love

Author Topic: Snowpiercer  (Read 8612 times)

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2014, 01:57:42 PM »
Swinton reminded me of one of my favorite characters on The League of Gentlemen:


don s.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2025
  • You had me at "Hello, here's $50."
    • my movie collection
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2014, 03:32:45 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....

Yeah, that was a weak spot. Somehow a giant stewpot full of insects is the ultimate horror, but the same thing filled with crawfish or blue crabs or shrimp is the hit of the party. It's the same thing, people!

But I guess when you've developed a taste for infants, arthropods just won't do.
My TV ain't HD / that's too real

Teal | Green | Lime Green | Orange | Red

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2014, 08:06:50 PM »
Yes, so weird to find eating insects disgusting!  ::)

There's too much thinking going on here whereas the film is mostly about action and feeling. Yes, it is nutritious and good to eat, but it's about being forced to eat this food, it's about being forced to endure hardships in the good name of fascist capitalism. There was better food on the ship. I understand the point if you're removing yourself from the film (which would essentially mean you're nitpicking at it), but putting yourself in the mindset of these characters, it's understandable that they are revolted at it. It doesn't mean you have to be revolted by it, it just means that you should feel empathetic towards their feelings.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2014, 08:13:01 PM »
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?

By obliterating the door, the film says that all government institutions, whether it be fascism or communism, cannot be continued because they ultimately keep the world turning by sacrificing the young. When the door is destroyed, they are letting the chaos of the world truly in. They are venturing out into the crazy, reckless world that rejected them because they will not let themselves be subjugated by a ruler again. They are breaking out of the system.

The film makes the best case for anarchy in a long, long time by extending the Marxist criticisms of capitalism in a purely visual and Campbellian way.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 08:39:19 PM by Totoro »

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2014, 08:34:22 PM »
Well, yeah, I guess, but those two kids are probably going to die, right? If the exposure doesn't get them (remember, they don't have any demonstrable survival skills), that polar bear probably will. Is it really the best option?
Check out my blog of many topics

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

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2014, 08:38:30 PM »
Well, yeah, I guess, but those two kids are probably going to die, right? If the exposure doesn't get them (remember, they don't have any demonstrable survival skills), that polar bear probably will. Is it really the best option?

Does it really matter? The choice has been made. The film argues that it's better for humanity to die completely rather than being stuck in an endless cycle of government oppression. It's nihilism I can ultimately get behind - much like Carpenter's apocalyptic ending of THE THING.

They could very well live. They thought that all life was obliterated, but a polar bear lives. Could that mean some people lived? Quite possibly. Or not.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 08:40:05 PM by Totoro »

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2014, 08:48:41 PM »
Do the consequences of actions matter? Not to the film, or at least not their specifics. Anarchism is dumb, anyways, who's going to pave my streets if the guv'ment isn't around anymore?
Check out my blog of many topics

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

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2014, 09:44:58 PM »
Either you're using sarcasm to concede to my point or using it as an attempt to refute me? I do not understand your point.

The lesser of two evils is to stop the system altogether and put your trust in the chaos of the world. The US invaded Iraq without UN approval. Our governments live in an anarchic world, but we, individuals, do not.

What's the Richard Linklater quote? Life is all about moving from a no to a yes? Life is all about learning to surrender to the fact that we do not control our own lives? The illusion of control? Then the only real choice is to make a new choice. Mu. The question is wrong. It's not "to kill Wilford or not kill Wilford", it's find a new way to survive rather than just take control because control is an illusion.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2014, 09:53:01 PM »
I do think anarchy is dumb, but the rest was just jokes, man.

If the choice I have to make is between my current life and the one facing those two kids, I think I'll take my current one. Am I evil because of that? Am I empowering a corrupt system? Maybe. But the situation in the film is deliberately absurd, as well. A satirical allegory is fine for talking grand ideas, but it isn't very good for human interactions. I generally care more about the latter, and thus the film is lesser for its focus on the former. Maybe if Capt. Am. had made the decision to blow up the door, or even know that that was an option, maybe I'd be more interested. But those characters that escape? Who are they? Why should I care about them other than in the abstract? I don't, it's a problem.
Check out my blog of many topics

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

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2014, 10:35:00 PM »
I cared about them. They were innocents, people born on the train. It's fitting that the people who die on the train were alive when the train was boarded. These two are our Adam and Eve. In that way, the ending reminded me most of CHILDREN OF MEN. Even I wasn't thoroughly convinced that the people wouldn't pervert their use of the baby in that film, but I had hope for the future of humanity. Even I didn't care as much for her as I did for the lead of that film, but she and her offspring were innocents so I did ultimately care for their survival.

 

love