I loved Okja and Snow Piercer but I didn't care for Parasite. I don't know why.
I actually haven't seen this movie. Is it as based as everyone says it is?
Parasite has been out for a while now, here the fuck have you people been?
if you can put aside the gimmicky south korean movie screenwriting formula of excessive violence, frequent contrived coincidences and plot twists, it's okay
It's excellent>excessive violence
Not really, American R-rated movies are a lot bloodier. The deaths are relatively realistic even if its sometimes over-dramatic>contrived coincidences
Not really>plot twists
Make sense given the point of the story.
All in all I rate it an 8/10
It's my favorite movie of the past couple years.
Parasite was good, maybe not amazing. I certainly found myself pondering it for several days trying to come to what I thought about it. I viewed it as quite against Marxist ideas at first. It seemed to be trying to say that people who use rhetoric about "the people/working class united" will always inevitably betray you. By a few days later it occurred to me that it might be trying to show how the anti working class rhetoric is corrupt and turns people against each other for no good reasons, never ended up deciding but I think the latter is more likely. Snowpiercer is still easily the best of the 3 films OP mentioned.>>2179
Yes. At least it wasn't done as a formula American trash horror/thriller movie, which is a type of film the story could have easily been placed in instead.>>2188
Reluctantly I second this. I don't want to like this movie as much as I do for some reason.
It'll be interesting to see how the HBO spinoff series turns out.
Is not hard to see the topics of the film: ALienation and class strugle. Both are very anti capitalist, even there are a parody of worker rigth winer enajenation with a North Korea mention.
The Host is based too
>"anti-capitalist" movie wins the fucking oscars
<the elites are totally against us
How do commies cope?
>>2425>Dude it's shit but you can't do anything about it
It's radlib at best. Not to mention the "message" is basically ignored by burgers.
>>2425>anti-capitalist sentiment seeping through mass media means commies are in power
read Adorno bro
It is a shitty version of Snowpiercer. Literally class essentialism with everyone acting more or less the same with rich= dumb and nice poor= smart and vicious.
both Parasite and Memories of Murder are amazing in my opinion, different movies dealing with different themes so i cant say one is better than another, both 9/10 - important movies
Gonna watch Snowpiercer too now. Sounds like relevant kino.
r8 my quarantine movie night list fellow hobbygoblins. Tell me if I any of these are harmful>Big Short>Boss Baby>Vice>Joker>Ze Martial Panda Trilogy>Little Women>Despicable Me Dos>Despicable Me Tres>Jojo Rabbit>BlacKkKlansman>Despicable Me>The Irishman>The Good Dinosaur>1917>Le Minions >Marriage Story>WALL-E>Hotel for Dogs>Knives Out>Last Christmas
<Baby Mama (2008)
Stocking up on all the movies before they run out of torrents in the Digi-World
Any recommendations? Please keep it PG
And yes before anybody points out the missing kino in the list like:
And You Don't Mess with Zohan
Don't worry I've already seen them.
trash cashgrab that's vomit worthy>Despicable Me 2 and 3
are trash, the original was alright tho>Ze Martial Panda Trilogy
Do you mean Kung Fu panda? In that case the first 2 is what I'd recommend
I'd also suggest watching Up, and any other Pixar movie
They know that they've won and they're just flaunting it here.
<DON'T READ IF YOU DIDN'T WATCH YET
I am conflicted about it. If I was being perfectly honest, I'd probably even say it's bad, however it being leftypilled saves it somewhat at least. My big issue is that it sacrifices good plot for political / ideological analysis that is supposed to relate to the current day. I don't mind a film doing that, however I'd say it fucks up with the ideology as well. So I will go in to these separate problems in 2 paragraphs.
First is the movie if we take it at face value as a sci-fi story detached from our own cultural reality. Well, it's pretty shit and basically Divergent / Maze-Runner (or whatever the fuck it was called where they run away from a robo-maze into a post apocalypse scenario) sci-fi dystopia plot. Villains are comically evil, there is a random betrayal moment at the end that leads to nothing and the ending feels like shit, since right before it was established that the snow will pass, so it feels like the main character totally fucked up and killed everyone instead of waiting a year more. Oh and add in the stupid shit too like how the train structure is dysfunctional or the fucking glass shooting scene.
However, most of that can be forgiven, especially when you consider most of it is symbolism to reflect to the real world. However, and this can be just me, the ideology falls flat for me, especially since at first I thought it was actually going the right way. Basically it all comes together with the final confrontation with Elon Musk stand-in. Up to that point all we saw were a) scenes of total contrast in the train and b) a few lines about "keeping the balance". Musk explains his view for why things should be as they are. It is 1 to 1 Holism. (I think there are different definitions of what Holism is, but I am specifically referring to the one pioneered by Jan Smuts, an anglo imperialist governor of South Africa. He, abusing the theory of ecosystems, came up to the conclusion that viewing humanity as an eco-system there are ways of insuring that it maintains total stability, with the "stability" of course being the insured imperialist hegemony of Britain. Almost the same ideas where started being promoted in second half of 20th century for ecology, saying that austerity and degrowth need to be ensured to maintain the current system, aka capitalism, completely ignoring the possibility of the system itself restructuring). This is clearly the same situation in Snowpiercer. The underclasses need to suffer in order to maintain the eco-system of the train, while the upper-class lives in luxury as a "necessity" for provocation. Now all of this is pretty good and draws attention to a great evil in modern ecologist ideology, however after this exposition the main character drops the ball, or more importantly, the story does. It falls pray to the very ideology it tried to attack, as the main character concedes to Musk stand-in, that indeed this is the only way. The largest flaw of Holism, that there is another way if you dare to restructure and change society it self instead of maintaining status quo, is never revealed. Instead the film subscribes to idealist bullshit like pic related, doomerism that no longer has any faith in the future as it is, choosing instead to let everything burn, including yourself, only leaving behind tiny hope for the future instead of fighting for it yourself as hard as you can with what is offered, no longer do you try to change the world. Also is it pure coincidence that the main character is called Curtis when the only other time I have ever saw Holism being called out was in an Adam Curtis doc?
Is the Big Short good? Or is it porky propaganda? It is made by the same guy who made Vice
It's pretty alright. Shows the corruption of the corporate capital pretty well. Also it's enjoyable as a comedy.
Thanks. I am going to watch it again now.
what is your opinion on the matrix trilogy
What a garbage take.
This was an objective improvement over Snowpiercer, I bet you still watch capeshit in theaters you moron. Parasite is pure kino by comparison (and it just is, in general).
To be honest I really don't know. Most of my thoughts on it come from general popculture and such. Last time I watched it was a few years back when I still was a young teen and didn't actually try to look deeper into movies to find their meaning. Tell you what, I am quite interested myself now. I'll try to watch the trilogy over the next week and post my thoughts on it in the recently watched movies thread.
why do you have this gif saved.
Holy hell. Please tell me this a real quote.
Because I have a taste for great filmmaking.>>3463
Of course he is. This thread makes me wonder if half of you even saw the movie or are just contrarian after you got word that the movie won an award.
It won an award for being a masterpiece in cinematography.
We like it for the writing, touching on the topic of class struggle in late capitalism.
why do you have the flooding toiler scene saved
If you saw the movie you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
Anon be honest
why do you have the gif saved. What are you hiding
It's a pivotal scene of the fucking movie you poop obsessed child. I'm not going to explain half the movie that leads up to that point just to indulge your petulant bullshit. Or go fap if it's a sexual thing. I don't give a fuck what turns you on or not.
Watch the movie, come back and then let's discuss the this scene of a worker facing the crushing weight of capitalist exploitation in the middle of the film Parasite
Reposting this from a leftypol thread:
>It touches on meritocracy, even though the Kim family are all skilled and hard working, they don't have social mobility because they don't have the capital to send their kids to college. In order to gain capital, they have to con richer families. Even though we know what they did was "wrong", they're clearly depicted as victims of their class and environment.
>It touches on privilege of the rich, the Kims have their home destroyed by a natural disaster, but to the Parks their capital allows them to use "rain" as an opportunity for a party. Because of their wealth, the upperclass can live in a bubble, shielded from the real world.
And it does all that without resorting to making the rich family some cartoony, evil business tycoons. They aren't antagonists in the film at all, yet the ignorance, privilege, and cruelty of the "nice and civil" Parks are still plain as day to see.
>Capitalism forces the poor into immoral situations, while making the rich ignorant of their struggle at best. And at worst, the rich will punish the poor for "acting out of line", constantly reminding them of the class boundaries that separate them.
People really seemed to miss the metaphors used with the cockroaches. The poor family views insects as pests and unwanted parts of the world… the rich family sees the poor as insects; smelly and dirty and disgusting… not human really… and all unintentionally out of sheer ignorance.
This is a great post, You should repost it onto the Snowpiercer thread
The working class family are literally named after the North Korean Kim family (Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-Un) while the Parks are named after the South Korean ex president Park Geun-hye (or maybe another South Korean president, there's been multiple Parks).
It is pretty anti-porky and does a good job in explaining the insanity of the world situation.
I loved the scene after the flooding where the Kims have to stay in the shelter overnight, with all their lives basically destroyed, while the rich assholes call them to have them help organize some stupid party for the kid.
Also, has anyone here seen Burning? Thoughts?
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are probably the only countries where the "Leftist Academics hiding in the film industry and trying to shape public opinion" is probably actually true. Mainly because until like the 90s being a Leftist was basically a disqualification on par with paedophile with most career choices so they all just became Mangaka's and movie directors and shit
remember comrade, they'll sell you the rope that you'll hang them with if its convenient
I can't tell if thats cool or not
I think that in the finale it was showed that it is impossible to make any change until the train, i.e. the current form of government, is destroyed.
Still, i do agree that the scene and the film overall was pretty crude.
Park Geun-hye is the child of Park Chung-hee, the former dictator of South Korea.
Wow. Fucking shameless.
It's funny that even after getting his award for Parasite, people still don't know who this dude is.
…yeah, if you didn't catch it from his movies already. the host, his first big breakthrough, even had a vaguely anti-capitalist tone, albeit from a mostly environmentalist lens. problem is, coming out as a straight up marxist is a one way ticket to career suicide. he's just gotta give the nods and winks subtly enough that the popcorn munchers don't start asking questions and hurting sales.
anyone interested in the history of the korean working class following the korean war should read "they are not machines".
I friggin' love host. Such an under-rated monster movie. I remember back when it wasn't yet released to the USA and youtubers took trailer clips and modded them as real monster videos for gullible burgers
Watch memories of murder and the Host. the Host is saturated with early 2000’s Korea vibes and is one of my favorite films>>6445
they’re last names based on family origin anon. They just happened to have those names
Appreciate people wanting to talk about this dude more, but please post actual content to bump it, even a 'recent news' post about the man.
what are the essentials for modern Korean film? so I’ve seen this and Train to Busan and they were both great so I’m interested
it literally turned me into leftist and snapped me out of my centrist trance.
I thought Train to Busan was total schlock, what did you like about it?
mainly the focused theme of reaction vs aid and cooperation.
I can forgive Bong for not being as overtly radical as I'd like because the powers that be would absolutely make sure that he never gets funding for another film if he reveals his power level too much. I would guess that film producers in Seoul and Hollywood generally dislike the ideological message in his films but they're willing to tolerate it because his work is popular and it makes money.
I think I posted this exact file on leftytrash to convince someone to help me turn it into a banner for >>>/leftypol/
to this day, I could not find any film that depicts life of schizophrenic person better than this film. really well written comedic psychological horror.
check the filename
the host was a truly scary monster film because it didn't pull punches and had actual characters die and not just random mooks.
I was feeling pretty dumb for not being able to understand all the business jargon shown (specially because they were all in English), but then the movie literally said that's the point
I feel a bit better about myself now
i still don't understand how was the parasite or how anti-capitalist it was
i understood the class differences it made apparent
like the guy driving, the rain flood, the other stuff
but like what was it trying to say other than that
The basic message is that the upper class couldn't give less of a fuck about everyone else and the only thing left for poor people is to suffer in silence or violently take over.
im sorry i meant to ask who was the parasite
do you know?
On the surface the implication is that the poor, living off the thing given to them by the rich are parasites, but in actuality it is the rich family and their porky indulgences that are parasitic on society.
The guy who lives in the walls.
>>21846>it is the rich family and their porky indulgences that are parasitic on society.
i think this was my gripe with the movie
it didn't really show me that in any of the scenes
it showed the rich being out of touch but nothing more than that
needed to show the parasiticism of the rich more
They did show it jut not in as a traditional "porky eating all de monee" type, they're not just out of touch, thy actively do not consider the poor as human beings, merely assets to use. See >>21836
aw man goddamn it gotta watch a video essay for it
i'd just hope for the particular scenes
are they parasites in the larger sense that since they're not caring about their fellow human beings and just using them for their labor?
>>21856>are they parasites in the larger sense that since they're not caring about their fellow human beings and just using them for their labor?
Yes, it's just more subtle because capitalist exploitation and dehumanization is more subtle than it had been a century ago.
That anon is wrong, the rich are not the parasites. That's the point of the film, the working class family act in a pretty scummy way, they cheat and lie, fuck over people in the same situation, and are in general not very good people. They are the parasites. But when shit goes down you are forced to sympathize with those that were meant to be the bad and the rich family who until then were just clueless duped retards, victims who might even deserve some sympathy, suddenly become outright evil and this moral reversal is the climax of the movie. The rich are not parasites, they are not shown exploiting the working class and they pay their servants well, who are basically cheating money out of them. This is what makes the movie interesting, if it was just big boss man paying little money nobody would watch it because that's just everyday life and not very interesting.
>>21867>the working class family act in a pretty scummy way, they cheat and lie, fuck over people in the same situation, and are in general not very good people. >they are the parasites
You're one of those people that got filtered by the most superficial aspect. They do that because they're literally so poor that they have no other method of surviving and trying to better their situation except to step on others and bootlick the rich. That isn't parasitism but harsh interclass competition. >they are not shown exploiting the working class and they pay their servants well
Again you've been filtered anon. >who are basically cheating money out of them
What the fuck is filtered? I'm not coffee. This is not an ode to illegalism or some feel good story about the poor outsmarting the rich. They scam the rich and you might enjoy this but in the film they are punished for it and it leads to their downfall. They do not win. They are the parasites and the point of the film is that despite this, they are the good guys. You want to see your vulgar Marxism in everything but the film does not condemn the way the rich got their wealth and their relationship is not portrayed as only financial transactions or commodities or whatever. The climax is reached when the rich father finds the guy living in his walls smelly. He did not ever meet him before, he did not ever hire him, he knows nothing about him. But he is still disgusted by him instead of showing empathy even though he is literally dying at his feet, licking it.
You can make excuses for the poor family and claim that workers can never do anything wrong but that completely ignores the point of the film. You are like a mirror image of those right-wingers who claim that "college socialists" would stop being communists if they actually met working class people, since they are supposedly all unpleasant company: rude, cruel and smelly. Instead you claim that workers cannot be bad people because they have no other choice and everyone has to look out for themselves. But the point the film makes breaks out of this false dilemma and instead of trying to portray the poor family as working class saints that can never do anything wrong or evil incarnate unworthy of our sympathy, it portrays them as people with faults that try to survive through dishonest means, as parasites, but despite that they are still worthy of our sympathy. It points out that even thought not every worker is a saint and you might like or dislike individuals, the working class is still worthy of its emancipation.
>>21869>fuck is filtered? I'm not coffee.
It's a simile, don't be obtuse. >long diatribe about muh poor being le scummy scammers >vulgar marxism(!!!)
Literal /pol/ rhetoric. >They scam the rich and you might enjoy this but in the film they are punished for it and it leads to their downfall. They do not win. They are the parasites and the point of the film is that despite this, they are the good guys.
You're muddling the truth and your own assumptions. >claim that workers can never do anything wrong
I literally never said that, nice strawman. >completely ignores the point of the film
blatantly incorrect. >Instead you claim that workers cannot be bad people because they have no other choice and everyone has to look out for themselves
Again putting words in my mouth, knave. I never said they cannot be bad, I said that their poverty drives them to vulgar actions that should be beneath a civilized society, because the truth i that South Korea is not so. This is Exemplified in the scene they let themselves be GASSED in their shitty basement apartment just to kill the insects that infest their home.
The point is that the real parasite is the rich because their hoarded wealth and opulent disregard for other humans, especially the poor FORCES people to fight and scrabble around like beastly animals over the scraps they are tossed. And if the rich no longer favor a poor individual, said individual gets tossed out onto the streets, in utter disregard of if they survive.
I also clarify, the rich being parasitic does not make the Pak family some inherent evil. The Kim family' action appear mercantile from a basic sense if you do not pay attention to the details, even in getting the other people fired they still feel regret and think about it, but move on because agonizing over morality is not a luxury they can afford. They have no present of future and so must take it from others or die. And that is horrendous, but it is the upperclass that puts them in this position to begin with. To them the Kim family is at best a servant or toy that they can afford to toss out their small change on and not care about the details, they can talk and laugh with them but at the end of the day the Kim family is to the Paks, faceless beings whose struggles they do not know and do not want to know.
And yet Kim didn't kill Pak because of this, he killed him because he could not take it any longer, as his daughter is dying in his arms, for Pak his fainted son is more important, and even in this time of panic and horror, the richman still has time to pinch his nose at the "smelly poorfags", because he does not consider them people but things, no different to an automaton or car.
The Kim's are considered parasites by the Paks, just asss the Kims considered the insects in their apartment to be parasites, and on the surface that is the appearance, but the reality is that the social structure that they live in means it is the Paks that are the true parasites. They may not have prsonally mbzzld money or denied the Kims' son entrance into a university, but they are perpetuators of the system that does this.
You can interpret the film however you want, but it won't make a convincing interpretation if it is not supported by the source material. You can claim that the rich must be the parasites in the film because they are the parasites in real life, but it is not convincing, because the film does not show them to be the parasites. That's why the other anon did not accept it, and you can talk about real life all you want, it won't change the fact that in the film, the rich family are not the parasites.
>>21869>What the fuck is filtered? I'm not coffee.
>The climax is reached when the rich father finds the guy living in his walls smelly. He did not ever meet him before, he did not ever hire him, he knows nothing about him. But he is still disgusted by him instead of showing empathy even though he is literally dying at his feet, licking it.
Man I forgot about that scene, I think that scene also could've been saying something about bootlicking
I think I agree with your interpretations if we're basically only looking at what is shown, Obviously with everything in the larger sense, The rich are parasites but we don't really see much of the exploitation or the society at large in this movie
I faced the same issue while watching the movie, In the start, I was trying to see scenes where the rich mistreat the poor, but this movie does not really go that easy route
It makes a little complex, It is more interested in the differences of class and not really interested in demonizing the individual people>>21874
I agree with you too, Those things you mentioned about the Paks, But I think the flaw ultimately is of the movie and how the title brings unnecessary confusion. Either the title should've been changed or the messaging should've been more apparent with scenes that like show the Paks going along with the system because they don't mind and then in a butterfly effect it coming back to hurt the Kims, or something like them being perpetuating capitalist realism
As you say>They may not have prsonally mbzzld money or denied the Kims' son entrance into a university, but they are perpetuators of the system that does this.
We as communists can see this and understand it but for the common laymen, The title is confusing and takes away from the class issues shown which are much more clearer for everybody to understand
I don't like the idea of a parasite comicbook and tv show but I hope they show the system more in it
Wait is that rock supposed to be the system or something? Why did you post that image? I forgot what the rock meant
Do you even know what a parasite is? You fucking pseuds go through insane mental gymnastics to force the film to be what you think it should be. Try actually watching it and accepting it as it is instead of desperately trying to fit into your preconceived conclusions.
That's what I got from it at least. The rock is supposed to bring wealth and good fortune or some shit, but the only times the rock shows up is when everything goes to shit and they lose everything. The main dude desperately clings to it to maintain his fantasy that getting out of poverty is possible. Idk what else it's supposed to represent except the myth of upward mobility under capitalism. He literally gets hit over the head with the metaphor at the end
A parasite is a leech, Something that provides nothing but takes and takes
An undesired entity
I think system fits under tha umbrella
>>21885>He literally gets hit over the head with the metaphor at the end
I don't really think killing off the daughter really had that much emotional impact for me. It seemed more like "oh we've reached the end of the movie, let's just add in some consequences randomly." I guess I wanted it to work out for both of the kids. Fine make it a tragedy, but at least set up the downfall more. They could've really done more with the conflict between the former maid they pushed out and the family. It was just a sudden discovery for the maid, and then it seemed like the movie switched genres and became a home invasion type murder-thriller. Also the father's decision to randomly murder the boss off of one insult felt shoehorned as well.
Seems every Korean movie is Shamylan tier twisty, Oldboy, The Handmaiden, This one.>>21846>On the surface the implication is that the poor, living off the thing given to them by the rich are parasites, but in actuality it is the rich family and their porky indulgences that are parasitic on society.
This is my take as well.>>21853>it showed the rich being out of touch but nothing more than that
How about firing the maid who had lived in the house longer than they did just because they believed she became ill? I think that's more than out of touch.
The "system" is the coordination of the social division of labour, saying that it "provides nothing but takes and takes" is not only fetishistic but dumb af.>>21888
It was set up well. They got in trouble because they became too brazen with their frauds. His murder wasn't random either. Maybe try actually paying attention to the movie instead of trying to shoehorn this dumb "the rich must be the parasites in the story because I want them to be" meme that is totally unsupported by the actual movie.
I like being fetishistic and dramatic against capitalism
I do not apologise for it
I mean did we co-ordinate to this social division of labor? No. It wasn't our choice. It was forced upon us
Just like a parasite is a being that enters you without your own will
>>21877>it won't change the fact that in the film, the rich family are not the parasites
Except they are, it's decidedly subtle and done on purpose. They don't need to be caricatures of evil to passively promote their parasitism. >>21879>for the common laymen, The title is confusing and takes away from the class issues shown which are much more clearer for everybody to understand
I suppose, I'd also add that thing are lot in translation, I'm not properly versed in the language, but I am part Korean and I know that there are some things in the culture and language that doesn't translate into English properly and so the subtle details are missed, such as the analogy of the Pak's enormous and formal celebratory party for a birthday compared to the Kim's idea of a celebration is to drink beer and "thank the good Mr. Pak" for their "kindness".
Describe how the movie portray them as parasites. Nobody so far in this thread managed to do it. All the arguments for it were external to the the movie. Just because you know the rich to be parasites in real life does not mean that the movie must portray them as so. The rich being parasites does not contribute to the story, in fact it it kind of detracts from its power.
>>21896>Describe how the movie portray them as parasites. Nobody so far in this thread managed to do it. All the arguments for it were external to the the movie. Just because you know the rich to be parasites in real life does not mean that the movie must portray them as so. The rich being parasites does not contribute to the story, in fact it it kind of detracts from its power.
I already did, they dispose the maid who has more a connection to the house than they do just because she became ill.
That's not an example of parasitism.
>>19391>I had no idea this was made by the same guy that made Okja
Yeah he made a bunch of excellent films that had interesting and based takes.
This is a Western POV, it's rather common for S.Korean films, especially in the past decade to be subversive and anti-capitalist, the country is full of hidden fissures in society.
Unique IPs: 16