think that Edgar looks like he feels betrayed, and I've wondered if this is maybe supposed to be an early sign that Curtis is motivated more by his selfish desire (to take the engine and kill Wilford as a response to the remorse he feels about his earlier cannibalism/suffering) than a fraternal or collective justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
There's definitely tons of ambiguity in Snowpiercer. Like, despite the fact that we get a first-person shooter p.o.v. shot of the hatchet-men slaughtering Curtis's crew, you still also get shots lingering on their corpses, emphasizing that the class struggle is mutually denigrating. It's akin to Pasolini's defense of the police as working-class individuals that is oppressed by the bourgeoisie which then justifies its hatred of them by turning them into killers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Curtis being a bit of a single-minded guy in terms of taking over the train is foreshadowed early on the film, though in a weird way. I only really noticed this on my third watch. Y'all remember Paul from the start of the film? The protein block guy? He's introduced doing a running leap up to a valve that he has to turn manually in order to make the protein block machine work, because the automatic parts have "gone extinct." When Curtis goes over to inspect the machine, he figures out the "dirty secret": that the protein blocks are cockroach goop. There's a CGI scene of them being gradually broken down into paste between huge grinders. Curtis is obviously disgusted by this: cockroaches, the lowest of the low, are what he's survived on for most of his life on the train. Move forwards to his confrontation with Wilford. What happens?  Namgoong tosses the angel-winged raver off the bridge, where he's promptly mulched down by the grinding machinery below. Wilford then attempts to seduce Curtis into taking his position by noting that "he can save [the other humans] from themselves," and he buys it, pushing Yona away when she comes running for the matches initially. Curtis really does, in this one moment, put himself as being "superior" to the humans behind him (emphasized by his position next to Wilford and his height in the scene). They've become the cockroaches. It's only the revelation of Timmy, and Wilford's comment about the parts "going extinct," that brings him back to the reality of the human suffering of the situation. The scenes end up as a mirror to eachother, with the events roughly happening in the opposite order. Even the lighting is basically the same, with the cold, sterile blue of the "outside" being contrasted with the warm, red-orange of the cockroach/human mulcher. For all of his humble talk, he really does want to be a leader and take charge. He does so whenever the opportunity arises. His shift comes only when he's willing to sacrifice himself for the lowest of the low - one of the "cockroaches." Vermain fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
I remember the "don't draw this" bit and I think that's come up in the thread before, but that's a nice spot with how the imagery recurs during the final confrontation. It fits well with the observation by the Understanding Art House guy that both the front and tail sections are devoid of windows to the outside, making the train the whole world, and have a roughly similar colour scheme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Curtis seemed to always fashion himself better than others, and feels guilty about it. Or maybe, he wants to force himself to be better, leading to his blind resolve to keep going forward, becuase once he gets there things will get better, somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Why the hell didn't the billionaire genius just build a big rear end bunker? That would take an order of magnitude less resources than building train tracks around the entire loving planet.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Diogines posted:Why the hell didn't the billionaire genius just build a big rear end bunker? The train was already being built before the world started ending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
There are many, many, many, many (many many many many) possible points of failure for a train traveling the whole drat planet. Like rocks slides or avalanches onto the drat train or the tracks breaking. Why not keep it stationary where it was being built, then? I liked the movie, but I can't get over the silliness of the premise of a train traveling the entire world for 18 years.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Maybe he's a megalomaniacal super villain in a film based on a comic book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Diogines posted:There are many, many, many, many (many many many many) possible points of failure for a train traveling the whole drat planet. Like rocks slides or avalanches onto the drat train or the tracks breaking. There is pretty much zero point in trying to "make sense" of this movie. Some folks are fine with that some aren't, but you'll enjoy it more if you don't think about it and accept it is just outlandish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
On the contrary, do think about it, just don't stop thinking because "wait, this does not conform to literal reality."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
The movie is perfectly logical, the logic is just allegorical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
It has it's own internal logic; just like in Brazil, Star Wars, fantasy movies, ect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:13
|
|
