• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film Snowpiercer

by way of comparison, what was your previous best film ever seen?

i have heard this is odd, wonderful and interesting and it's definitely on my 'to see' list.

alasdair
 
Really?

I enjoyed it. I have a tough time deciding what the best film I've ever seen is. I'd definitely give it a watch if I haven't seen it.
 
Snowpiercer is the most Gilliamesque film ever produced, even though Terry Gilliam had nothing to do with the production. John Hurt's character is named Gilliam, as a little nod to the ol' Flying Circus animator. It is, by far, better than anything Gilliam has ever or will ever produce. (I'm quite happy to explain my justification for this statement, if necessary, but it may contain spoilers.)

The statement I made may well appear ludicrous, or unfounded. But, it isn't. I'm not jumping up and down. I've thought about it, doubted my conclusions, scrapped them, and started again. I repeat this process a number of times with everything, to avoid self-delusion.

Snowpiercer functions, highly, on a large number of different levels. It is an entertaining action film, a compelling/original science-fiction film, a successful comedy, and (most important of all) an absolutely ingenious political allegory. It is, in my opinion, overflowing with genius.

Previously, the best films ever produced - in my mind - were mostly Lars Von Trier / Kubrick films. No writer/director, prior to watching Snowpiercer, came close to von Trier (in my mind). After the credits rolled, it was clear to me that I had enjoyed the film more than any other and that it had more of a profound affect on me (spiritually/philosophically) than any piece of cinema I had ever witnessed.

The closest film I can relate it to, in terms of style and tone, is Gilliam's Brazil.

And it shits all over Brazil.

It is in a league of it's own, IMO, and - hopefully - it will inspire other film-makers and pave the way for a new era of science-fiction.

5 stars.

by way of comparison, what was your previous best film ever seen?
Click to expand...

I couldn't say, specifically. Prior to Snowpiercer, there were a number of close contenders.
 
ForEverAfter said:
I couldn't say, specifically. Prior to Snowpiercer, there were a number of close contenders.
Click to expand...
this is like getting blood out of a stone.

what were they? i'm trying to put your initial comment in context.

alasdair
 
this is like getting blood out of a stone.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That statement doesn't apply here. Perhaps if you'd asked me repeatedly and I'd been continually aloof, it would be warranted. But, that is not the case.

You asked a single question and I gave you a lengthy response.

To clarify (further):

Prior to watching Snowpiercer, it would've been impossible for me to say what my (definitive) favourite film was because there were so many contenders. That's why I chose to answer the question by, instead, indicating two of my favourite directors.

I've honestly thought about it, and I'm not comfortable defining a bunch of films as a complete list of second place contenders. The second place, unlike the first, is unclear... My tastes are also shifting quite rapidly. Films that I used to love, I revisit to discover that I no longer like them on any level. I will indicate some of the possible contenders, but I'm certainly not going to attempt to list all of them: that is an unanswerable question, in the sense that I don't have the time (or motivation/inclination) to answer it.

...

This is the best you're going to get:

"Happiness" & "Storytelling" by Todd Solondz, come to mind.

"A Clockwork Orange" & "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" by Kubrick.

"Melancholia", "Anti-Christ" & "The Idiots" (by Lars von Trier) are all contenders.

...

I hope that's enough context for you.

I apologize for being so difficult.
 
Last edited:
'the idiots' is one of my favourite films so that's high praise.

thanks.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
I watched this last night on our flight. Thoroughly enjoyable, but I wouldn't classify it as the best film, even sci fi film, ever.

The concepts and story were interesting and unique, the violence graphic and confronting, but not enough so as to detract, and the acting for the most part believable.

However you do need to suspend belief at some obvious voids in the plot, not the least the fact you travel from carriage to carriage containing schools, hair salons, night clubs full of people, yet they never show the living quarters of the vast number of people who live there.

Despite that I'd recommend this to any sci fi fan. For reference I also rate Clouds Atlas and The Chronicles of Riddick, yet found the Alien franchise simply meh.
 
Tried to watch it last night, wasnt in the mood and didn't get into it, half way through I went looking for something else to watch.
 
you do need to suspend belief at some obvious voids in the plot, not the least the fact you travel from carriage to carriage containing schools, hair salons, night clubs full of people, yet they never show the living quarters of the vast number of people who live there.
Click to expand...

Sure. Some stories can't be deconstructed literally and were never intended to be accepted as believable stories that could possibly function in the real world. Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis is an example. Snowpiercer is another. It clearly establishes itself as absurd (the premise is absolutely ridiculous, if taken literally). So, audience members are expected to engage their suspension of disbelief drive. To not do so, adequately, is to misunderstand the nature of the film. I've had numerous people attempt to point out "plot-holes" in the film. My response is this: it would not surprise the film-maker, or the actors, or the author of the graphic novel it was adapted from, if you a fan said to them "this doesn't make sense! nobody is maintaining the tracks! where are the living quarters?" I imagine they'd let out a deep sigh, and avoid becoming entangled in any further misguided conversation.

Clouds Atlas
Click to expand...

That movie was an abortion.

Tried to watch it last night, wasnt in the mood and didn't get into it, half way through I went looking for something else to watch.
Click to expand...

Oh, well. If everybody was the same we'd all be fucking ourselves and having our own babies.
 
was ok, imho could have done better with themes of horror or mystery, the linear action plot really put a damper on the overall impact of the concepts for me.
 
Linearity is especially unavoidable in this case, given the premise. It didn't bother me, in the slightest, personally. In fact, I'd say that it contributed to my enjoyment of the film. There is a linear progression of events in most plots, regardless of whether or not they are literally (and/ or undeniably) linear. I'd argue that, although most films are less blatantly and unavoidably linear than Snowpiercer, there is very little practical difference. The vast majority of films are mind-numbingly predictable, IMO. From genre, alone, I can - with a relatively high level of accuracy - predict how the entire plot is going to unfold. Snowpiercer makes no excuses in this department: it is unabashedly linear; yet, arguably, slightly less predictable than your average film. There are tonnes of films that follow the same sequence of events, more or less... Snowpiercer is - when stripped down to it's bare essentials - the basic template for an underdog story. The oppressed/ impoverished/ downtrodden masses turn the tables on the powers to be. Snowpiercer is no more or less linear than the majority of films that follow this template, really, regardless of how blatantly/ rigidly it appears to adhere to linearity.

Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Therefore, every story is linear. Narratives - by definition - must be linear, in order to qualify as narratives. Snowpiercer has a linear time-line, which is certainly something you could argue against. But arguing against narrative linearity is like trying to lick your way through a block of cement. Still: the impact/ complexity of the underlying allegory is compromised, with certain audience members, by the fact that Snowpiercer doesn't throw any curve balls. It doesn't attempt, on the surface, anyway, to present itself as something other than what it is. Personally, I found this lack of pretentiousness refreshing.

I'm tired of Shyamalanesque twists and overly complicated and pretentious narratives that, more often than not, from my experience, collapse under their own weight (especially during their final acts).

just came across this q and a with the costume designer. i haven't read it in fear of any spoilers. not sure if that aspect is interesting at all to ya, but since ya rate the film as your favorite thought ya might wanna check it out.

http://clothesonfilm.com/snowpiercer...-george/35353/
Click to expand...

I appreciate the thought, Joe. But, I generally don't like to read about how films are made or watch interviews with film-makers. It doesn't add to a production, to see behind the curtains. Not for me, anyway. I doubt I will ever watch the film again. (I'm gravitating away from repeated viewings.) And, I don't require any extra information - post credits - in order to fully appreciate it for what it was.
 
Last edited:
They turn the powers on it, but at what cost?
NSFW:
Seems most everyone died.
 
Last edited:
Spoilers? (Wrap your text in nsfw tags.)

NSFW:
Snowpiercer doesn't have the typical happy ending that the underdog template usually results in. Hence, my reference to Gilliam's Brazil. It certainly isn't a crowd-pleasing ending. The Weinstein's attempted to change it for American audiences. (Again, see: Gilliam's Brazil.) I don't see how a happy ending would have been possible, regardless of which direction they chose. The film is telling us that the "machine" that maintains our lifestyle/ wellbeing can only function by maintaining an arguably unjustifiable balance of suffering and luxury. ie. We can only live our extremely fortunate/ excessive lifestyles, if people are dying on the other side of the world.

The men who guided passenger planes into the world trade centre and the pentagon in 2001 are from "the tail end of the plane". (Did you ask yourself what position you have on the train?) Snowpiercer very cleverly humanizes and articulates the motivations of contemporary terrorists and other historical insurgents. It also, briefly, covers the cyclical nature of war and the consequently shifting "power balance" as underdogs become alphas, and vice-versa.

I don't agree with the Chrono addict's decision to destroy the train, but I understand it from his perspective. It is a act of self-destruction, disguised as desperate survivalism.

Wilford is the most (perhaps only) relatively enlightened member of the train. He has such a comprehensive understanding of the horrific nature of the world, that he comes across as practically inhuman. Because, symbolically, he isn't human. He is God. (Praise Wilford!) He understands the balance that most of the fortunate people (in the real world) struggle to process with their conscience. Humanitarians, for example, aren't enlightened. They're lying to themselves, so they can sleep at night.

Realistically, we are not going to save everybody. The entire world cannot consist of first-world countries. If resources were distributed evenly, it is more likely that the world would consist entirely of third world countries. Snowpiercer illustrates this perfectly, by contextualizing the entire surviving world in a horrific, post-apocalyptic machine that requires suffering for it's basic operation.

I don't come from the tail end of the plane and, while I'm not oblivious to the suffering of those who do, I have come to accept it for what it is. I do not feel like I owe them anything any more than I feel like I owe species bordering on extinction. (The idea of balance exists outside the "machine", obviously. Hence, the shot of the polar bear right at the end of the film.) Snowpiercer helped me - and it may well not have been the film-makers intention to do so - justify/understand the indifference I have towards those less fortunate than me.

A lot of (relatively) wealthy Western people can only continue to function by repressing their genuine reactions to the starving masses. It's very difficult to justify buying an expensive car, knowing what we do. What people should do, according to the moral code that we supposedly live by, is buy an inexpensive car and donate as much money as possible to charity. (Or, even, take the bus.) But, we don't do this and we feel guilt for it: it's always there, on some deeply repressed sub-conscious level. This is why the schoolchildren and the ravers, etc., were utterly oblivious to the living conditions of the passengers in the tail end and the justifiable motivations for recurrent insurgencies.

Most people I speak to dehumanize terrorists. When it comes to a war that threatens our personal safety, we take sides very quickly. We're willing to kill. We're willing to do whatever it takes to survive. This is Darwinism, within a species. Survival of the fittest. It is the basic code of the universe, and it cannot be changed. Humanitarian acts alleviate the conscience of those (guilty, unenlightened) men and women committing them. Saving a dozen people allows them to sleep at night. It allows us all to sleep at night. It is part of the balance. It helps us maintain our oblivion, by believing - beyond all available evidence - that everything will be okay. But, it does nothing to alter the unchangeable laws of nature. Everything will not be okay. People must suffer for me to able to afford to live a luxurious life.

The path towards enlightenment (and I'm steering away from the film, here) begins with oblivion/ ignorance. The second stage is pain and madness. And the third is acceptance. As far as the structure of Snowpiercer goes, this re-arranges the train a little bit. (Hence, my departure from the film.) My point is, that I chose to navigate this path a long time ago. My politics do not reflect the politics of the film. People often think I'm a monster, when they hear what I have to say about the starving masses. I sound a little like Wilford did, eating his steak dinner. Until fairly recently, I've been torn between Wilford and the fortunate. I have maintained somewhat "inhuman" politics, and hated myself for doing so.

I guess one of the reasons this film had such a profound effect on me, is because it was perfectly in tune with my position on the path. For me, it could not have been timelier. Again, I'm not sure if the message I took from the film is the one that the film-maker wanted me to. But, my interpretation is valid and art - after all - is open to interpretation.
 
I loved it. Couldn't believe it hadn't receive higher recognition. I posted a few thoughts earlier here.
 
Hmmm I have Snowpiercer somewhere but haven't watched it yet, as I'd heard it was an awful movie.

I will have to watch it soon to make up my own mind! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top