|
Curtis is corrupted by the very fact that he lived as an adult on the train. Like the ending of Children of Men or The Dark Knight Rises the imperfect hero of the imperfect world must die so the young can bring on a better world. Curtis may not be a bad person or at least been a person who genuinely sought out redemption, but none of the adults on the train can really create a better world nor could a better world be created on the train. The whole system had to collapse and the kids had to be freed to potentially make something better.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Curtis is corrupted by the very fact that he lived as an adult on the train. Like the ending of Children of Men or The Dark Knight Rises the imperfect hero of the imperfect world must die so the young can bring on a better world. Curtis may not be a bad person or at least been a person who genuinely sought out redemption, but none of the adults on the train can really create a better world nor could a better world be created on the train. The whole system had to collapse and the kids had to be freed to potentially make something better. A classroom of children and another boy forced to work in the engine are also assumed to be dead by the end of the movie. Truly, they are the future of the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:The most Curtis ever learns is that the train is bad, which the movie constantly reminds us each time it gets. The only reason he changes his mind from ruling the train to leaving it was because children were forced to toil for it (because the train is bad, you see). His death is never really portayed as an intentional sacrifice since the derailment could've end up sparing or killing them all anyways. Curtis goes from believing the problem is with the train's leadership to understanding that the problem is the train itself. In both literal and allegorical terms, this is a huge leap, the difference between thinking the solution to America's problems is to elect a Democrat or understanding the massive institutional flaws that transcend the specific person at the top. The film explicitly establishes losing an arm as represenative of self-sacrifice, which is why it's so important that Curtis has not done it; ultimately, he wants to lead, to be in charge, to run the system, and to do that, he'll need two arms (a statement Gilliam directly endorses). Only at the end, when he realizes the problem is the system itself and not the man at the head of the system doe she lose the selfishness 'keeping' his arm and make the necessary sacrifice. Harold Krell posted:The movie loses a lot of nuance by having predictable and flat characters. The people in the back of the train are crude, yet have an innocent beauty to them like how that one guy draws pictures of things, yet I can't think of anyone in the front of the train that we're really supposed to sympathize with. Even wise people like Gilliam lament that life in the world outside the train is gone. The guy that did find out there was life outside the train found out by simply looking out the window. Why did no one else notice? Are we to assume that after years of observation, no one else thought life outside the train was a possibility? So the bulk of the people who have the most to gain from observing the landscape and proving there is life outside (the back of the train) are deliberately kept in windowless quarters unable to look outside (likely for this exact reason). That means the only people who could determine there was life outside were the front of the trainers, who lived in opulence and had nothing to gain from this. More importantly, it's not like the guy just looked out the window and saw a bear; he guessed there was life by using a persistent analytical method (looking at the same landmark year after year) and even his system was unreliable and distrusted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:There were more things wrong with this movie other than the premise of the last of humanity living on a train. None of the characters really had any depth and were only used to prove points that really didn't make any sense. Are you so used to mainstream film-making, with its happy endings and relative few main character deaths, that a movie having a somber ending is seen as a criticism? Because I am struggling to find any real criticisms in your post. You talk about a polar bear and people on the train not knowing about it, as if you were ignoring the fact that ignorance being manifest on the train was one of Snowpiercer's key themes, and that's what you use to call this a dumb movie. Are people so loving galvanized by the internet that everything has to be amazing or loving stupid? Again, I felt this movie stumbled at the end, because I felt the director was so focused on the allegorical meaning of the train that I found myself losing my empathic connection with its characters in favor of something more cerebral, so when the explosions happened at the end I could only hmm at it rather than being emotionally distraught over it. But that doesn't mean I think this movie is "dumb" (loving juvenile thing to say about a movie). I just think that Snowpiercer was almost a rare example of an original sci fi movie that has incredibly interesting things to say (I mean, its crazy that this movie exists in this movie climate) with a handful of incredibly iconic scenes, is by the end exactly that, with a slight stumble towards its finish. I worry about what some of you guys would have said when Silent Running came out. Or even Logan's Run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:So the bulk of the people who have the most to gain from observing the landscape and proving there is life outside (the back of the train) are deliberately kept in windowless quarters unable to look outside (likely for this exact reason). That means the only people who could determine there was life outside were the front of the trainers, who lived in opulence and had nothing to gain from this. More importantly, it's not like the guy just looked out the window and saw a bear; he guessed there was life by using a persistent analytical method (looking at the same landmark year after year) and even his system was unreliable and distrusted. There are no windows in the front section either (or at least from the sauna onwards). Only the middle section can see out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:There are no windows in the front section either (or at least from the sauna onwards). Only the middle section can see out. And they're subject to heavy propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:A classroom of children and another boy forced to work in the engine are also assumed to be dead by the end of the movie. Truly, they are the future of the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Curtis goes from believing the problem is with the train's leadership to understanding that the problem is the train itself. In both literal and allegorical terms, this is a huge leap, the difference between thinking the solution to America's problems is to elect a Democrat or understanding the massive institutional flaws that transcend the specific person at the top. The film explicitly establishes losing an arm as represenative of self-sacrifice, which is why it's so important that Curtis has not done it; ultimately, he wants to lead, to be in charge, to run the system, and to do that, he'll need two arms (a statement Gilliam directly endorses). Only at the end, when he realizes the problem is the system itself and not the man at the head of the system doe she lose the selfishness 'keeping' his arm and make the necessary sacrifice. But nearly everyone in the world ended up dying because of his sacrifice. What's the point of resetting the system if there's no one to support? Z. Autobahn posted:So the bulk of the people who have the most to gain from observing the landscape and proving there is life outside (the back of the train) are deliberately kept in windowless quarters unable to look outside (likely for this exact reason). That means the only people who could determine there was life outside were the front of the trainers, who lived in opulence and had nothing to gain from this. More importantly, it's not like the guy just looked out the window and saw a bear; he guessed there was life by using a persistent analytical method (looking at the same landmark year after year) and even his system was unreliable and distrusted. It's still far-fetched to assume that after all the years of being on that train that only one person noticed what was happening in the world outside. I'm pretty sure there were at least a few engineers and scientists on board who would be able to deduce this. Shageletic posted:Are you so used to mainstream film-making, with its happy endings and relative few main character deaths, that a movie having a somber ending is seen as a criticism? Because I am struggling to find any real criticisms in your post. You talk about a polar bear and people on the train not knowing about it, as if you were ignoring the fact that ignorance being manifest on the train was one of Snowpiercer's key themes, and that's what you use to call this a dumb movie. I'm not saying Snowpiercer is dumb because I just don't like and am dismissing it as stupid, but because it simply isn't a very smart movie. The movie is rife with long scenes of exposition, it constantly needs to remind the audience that the train is not a good thing in the most hamhanded ways possible ("babies taste the best", food bars made from bugs, child labor used to power the train, etc.), and aside from some broad strokes about class struggle, the movie never goes into anything else with much thought. No one in the front of the train has any redeeming qualities, people chosen from the back of the train to be in the front of the train are just brainwashed somehow into doing their new roles, and the only cars in the train we see aside from the back are ones dedicated to decadence, praising Wilford, or keeping the back of the train in line through violence. People say that there's this allegory about the train being some type of "unfixable system" that needs to be done away with, which I guess happens with it derailing and all. But in the end, there isn't even a system anymore, most of these people's lives aren't made better because of this since they're all dead, and this is all suppose to be a positive ending because two random children survive and life will go on. My dislike of this movie has nothing to do with it not being "mainstream". Godfather and Chinatown are both well-renowned movies that have bittersweet endings, but if you think Snowpiercer has the same amount of subtlety and characterization as those, then you're mistaken. After all, you're talking about a movie that ends dangerously similarly to the timeless classic Knowing. Timeless Appeal posted:Those children are non-people. The children running the train have been stripped of any sense of humanity and are just a part of the train, but the same can be said for the children in the classroom. They run on propaganda designed to ensure that they will grow up to maintain the status quo. That's the core allegory of the film. The train is not a vessel to maintain humanity; People are just cogs used to maintain the train. That's the tragedy of Curtis. He wants to be a revolutionary, only to discover his revolution is just another of the train's mechanisms. That is the dramatic stake of the child. He is to literally become a part of the train. He's being turned into a robot. The arm bit is less about sacrifice, and more Curtis's rejection of the train altogether. He no longer sees the train has something that can be refined or made just. He becomes an obstruction for the train rather than a cog. He gives freedom to the child. They are children who have not been indoctrinated or broken. Curtis stops Timmy from being part of the train, and so they have the potential to start the new world. But wasn't there another kid that went to the front of the train at the same time as Timmy? What makes Timmy more eligible to survive in the world than that kid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:And they're subject to heavy propaganda. I was thinking more about what this means viz the front sectioners - it's not so much that the front sectioners choose to maintain the train in the face of an alternative but that to them there is only the train. It mirrors what Ha-Joon Chang has detailed with a depressing number of top economic and political figures believing that all national wealth ever was created by application of neoliberal policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I was thinking more about what this means viz the front sectioners - it's not so much that the front sectioners choose to maintain the train in the face of an alternative but that to them there is only the train. It mirrors what Ha-Joon Chang has detailed with a depressing number of top economic and political figures believing that all national wealth ever was created by application of neoliberal policy. There was an SMG post where he pointed out that there a more films where the world ends than where anything replaces capitalism. 50 years ago, there was a discussion about what the future would be, communist, capitalist, marxist, now the eternal existence of capitalism is pretty much assumed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:There was an SMG post where he pointed out that there a more films where the world ends than where anything replaces capitalism. 50 years ago, there was a discussion about what the future would be, communist, capitalist, marxist, now the eternal existence of capitalism is pretty much assumed. That's just a Zizek quote from his hagiography by Astra Taylor: "Think about the strangeness of today's situation. Thirty, forty years ago, we were still debating about what the future will be: communist, fascist, capitalist, whatever. Today, nobody even debates these issues. We all silently accept global capitalism is here to stay. On the other hand, we are obsessed with cosmic catastrophes: the whole life on earth disintegrating, because of some virus, because of an asteroid hitting the earth, and so on. So the paradox is, that it's much easier to imagine the end of all life on earth than a much more modest radical change in capitalism."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:That's just a Zizek quote from his hagiography by Astra Taylor: That's the one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:But nearly everyone in the world ended up dying because of his sacrifice. What's the point of resetting the system if there's no one to support? Yes. That is the question the film asks: if the only options are between surviving in a monstrously unjust society or tearing it down through violent revolution with many innocent casualties, which do you choose? This isn't some far-fetched, implausible conondrum either, it's a very real one that has come up many times in human history. I feel like you're taking the movie way too literally. Harold Krell posted:It's still far-fetched to assume that after all the years of being on that train that only one person noticed what was happening in the world outside. I'm pretty sure there were at least a few engineers and scientists on board who would be able to deduce this. We were shown exactly zero scientists or engineers. Why would you presume there were any on board? Harold Krell posted:I'm not saying Snowpiercer is dumb because I just don't like and am dismissing it as stupid, but because it simply isn't a very smart movie. The movie is rife with long scenes of exposition, it constantly needs to remind the audience that the train is not a good thing in the most hamhanded ways possible ("babies taste the best", food bars made from bugs, child labor used to power the train, etc.), and aside from some broad strokes about class struggle, the movie never goes into anything else with much thought. No one in the front of the train has any redeeming qualities, people chosen from the back of the train to be in the front of the train are just brainwashed somehow into doing their new roles, and the only cars in the train we see aside from the back are ones dedicated to decadence, praising Wilford, or keeping the back of the train in line through violence. Two things. First, most of your complaints are that the movie isn't subtle. Subtle isn't the same thing as smart. Many smart works are subtle, sure, but there are also many great works of fiction, art, cinema that are not subtle in the least but are still smart and impactful. This is especially true in the area of allegory and satire. Animal Farm isn't subtle in the least, but that doesn't make it not smart. Second, you keep saying the movie isn't saying much, but then in the same breath stumbling over the philosophical questions it raises. While most dystopian society films posit a fixable society (i.e. a bunker with bad leadership), the entire point of Snowpiercer is creating a state that cannot be salvaged from within, whose very existence necessitates injustice, and then challenging the viewer between the moral conundrum of destroying it (at massive cost of life and a deeply uncertain future) or accepting it and the ensuing injustice. Literally the complaints you're bringing up about the ending are the movie's intelligent point, and one that few dystopian films are willing to address. Harold Krell posted:People say that there's this allegory about the train being some type of "unfixable system" that needs to be done away with, which I guess happens with it derailing and all. But in the end, there isn't even a system anymore, most of these people's lives aren't made better because of this since they're all dead, and this is all suppose to be a positive ending because two random children survive and life will go on. I feel like you're overly hung up on this 'positive ending'. It's not a positive ending, like we're dancing the yub yub in the Ewok village. It's a very dark, heavily ambiguous ending with a single hint of a positive note, that maybe from all this chaos and death, life might have a shot at surviving. This is not meant to be a happy 'walk out with a smile' ending. It's intentionally down and destabilizing, especially given that the front of half the movie establishes it as a very convention 'rebels against evil oppressors' story. Harold Krell posted:But wasn't there another kid that went to the front of the train at the same time as Timmy? What makes Timmy more eligible to survive in the world than that kid? It's not like Curtis willfully chose Timmy and let the other kid die. As in most revolution, the deaths of the innocents was not an intentional goal of the revolutionaries, but a byproduct of violent change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Ha, the whole point is that all of humanity is killed. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Obviously some people can't accept that we are all scum. It isn't about restarting. More removing. The Great Flood, but with ice and the only survivors are the animals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Good god this movie is a loving piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Knives and Hot Dust posted:Good god this movie is a loving piece of poo poo.  What a hot take!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Just saw this on netflix, had to get it out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:It's still far-fetched to assume that after all the years of being on that train that only one person noticed what was happening in the world outside. I'm pretty sure there were at least a few engineers and scientists on board who would be able to deduce this. It's far-fetched to assume that after all these years of being in this capitalist nation only one person noticed what was happening in the world outside. I'm pretty sure there were at least a few people around who would be able to deduce this. There are a lot, and yet....
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:The movie was really not very good. A lot of people imply that there is a "change of tone" in the middle but it isn't a change from Dickensian horror to absurdist black comedy like it wants. It's a change from a muddled, confusing, distracting tone to an absurdist black comedy tone. In the beginning of the movie everyone is acting like it's an episode of battle star galactica. Everything is grim and down to earth. This would be fine except for 2 completely tone breaking things. The thing is set on a train and some guy is ham handedly named Gilliam. It completely breaks you out of the movie It broke YOU out of the movie. It didn't break me out of the movie. I greatly enjoyed the movie and when it was over all I could think was "holy poo poo". Doesn't make it perfect, but I'm really glad it was made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
I feel like a great deal of the criticism of this film (in this thread) stems from an important connection between the viewers and some of the characters-they're train obsessed autists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Okay I just saw this movie and I thought it was pretty good. A little bit melodramatic, maybe. Regarding the absurdity of the train and cult and stuff I took it as sort of an absurdist commentary on justice. It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to horrifyingly absurd that a sociopathic train sperg is running a miniature North Korea after the apocalypse, but that absurdity doesn't change the moral imperative that that system must be destroyed. Ultimately though I think the people immediately yelling CAPITALISM when talking about the movie's themes are overblowing things a little, I don't really think it's supposed to be any deeper than that the system is monstrous and has to go no matter what. That's a valid interpretation, sure, but nothing in the film forces such a reading. I sort of feel like some people just can't handle a movie having a simple yet competently executed theme or message without trying to build it into some tenth dimensional metaphor for capitalism. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
It's actually a one dimensional metaphor for capitalism because it's a train. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:It's actually a one dimensional metaphor for capitalism because it's a train. Yeah, seems weird to cry "Nuh uh, it's not capitalism!" when you've got a class system on wheels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Yeah, seems weird to cry "Nuh uh, it's not capitalism!" when you've got a class system on wheels. Capitalism isn't the only structure with a class system! The one thing that works against the capitalist analogy is there's no illusion of mobility. Some kids get "called up" but there's no "work hard and we may let you up front someday!" to lead people on. It's more like feudalism where you're openly tied to your position by birth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Then again we are living in a world dominated by capitalism, not feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Capitalism isn't the only structure with a class system!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Martman posted:Well the violinist (or cellist or whatever) gets to go up to the front just 'cause he's good, right? I think there's kind of a parallel there with the cinematic version of 12 Years a Slave where you see the lead get sold for high prices because he's a skilled violinist. He gets made to play for his owners, and he even gets to make a little extra coin on the side, but he's no less a slave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Why am I suddenly hearing about this movie a ton now? I swear I saw this last year. It was on TV even and it came out of nowhere and I'd never heard of it before so I watched it because it seemed interesting. It was okay.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
It was added to Netflix streaming/etc. last October, so with the holidays over a lot of people probably watched it/started writing about it over the past month compared to the very limited theatrical release.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Ended up watching this again with a friend that hadn't seen it, and the whole "is Yona clairvoyant" thing still bugs me. I can't really think of any allegorical significance it might have, and they never really go anywhere with it despite it being pretty clear that she does know things she shouldn't. Even if she somehow knew the layout of the train beforehand, she wouldn't have known that one of the cars had just been hastily abandoned, that Paul was running before the door opened, or that the hatchet-men were in the traincar (assuming that they are just security getting called in, rather than there being an entire traincar just full of dudes with axes for no reason.) I'm just kind of scratching my head as to what it might mean in the context of a critique of capitalism. I wonder if some stuff related to Yona got left on the cutting room floor; it also kind of felt like they were very subtly implying that the Inuit woman at the front of the Revolt of the Seven might have been her mother.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:I wonder if some stuff related to Yona got left on the cutting room floor; it also kind of felt like they were very subtly implying that the Inuit woman at the front of the Revolt of the Seven might have been her mother. I thought her Dad straight-up told her that woman WAS her mother.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
I also think this movie is poo poo. It's so obvious the train will be destroyed as soon as the lady says "Divine Willford" and "Eternal Engine." It's so obvious the second in command will die as soon as he jumps to save the main character from the hatchet guy that's coming up behind him. It's so obvious the main character will lose his arm after he tells the story to the Korean guy. The most offensive part of the movie to me is that the main character was disgusted that the protein bars were made of bugs and then says "... [human] children taste the best" "... everyone started cutting off their arms and legs [for us to eat.] It was a miracle." If you munched on humans like he did, it's absolute blasphemy to be disgusted about the protein bars. Honestly, I feel their disgusted reactions should have been edited out of the film. The closed ecosystem feels like a stupid catch all to patch up some parts of the plot and severely weakened the film. I'm too lazy to go into further detail. I know Koreans and Japanese hate each other, but this felt like a movie version of a bad JPRG where you can sure as hell can expect the final boss is God(Divine Willford/Eternal Engine) and the world is remade (the train is destroyed and the Earth is actually inhabitable) with some cliche Asian/Apocalyptic Survival crap happening along the way. Safety Scissors fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
GORDON posted:I thought her Dad straight-up told her that woman WAS her mother. All he says is that the person in front was an Inuit woman who taught him everything about ice and snow, and that she used to be a cleaning lady in the front car. Since her mother never comes up as a topic of discussion, I figured we were just meant to connect the dots. Still dunno what's up with her visions, though. edit: ^All of that is intentional. That's how allegory works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Safety Scissors posted:I also think this movie is poo poo. Isn't this pretty much the attitude that the upper classes use against poor people? Sure you eat crushed up roaches while we eat on well prepared steaks and other delicious food, but hey at least you aren't eating babies. So stop whining and take what you get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
I mean it's pretty much just A Modest Proposal, with similar rhetorical aims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
I just watched this and while I enjoyed the aesthetics, any political theme or allegory was completely lost on me. It reminded me of the Matrix prequels. The socio-economic system on the train has little if anything in common with capitalism. Just like in Elysium there are rich people (who are evil) and poor people (who are good) and that's pretty much it. At the end we get another all-knowing Architect. We find out that revolution is futile, that it's just another control mechanism. The real solution, as it turns out, is instead to destroy civilization completely and "return to nature". Apparently humanity's radiant future is to fight polar bears for food in the Ninth Circle of Hell. I can only see this as reactionary nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:I mean it's pretty much just A Modest Proposal, with similar rhetorical aims. How a movie can talk about poor people eating babies to survive, and people can watch that movie, and not get it, is truly a sign of the end times. rip satire u were so young
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Best Giraffe posted:How a movie can talk about poor people eating babies to survive, and people can watch that movie, and not get it, is truly a sign of the end times. rip satire u were so young So Snowpiercer is a satire of early 18th century utilitarian economics? That can't be right. I don't think "getting it" is the problem here. Snowpiercer simply fails as an allegory/polemic/satire due to a lack of ideological clarity and understanding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:So Snowpiercer is a satire of early 18th century utilitarian economics? That can't be right. Snowpiercer obviously doesn't have to correlate 1:1 with any sort of real world or logical situation to be a provocative movie. The train represents a society that is fundamentally flawed to the extent that's its destruction is more just than its continuation. It is a zombie movie where the lifeless husk is humanity itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Sakarja posted:So Snowpiercer is a satire of early 18th century utilitarian economics? That can't be right. So you're saying that the system has little in common with capitalism, but the whole A Modest Proposal reference is a point in favor of it in fact doing that. So let's think about how it connects to A Modest Proposal; obviously there is the baby eating, and the dehumanizing system that rounds people up like cattle, and counts them off so they can dispose of the 'excess', and so on. It also differs, somewhat, in that you have the desperate dregs of society eating children themselves, rather than selling them to the rich, so maybe that's worth pursuing. But films are art, and art is really just supposed to make you think about these things. So does Snowpiercer make you think about these things? Does it raise questions, interesting parallels with our actual world, and does it do so in a way that grips you and holds you into the fictional reality of the movie? If it does, then it has succeeded, and if it didn't, well, then maybe you didn't "get it", or maybe it's just not to your taste, or whatever. But I think that the movie supports this much discussion is proof enough that it succeeds as an allegorical work. I mean, plenty of people got some really interesting readings out of it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 04:34
|
|