love

Author Topic: Snowpiercer  (Read 8613 times)

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2014, 06:52:47 PM »
I think that polar bear was gonna eat well. That's the ending I was waiting for.
Hey, nice marmot!

jascook

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 491
  • Cue the sun
    • Jas Watches Movies:  The Blog
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2014, 08:15:37 PM »
This movie is a MOVIE. Like, I walked out and said, "WHAT A MOVIE!" I couldn't even explain it. Such a thrill, such a rush, so much going on, so much detail, loved everything about it.

I got some major METROPOLIS vibes with the ending and just with the general use of children here. Did anyone else?

Definitely.  I'd go so far as to say that had to be intentional.  The teacher explaining the tail section survivors to the children both paid homage to the corresponding scene in Metropolis, and--by referring to them as dirty morons and such--subverted it completely.

I felt pretty much like you did after this movie, Totoro.  I'm going to have to see it at least once more just to process it all.
Sara: Good-bye, father Isak. Can't you see you're the one I love? Today, tomorrow and forever.
Isak Borg: I'll keep that in mind.

jascook

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 491
  • Cue the sun
    • Jas Watches Movies:  The Blog
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2014, 08:23:09 PM »
I think that polar bear was gonna eat well. That's the ending I was waiting for.

I couldn't help but wonder what would happen next.  Only two humans left alive (as far as we know), one a young woman, the other a five-year-old boy.  Procreation will be very tricky, assuming they can even keep themselves alive until the boy can grow up, and then reproduce quickly before Yona goes through menopause.
Sara: Good-bye, father Isak. Can't you see you're the one I love? Today, tomorrow and forever.
Isak Borg: I'll keep that in mind.

Alan Smithee

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
    • http://cherrypicker.tumblr.com/
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2014, 11:25:11 PM »
This movie is a MOVIE. Like, I walked out and said, "WHAT A MOVIE!" I couldn't even explain it. Such a thrill, such a rush, so much going on, so much detail, loved everything about it.

I got some major METROPOLIS vibes with the ending and just with the general use of children here. Did anyone else?

I also got a Game of Death vibe, in that they have to go through different levels.


What was in the protein bars when he looked inside that door? It looked like crabs.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2014, 11:45:54 PM »
Pretty sure protein bricks were insect based. That scene really annoyed me because it assumes rational revulsion. Yet in reality insects may hold the salvation of humanity because it is the most efficient source of protein on the planet. Turning insects into a food source would be a great way to fight both poverty and climate change. Treating doing this as a cruel and disgusting thing that rich people forced on poor people frames it in a terrible light that simply does not help at all.

Anyway, I too was pondering how causing the train to derail violently, killing 99% of the remaining human population was considered a viable outcome. I guess at that point they decided better to end humanity than let it continue living in a cruel and unjust society. Don't know that procreation is relevant. Even if the weather is no longer sure death, it still doesn't look like it would usefully support their life unless they have crazy survivalist training.

I was just totally underwhelmed with the economics of the film. I think the whole "balance" argument isn't a particularly strong representation of the viewpoint of the wealthy (writing the tail off as sucking off the teat certainly is), and the rebellion had shockingly little conception of what they hoped to achieve. Were they going to enact socialism, was it going to be able to function or would it destroy the sustainability of the ecosystem? If they really were going to go with this whole ecosystem argument, show me why messing with the vast inequality would or would not allow that ecosystem to remain stable, don't just let one side rant about the doom and then have it end. Like I said in my proper review, I do think the sushi bar part came closest to hitting a decent balance but as a whole it just didn't.

Finally, I generally am not fond of Tilda Swinton, but this may be her worst performance yet. Yikes!

Alan Smithee

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
    • http://cherrypicker.tumblr.com/
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2014, 01:03:54 AM »
Pretty sure protein bricks were insect based. That scene really annoyed me because it assumes rational revulsion. Yet in reality insects may hold the salvation of humanity because it is the most efficient source of protein on the planet. Turning insects into a food source would be a great way to fight both poverty and climate change. Treating doing this as a cruel and disgusting thing that rich people forced on poor people frames it in a terrible light that simply does not help at all.




Also, how does global warming freeze the earth? Wouldn't it be the opposite?



Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2014, 01:05:54 AM »
The geoengineering to combat global warming is what triggered the ice age. Eating insects may prevent us from having to do the geoengineering type craziness that they attempted here. There are real hypotheses about how we would do things to cool the planet if we needed to.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2014, 01:11:46 AM »
Bondo (and others, I guess), what think you of the idea brought up in some podcast I was listening to that the movie maybe isn't as pro-revolutionary as we might initially think. The system they have generally works, right? A few sacrifices keep everybody relatively safe. And what if the stuff Ed Harris was spouting about the revolutions just being population control was correct? I don't think the movie ever comes down either way on that. If the movie is supposed to get us cheering for a revolution, it does a pretty poor job. But if it is saying that revolutions are all a part of the same corrupt (but necessary?) system that they are supposedly fighting against, maybe it is pretty effective? I think that the ambiguity here is a problem with the film, but it's also quite interesting, non?
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

Alan Smithee

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
    • http://cherrypicker.tumblr.com/
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2014, 01:21:03 AM »
I really liked the opening title sequence with the planes and the chemtrails.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2014, 01:21:50 AM »
War, historically, has been a great way to kill off second (and subsequent) born males, at a time when property was given entirely to the first born male. Think the Crusades. Or if you have an excess of males because of sex-selective abortion/infanticide, that can lead to violence. So I perfectly buy the orchestration of violence to thin the herd.

As to whether the film may actually side with Harris? It certainly would be extreme utilitarianism, basically that the suffering of the masses is maximizing of the well being of the whole, that the alternative is destruction. That would jibe with the sushi scene and what I claimed as bourgeois activism, the developed world gets rich off carbon fuels, devastates the world in the process, and then demands that everyone cease carbon, preventing the other countries from developing. On the other hand, if India and China develop on carbon to our levels, the world ends. It is actually a difficult problem. This is where a more nuanced parable might succeed compared to what we get. As it is, as a socialist, while I can accept a relatively fixed quantity of goods, I do not accept that a distinctly unequal distribution is an essential component of balance.