Think the last time I saw a movie in theaters was when dark knight came out but I remember my mom made me and my brothers and sisters watch this crap when I was in high school going "that this is the real world".
This billionaire wank fanfiction left such a bad taste in my mouth that I googled up the guy the movie was based on to blow her the fuck away.
my personal favorites are cryptofascist movies, ie.
Cobra
Dirty Harry series
Death Wish series
American Sniper
Really? How?
Wew. On the topic of supers, I like Punisher because it strips away all the pretense and you get comic creators showing you how they really feel about undesirables and that the "fight crime" meme is just about othering poor people.
Triumph of the Will would be an obvious choice.
Why do I often get reactionary vibes from superhero movies?
You don't see the political agenda in a rogue vigilante Charles Bronson white old guy gunning down criminals when the police won't for like 8 successive hours through the 5 movies?
youtube.com
that ain't a feeling
No buddy she made watch pursuit of happiness which is basically poor people are poor because they are lazy and rich business owners are waiting to make hard workers rich.
The guy its based off of was a druggie wife beater who got lucky due to reagan's black favor laws(I'm black myself so not from pol) and landed a job with a good company and ended up a millionaire. In the movie it was am internship and he kissed porky ass; acted as a taxi; hung out with them and worked for free.
That's not exactly a guarantee…
The winners of society are bores with their empty powerless lives and don an identity to lecture the have noted on how what they do is wrong.
Seems legit.
Yeah that's true.
I laugh when Nazis and skin heads get hurt.
Because superheroes are purely reactionary
dedicto.com
Do you feel triggered, well do you?
This piece of crap.
You see bro, everything flows through a natural order and everybody has its own hierarchical place on this natural order. If you try and succeed to overthrow the powers that be and destroy the class system all you are really doing it's just disturbing the natural balance of things, people will go mad and we all are going to die. So just accept your place and be happy. You don't want to disturb the balance of things and get us all killed do ya?
I'm going to guess because they show single "great men" saving people using their own skill and talent instead of collective force changing the root causes of problems. Even when you have teams of superheroes (even teams who won't shut up about the value of co-operation) great care is made to make them distinctly special individuals and emphasise the individual dynamic as much as the group. Also most of them are inherently superior to vanilla human beings via birth or freak circumstance, with often limited downsides.
(I'm not being anti-individual per-se here, not demanding total subsumption to a collective. It's just that narratively speaking there's that individual sort of focus. Within the collective individuals still matter, it's basically a matter of what tint of glasses you wear.)
wtf this movie is leftist as fuck.
the message is basicly: to break a way from hierarchical society, you have to tear down the old system violently and rebuild a new world, instead of just hoping for a more benevolent ruler.
Is Plastic Man /ourguy/?
Daily reminder le cena man xd is reactionary bullshit and possibly national so.cialism as well.
Wait, WHAT?
Snowpiercer is literally communist propaganda.
The Train represents the state/capitalism, the people at the back the proles, the middle the petit-bourgeois, and at the very front porky himself. The proles fight their way to the front of the train to take control of it. While the "leader" progresses forward, the asian engineer dude is constantly looking out the window, which most proles don't do, or if they do, only with horror and revulsion at all the snow and cold.
He notices that the outside world is warming up and is now habitable. Meanwhile, the petit-bourgeois in the middle of the train are riled up against the proles by the driver (porky) at the front. Finally, the leader of the revolution gets to the front of the train and is told that he's been duped, that this was all part of the plan, and that now that he's here, he's got to take over the job of running the train (the state).
Meanwhile, asian dude and his daughter realize that the train has to be stopped and destroyed; otherwise the revolutionaries will just end up as the new ruling class. They blow up the train and are vindicated by the existence of life outside the train in the last shot, showing that life outside of the state, and outside of capitalism, is possible.
Snowpiercer is completely communist in this sense. It's got the very obvious class warfare, but it's much more complex than that. It's anti-ML and almost Ziziekian in its portrayal of capitalism and the state as both a material and a mental structure to be dismantled. The failure of the proles and the humans in general to think outside the box(car) is their (near) downfall. The offer to the revolutionary to take over the train is the film's metaphor for ML revolutionaries becoming the new ruling caste in ML countries and degenerating.
Additionally, the film goes out of its way to show that the narrative about the "natural order" and "perpetual system" is bullshit. It's shown multiple times in the film that things like bullets and cigarettes are disappearing. At the end, the "perpetual engine" is shown to be breaking down; small children have to be used instead of mechanical parts because they've run out of replacements. The whole train is very slowly decaying; a metaphor for the internal contradiction and eventual destruction of capitalism.
Tl;dr rewatch Snowpiercer u lil shits
...
The Founder (ayy lmao)
gump has mixed messages. what you wrote is true, but it also depicts the military as predatory, antiintellectual and dumb, and lt. dan's desire to die in battle as delusional and self-destructive. there's also some antiracist stuff in it
You guys are tripping and projecting things.
The movie's message is clearly that there isn't anything outside of the natural (divine even) order of things. All what the rebellion did was to just get everybody killed, so your basic options are to either bow down your head and accept your place or die.
Yeah, nah.
The grill and kid are completely fucked in the end, there's nothing outside the train.
This isn't some fringe opinion, consensus is the movie is about the futility of meaningful change without violent revolution
The movie is pretty communist up until the last few minutes where it goes full anarcho-nihilist, blowing up and derailing the train and essentially killing everyone on board. You may think it's a hopeful ending that they escaped the train and found that life still exists outside, but there's only two people left stranded on a snowy mountainside. There's no indication that other humans survived outside the train and the presumption is the two survivors will soon be dead of exposure or starvation if they can't scavenge the train.
The conditions of Snowpiercer are that of extreme scarcity, since the outside environment is near-completely inhospitable and the only "means of production" is the one train that is effectively a closed, tightly regulated system. A truly communist film given those conditions would involve the people at the back rebelling, dismantling the hierarchical culture of the train's population and installing some kind of dictatorship of the proletariat, while working to preserve the harmony of the train's ecosystem and ensure everyone has an equal share. Then maybe once it's established that the world is warming up again they can stop the train and begin to reclaim the outside world.
As it is now though Snowpiercer is at best a cautionary tale about how intense resource scarcity brought about by climate change will massively challenge any attempt at egalitarian socialism, and at worst anprim/nihilist bullshit about how even righteous, justified revolution is doomed and how the world would be just fine without us.
I want to play devil's advocate with this guy and say that meaningful change doesn't mean a better world. Capitalism replaced feudalism, but it's reign has polluted a lot of the earth and caused climate change as well as the 6th extinction.
They saw a polar bear… an apex predator that can only exist with a large amount of other animals to eat, and ultimately, an ecosystem fertile enough to support large lifeforms.
The existence of the polar bear suggests frankly that humans are still alive too. If huge carnivores like polar bears could survive, humans almost certainly did as well. People in the arctic live in those sort of conditions all the time; especially because there's no way the world froze in a day; people would have had time to prepare.
With regards to this argument, this essentially shows that capitalism/states were always not necessary, and that it is only ideology (zizek def.) that prevented us from seeing that. While the kids might be screwed, humanity def. isn't.
...
Ayo hol' up, user. Are you trying to make me like minorities and shit?
That's why this board suck.
The post asked about movies, I knew it came from a graphic novel (haven't read it yet though)
...
Even if some Inuit-types are still alive on Earth, that doesn't mean that the woman and the kid will survive. Even if a bunch of people survived the train, they're still completely unprepared for the cold and stuck on the side of a mountain. These things wouldn't be a problem if the main characters ``stopped the fucking train`` instead of derailing and crashing it. I mean, they braked the train in the comic, the movie made the explicit decision to have it crash at the end.
The train in the movie is essentially a microcosm of late-future capitalism; the MoP are mostly automated, jobs are scarce, and the proletariat are only needed one at a time for replacement parts. The entire population is also periodically liquidated in order to maintain balance. The film's ending makes a very non-Marxist, Zerzan-tier argument that ``nothing`` can be made out of this arrangement; that revolutionary change is not possible without a complete destruction of society and the killing of most of humanity. Snowpiercer could have easily shown an ending where the train was brought to a stop and everyone was forced off; where they found people living outside the train, but they didn't. All you get is two kids who just survived a train wreck, standing in the arctic and about to get eaten by a polar bear.
This is literally every shakespeare play.
I really didn't enjoy movies like 2012 for obvious reasons.
But Shakespeare said literally the opposite
Not really a movie but a documentary
youtube.com
"Globalisation is Good"
Based on the book 'In defence of Global Capitalism'
You guys are trying too hard to be literal. Communist allegories in fiction will always be flawed because, as a materialist philosophy, it is inherently based in the history and state of the real world, so a fictional world will not precisely represent this when creative liberties are taken. The general idea behind the film is what matters.
Because we already live in capitalist society, this shapes how we view fiction and makes depicting similar fictional societies much easier.
lol dude thats a pretty ridiculous understanding of materialism. it's more than "things that r real r real and things that aren't real aren't real hurr"
Obviously it doesn't try to be anti-capitalist, but if you look at it in a certain way, it definitely can be, what with the emphasis on poverty and homelessness and desperation. Ultimately the movie is about a guy trying to survive and take care of his kid in a world that doesn't care about him and managing to succeed at the end by getting a stable job.
You, like a lot of other people, are seeing politics in it where it doesn't exist. Forrest succeeds because he's a good person and makes the best of life. Jenny isn't some rebellious hero, just a typical broken person.
LOL
I never said it was a realistic movie.