TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
yea i just cant "tolerate" the way they''ve been shoving their hamfisted agendas down everyone's throats.
Was Jim Carey playing Dr Robotnik? wtf!
Was Jim Carey playing Dr Robotnik? wtf!
The Official Movie Thread
- Thread starter Manic Ferocity
- Start date
RadicalThrasher
Active Member
yea i just cant "tolerate" the way they''ve been shoving their hamfisted agendas down everyone's throats.
Was Jim Carey playing Dr Robotnik? wtf!
Jim Carey's a fucking nutjob, probably one of the more entertaining things about the movie. They hardcore set it up for a sequel, which would probably be good because of how they left it.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Robotnik should be fat and round! These movies steering away from their source material really irks me lol.
RadicalThrasher
Active Member
I'll spoiler this, this is what he looks like by the end of the movie........if your curious
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,690
- 9,665
- 113
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,690
- 9,665
- 113
i liked that the first time i saw it but then i watched the extended version and fell in love with it. closest cassavetes ever got to making an actual genre movie, while retaining all the qualities that make his work unique. gazzara is so good.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,690
- 9,665
- 113
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
RadicalThrasher
Active Member
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,690
- 9,665
- 113
she’s very into her identity-shifting stuff. holy motors is one of the most unique batshit crazy things i’ve ever seen on that theme, i’d recommend that to anybody, lavant’s performance is one of the greats of the decade. phoenix is a chilly thriller in the tradition of vertigo, eyes without a face, the skin i live in etc, and certified copy is a kairostami/binoche drama about roleplaying as it relates to marriage, kinda like linklater’s before trilogy if it was more formally daring. nocturama starts out as a stripped down melvillean terrorist thriller before morphing into some deranged dawn of the dead shit, and house of tolerance is a brothel-set drama by the same guy, very arty/pretentious but good. malick probably has the most ambition and scope of any director of the past half century and the tree of life is the most ambitious of all, although i wouldn’t tackle it without first seeing badlands, days of heaven and the thin red line, all among the best american films ever imo.
rms
Active Member
definitely seconding holy motors and certified copy.
I don't understand how you got this from what i've been saying? I haven't seen a couple of his less popular films, but every film is an intense critique of capitalism. And I even stated that I think he does critique it
I think it's unfounded in the film to suggest it was hollow the entire time and therefore signifies a hollow rise. The rock sent the son to the hospital for some time, and he may be a vegetable at the end of the film, we don't really have a good idea. To say it's hollow because it didn't kill him, when it did severe damage is something people seem to want to force an interpretation out of it
false hope yes, I think no one in the film does enough to justify saying the family fetishizes it. And again, their life greatly improves, it just doesn't last. Having a hard time understanding why you keep repeating your clearly incorrect point?
If only the son gets hired, how does the story unfold like we saw it? They got greedy because they systematically removed everyone, and the houesmaid's arc is what led to the conclusion. The husband wouldn't have been unleashed, the father wouldn't have killed the other father and the daughter wouldn't have died.
I don't know how greed can be separated from their downfall.
I don't understand how you got this from what i've been saying? I haven't seen a couple of his less popular films, but every film is an intense critique of capitalism. And I even stated that I think he does critique it
The scene of it floating from the depths and being drawn to the son definitely qualifies as being magical, but it could all be in the son's head or something else. I agree the rock is not magical nor driving any of the short term success to the family, I said it's merely a korean artifact to the story. And having it covered in blood is Bong's critique of the idea to special rocks.
I think it's unfounded in the film to suggest it was hollow the entire time and therefore signifies a hollow rise. The rock sent the son to the hospital for some time, and he may be a vegetable at the end of the film, we don't really have a good idea. To say it's hollow because it didn't kill him, when it did severe damage is something people seem to want to force an interpretation out of it
false hope yes, I think no one in the film does enough to justify saying the family fetishizes it. And again, their life greatly improves, it just doesn't last. Having a hard time understanding why you keep repeating your clearly incorrect point?
I would agree but there is not enough time to pass to suggest the family cannot escape their roots, going from 0 salaries to 4 salaries and the money is never really brought up after the beginning of the film/when the son gets hired.
If only the son gets hired, how does the story unfold like we saw it? They got greedy because they systematically removed everyone, and the houesmaid's arc is what led to the conclusion. The husband wouldn't have been unleashed, the father wouldn't have killed the other father and the daughter wouldn't have died.
I don't know how greed can be separated from their downfall.
Last edited:
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Holy Motors I actually own but I just haven't watched it yet. I had no idea it was of that nature, otherwise I would have done so already!
I've seen Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line but not Badlands, but luckily I own that too. Guess I gotta stop procrastinating.
Edit: Lmao and I also own The Tree of Life, don't remember even buying it.
I've seen Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line but not Badlands, but luckily I own that too. Guess I gotta stop procrastinating.
Edit: Lmao and I also own The Tree of Life, don't remember even buying it.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Damn, these spoiler blocks are getting fuckin' annoying. Everyone needs to see this damn film. 
Somewhere you mentioned that S. Korea has benefited from capitalism and that this would inform B-JH's impression of it, which led me to believe you were saying B-JH has an overall positive conception of capitalism. I'm not sure if you think this or not, but I disagree with it.
Also, let me respond to a few other misunderstandings from earlier:
a) I don't think the rock has magical powers; I thought your comments suggested that, and I was rejecting that idea.
b) Earlier, you said this: "The family was already ascending without trickery, the tutor propped up the son because he wasn't worried about him banging the youngin'. They had even more success by hiring the daughter, which was trickery but obviously offered a service they thought they needed (and I think a legitimately hilarious point that wealthy people believe mumbo jumbo she spewed to act as if she was a qualified child psychologist)."
But the family wasn't ascending without trickery. The son wasn't a university student, which he knew would be a condition for his hiring. The tutor told him to pretend to be one.
Also, let me respond to a few other misunderstandings from earlier:
a) I don't think the rock has magical powers; I thought your comments suggested that, and I was rejecting that idea.
b) Earlier, you said this: "The family was already ascending without trickery, the tutor propped up the son because he wasn't worried about him banging the youngin'. They had even more success by hiring the daughter, which was trickery but obviously offered a service they thought they needed (and I think a legitimately hilarious point that wealthy people believe mumbo jumbo she spewed to act as if she was a qualified child psychologist)."
But the family wasn't ascending without trickery. The son wasn't a university student, which he knew would be a condition for his hiring. The tutor told him to pretend to be one.
It's a Korean artifact that supposedly promises good fortune. The Kims have good fortune for a time, but this is unsustainable; in other words, their social ascension is empty, false, unfulfillable. Suggesting that the rock (which supposedly promises good fortune) is hollow merely parallels this temporary rise.
I'm not sure what I'm saying that's "clearly incorrect."
Asian cultures are deeply influenced by objects of fetishism. In Japan, families look for the "perfect melon" to present to their employers. The Kims' rock is simply another example of something like this: an everyday object that supposedly has supernatural qualities. Treating an object in this way is the definition of fetishism.
Asian cultures are deeply influenced by objects of fetishism. In Japan, families look for the "perfect melon" to present to their employers. The Kims' rock is simply another example of something like this: an everyday object that supposedly has supernatural qualities. Treating an object in this way is the definition of fetishism.
The point is that they had no course of action except to behave greedily and inauthentically. It was the only way to secure their upward mobility. If they hadn't acted this way, they would have had no upward mobility at all.
rms
Active Member
getting a position you're not qualified for when you are unemployed isn't ascending? the father talks about what his salary will do for the family before they all get hired with him
The unsustainability of their rise is complete luck! The rock clearly doesn't influence events to give the family bad luck, so what is the cause of this bad luck? Their greed! And do you really think the film cared enough to legitimately argue that the rock brings good faith? It's largely ignored throughout the film, except the sewer scene and the climax.
I was using an incorrect definition, but they aren't "worshipping" the rock. It's simply gifted to them (and it's not inhabited by a spirit mr. merriam webster stickler)
You keep re-stating that the family did not ascend during the film. They did! It was short lived, but the ascended.
I sometimes think the only definition of social elevation you have is going from poor urban to wealthy urban.
They achieved upward mobility. The film did not explore what could have happened with the son's new wages because it's focus was on how capitalism corrupts you to always want more. They had enough, but could they get more? Yeah! Let's do more. It's a self-eating cycle and it was displayed fully in the film.
They had every choice to behave not greedily, they chose not to. And they paid a price for it, because they are poor.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,690
- 9,665
- 113
Einherjar86
Active Member
getting a position you're not qualified for when you are unemployed isn't ascending? the father talks about what his salary will do for the family before they all get hired with him
The unsustainability of their rise is complete luck! The rock clearly doesn't influence events to give the family bad luck, so what is the cause of this bad luck? Their greed! And do you really think the film cared enough to legitimately argue that the rock brings good faith? It's largely ignored throughout the film, except the sewer scene and the climax.
I was using an incorrect definition, but they aren't "worshipping" the rock. It's simply gifted to them (and it's not inhabited by a spirit mr. merriam webster stickler)
You keep re-stating that the family did not ascend during the film. They did! It was short lived, but the ascended.
I sometimes think the only definition of social elevation you have is going from poor urban to wealthy urban.
They achieved upward mobility. The film did not explore what could have happened with the son's new wages because it's focus was on how capitalism corrupts you to always want more. They had enough, but could they get more? Yeah! Let's do more. It's a self-eating cycle and it was displayed fully in the film.
They had every choice to behave not greedily, they chose not to. And they paid a price for it, because they are poor.
Okay, this is the last word I'll say on this because we're both repeating ourselves and all the spoilers are probably getting annoying for others:
It's not that the son didn't get a position he wasn't qualified for, it's that he had to lie about his credentials in order to get it. It would be different if the wealthy family knew he wasn't a university student and hired him anyway.
The rock doesn't actually bring the Kims good luck, and I never said that it does; I said that the Kims clearly think it will (or at least the father and son do--maybe not the mother).
The unsustainability of their rise isn't complete luck; it's integral to B-JH's critique of capitalism. The film suggests that the Kims are part of a perpetual underclass that's systematically kept down. That's the point of the flood and that the wealthy family keeps commenting on their smell, as no country already mentioned. They're structurally impoverished, and the film's critical commentary is that the capitalist system functions by keeping them structurally impoverished.
I never said the family doesn't ascend; I've said precisely what you have, that their ascension is short-lived. That's what I've meant this entire time by it being "hollow"--it's structurally unsustainable. Parasite's perspective on capitalism is that the lower classes are necessary for capitalism to function; that's why they can't escape their stink and why they're metaphorically washed out of the house by the rain.
In the Kims' case, moving from urban poor to urban wealth is probably the only option--they can't afford to relocate. I don't think you're wrong that Parasite is critiquing greed, but it's also critiquing the system that perpetuates the poverty in which the Kims find themselves. Yes, they had every opportunity to not be greedy--but part of the film's point is that if they wanted any chance of upward mobility, their only option was to behave the way they did.
Which brings me back to the rock. It's neither magical nor is it the catalyst for their rise. Within the world of the film, it's an inanimate material object, nothing more; but from the perspective of the audience, it's a metaphor for the illusory promise of wealth that capitalism presents to the underclass. Parasite's point is that this promise is false because the underclass must remain impoverished in order for capitalism to persist. The rock is a metaphor for that; that's all I've been saying. We can't know one way or another whether it's actually hollow, but it would make perfect sense that it is.
The rock doesn't actually bring the Kims good luck, and I never said that it does; I said that the Kims clearly think it will (or at least the father and son do--maybe not the mother).
The unsustainability of their rise isn't complete luck; it's integral to B-JH's critique of capitalism. The film suggests that the Kims are part of a perpetual underclass that's systematically kept down. That's the point of the flood and that the wealthy family keeps commenting on their smell, as no country already mentioned. They're structurally impoverished, and the film's critical commentary is that the capitalist system functions by keeping them structurally impoverished.
I never said the family doesn't ascend; I've said precisely what you have, that their ascension is short-lived. That's what I've meant this entire time by it being "hollow"--it's structurally unsustainable. Parasite's perspective on capitalism is that the lower classes are necessary for capitalism to function; that's why they can't escape their stink and why they're metaphorically washed out of the house by the rain.
In the Kims' case, moving from urban poor to urban wealth is probably the only option--they can't afford to relocate. I don't think you're wrong that Parasite is critiquing greed, but it's also critiquing the system that perpetuates the poverty in which the Kims find themselves. Yes, they had every opportunity to not be greedy--but part of the film's point is that if they wanted any chance of upward mobility, their only option was to behave the way they did.
Which brings me back to the rock. It's neither magical nor is it the catalyst for their rise. Within the world of the film, it's an inanimate material object, nothing more; but from the perspective of the audience, it's a metaphor for the illusory promise of wealth that capitalism presents to the underclass. Parasite's point is that this promise is false because the underclass must remain impoverished in order for capitalism to persist. The rock is a metaphor for that; that's all I've been saying. We can't know one way or another whether it's actually hollow, but it would make perfect sense that it is.
Last edited:
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
