|
Yeah, it just illustrates that, oh, actually, the health care on the train stinks, but the upper class just have the resources to cover it up. Contrasted with the leper colony lead by sadomasochistic amputees.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
A Dirty Sock posted:I wonder how much North Korea's insanity has influenced the direction of this film. Have there been interviews where they discussed inspirations from the North? I think this is pretty clearly a South Korean film. The structure of it's society resembles that of the train. Gangnam style is a work of satire as much as it is a party song. Bong Joon-ho was a student activist in South Korea and is a staunch critic of U.S. influence in Asia. http://www2.oakland.edu/oujournal/files/20_monster_and_empire.pdf Here is a pretty interesting piece on his political views. The author makes the suggestion that his works are a reflection of how he views America. The Walking Dad fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:Yeah it's Windchill. I live in Minnesota and there are days when the difference between happy fun snow times and severe skin damage/finger amputation is a tight margin. That doesn't really matter though because at the pace the train travels it would be going through entire weather systems through the course of the movie, maybe even climate zones. Speed alone amplifies the effects of the cold because the wind strips away your heat "bubble". 60 degrees and 60mph on a motorcycle and you can get hypothermia after long enough without adequate protection. It's still a stretch, but within suspension of disbelief imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Synonamess Botch posted:Speed alone amplifies the effects of the cold because the wind strips away your heat "bubble". 60 degrees and 60mph on a motorcycle and you can get hypothermia after long enough without adequate protection. It's still a stretch, but within suspension of disbelief imo. Not to mention they were also apparently at a relatively high altitude at the time as well, making it even colder. So cold+wind chill+high altitude+being wet from the oil and the snowy weather outside. Yeah, you'd popsicle fast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the lubrication was just for fitting the metal ring on his bicep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I'm pretty sure the lubrication was just for fitting the metal ring on his bicep. They lube up his entire arm though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
I figured it was a painkiller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Why give a painkiller to the guy you're about to torture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Why give a painkiller to the guy you're about to torture? Suspension of disbelief. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:I wanted to like this film. It certainty has heart and soul behind it, but there were just too many questions that popped up that were offered no explanation. This. And the ending was rushed and weird and Curtis didn't say anything just stared and gasped and got angry and why did the child crawl into the engine and why was the child even hanging out on the shelf? Seriously so many unanswered questions. And christ go easy on the slow-mo could have been a way shorter film and packed more punch. But still worth it. The fight scene on the bridge was cool but yes, wtf? My favourite scene was the classroom scene. thehomemaster fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
I don't think this film really leaves any unanswered questions. It is an allegory through and through and everything that happens makes sense allegorically. The film wants to know whether civilization can ever move beyond control by force and ideology. The characters go on a big tour of the layers of control, from basic subsistence up through luxury and indoctrination all the way up to God. The revolution is inevitably compromised, but some of the characters choose to reject the status quo in favor of an unimaginable future which seems from inside the train like it might just be death. The film ends ambiguously - it's unclear whether there is any possibility of a better future, or if the train was the best humanity could hope for. A lot of the film makes no literal sense, but it's pretty transparent to read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I just like the idea that girl isn't psychic. Because it means she just happens to remember there's a car full of masked men with axes right before they open the door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Why give a painkiller to the guy you're about to torture? He's also clearly still in pain while it's happening. Alternatively, the real punishment is removing his loving arm, which may be slightly worse than the cold. wyoming posted:I just like the idea that girl isn't psychic. Because it means she just happens to remember there's a car full of masked men with axes right before they open the door. Barring the idea that she's psychic, if she's from the upper class and her father was a security expert, she probably knew a bit about the layout of the train and the security protocols. So it would make sense that if she remembered a big holding car then she would also assume that shock troopers would be in there to quell an uprising that gets too far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
There were no unanswered questions. Just unimaginative answers. The movie is set only 15 years after the apocalypse. It's like when Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly announces that it takes place "7 Years from Now." It's basically saying, "Please do not take this literally. This is an allegory of the present, not a realistic vision of the future."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Where's the idea that the asian girl is psychic from? I thought she traveled with her father every time there was a 'revolution'. Remember Nam near the end, saying he wanted to break open the door before the final door? Because every time he checked during the Fish Nighttime Fight if there was melting snow on the airplane crash. So it makes sense he would bring his only valuable 'possession' along with him for the ride when the 'revolution' leader broke him out of jail. What I'm confused about is when the second black child from the final car crawls out from the shelf and goes into the paused 'heart of the engine', or whatever it is, and sits down inside. If they're starting their shift, where'd the previous kid go? Is it like a loop and they go in circles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Wedemeyer posted:What I'm confused about is when the second black child from the final car crawls out from the shelf and goes into the paused 'heart of the engine', or whatever it is, and sits down inside. If they're starting their shift, where'd the previous kid go? Is it like a loop and they go in circles? My impression was that the engine didn't need a kid in it at first, but Curtis shoving his arm into the hole to stop the gears was what prompted the 'heart of the engine' to stop and eject itself. Andrew's kid then crawled out of his preordained position and took his place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Wedemeyer posted:Where's the idea that the asian girl is psychic from? She knows the first car they break into is empty, so Curtis (Chris Evans) asks her if she's a clairvoyant and then takes her to the door, she looks at it, senses something bad and says "Don't open it!" and then her father at that moment finishes opening it revealing a car of thugs in masks. By ignoring what happens in the movie and doubting she's a psychic (I mean come the gently caress on, this is a scifi film set in the future that takes place on a magic train that literally goes around the globe) you're left with some bizarre idea she's "remembering" the setup of the train, which means there's just normally a car full of jackbooted thugs she forgot about until Curtis took her to the door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
wyoming posted:She knows the first car they break into is empty, so Curtis (Chris Evans) asks her if she's a clairvoyant and then takes her to the door, she looks at it, senses something bad and says "Don't open it!" and then her father at that moment finishes opening it revealing a car of thugs in masks. By ignoring what happens in the movie and doubting she's a psychic (I mean come the gently caress on, this is a scifi film set in the future that takes place on a magic train that literally goes around the globe) you're left with some bizarre idea she's "remembering" the setup of the train, which means there's just normally a car full of jackbooted thugs she forgot about until Curtis took her to the door. there's the first door where she says it's fine, the second where she says the dude is running and the third with the bad rear end dudes with axes. then there is also the "connection" she appears to have to the guys in suits. there is a huge massive subplot of which nothing is explained, and that is an issue. better to just remove that (and save some goddamn time/improve pacing). I loved how Curtis left Edgar to die in order to capture the woman (tilda swinton was great). If they had got China Mieville to write the script it would have been doubly amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Totally forgot to bring up another gripe I have with the film. Ed Harris tells Chris Evans that he's the first person to ever walk the entire length of the train. But the chick who is Harris' kimono-clad sidekick was in the last car retrieving kids to bring to the front. Was this a separate car? Didn't seem like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
wyoming posted:She knows the first car they break into is empty, so Curtis (Chris Evans) asks her if she's a clairvoyant and then takes her to the door, she looks at it, senses something bad and says "Don't open it!" and then her father at that moment finishes opening it revealing a car of thugs in masks. By ignoring what happens in the movie and doubting she's a psychic (I mean come the gently caress on, this is a scifi film set in the future that takes place on a magic train that literally goes around the globe) you're left with some bizarre idea she's "remembering" the setup of the train, which means there's just normally a car full of jackbooted thugs she forgot about until Curtis took her to the door. This is the thing. Even if Bong has the 'authoritative explanation,' its use in the film amounts to it being deliberately compared to a kind of clairvoyance. It's like with people asking him if the ending is 'optimistic.' The movie will tell you what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:Totally forgot to bring up another gripe I have with the film. I think he meant literally the entire length. Of all the niggles to point out haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
How else could he have meant it, figuratively? And while I'm at it, the little kids who were taken at the beginning, have also been through the entire train. So there are three other people in the same room who have also been through the entire length of the train, but the dialogue tries to make the viewer think Evans was the only one. Just another lazy, stupid thing that makes this film a lot worse than it could have been.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
She wasn't at the back, she was at the front of where the back starts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:She wasn't at the back, she was at the front of where the back starts. This. Unless you were pointing out my correct use of the word literally and trying to be clever?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:How else could he have meant it, figuratively? Are you legitimately assuming this is the first and only revolution attempt to occur on this train? Because I'm like 100% sure the intended meaning behind "you're the first one to make it the entire length of this train" is "you're the first person who's tried to take over that actually made it to this point", which is why he switches to tempting Curtis with power, rather than crushing him under the boot of authority - he deems Curtis "worthy" of taking control, like Gilliam believed, and knows at this point an old man and a woman aren't going to be able to stop a young, strapping and impoverished former cannibal by force. So, actually, yes, he meant it in a figurative sense. An allegorical sense, even.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:This. Wrong. Literally the length of the train means every car. It is pointed out before Evans character is allowed to stand in the heart of the engine so when it's said he still hasn't literally travelled the entire length of the train. The other girl (and the kids) have also been in every single car. Literally doesn't work in this sense because it's incorrect. The Cameo posted:So, actually, yes, he meant it in a figurative sense. An allegorical sense, even. This makes more sense to me, and works with the overall allegory of the story. It still bothers me, though, because I know it's still inaccurate even if it's just said to prove a point, a point that is explained more straight forward within the next 5 minutes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
"Hey, it's a metaphor. Don't think too much on individual craziness" which is a completely fine and valid opinion. I agree with it 100%. The only problem is a movie has to hold up its end of the bargain. It can be crazy and over the top and just plain wrong in a lot of areas so long as the real meat of the movie, the characters and the plot and the meaning, stand up on its own. Snowpiercer fails completely at this. With this movie we get scene after scene with obvious and uninspired ideas. Cliche layered on top of cliche. One of the largest reasons to place stories in science fiction settings is to present current topics in new circumstances and unfamiliar atmospheres. Giving something that someone takes for granted and tweaking it a bit so they look at it differently. Snowpiercer took the idea of classism and oppression and twisted into such a ridiculous farce of reality that any point it was trying to make became laughable. Yeah, we steal your babies and turn them into zombie machine parts! MWA HA HA HA! Eat bugs you worthless scum! We're gonna all get crazy high in our opium dens and 24 hour rave cabins. We engineer all these revolutions just so we can cull your population. Like... we would somehow need a reason when we have ALL THE loving POWER. We could just go in and kill people if we want or take them up to another cabin where you don't know what happens to them and kill them there. We do steal your children and have been doing that for a while and you guys are cool with that. But hey, let's make this poo poo really elaborate. Look at our teacher repeating the most idiotic school lessons over and over. Subtlety? What the gently caress is that? She's gonna be an over the top disney princess teaching Hitler youth. Oh man, they oppressed us so hard we started eating... BABIES! That guy was so noble he cut off his own arm to feed people! This would be a good movie to show to mock people trying to fight against the dangers of class imbalances because it takes a complicated and real problem and turns it into a cartoon world with zero weight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
That line "I know that babies taste the best" garnered some well deserved groans from my audience. That little monologue wasn't entirely misplaced and it served the story well but that line was loving stupid. Also babies would certainly not be the best tasting humans. They have almost no muscle density whatsoever. It would be like eating an entire meal of fatty steak. Gross
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:That line "I know that babies taste the best" garnered some well deserved groans from my audience. That little monologue wasn't entirely misplaced and it served the story well but that line was loving stupid. Suckling pig is a baby pig. Why would humans be different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
pitlo posted:"Hey, it's a metaphor. Don't think too much on individual craziness" which is a completely fine and valid opinion. I agree with it 100%. The only problem is a movie has to hold up its end of the bargain. It can be crazy and over the top and just plain wrong in a lot of areas so long as the real meat of the movie, the characters and the plot and the meaning, stand up on its own. Snowpiercer fails completely at this. With this movie we get scene after scene with obvious and uninspired ideas. Cliche layered on top of cliche. One of the largest reasons to place stories in science fiction settings is to present current topics in new circumstances and unfamiliar atmospheres. Giving something that someone takes for granted and tweaking it a bit so they look at it differently. Snowpiercer took the idea of classism and oppression and twisted into such a ridiculous farce of reality that any point it was trying to make became laughable. I think it's the opposite. I think Snowpiercer is an excellent example of a science fiction movie doing exactly what you set out as being the goal, which, as you'll notice, is basically allegorical to a core. Especially in terms of class struggle and relations of power, Snowpiercer is definitely one of the more unique takes on it I've seen in a while. And this is the thing - people are assuming that the movie is primarily functioning as a commentary on class, but people keep complaining about the film not making sense because its imagery doesn't function coherently as the standard poor-vs.-rich class antagonism. People are hitting upon the fact that Bong uses class imagery in a context where the oppression isn't really class based, because class only functions as an expression of oppression and not as the justification for it. The so-called elites of this film are trying to retroactively reset the post-apocalypse of only fifteen years from now back to what they consider 'zero,' which means perpetuating their hedonistic desires through a divinely mandated caste system in which there are the Brahmin at the front, the Kshatriya in the form of the hatchet-wielding soldiers, the Vaishya and Sudra who serve the 'equilibrium' of the train, and, finally, the Untouchables, the non-caste at the very rear which, as people keep pointing out but keep missing the point, serve no purpose other than to suffer.* Clearly, the oppression that's occurring in Bong's film is an allegory not of wealth apathy, because the wealthy are the ones keeping the Untouchables alive, because their very suffering is the key to their new state religion. Snowpiercer is not just about class struggle. If it were, why would Bong choose a horizontal metaphor instead of a vertical one (which would have been the real cliche). Rather, Snowpiercer is about class struggle as an expression of the sadism which underlies national religions, the sustenance of a feeble under-class who, in effect, perpetually represent the divine. (Notice that Harris can not operate the engine himself. He needs two children to do it. But not just any children. He doesn't groom the elites, who are destined to become drug-addled Club Kids. This is a society which has made the conscious decision to only give the responsibility of its survival to its weakest members.) The absence of a unique 'working class' for the spectator to identify with is actually the film's genius. Because what the Untouchable experiences is fundamentally unlike anything most of the spectators will ever get, the assumption is that Bong sees us as more similar to the oppressors, than the oppressed. It's actually the superficial, ooh-rah, Every Man's revolt movie that is the cliche, attempting to get get the spectator to identify with a 'revolution' that they don't actually support. But the Untouchables of Snowpiercer are clearly not meant to represent us, but the people who should come and get us. Saying that Snowpiercer works fine as an allegory but doesn't hold up as a sci-fi action story is deflecting the point that the allegory is the story. People didn't like the allegory, so they don't like the story. This is unfortunate (though it doesn't really matter, since I would prefer that not everybody like a film that I do think is very subversive, otherwise it wouldn't be subversion), because it means these audiences are missing out and failing to appreciate the subversion that lies at the heart of the climax of the film. Which is that this is not the Wachowskis' V for Vendetta, where we all get to feel real good about putting on identical masks and pretending we have solidarity. Bong at least has the balls to make a film that says, "Nope. Sorry. You're still a baby-eater. It's just some of you have the privilege to cover up your shame." Speaking of V for Vendetta, is there anybody who would similarly claim about Alan Moore's novel that it is somehow anti-revolutionary or conservative because it ends with a gang rape? Where are people getting this idea that revolution is supposed to be pretty, and that therefore depicting its consequences as ambiguous and volatile means you are against it? The whole point of Snowpiercer is that the current order of forced harmony between the castes doesn't work, that it's just the excuse for sustaining oppression. This is the thing. I don't think people are dishonestly reacting to the film's themes. I think they're honestly reacting to its implicit demonization of them as spectators who come to be analogues of the oppressors onscreen. This is fine! Bong comes from a place of privilege as an artist who is getting national funding! This is very similar to the reaction to Haneke's Funny Games: What makes Haneke's sadistic violence different from the content he is supposedly emulating and criticizing? There is actually an answer to this question: Because Haneke creates a scenario where a 'class revolt' effectively occurs, but only perpetuates a cycle of sadistic violence. This is the point of the twist in Snowpiercer: If you took pleasure in the killing by the Untouchables of the elites, then you are not Curtis, you are still Minister Mason, sitting in the dark, with her night vision goggles, watching oppression from the point-of-view of the oppressors. Oh, this happens in the movie. * Or are people still taking the classicist pigs at face value when they say that their goal is equilibrium and order? Please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Awesome post. It's bang on, people come in expecting a 99% vs 1% film but its completely not. Its a revolt of the of the demonized poor, the truly poor victims of structural inequality whose job is to sit their and take the abuse til someone has a need for them. As you say, most of the people who watch this film would be an antagonist in the allegory. They would hold up the status quo as necessary, there needs to be some sort of order. They would argue with a straight face for dismantling social safety nets, or ensuring they never come back. They can't imagine a system that can work without that structural inequality and will fight against anyone who would disrupt that safe space. They can't wage a revolution because they have too much of their current identity tied to the status quo, and they have no intention to sacrifice that. The film's subversion is rejecting the position other films like Elysium have taken and insisting that the system won't change if nicer people take over the head, because the system is broken and the inequality is structural. The significance of the line "You're the only person to have walked the length of the train" is that it represents a person who has lived/observed every part of the system at play, from the tailie poverty, to the middle class, to the decadence of the head. Wilfred believed that this would give Curtis perspective, that everything does need to have a place, order, that structural inequality is necessary for the survival of the system. Unfortunately for Wilfred, Curtis agreed that the system was necessary FOR THE TRAIN, but that the train was not worth saving because of the farce of society it had become. The climax of the film was the rejection of the safe and clean revolution, acknowledging that if we did rise up and truly smash the system, we would be starting from scratch. I love that the sacrifice at the end was this forced upon them decision, where they protected people who have no idea or understanding what the old world was and how it was supposed to work. Its humanity cutting adrift it's dead weight to try and create something better in its place, but we don't give them good odds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Tezzeract posted:After all, in the start of the movie, the radical solution to global warming got them in the mess - the Chekhov's gun waiting to be fired. How is that an example of Chekhov's gun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Great posts, so true. Opened my mind a bit more to the film, especially the significance of the 'other door'. I imagine the polar bear at the end ate the two survivors. thehomemaster fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
I did enjoy this overall, although the plot holes did detract a little. I'll add another: So, no one in 18 years ever looked out a window and noticed a loving polar bear before?. But I liked that it went a different direction than the typical dystopian overthrow-the-evil-system genre. The film had very much the feel of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite. Especially Infinite, in which class was an inherent part of the society. Kestral posted:Just how graphically violent is Snowpiercer? I'm intrigued by what I've heard and not averse to some shootouts and brawling, but explicit gore and torture can ruin a movie for me. Despite what others have said, there was most definitely one specific Saw-like scene of torture porn. It was totally unrelated to shootouts, which is maybe how people forgot about it. If it helps your decision, the actual gore was offscreen, and the victim didn't seem too bothered by it in the long term. The suspense during the scene was dreadful, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
I had a grand old time at this film, didn't think it was the best movie I've ever seen but enjoyed it a lot. However, I will treasure it as a way to differentiate which of my friends are capable of understanding allegory and which are really mad about trains.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Recess Monkey posted:I did enjoy this overall, although the plot holes did detract a little. I'll add another: So, no one in 18 years ever looked out a window and noticed a loving polar bear before?. Well for the people in the back at least, I think it was implied they never get to look outside. I seem to recall when they finally get to a window they are in awe of seeing the outside world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Well for the people in the back at least, I think it was implied they never get to look outside. I seem to recall when they finally get to a window they are in awe of seeing the outside world. It's also just not a plot hole. A plot hole is not something that isn't explained or is only partially explained in a film. A plot hole is when an event in a film contradicts a previous event, and this contradiction is never explained or rationalized within the structure of the rest of the story. The polar bear being present at the end does not in any sense contradict characters previously believing that all life on Earth was extinct. That's even the whole point and beauty of the image. Same thing with the, "Oh, how did they know or how is it possible that the place they end up just happens to be warm enough." It's trying real hard at missing the point. The answer is: It's the Holocaust. Stop complaining about reason; all we have left is faith. This movie is the action equivalent of Salo. It's explicitly comparing contemporary, global capitalism to genocidal fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Yeah, that was my read on it too - it really hates global capitalism, but it's not sure whether there's anything better, and it plays with the idea that maybe human extinction is the only hope for a better world. Pretty brutal. The polar bear just popped in from Lost, it's clearly pretty confused.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Yeah, that was my read on it too - it really hates global capitalism, but it's not sure whether there's anything better, and it plays with the idea that maybe human extinction is the only hope for a better world. Pretty brutal. Yona and Timmy leaving the destroyed train is fairly clear Garden of Eden imagery. It's implicitly hopeful. There's two ways one can read the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden. The more traditional reading is to see it as the Fall of Man; of the exile from paradise, and the beginning of human misery. The other way, of course, is to see it as an escape. Humankind in the Garden was composed of two people, completely immortal, perpetually blinded to the Truth of good and evil. They were caught in an eternal stasis, a perfect equilibrium, with no death (and, thus, no joy or happiness). The serpent leads Eve to the Tree of Knowledge, which leads to her realizing the true nature of the world as an imperfect, flawed creation. It's only after leaving the Garden that the actual human experience (of pain and suffering, but also life and hope) begins. This is played up during the ending. Yona comes to see the "truth" of the world (its underlying misery - the knowledge of evil), which is what then guides Curtis to destroy the train, rather than attempting to maintain the equilibrium of the "Garden." Yona and Timmy, as Adam and Eve, leave the stagnant equilibrium in order to create a new, human world. Like the ending to A Canticle for Leibowitz, the second exile from Eden is painful, but necessary. It opens up the possibility of a new start for humankind buttressed by the knowledge of what came before, and how to avoid its past mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
Vermain posted:Yona and Timmy leaving the destroyed train is fairly clear Garden of Eden imagery. It's implicitly hopeful. I really think this 'escape' interpretation is spot on, and since you've covered the reading of its conclusion as kind of an optimistic, oppositional telling of the Old Testament, it should also be pointed out that the optimistic conclusion is consistent with the subversion of New Testament imagery. C. S. Lewis's whole thing was that it wasn't enough to believe Jesus was a good teacher; you had to believe he was the Son of God because otherwise his death was just another meaningless statistic and there really is no hope for mankind. Gilliam is a Christ figure in the film; he literally gives Curtis his own flesh in exchange for the child, a sacrifice for the other man's sin. But it is revealed that Gilliam cares more about life than he does about freedom. He believes so devoutly in the essential preservation of life that he ends up being exploited by Wilford. (Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.) But in an ironic twist, his ultimate death, the one from which there is no resurrection, severs Curtis's last tie to the world he knows. This allows him to follow in Gilliam's footsteps, losing his own arm and life in the process, but making way for the true liberation of man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:01
|
|