I thought that the movie’s anti-capitalist critique was a bit shallow, it didn’t seem to put any solutions forth, just sorta points out that the Rich don’t add to society
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
43 points (97.8% liked)
GenZedong
8 readers
1 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
Serious posts can be posted here and/or in /c/GenZhou.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.
Rules:
- This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
- No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
- No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
- No dogmatism/idealism (Trotskyism, Gonzaloism, Hoxhaism, anarchism, etc.)
- Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Snowpiercer was the same way. On one hand it presents it like it is. But on the other hand, it feels pretty nihilistic.
Maybe, but it feels a bit hopeful.
They kill the capitalist at the end and destroy the entire horrific system. Further it was assumed that life was unable to survive at all in the wasteland, though we see polar bears in the distance which proves that be false seeing as there must be an ecosystem to support them. So to me it feel like the children climbing out the wreckage comes across as a hopeful message of “Good men plant trees they will never sit under. Destroy the system for the good of and future survival of humanity.
Assuming it didn’t immediately maul them because polar bears hunt humans, seeing the polar bear is a MASSIVE hope. Large predators in an ecosystem require an immense amount of calories and ecological support, so if it could survive in the wastes for 14 years, it can be assumed that there are probably seals, and algae in the water, or other land animals, and so on.
Ah, maybe I interpreted wrong? I thought Chris Evans literally betrayed the revolution and became the successor to the old dude.
I was just like, can't trust the settler left lmao
Evan’s was about to out of sheer depression after learning that the “revolution” was manufactured as population control, but after he sees that child slaves are used to man the train, he turns on the old guy, kills him, and sacrifices himself for the greater good.
He gives the grenade to the Korean man and sacrifices his arm to rescue the slave child manning the engine. Then he covers the boy’s body with his own (and the Korean man does the same to the girl), as the grenade in the engine explodes and destroys the train.
Hence the “Nice” from the capitalist since he legitimately was not expecting Evans to refuse his offer and destroy the train.
Movies that put forth solutions don't get made, they get "edited" to fix that, and the directors get blacklisted.
That’s true. I wonder how many people are out there with great stories to tell that are inevitably shut down because their message is a bit too on the nose
I just can't tell if the north Korea stuff is reactionary or pointing out that the propaganda simply exists to make those in occupied Korea feel better about their deteriorating social conditions
Surprised you don’t just directly post here with that account, although I know it can be a little jank at times
Yeah, masto integration is still kinda subpar I find.
Wait a sec, this is Mastodon!
sure is :)
Also, damn, I have yet to watch this movie and don't intend to.
Eh, I'll Retweet and Quote Tweet.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
:)
To me the movie point is 'poor people are selfish, rich people can afford to be kind but they selfish when it matters'. Its not that deep really, but it is a really entertaining movie. We should stop trying to look for meaning when there isnt any.
view more: next ›