Blog 6. Snowpiercer. (South Korea-Czechoslavakia, 2014. Director: Boon Joon-Ho)
Snowpiercer is an adaptation of a 1982 French graphic novel Le Transperceneige. At $40 million, it is the most expensive film made in Korea; it earned $87 million in theaters, and received much critical acclaim, appearing on many top ten lists for 2014. The cable network TNT is developing it as series.
1. Isabel, you raised a terrific question a the end of class today. We're deep in the apocalypse at this point. We've been given several landscapes to endure -- the road, the mall, the train. As Isabel asked, "Where do you want to spend the apocalypse?"
2. Another provocative idea: Moey said that Snowpiercer proposes that it is better to leave conditions as they are rather than change them. What do you think about that idea?
3. Does the movie offer a way out of the situation? If so, what is it? If not, is this necessarily a negative statement?
1. Isabel, you raised a terrific question a the end of class today. We're deep in the apocalypse at this point. We've been given several landscapes to endure -- the road, the mall, the train. As Isabel asked, "Where do you want to spend the apocalypse?"
2. Another provocative idea: Moey said that Snowpiercer proposes that it is better to leave conditions as they are rather than change them. What do you think about that idea?
3. Does the movie offer a way out of the situation? If so, what is it? If not, is this necessarily a negative statement?
1) As a lover of disaster movies, I have often wondered where I would go or what I would do in the event of an Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is the end of human kind so there could be many different ways to end our kind. If a plague overwhelmed the population, I would most likely move to a remote island on the coast, but say the world was ending by sea destruction, I would want to stay as far away from the coast as possible. I'm going to answer this question assuming the Earth has been overrun by zombies. In this situation, I would raid a mall but then abandon it shortly after and climb to a tall mountain where I may be safe from the undead and live in a small community. 2 and 3, Regarding the question on whether the movie supports the idea to leave soceieties as they are, I would have to disagree with his idea. I can understand his main point about how they would all still be alive if the society had held but in the end it was a crooked way to live. I think it brings it back to the idea that hope for the future is more important than the struggles they go through right now. I think that it showing that all of the characters obtained what they wanted and two of them were able to control their own lives in the end.
ReplyDelete1. As nice as the front cars look, I’d still rather spend my apocalypse in the giant mall pictured in Dawn of the Dead. Cramped spaces like the train cars aren’t my cup of tea. I’ve always enjoyed more open space, which the mall offers. Yes there is no zombie threat and there are a lot more people to communicate with, socialize with, and become friends with, but the constant threat of revolution makes the mall slightly safer due to the only major threat being extremely slow and dimwitted zombies. But if I was in one of the tail cars, picking the mall is a no brainer. Everything in the mall is better, from food to personal space and just general health.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t really agree with Moey on this point, as we see there is some, however small hope for the good guys and overall humanity. Yes it is very unlikely that the two will survive, but there is a glimmer of hope. If the message was really about just keeping the status quo, everyone would have died and humans would truly be extinct. Instead, I believe the message of this movie is, in summary, that revolutions are very costly, but if successful, can lead to a completely different world and culture, hopefully better.
3. If there wasn’t a way out of the situation, we wouldn’t have had the ending that we had. Instead, it would most likely result in Curtis becoming the new leader (but where does he go from there?) or the crash just with no survivors. Instead, there is some hope for the survival of the human race, which displays a belief that it is possible to escape the current situation and start and new society.
1) Well, this question depends on if the cause of the apocalypse and what comes with it (cannibalism, nuclear weapons, zombies, etc.) stay the same per movie and landscape/setting. If they do, I would much rather be in the shopping mall in Dawn of the Dead. As a human being, I would prefer to live in safety with comfort. Everything you need to survive is located in a shopping mall, and without the threat of humans attacking to take stuff, it is relatively safe. The road is too dangerous, with cannibals, limited resources, and freezing temperatures. The train is too secluded. You either stay and suffer inside the train or you freeze to death after about a minute from leaving the train. The train, however, is complicated. My want to be on it depends on whether I would be towards the front or the back of the train.
ReplyDelete2) I do see where Moey is coming from. I think that the creators of the movie (most likely) do not believe this, but perhaps this may be the movie’s message? I, personally, do not think that this is the movie’s message. I believe that we should not just leave conditions as they are. People in the back of the train are only “living.” They are not allowed to experience the luxuries of upper-level passengers. They are in tatters, are not capable of maintaining personal hygiene, eat protein bars made from cockroaches, and can not even remember the simple pleasant things of the previous, unfrozen world. Change is necessary, and all the back-of-the-train passengers were willing to die for it.
3) Death is a way out of the situation. The train would have eventually run out of resources, and everyone would have starved to death, or people could have tried to survive outside of the train (in the world). Yes, they would have frozen to death, but there is also evidence that the world is going back to its natural temperature. The melting snow and ice revealed the remnants of the hidden plane and the snow was melting to form waterfalls, so there could possibly have been a couple survivors. In every movie we have watched, death has been a major topic. A common question is, “Is death better than living this apocalyptic life?,” and to some, the answer is not necessarily a bad thing.
1)If I had a choice in anywhere to be, I'd want to be at the closest Costco, and for a very valid reason. You have everything you could need in the Costco. You will be living comfortably for a matter of years if you are there alone. The Costco is a better choice than the mall because mall doors are made out of glass which I would imagine would be easy to break rather than the large garage like structure of a Costco.
ReplyDelete2)I agree with Moey and disagree because that is how it came across to be because even though at the end 2 characters live on but the chances of survival are slim. In my opinion this was unintentional because i don't think they would want it to have that kind of moral. Maybe the movie is saying instead that there are balances but it shouldn't be that way, but it's hard to change things.
3) In my opinion, the ending is a way out. Living in the tail of the train and working in the engine seems worse than being out in the cold. I say this because there is proof of life at the end of the movie by showing the polar bear. To me the polar bear resembles hope and life on earth because of the talk about it heating up more.
The smart decision in my opinion would be to choose the mall. It has an abundance of supplies and it doesn't seem like you are ever in need of something. However I do not wish to have an apocalypse that involves zombies. Albeit the zombies of Dawn of the Dead are easily outsmarted, and outrun for that matter, and dying to them would only occur if you got careless or just made a stupid mistake. I would prefer to live out my apocalypse on the train. Though the idea of the train having a class system is upsetting, after seeing the movie, I feel like that would be my preferred apocalyptic setting. Assuming I would survive until the end, I wouldn't mind trying to survive in a eternal winter setting.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is perfect for an argument, would make for a really fun and dramatic discussion if people were willing to confidently state their beliefs. I think the best way to respond to that thought would be refering to something said in the movie. Everything being left in their place is something that someone who is content with their place in society would say. Those who are discontent with their place are likely to be the ones to push for change. Your opinion on the matter depends on where you stand in the system.
I feel that the movie tells us is that there are two ways out of this situation. Death, or change. Death is a way out of any situation to be honest. It is not the most desirable of methods but it is always an option. The movie shows us an attempt at a way out by having us follow the events of those who are revolting. Death is treated as if it is a necessity for survival in this movie. In the tail it was treated as a way to eat and not starve to death. In the head it was treated as a way to maintain the balance of the "enclosed ecosystem."
1 It is easy for me to say that I would definitely want to spend the apocalypse in the mall. It was the safest by far, from both a physical and mental standpoint. Even though there were zombies, they were practically harmless if the right precautions were taken. There was an abundance of resources, and even luxuries. The dependence on material goods shown in Dawn of the Dead stressed the negative impact of consumerism on our society; however, from a survival standpoint, the mall was the most beneficial. The people on the Road and in Snowpiercer had tragic qualities of life in terms of resources. In both, there were eruptions of violence and cannibalism. Mentally as well, the Road and the Train were tougher environments, especially for children. The people were disheveled and starving (resorting to eating black roach gelatin or even each other), and the hierarchy was unjust. In all three scenarios, the "survivors" were fated with certain death, but I would rather spend my short time on Earth comfortably than constantly fighting for my life.
ReplyDelete2 I understand why Moey has this view; however, I do not think that it is better to leave conditions as they are than it is to change them, nor do I think Snowpiercer proposes that. Changing things is what advances society, and for the most part, it is advantageous to make changes, unless the current conditions are the best option. However, I do not believe that life in the Train is the best option. Death seems better than a miserable life enclosed in a small metal box, while the other passengers in the front cars are living in comfort. Maybe the train crash was the only solution to end the suffering aboard the train. And maybe humanity was not meant to exist in the world any longer. Humans after all, did cause the apocalypse in the first place. Because of humans (and whatever we did to the atmosphere), almost all other life perished. Maybe the extinction of humanity was best for the rest of the world, because even though we may think so, maybe our lives aren't worth more than the others we destroyed.
3 The movie did offer a way out of the situation for some and not so much for others. Humanity without a question will go extinct (the only two human survivors will die and cannot/should not repopulate anyways), but maybe because of this, other life will thrive again. The snow was melting, which would allow life to return. I think that the last scene with the polar bear stressed this point. The easiest way to solve a problem is to get rid of the one(s) who caused it, and in this case, it was humans. Just because humans wouldn't exist anymore, that doesn't mean the world won't either. Even though this is not an easy reality for us to accept, life will go on without us.
As I alluded to in class, If I had to spend my time fighting for my life post disaster, I would want to spend it surrounded by love and compassion rather than materialism and consumption. This dynamic plays out in both The Road and Snowpiercer. While there is no arguing that living in both of those situations constitutes a timely death, both of explore what it means to die for love, sacrifice, sorrow, doing the right thing, or even hope. While death is tragic in these movies, it represents a greater construct. A construct in which life doesn't end after death but instead is kept alive by memory whether it be the father in The Road or Edgar in Snowpiercer.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand where Moey is coming from, and his point is valid, in my opinion, Snowpiercer makes commentary on the appeal of power, how it's ingrained in years human spirit, and how in many ways, it is the easy way out. It's not saying that hierarchy is the answer. Because let's be honest, as Wilford said, who wouldn't want to live at the front of the train? Only a small subset of individuals would chose to forgo this life. It's not as if we don't buy into this class hierarchy today--we have first, comfort and business class on airplanes as with first and second class on trains. In concert venues, the ‘best’ seats are reserved for those at the front, those able to pay. So why is it unusual that at the end of the world, we would chose to defy this class hierarchy? The tenants of hierarchy are not an anomaly, in fact they are familiar. This concept is further cemented when Curtis almost gives in to this appeal of power, yet Curtis’s choice to forgo the easy way out, instead illustrates hope.
This movie more than anything attests to the determination of the human spirit and the process by which it takes to question all that you know. Revolt was inevitable in Snowpiercer as discontent in the back of the train would only continue to grow, but it was the way that the revolt was carried out that was monumental and this in itself provides hope. There's a vast dichotomy between revolts initiated by power hungry moguls and those brought forth by individuals investing in a better future for themselves. The revolt in Snowpiercer was of the latter. The occurrences in Snowpiercer while tragic, provide an outlet for hope. Death is inevitable as eventually the train will run out fuel, but until then it's about fighting for hope, for what it right.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to spend the apocalypse in the train. The train does seem like the most demanding and painful landscape to live in, but I feel that I would able to live for a concrete reason there. I wouldn't choose to live in the setting of The Road, because the world is only becoming more destroyed as each day ends. Though the beetle represents that life could return, all other signs of life are clearly not heading in the direction of the world returning to its pre-apocalyptic setting. We see the struggle of The Man watching his wife die of her own choice, and believe so completely that suicide wouldn't benefit his son and himself. However, as the movie develops, there are scenes where The Man teaches The Boy how to shoot himself. They both have hope for a better life, which is why they continue to live by their moral beliefs, but they also have to face the real probability that they might end up committing suicide. The Man ends up dying of starvation, but The Boy still has an opportunity to kill himself. He ends up choosing not to, but the movie brought up the point that The Boy and his father could have committed suicide. It would be hard to live in a setting where the only way I could live would be the hope that once I arrive south, my life would improve. I also wouldn't choose to live in the mall of Dawn of the Dead, because I couldn't be able to live while being surrounded by plenty of food and supplies, when other people were forced to move out of their homes and unfairly and unjustly attacked for the reason that they just wanted to stay in a place where they felt safe. I'm afraid that the overpowering quantity of goods in the mall would distort my view of how lucky I should be that I'm surviving, while also living a comfortable life. I wouldn't be able to face the same fate as the characters, as they murder the zombies and treat them awfully. The zombies aren't humans, but they deserve the respect that humans give each other. The setting of Snowpiercer would be very difficult and heartbreaking if you are one of the characters from the back of the train, but I feel that I would choose to live here. I would only live in the rear of the train, and if I was able to live in the front, I'd refuse. I could not live with myself, knowing that I had all of the comfort I wanted, but that people who are the same as me and deserve to live the pleasant life that I have are practically tortured because they are said to be of a lower class. So if I had to live the apocalypse anywhere, it would be in the rear of the train. It's heartbreaking to see the conditions that these characters are forced to live in, but I feel that I would have a purpose living there. I would have joined Curtis, Namgoong, Tanya, Yona, and Edgar to try and protest their oppression. To me, out of all of the movies we have watched, the characters in the rear of the train have the want to do more than just survive. They want to change their lives, even though you learn of the unsuccessful rebellions in the past. Namgoong has watched the plane emerge from the snow and built a bomb for the past 10 years to plan his and his daughter's escape from the train. The characters have hope that they can survive. Curtis obviously still mourns the fact that he almost murdered Edgar, and he won't let himself forget it. He punishes himself and adds more pain to his life, so the revolution is his way of forgiving himself while also saving his fellow passengers.
Part 2:
Delete1. The difference between Snowpiercer and The Road & Dawn of the Dead is that the characters that live in the rear of the train are relying on the hope of the present, while the characters of the other two films are remembering the past and hope that their life will return to how it was. Curtis chose to forget his life before the train, so his only hope is trying to give the passengers a better life, which will not be the life that they lived before the apocalypse. He is aware that the world may never go back to its pre-apocalyptic state, and he is not afraid of this idea. Unlike Curtis, The Man tells The Boy stories of the world that he grew up in, just as Peter, Fran, Stephen, and Roger continue to shop in the mall as if the zombies had never been there. These characters only face the truth that their lives have been changed after trying to put aside this idea for quite some time. Curtis is aware that the minute he puts hope in the idea that Earth could warm up and return back to how it was before the apocalypse, he would be devastated if this did not happen. However, I felt that it may not be fair for me to say that I'd prefer to live in the rear of the train. Curtis told Wilford that anyone in the train would prefer to live in the front. I believe that if you asked many people who are defined as living in the lower class if they would prefer to live in the upper class, they would chose to. Therefore, I do not believe it is fair for me, as a middle class citizen, to say that I would voluntarily live the life that caused so many people in the film pain. It exemplifies how sheltered I am and unknowing of the devastating life that so many people who live in poverty or danger have to survive in.
2. I think that it depends how you interpret this, as it depends on how changing the conditions impacts you. In Snowpiercer, the revolution was a threat to the people who had lived their whole life as members of the front of the train. To the members of the rear of the train, the revolution was dangerous as well. But, people who had been oppressed for their whole life on the train were able to overpower the society and their hope became a reality. I'm sure that out of the people who still had hope, their hope was to attain equal rights in their society. Even though so many people were killed or wounded in their push to the front of the train, the survivors had to decide if they should attempt defeat and mourn the loss of their friends, or continue their fight to avenge their friends' deaths. I think that the movie doesn't support leaving conditions as they are, but in a point similar to Moey's, the movie shows the outcome of your decision. I do believe that the movie presents the idea that if you have changed the conditions of the train, you will face danger. The probability that you will safely produce the revolution that you intended is very small, as we can see in Snowpiercer. They have created a revolution, but many characters are killed throughout the film. The deaths of Tanya and Edgar push Curtis to reach the engine. The rest of the people in the train dies, which was terrible, but Yona and Tim were able to survive. Out of the characters that were a large part of this film, Yona and Tim were the two people that were born on the train. By having them survive the train crash, though I was devastated that everyone else had died, I was comforted by the fact that they were able to see the world for the first time.
Part 3:
Delete3. I do not think that the movie offers a way out of the situation, other than having hope. The passengers at the rear of the train had hope that they could make a change. However, as in other post-apocalyptic movies, people spend their lives trying to achieve their dreams, but they don't have a plan for after that. In Snowpiercer, they planned to overpower the engine, but what would they do after that? The movie doesn't offer a solution to this. But if the passengers hadn't tried to overpower the front of the train, they would continue to live with the same lack of comforts that they had before. But, I do not believe that this is a bad statement, because it is up to the people who are oppressed to believe that they will achieve their equal rights. When the people at the rear of the train have hope that they will be equal when they overpower the engine, they are able to plan their revolution and have the courage that travels with them to the engine.
Personally I think Isabel is right I'd like to live at the front of the train, but second to that I think I live in the mall. I'm not too material of a person and I feel like The allure of easy riches I don't mean anything wouldn't get to me and I would just be comfortable and alive.
ReplyDeleteI think Willford is written as a seductive character with seductive ideals. He makes a really good case for things being left the way they are and for his social structure. In fact I think the movie does such a good job of making the case for his social structure that they forget to fully explore the counter argument to it that they are trying to put forward. Because our main character doesn't go with him we aren't supposed to believe that that's the right way but it seems a better alternative to what would be happening otherwise IE overpopulation starvation leading to the extinction of humanity or the train exploding. I think what should've happened is captain America should have been in control for the next two years and waited for the earth to heal a little bit more and then survival could've been feasible but it didn't happen so who knows if they'll live now that they have changed the status quo.
Their solution seems to be destroyed society as a whole rather than result because revolutions result in parallel systems that are equally bad and feel the same power vacuum that the first left. But yet again they don't make a very compelling argument because at the end when they have crash the train we only know that there are two survivors and f***ing polar bear so who knows.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick a movie, I’d probably pick either Mad Max or Dawn of the Dead because both of them have enough had decent chances recovery. Mad Max had enough people for a society, and Dawn of the Dead had plentiful resources - in either world, survival (both personal, and that of humanity) was possible if you had the drive. Both The Road and Snowpiercer were defined by desolate, lifeless landscapes - I know there was a beetle and a polar bear, but I am neither of those things, and would die immediately if left in either situation. Being ON the train would be either perfectly fine, if you were in the front (aside from guilt, that is), or absolutely horrific, if you were in the back, but either way it’s doomed to fall apart at some point. Governments never last indefinitely - a long time, maybe, but not indefinitely. You’d end up with your train car falling off a bridge, or at best, wandering into an icy tundra.
It might be better, but it’s not realistic. No empire - no civilization - last forever. Just look at human history; empires form and fall, break apart and regroup, move and rename and experience drastic cultural shifts. If there has been no eternal empire before, and the ones there have been have spanned across the globe and been inhabited by millions of people, how could a train based civilization last more than 18 years? What - a couple hundred people? There’s no way that that would remain stable forever. Humans have this weird tendency to want more than the bare minimum, and that leads to both great and terrible things. I can’t say for sure whether or not it was a good thing the train crashed. I want to say that it was, because of the horrific totalitarian social structure that uses children as machines and guns people down to keep the population steady, but I’m also pretty sure that crashing the train killed 99% of the human population in a matter of seconds. Is that… better? Innocent children died in this situation too. In fact, 99% of known human children died in this instant. Is this better? I don’t know - but I do feel that the end of the Snowpiercer was inevitable, in some form or other.
If the train society continued, it would undergo various shifts and changes just like all other human societies - it would upset the balance and destroy some crucial things, and then adapt in weird ways to either replace or otherwise not need what was destroyed. After all, wasn’t that precisely what the train was? Humanity broke the planet, but here we have a civilization that figured out how to compensate for the lack of land, and food, and people, and a lot of other things. (If they had to reduce the population anyway, why not dump them off the train and see if they could survive? If they die, that works as well as a machine gun - if they survive, then you know the Earth is warming again.) So, as this train is a human society, it would be subject to all the things human societies are subject to, like revolutions. A change in government and ultimately the stopping of the train was inevitable. There is a way out of this situation, and it’s not optional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe best decision would be to choose the train. It is important to note that living on the train is not good in any way, especially for the people in the back, but it is still better than living in the mall or on the road. By choosing to live on the train, you are choosing to live in terrible conditions but with guaranteed necessities, and most of the time guaranteed safety. The food is terrible and the living conditions aren't good, but food and shelter are at least guaranteed. Another thing about the train is that it is completely sealed off from the environment surrounding it. By choosing to live in the evironments of Dawn of the Dead and The Road, you are vulnerable to the outside world. This is mainly a problem in The Road, where the weather is extremely cold and shelter is scarce. I would much rather live in poor living conditions with guaranteed necessities rather than risk my life day by day scavenging for supplies in a world filled with people or zombies trying to kill me.
ReplyDeleteThe people in the back have nothing to lose, and the people in the front have nothing to gain, so to rebel against the system would be beneficial to the people in the back but would be harmful to the people in the front. When you actually look at what resulted in the rebellion, the answer becomes more complicated. If you try to change the system, many people will have to die in order to succeed, so the question becomes: Is the sacrifice of human life worth the result of the revolution? It seems like a huge sacrifice in order to free everyone on the back of the train from their horrible living conditions, and what resulted in the rebellion was not the freedom of the people, but rather the total destruction of the train. So the revolution was not completely successful, since almost everybody died afterwards, but I'm not sure if it was better to leave things the way they were. The people in the back were never going to move to the front, and they were stuck in that position for the rest of their life. The only way to know if the result of the rebellion was worth it is if dying in this world was better than living in it. I would assume that it is not, since the rate of suicide was zero from what we have seen and heard, and so in my opinion it was better to leave things the way they were.
The only way out for all of these people is death. There is no way to both live and to escape, so I do not think that there is a real way to fix their situation. I do think that this is a negative statement, since the revolution provides a false hope for the people, even though a revolution should not provide a false hope.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3. YES. The way out is wait 20 years -- literally. Allegorically, no. There is no hope in this world -- they are doomed to live this way forever, or get eaten by a bear. What other option do they have, besides hope -- but hope is folly; the power structure runs to deep for them to conquer and the world is not survivable.
ReplyDelete1. The train -- there's actually hope. I'd just wait 20 years and jump off when the earth thawed. At least there, the earth is melting and there's an upward trajectory -- unlike the downward trajectory of "The Road" and "Dawn of the Dead'
ReplyDelete2. For me, I think examining "Snowpiercer" in the context of its backdrop is critical to having a full understanding of the film. If anyone is actually reading this, think about this: is it really a coincidence that the backdrop of the movie is a human attempt to fix a seemingly insurmountable problem, global warming, backfiring? Actions like climate engineering, even if you intend to do "good" by fighting climate change, have unforeseeable consequences -- those scientists killed all of humanity except the few left on the train. In the same way, I think the movie -- possibly unintentionally -- illuminates the unforeseeable consequences of revolution. The landscape of the train represents everything evil about humanity; the front systematically exploits the back much like the modern neoliberal state. That is not subject to argument; this world clearly needs to be changed. Yet, the reason I detest this film is that it does not give a clear picture for change; it argues for hierarchy in an era when we need to see capitalism's evil. I see three reasons why change is impossible.
First, you have to look at the film's context; whenever humans try to solve problems we end up making everything worse. They tried to end the slavery they were forced to endure, but they only ended up crashing the train -- killing everyone except two people. They weren't trying to do this; the film explicates that unintended consequences arise from well-meaning actions. The film is a call to be careful when trying to change something as complex as society -- not anyone can do it.
Second, I think the ending where Curtis realizes that the conspiracy is much deeper than it seems emphasizes something else along the same grain. The conspiracy stretches from Wilford to Gilliam, and almost to Curtis himself. Curtis, at the end, is very close to accepting Wilford's offer; if not for the shock of seeing Timothy he would have succumbed. Not only the power structure but the Train Mentality is ingrained in every single character -- how are you going to defeat something like this? The Train has all of the resources physically and mentally -- why fight if you are going to die trying to attain an impossible victory?
Third, I think the train's use of racial/class metaphors suggests change is ill-advised. Watching Octavia Spencer get beaten up in the classroom car, for me a clear parallel emerged to the Rodney King riots. I think that is purposeful; while the film condemns violence against the oppressed, the film also demands the viewer to consider what happens when the oppressed revolt. In the classroom car, the result is bad: children die. Furthermore, Curtis' confession of cannibalism at the end furthers a narrative that the tail passengers are not deserving of help -- while it does make you realize just how bad their situation is, it also all becomes easy to see the other side, much like conservative calls to recognize "black on black" violence makes it easier to ignore racism.
Just to be clear, I think change is good -- just well thought out change. The entire situation seems ridiculous to me -- them being trapped on the train isn't for forever, it is for 20 years until the earth thaws. Of course, they don't know that. But it just really bothers me that this entire movie would have changed ten years later -- they would have all just jumped off the train. That's why I think the movie also unintentionally argues against change -- they just had to wait.
1) If I had to choose between the three (The Road, the mall, the train), I'd definitely choose the mall. I'd only live in the train if I could be in the front. Of course it'd suck for everyone in the back, but that Kronole looks good. I don't really understand the argument that it's better on The Road, but that may just be because of my personal preferences. Even now, I have no problem spending a day doing pretty much nothing, so I wouldn't have a problem rotting away in the comfort of the mall. If there was still food on Earth in The Road, then it may be more enticing to choose that scenario, as surviving would be a little more feasible.
ReplyDelete2) I definitely got the same vibe from the movie. Towards the end, they really tried hard to paint as Wilford a painfully honest man. Like, what he's saying definitely sucks, but that's the way it has to be if the train is to continue moving. Everything from has monologue, the way Curtis was reacting, and even the camera angles on Wilford made it seem like he was supposed to be right and just in the end. So it did make it feel like the movie was trying to say rebellion was not the right way. But it could also be going another route. In history and ideology, rebellion is never easy. Rebellion comes with a large cost to those rebelling, but the end result is supposed to be worth it. This is reflected in a movie. Even though the entire train collapsed, two people still made it out. I saw a lot of hope in the last scene when they didn't die out in the snow. So the movie could also be supporting rebellion while being realistic at the same time.
3) I think there three possibilities after the rebellion starts in this movie: the train is abandoned/destroyed (this is what happens), Wilford’s system continues (most likely with a Curtis at the head), or more egalitarian system is implemented on the train. The movie tries to make it very clear that a completely egalitarian society wouldn't work on the train, with all its explanations of closed ecosystems and the like. As for Wilford’s system continuing under Curtis, I don't think anyone from the tail of the train would've been able to maintain the system that had forced them to eat people. So I think complete destruction from rebellion is the only real option that the movie presents.
When I posed this question, I remember initially thinking that I would love to live on the train, but only if I could live in the front. Even though I would be part of something so corrupt, it's really easy to be ignorant of the injustice of your role in society and accept the privilege you have. This movie really shows us who we are as people-- I would rather be in the front of the train living a comfortable and blissful life than try and save the day and make things fair for everyone. People in power want to stay in power. However, after reading Nicole's post, my final answer is that the best place to be in an apocalypse is in the company of people you love. Having the "fire" inside of you (the son in the Road and Curtis in Snow Piercer) is essential, and must be able to prevail no matter the physical setting. This fire can only be maintained if the people around you support and cherish you.
ReplyDeleteThe director shows us a revolution of the people from the back of the train that causes the entire society to dismantle (the train literally falls apart). The director doesn't believe that societal social structures SHOULD stay the same, but I think he's rightfully pointing out that no matter what, the social structures WILL stay the same. No amount of rebellions or shifts in power will effect the human nature to created a tiered society controlled by the bourgeosie class. I think that the ending was perfect for the purpose of demonstrating that "hope of a better life" does not always lead to positive change. People on the bottom of society are pushed down, and in most cases they have no way of bettering their lives.
As I said above, there isn't a way out. Just like how Yona and the young boy will most likely not survive in the snow after the train crash, a new "perfect society" where everyone has an equal amount of resources and power will not survive without the leadership becoming corrupt. It's upsetting, but we can't necessarily say that it's negative because this is how our world has worked since the beginning of time. This movie is simply a reflection of the issues in our society; it does not give us a way out of our human nature.
Oh my gosh question 1 is hard!! I feel like in all of the scenarios I'm choosing between my humanity and comfort. The first one that popped into my head was the mall and I think that says a lot about me. This instantly depressed me because I really do not think I would have a will to live and being surrounded by stuff would get old so fast. It just shows that I guess I'm kind of greedy instinctually, but I think that comes from survival. We used to get that dopamine release of finding food or water but now we can get it from pretty much anything we want as long as we can afford it. I would like to say the road, but without any comfort at all I think I would go insane. There is no way that I could be surrounded by that much awful action and still want to live without some sort of glimpse of hope. I guess I would choose being on the back of the train (but not eating people!!) it seems like they have their humanity, but also a base level comfort. The people in the front of the train have totally convinced themselves that everything is morally correct to avoid a guilty conscious. Even though the people in the back pine for the comfort of the front, they still have an understanding of the system of oppression and have a guilty conscience. That being said, I don't think this system has to be changed deeply. I think there are little solutions here and there that can improve the quality of these people lives, which wilbur?¿ has provided a bit with the protien blocks and the opportunity to use your talent for the front, I think in this case when weighing the alternatives the system they had in place really was the best option. I still wonder what the tail end was contributing to the train that they had to stay in that position rather than be farmers or something??? I think the way out of the situation is on an indivodual level. The w ay out of the tail is to basically take opportunities when they are given. That sounds awful and I think that he understands that when he is offered the position of the engine, but I also think he understands in that moment that his only options are to go back, die, or work the engine alone at the top. On a societal level there really isn't a better option. I don't know that it's necessarily a bad thing depending on what you value as a person. If your truly believe in an egalitarian society then the train probably seems awful, but if you have even a little bit of capitalist in you (which most of us do) then it might not be so bad to fend for yourself after all
ReplyDelete