(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffamousmonsters.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fsnowpiercerposter.jpg&hash=143d67a6713ba430a3e9b01396458b05df558816)
Release date: 2013
Starring: Chris Evans, Alison Pill, Jamie Bell, John Hurt
Directed by: Joon-ho Bong
Premise: In a future where a failed global-warming experiment kills off most life on the planet, a class system evolves aboard the Snowpiercer, a train that travels around the globe via a perpetual-motion engine.
looks like they stumbled into an oldboy level at the end there.
this is a variation on the stuff pete has been pointing out (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=12525.msg324672#msg324672), but i think beyond the "young dude who suddenly says hey wait a minute" the real phenomenon that is starting to emerge is a class war thing. can we identify when it started? more specifically what i'm talking about is a sort of architecturally-defined class distinction which has obviously been around since Metropolis or even earlier, certainly its derivatives like Blade Runner, but when it occurs in such tight clusters and all over the world i think it's worth analysing.
i will think on what kubrick has to say about it, and come back to the discussion, probably split the thread if it's interesting.. it's making me think of Barry Lyndon and to an extent the shining (even though spartacus seems relevant i'm ignoring it as it's not canon). an interesting non sci-fi example that just popped into my head is 8 Mile, where the road literally marks the limit between the haves and the have nots and it takes an exceptional young quick-thinker to try to cross that barrier armed only with talent, ambition and balls of steel.
is this emerging trope more than just an escape from the ghetto? it's the blatantly obvious physical metaphor that strikes me as odd.
i'd read that thread
you're talking movies, and you've given good examples of them. i can't think of anything before metropolis that did it, either because i like so much to think about metropolis, or because earlier examples are lesser known to me
right now as an adult in america i'm reading botchan, a novel from 1906 by nastume sōseki. the book portrays a cultural transition in japan, from older codes to modernity. i mentioned that i'm an adult because my internet understanding is that the book is read by middle-school students in japan, and sōseki is a landmark of their literature
sometimes -- most of the time, i just don't know if it's true -- i feel like i'm reading the mark twain of japan. twain is a landmark of american literature. he was well known for his own socioeconomic stands, including his depictions of a spectrum of lives, and also a person could read much about his personal opinions, in as easy a place as wikipedia.
ok. in botchan, a 22 year old moves from tokyo to the country, in order to become a teacher. and a lot of the book is about him and the people he meets, and the way he perceives them through their status, and the way they perceive him that way as well. it's all based on what everyone is doing -- how you interact with them, what you think of them, how someone works, how they don't work, etc -- and any personal feeling that wins the situation wins it by going beyond those kinds of opinions. it's not a class war, but everywhere and all the time there are class battles. that's the first reason why botchan went to his own school in order to become a teacher
a sad part of the book is a childhood family servant, named kiyo. (kiyo calls the boy botchan, what the reader knows him by and the name of the book.) i bring her up because she's older. she's from an earlier cultural point and perspective, and a long section of the book shows how it's kind of fucked up that in modern times she has to deal with being a servant to a family that isn't distinguished during a feudal part of japan, or anything like that. she's a servant. that's what she's got. from his early life kiyo is nicer to botchan than to his brother, who becomes more successful but kiyo never saw him as a very good person, and then as their lives continue, botchan and kiyo have to figure out how to try their best
try their best -- at being a teacher, who he didn't want to be and no one really appreciates, and being retired as a servant, and living with your nephew and having few accomplishments. that's hard
i'd for sure read about the barry lyndon perspective. during your post i thought about the industrial age, until barry lyndon was mentioned. its movie's time period is far back
as for my post, if anyone knows any children in japan, please have them come here and talk about the book with me
I don't mind class difference, but the movies that I cite - most recently in the very atrocious "In Time", and earlier with the Christian Bale movie where he did gun karate - are these lazy post-Matrix type movies where the supposed allegory is spelled out but they're the same story of one guy having an arbitrary realization so he can run away a lot.
I just saw a comedy called Gimme the Loot, kinda like a 2010s version of Raising Victor Vargas, and there are a couple of scenes in which a young Lower East Side kid goes into a pretty Manhattan girl's apartment to deal pot, and it handles that race and class different so beautifully and comically. but the ones from Hollywood (and elsewhere) that we cited just seemed to be written by out of touch people who have no interest in the real world even though they're supposed to be warning us about what happens. I don't know, they're just dumb.
Quote from: Pubrick on July 08, 2013, 01:36:25 PM
looks like they stumbled into an oldboy level at the end there.
this is a variation on the stuff pete has been pointing out (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=12525.msg324672#msg324672), but i think beyond the "young dude who suddenly says hey wait a minute" the real phenomenon that is starting to emerge is a class war thing. can we identify when it started? more specifically what i'm talking about is a sort of architecturally-defined class distinction which has obviously been around since Metropolis or even earlier, certainly its derivatives like Blade Runner, but when it occurs in such tight clusters and all over the world i think it's worth analysing.
i will think on what kubrick has to say about it, and come back to the discussion, probably split the thread if it's interesting.. it's making me think of Barry Lyndon and to an extent the shining (even though spartacus seems relevant i'm ignoring it as it's not canon). an interesting non sci-fi example that just popped into my head is 8 Mile, where the road literally marks the limit between the haves and the have nots and it takes an exceptional young quick-thinker to try to cross that barrier armed only with talent, ambition and balls of steel.
is this emerging trope more than just an escape from the ghetto? it's the blatantly obvious physical metaphor that strikes me as odd.
Quote from: pete on July 10, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
written by out of touch people who have no interest in the real world even though they're supposed to be warning us about what happens. I don't know, they're just dumb.
pete is so <3333able
Quote from: trashculturemutantjunkie on July 10, 2013, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: pete on July 10, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
written by out of touch people who have no interest in the real world even though they're supposed to be warning us about what happens. I don't know, they're just dumb.
pete is so <3333able
ya this director is arguably one of the best film makers alive today. i really don't care what the trailer looks like or to read any reviews, i'll go like i'd go to a PTA film, simply because he's made another. just imagine watching the trailer or reading something about the host before it came out, you'd think it sounded shitty.
I'll be there opening night, with bells on.
The Weinstein Co. Cutting 'Snowpiercer' Because Americans Are Stupid (http://www.slashfilm.com/the-weinstein-co-cutting-snowpiercer-because-americans-are-stupid/)
Yeah, that's awful. I guess I'll have to dig up a director's cut. Or maybe Australian distribution won't be as ridiculous?
I've seen it. It was great. The class war thing is not that important. It's more about the world in the train: weird stuff. That's why Weinstein doesn't want America to see it.
http://thedissolve.com/news/624-bong-joon-ho-privately-furious-about-the-american-/
which cut did you see? i can't wait to watch this.
I saw the director's cut which is also the french cut which is the cut Weinstein shouldn't touch because it is perfect. It's very straightforward. I see what he would want to cut, but I don't understand how he could cut it without killing the movie...
I saw that cut too and it's fine. It's about as clear as clear can get. The issue they're going to face is that it's just so incredibly high-concept. It's not a realistic vision of the future- it's a fable with action sequences. No amount of editing is going to change that.
Bong Joon-Ho Says Director's Cut Of 'Snowpiercer' May Get A U.S. Release After All
Source: Playlist
Is Harvey Weinstein finally getting the message? Over the past few months, mostly internet based fury has centered around Bong Joon-ho's apocalyptic thriller "Snowpiercer," and Harvey Weinstein's wishes to take his cinematic switchblade to it. The director himself was said to be privately "furious" about having to cut his film, while Chris Evans, Tilda Swinton and screenwriter Kelly Masterson have all expressed their varying degrees of dismay at the movie being potentially chopped up. But it seems this whole saga may have a happy ending.
Speaking at the Mar del Plata Film Festival this week (where he's unveiling a black-and-white version of "Mother"), Bong Joon-ho addressed the controversy around "Snowpiercer" by peppering it with hints that stateside fans won't have anything to worry about. "I stayed in New York for two weeks before coming here to Mar del Plata, mostly because of this matter," the helmer explained. "And the good news is that after all the speculation and comments about that 20-minute cut, and considering the original version that was released in Korea and France also will be released in Japan and Hong Kong, we have been talking a lot about keeping the original cut for the U.S. release, so what I can say is...have faith."
Indeed, one would have to imagine that Harvey can't ignore a few factors, starting with the fact that Bong Joon-ho's original cut tested higher than the Weinstein snipped version. The movie has been a massive theatrical success in France, the most successful Korean movie ever released in the country, coming only second in box office receipts to "Thor: The Dark World" when it hit theaters. And oh yeah, it also recently nabbed Best Film, Best Director and Best Cinematography at the 33rd Korean Association of Film Critics Awards. So whatever reasons Harvey might have about wanting to snip the movie are becoming a lot harder to justify.
So, let's hope this is all closer to getting resolved and we get a release date already. Because from what our man in London tells us, this one matches the hype.
wait what A BLACK AND WHITE MOTHER?! I HAVE TO SEE
Don't screw this up Harvey.
Perfect for what it is. I had huge kick out of watching it.
Spoilers
It is a mixture of so many genres, yet it does in a such way that it is hard to put finger onto it. It starts as escape from prison/heist type of film, till they reach nothing else than prison section of the train. Then massive medieval-like battle with sharp objects erupts. Next thing you know, rat pack is picked up and they continue their tour, but not for long. Violent action sequences are interrupted by very quiet moments, sometimes retreating just to close-up.
I love how they chewed up whole concept of "the chosen one", not leaving much at the end. First their turned him in anti-hero, then they made him just a pawn in the game. At the same time minor characters became much more interesting than lead. Ending is very rewarding, it gives hope, but it isn't happy ("no white dude survives" - so it can be happy, depending how you look at it - I'll champion it for this reason alone).
There is a class war element, but film goes beyond it. In the end, I didn't care much who wins, I wanted the train to be destroyed. I think question what price are you willing to pay to continue is central to "Snowpiercer". Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but ending gave me a vibe: revolution within old walls isn't possible, everything has to be destroyed.
I don't know why, but I can't stop thinking about Tarkovsky and his "Stalker". Weird, since "Snowpiercer" at very heart is an action film.
Oh yeah, this was rather good. Dense with ideas, fun and exciting. Grim. A microcosm of the world.
Neat central idea, expanded on in depth throughout. Some cool little characters (performances from the father and daughter, Swinton and Tintin were great).
SPOILERS
What Mel says about revolution within walls is a cool little thing to think over. By the end, I wanted them off the train because a victory within the train really wasn't much of a victory anyway. It needed to all come down for them to move forward.
I forgot to mention it previously: it is claustrophobic experience (in a good way).
SpoilersQuote from: Lottery on March 23, 2014, 09:20:21 AM
What Mel says about revolution within walls is a cool little thing to think over. By the end, I wanted them off the train because a victory within the train really wasn't much of a victory anyway. It needed to all come down for them to move forward.
This element deserves a praise. "Fable with action sequences" (as
Ghostboy pointed out), goes to great extend in term of making whole revolt sensible (in this universe at least). Not only decisions made by characters are coherent and make sense, but at the same time audience is digesting it at emotional level. Why not to just escape from the train - this question is answered at very beginning. Status quo was maintained long enough already. Only viable option is to take over the train. Yet at the end whole situation is flipped - there is no much point in taking over. They escape, but this isn't clear cut victory.
they did it pretty good. I think it is the most interesting version of a dystopian class war movie one can make - with a hero who wears his weakness on his sleeves, and isn't half as messianic as most of his recent counterparts.
I don't really care for the burning man look though, and I feel like that look has robbed the seriousness of the violence - be it played for cool or played for serious.
in the end though, bong joon-ho still emerged unscathed. one of the best out there today.
Hopefully I didn't jump on the train too late (haha) to discuss this in real time. I just watched this today and it was great.
I couldn't say anything about the microcosm of society, human condition, meaning of the movie thing better than anyone else here, so I won't try, I'll fuck it up if I try.
Snowpiercer was incredibly entertaining for a scifi movie. I'm typically not a fan of the genre, maybe because I was raised on TV to think Spielberg was the greatest director of all time. This was good anyway, great variations of storytelling. I think it succeeded in every form, in terms of being entertaining. [joke about Tilda Swinton's teeth] If you wanted to be pedantic and criticize the probability of the situation you could. But I don't because it was an awesome movie. Based on real science and stuff. Or is that derogatory here? Interstellar could be good, McConaughey's turning his life around.
Speaking of turning around, Chris Evans wants to quit acting and become a director.
http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/03/26/chris-evans-ready-to-quit-acting-after-captain-america
Might be interesting, it seems like a lot of these guys are trying to break out of mainstream cinema, or at least break out of boring movies.
Quote from: N on March 26, 2014, 07:53:56 AM
Snowpiercer was incredibly entertaining for a scifi movie. I'm typically not a fan of the genre, maybe because I was raised on TV to think Spielberg was the greatest director of all time. This was good anyway, great variations of storytelling. I think it succeeded in every form, in terms of being entertaining. [joke about Tilda Swinton's teeth] If you wanted to be pedantic and criticize the probability of the situation you could. But I don't because it was an awesome movie. Based on real science and stuff. Or is that derogatory here?
Categorizing films as purpose in its own is pointless, but can lead sometimes to surprising conclusions. Lets give it a spin.
"Snowpiercer" is definitely on the soft side of science fiction. It is set in technological dark age - engine is divine relict from previous age. In many ways it shares similarities with space operas - small society in closed capsule surrounded by hostile environment. In the end it is dystopian film focused more on a social than engineering aspects of science.
Yet it is highly entertaining action film that didn't resort to masturbation with gadgets, which is prominent feature of mainstream films set in the future. Didn't take much to make it look original and fresh compared to other sci-fi fables? There is room for films like "Snowpiercer", hopefully we will see more of them.
think it's on the jazzy side of genre. think it's a great movie. 2014 is looking sharp
it was the best this type of film that could've been made, but I like Bong the best when he merges genre films with everyday interior lives. the premise for snowpiercer was just too straightforward for a filmmaker to put too much spin on it.
bong joon-ho's ama:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/293cd9/lets_take_a_bizarre_train_ride_with_bong_joonho/
I always miss the good AMAs. This one is nice and in-depth though.
Highlights: adapting little known graphic novel, being comic book fan/graphic novel collector, traveling though different genres, his home TV setup, budget constrains - filming only what is needed and not leaving anything in editing process, VFX - whole aquarium scene was green screened, take on different cuts - media overplaying it, casting Chris Evans - knowing him from "Sunshine", blushing when asked about getting John Hurt, inspiration for look/transformation of Tilda Swinton, POV from Curtis.
This required fairly severe suspension of disbelief and tremendous cooperation (even by my standards), but it was pretty great.
SPOILERS
I loved how the train itself created inescapable injustices. I loved how, in that final car, we realized along with the protagonist that an egalitarian revolution was impossible in those constraints. A solid metaphor.
The joy of the movie is watching the progression from one car to the next. Those individual worlds were rendered with so much imagination and vividness.
I was kind of massively disappointed by how aggressively unsubtle the social/political allegory becomes, to the point that I had to start ignoring it. The breaking point was obviously the teacher's speech/song/etc.
The plot holes are enough to break the movie if you let them. I chose to ignore them, but they're nagging at me a bit after the fact, even though I know it's silly because it's a fable.
Why does the train have to move at all? What is the point of it going around the world? I honestly assumed the movie would answer this basic question. Even if the answer is just "because this deranged billionaire really likes trains and wants to go fast forever."
If you've invented a perpetual motion machine, or an eternal engine, you've pretty much achieved the ultimate goal. Putting it on a train is the dumbest thing you could do. The engine may be eternal, but at the very least the tracks are going to deteriorate, at least at some point on earth. Just think of the survivalist compound he could have built instead of this claustrophobic, dangerous train.
I would also like to know where they're keeping the cattle for their steak...
Oh, one last thing, the introduction totally lied about "all life" being destroyed. Surely there could have been a way to suggest that probability without simply lying to the audience.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on July 05, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
SPOILERS
Why does the train have to move at all? What is the point of it going around the world? I honestly assumed the movie would answer this basic question. Even if the answer is just "because this deranged billionaire really likes trains and wants to go fast forever."
If you've invented a perpetual motion machine, or an eternal engine, you've pretty much achieved the ultimate goal. Putting it on a train is the dumbest thing you could do. The engine may be eternal, but at the very least the tracks are going to deteriorate, at least at some point on earth. Just think of the survivalist compound he could have built instead of this claustrophobic, dangerous train.
I remember a vague explanation - in school section of the train if I'm not mistaken. Wilford was obsessed with trains and his ultimate goal was to live in one. It wasn't intended as survival vessel. Yet train had some unique features, since it was going all over the world. Route included Sahara/Siberia, so train was prepared for extreme conditions, when new ice age started. Then they just kept it running.
Not sure if this is video from film or not - short clip introducing Wilford: http://vimeo.com/71321403
Interesting. That's fair. And I do remember the first part of that from the movie. It's still bizarre that Wilford's response to the apocalypse is to continue to speed around the world on a train as fast as possible. Would you not change your plans even slightly? I would have at least liked an acknowledgement in the movie of how deranged this is.
The closest they come is explaining that the nose of the train needs to collect snow, but it's offered as an explanation for something else. Instead of dangerously ramming into ice flows all the time, why not stop the train once in a while, check things out, maybe stick a hose into a snowbank to collect water? It would be interesting if the train needed to keep going to prevent people from escaping, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.
It doesn't bother me that much, and I only thought about it afterwards, but I guess it's interesting.
(MORE SPOILERS)
The train cars themselves are actually kind of problematic, though... beyond wondering where the cattle and chickens are. The film could have benefited from a better explanation (or any explanation at all) of how everyday life on the train works. For flavor if nothing else. Do the kids really go to school through the drug/sex den and the rave? Is there really just one residential bunk car that everyone lives in? Apparently in the comic, the train has 1,001 cars. I realize there are budget constraints, but adding just 2 or 3 more cars could have helped. I'd like to see a bathroom here and there. Maybe have bunks spread throughout the train. Some actual living spaces. A few more details would have made things more solid, which is needed, because I think the movie feels dreamlike where it may not intend to. Things kind of evaporate.
I want tictacbk to watch this movie just to see if his head explodes.
Oh and I just realized this is a sequel to The Truman Show.
A fun fact from Ed Harris (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=75081) on the production: "His whole way of working is so different. He'll just shoot bits of a scene at a time. Normally, you'll shoot a master and shoot the whole scene on one person and then shoot the whole scene on another, but he'll shoot a little bit one way, and then shoot a couple lines another way. He just constantly gets the pieces that he knows he wants. And he had the editing thing down below the stage where the trains were, and the editor was cutting while he was shooting. It was out there."
Interesting visual analysis
http://vimeo.com/110329961
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on July 05, 2014, 03:05:29 PM
Interesting. That's fair. And I do remember the first part of that from the movie. It's still bizarre that Wilford's response to the apocalypse is to continue to speed around the world on a train as fast as possible. Would you not change your plans even slightly? I would have at least liked an acknowledgement in the movie of how deranged this is.
The closest they come is explaining that the nose of the train needs to collect snow, but it's offered as an explanation for something else. Instead of dangerously ramming into ice flows all the time, why not stop the train once in a while, check things out, maybe stick a hose into a snowbank to collect water? It would be interesting if the train needed to keep going to prevent people from escaping, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.
It doesn't bother me that much, and I only thought about it afterwards, but I guess it's interesting.
I just finally saw this yesterday, so consider this a very belated response to your question. The impression I got was that if the engine stopped, they would not be able to restart it again. I'm not sure if there is a specific instance or line of dialogue I could pull to support this, but that was the sense that I got while I was watching the film, and if that is in fact the case, would at least partially resolve the nagging issues you experienced with it.
Overall, I liked the movie quite a bit. It would make an interesting double feature with Cabin in the Woods, as both films essentially have the same ending: when the protagonist(s) uncover the hidden costs of humanity's continued existence, they make the executive decision that humanity's existence isn't worth it. Delightfully nihilistic.
Quote from: polkablues on November 03, 2014, 03:12:49 PMI just finally saw this yesterday, so consider this a very belated response to your question. The impression I got was that if the engine stopped, they would not be able to restart it again. I'm not sure if there is a specific instance or line of dialogue I could pull to support this, but that was the sense that I got while I was watching the film, and if that is in fact the case, would at least partially resolve the nagging issues you experienced with it.
That would completely solve that issue for me, actually. It's a perpetual motion machine, so I could buy that for sure. If I rewatch it, I'll listen for that. I'm 90% sure it wasn't in the video, because I think I recognized that as a cue to pay attention.
Maybe Wilford says "the train can't stop" in a few places, and maybe he means that not in a crazy dictator way, but literally... like it really actually can't stop, or it won't start again.
This still lingers, though:
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on July 05, 2014, 03:05:29 PMThe train cars themselves are actually kind of problematic, though... beyond wondering where the cattle and chickens are. The film could have benefited from a better explanation (or any explanation at all) of how everyday life on the train works. For flavor if nothing else. Do the kids really go to school through the drug/sex den and the rave? Is there really just one residential bunk car that everyone lives in?
I'm picturing the teacher leading her students single-file through all of that. "Okay, close your eyes kids! And try not to inhale!"
Okay fine, there was no smoke. Don't be pedantic.
I fully agree with your second point. The train always felt way too short to make logical sense.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on July 05, 2014, 03:05:29 PMI just realized this is a sequel to The Truman Show.
Actually...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX52h1TvuA