SNOWPIECER [CHRIS EVANS,JOHN HURT,JAMIE BELL]
r6UmqNuMdY4In 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.
Chris Evans
John Hurt
Tilda Swinton
Jamie Bell
Ed Harris
Alison Pill
Ewen Bremner
Director:
Joon-ho Bong
**filem ni limited release means kt beberapa negara je tayang. kat malaysia sila cek jadual wayang anda masing2 tp rasenye ade ni. sbb kawan aku tgk die ckp best filem ni.
Last edited by eddlisa_uyuk on 28-11-2014 01:17 AM
Baru tengok dekat wayang.. tapi tak ramai orang tengok....ok tak bosan..
patutlah jalan cerita macam pernah baca dalam komik perancis...
http://www.scificool.com/images/2012/01/Le-Transperceneige-Comic-Book.jpg http://www.silveremulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SnowPiercer_3.jpg
http://www.silveremulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SnowPiercer_4a.jpg Bila dok baca2 berita pasal pembenihan awan nih, teringat kat Snowpiercer ;P
Sekali membenih benih, tiba2 terlebih plak. aiyok..
Rasa nak tengok je cerita ni lagi sekali.
Masa pilih2 cerita apa nak tengok, x pandang pon Snowpiercer nih.
Ye la, publisiti x de.
Tapi IMDB-ed cite nih dapat 4/5 stars, sangat rare.
Bila tengok director dia, wah! orang Korea (x kenal siapa)
Tapi sangat-sangat minat producer dia Park Chan Wook.
Terpaksalah pergi tengok. :P
Sangat worth it! Saya yang x minat Chris Evans pun tiba2 boleh terminat. To be fair, sy jadi minat kat smua orang dalam cite nih. Dari Jamie Bell ke John Hurt ke Tilda Swinton ke extra-extra. Casting memang spot on la, senang cerita.
Filem yang agak berat, jadi silalah concentrate bila tgk ye. Jgn jadi cam de satu kapel dok depan ni, syok sakan bergurau senda :vmad3: bila klua panggung komplen x paham. Sy nak tulun terangkan, tp x kenal. Kang cakap sy ni gila plak :$
evey709 posted on 4-3-2014 11:25 PM static/image/common/back.gif
Bila dok baca2 berita pasal pembenihan awan nih, teringat kat Snowpiercer
Sekali membenih benih, ...
i x paham sgt..bole u xplain?
cerita ni terlalu berfalsafah ada hidden meaning2 ..
apa motif ketapi tu actually?
and the ending?? 2 org je hidup (jepun n negro, male n female utk teruskan legasi manusia?) and beruang kutub putih yg survive tu ada makna lain ke?
watak Tilda Swinton tu kelakar sgt..
nashrudean posted on 6-4-2014 11:06 AM static/image/common/back.gif
i x paham sgt..bole u xplain?
cerita ni terlalu berfalsafah ada hidden meaning2 ..
apa motif ket ...
keretapi tu digambarkn sebagai kehidupan manusia yg sentiasa berpusing2 dlm 1 round. kekdahnye bile babak akhir yg keretapi tu meletup dan yg terselamat tu keluar nmpk beruang kutub, tu signifikannye kalau ko tak keluar dr pusingan tu ko akan terperangkap selama-lamanye lah dlm kehidupan yg mcm tu. beruang kutub tu lambang dunia dah semakin hangat, manusia dah boleh survive sbb beruang kutub n manusia sama2 mamalia. tp masalahnye takde sape pun yg berani nk keluar drpd keretapi tu kecuali la si korean yg buat2 giler tu.
yg si pemberontak kelas bawahan tu sbnrnye mmg pemberontakan tu dah dirancang oleh tuan punye keretapi tu utk mengawal populasi manusia dlm keretapi tu. kalau ko perasan, sblm nk masuk bilik kabin si pemilik keretapi tu kan ke ade disko yg suma org dok berkhayal tu? tu menunjukkan manusia bile semakin senang, die semakin lalai dan hanyut dgn nikmat dunia. tapi bile manusia ni semakin tersepit serba serbi tak cukup nnt jadi mcm pemberontak tu, sanggup jadi pembunuh n sanggup abaikan kawan lain utk mengejar matlamat nk naik ke atas . watak tilda swinton yg takde gigi tu menunjukkan yg sheols pun boleh jadi ketua keretapi tu kalau sheols nak, tp sheols takde guts jek nk buat mcm tu. tp walaupun manusia tertindas diorg tetap ade kasih sayang dlm diri diorg, ni digambarkn ngan watak makbapak yg sanggup berkorban join pemberontakan tu utk carik balik anak diorg yg dh dirampas drpd diorg.
annehuda posted on 6-4-2014 08:19 PM static/image/common/back.gif
keretapi tu digambarkn sebagai kehidupan manusia yg sentiasa berpusing2 dlm 1 round. kekdahnye bil ...
oo mcm tu ke...mmg kena fikir la tgk citer ni..ala2 citer christopher nolan gitu..
nashrudean posted on 6-4-2014 11:06 AM static/image/common/back.gif
i x paham sgt..bole u xplain?
cerita ni terlalu berfalsafah ada hidden meaning2 ..
apa motif ket ...
Bab mana yg x paham?
Kalau bab ketapi tu, kenapa ketapi tu masih berfungsi eh?
Dia ada mention dalam cite tu, ketapi tu guna perpetual motion engine.
Kalau baca wikipedia "Perpetual motion describes motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy".
Kira nya dia x perlu minyak atau elektrik utk berfungsi. It just runs infinitely.
Pastu ada gak mention dalam cite ni (dalam scene ada budak2 skola), ketapi yang Wilford bina ni tahan cuaca ekstreme. Dari cuaca panas kat padang pasir ke cuaca sejuk kat antartika gitu..
Logik ke tak, memang la tak kan. Nama pon fiksyen.
Pastu ending tu, yang survive tu adalah orang Korea (bukan jepun)..haha..
Kendian macam anne tulis lah, dunia da makin panas jadi da sesuai untuk manusia hidup kat luar.
Buktinya, Nam (bapak budak pempuan korea tu) selalu perhatikan bangkai kapal terbang setiap tahun bila ketapi tu lalu. Setiap tahun, bangkai kapal terbang tu makin visible. Salji da makin cair.
rasanya macam ada sambungan..... dunia manusia digambarkan keretapi, ada org bawahan tengahan dan atasan, dengan sumber makanan semakin terhad, populasi perlu dikontrol supaya menjadi balance, sbb itu kena patuh da tidak membuat pasal, pemilik keretapi telah membuat kira2 dan target berapa lama keretapi itu bertahan dengan mengambil kira sumber2, diorg target setiap tahun akan mati beberapa org, org di atasan memerlukan org bawahan - buruh -dan org bawahan perlukan org atasan-perlindungan-, spt dijangka tokey kretapi itu akan berlaku rusuhan akibat kekurangan makanan potong tangan sesama sendiri sbb semua mau survive tapi x boleh semua boleh survive selama2nya, bila kelaparan golongan bawahan efect dulu dan memberontak, da meyebabkan keseluruhan system goyah, last2 apa yg di nak x dapat, malah keretapi binasa sama sekali, tingal 2 org survivir yg lahir dalam keretapi tak pernah tinggal di bumi, dan terpaksa pula berhadapan dengan haiwan liar untuk hidup (di kerapi bersaing dgn manusia di luar bersaing degan haiwan), ai rasa 2 org itu mati dimakan bear, pijak salji taku2, tiada senjata, x pandai survive d gunung ganang mana nak lari di kawasan bersalji pun menganbil masa utuk cair jugak kemudian kena makan dek polar bear yg sudah tentu suvive di salji sbb dah makan haiwan2 lain
The basic plot of the movie is that in 2014, an experiment to counteract global warming (which is based on a real plan) causes an ice age that kills nearly all life on Earth. The only survivors are the inhabitants of the Snowpiercer, a massive super-luxury train, powered by a perpetual-motion engine, that travels on a globe-spanning track. A class system is installed, with the elites inhabiting the front of the train and the poor inhabiting the tail.
When I say this is a “political” film I mean it in the Platonic sense of an ideal polis based on the best form of government that leads to the common good. Snowpiercer is an extended political fable about the polis, albeit one that includes scenes of hatchet fights between people carrying torches and people wearing night-vision goggles.
Last week, Snowpiercer was released in eight theaters in selected cities and on video-on-demand. Because of the rave critical reviews (it’s currently at 95% approval on Rotten Tomatoes), it’ll like be going into wider release.
If you haven’t seen it yet, lower your expectations. While visually interesting and, at times, thought-provoking, it doesn’t live up to the hype (director Bong Joon-ho’s 2006 monster flick The Host was similarly over-praised).You should also be forewarned that it’s rated R for violence, language, and drug content.
If you have seen it and still wondering what exactly it was about, read on.
Spoiler Alert: If you haven’t seen the movie yet and don’t like spoilers, stop reading now. Seriously. Massive spoilers below. Stop reading now. Don’t say your weren’t warned.
There are two ways to understand Snowpiercer, the right way and the wrong way. Here’s your guide to both:
The wrong way: As an Occupy Wall Street-style parable about economic inequality.
The right way: As a parable of Darwinian economic and political determinism.
Yes, Snowpiercer is about class warfare. And yes, it is about economic inequality. But it’s not the parable you may assume.
For starters, there is a complete lack of both economic equality and social mobility because none exists in nature. “Curtis, everyone has their preordained position, and everyone is in their place except you,” says Wilford (Ed Harris).
Curtis isn’t in his position anymore because he still believes concepts such as justice and equality have meaning. What he’s missing, as Wilford makes clear, is that equality doesn’t matter. It’s a Darwinian world and what is needed for survival, says Wilford, is balance:
This train is a complete ecosystem which must respect the balance. Air, water, food, people. Everything must be regulated. For this, it was sometimes necessary use more radical solutions.
Wilford goes on to explain that the balance can only be achieved by two ways: Either by natural selection or political manipulation. Over the course of its 18 year history, the train has had three “revolutions” instigated by Wilford and his partner in the back of the train, Gilliam. The two political masterminds understood that they needed to “maintain a balance between anxiety and fear, chaos and horror, for life goes on.”
Class warfare was the ingenious method of maintaining the population. The people in the front of the train can never grown too comfortable, for fear the back might rise up and take their place. And the down-and-out in the back are given just enough hope in a future regime-change that they don’t fall into complete despair.
By having a controlled “revolution” every five years or so, the political manipulators (Wilford and Gilliam) could let the Front and Back kill off just enough people to maintain the balance.
In essence, Wilford and Gilliam accept the validity of Darwinian social determinism, but believe it can be controlled and maintained more “humanely” by implementing a political solution (i.e., planned revolutions that cull the population).
The wrong way: Seeing Curtis as the primary hero.
The right way: Seeing Curtis as the secondary villain.
In the beginning of the film, we identify with Curtis and assume he is the hero since he is championing the ideals the audience believes in, such as equality, fairness, and justice. But by the middle of the film we start getting a different impression of Curtis.
Once he allows his loyal friend Edgar to die so that he can capture Minister Mason (Tilda Swinton), we realize he has too much of the True Revolutionary about him to be heroic. By the end of the movie we start to see him for what he really is: a man who will do almost anything—even eat human babies—in order to ensure his survival.
Ironically, Curtis discovers that survival requires maintaining the status quo. To survive, Wilford tells him, he must become the new leader.“Without you, Curtis, humanity ceases to exist.”
After briefly considering the option, Curtis decides that maybe Namgoong Minsoo is right. Maybe it is better for humanity to discard their current polis and take a chance on a return to nature.
The wrong way: Thinking Namgoong Minsoo provides a solution.
The right way: Realizing that Namgoong Minsoo is as deluded as Curtis and Wilford.
Namgoong Minsoo is the third way. While Wilford represents the Status Quo and Curtis the Revolutionary Replacement, Minsoo is the Rousseauian anarchist. He doesn’t want to keep the current system and has no illusions that Curtis can offer a better political alternative. Minsoo wants to blow up the system (literally) and return to a Rousseau-style “state of nature.”
This seems reasonable enough until you realize that his “solution” is even more misguided and utopian than the alternatives.
The wrong way: Believing it has a happy ending
The right way: Seeing the ending as ‘Christian’ (in a sense)
After Minsoo destroys and derails the train, only two kids survive. The movie ends with Minsoo’s drug-addled teen daughter and a 5-year-old boy from the back of the train staring at a polar bear.
In an interview about that ending, the film’s director Bong Joon-ho says:
The idea of there being multiple generations of people on this train is a key one. There’s an expression in the film: “train baby.” Those are the two kids that survive, the ones that only knew life on the train. Someone like Curtis or Nam, they lived on Earth, then boarded the train. These kids have never known what it was like to step on the earth. So it’s almost like Neil Armstrong touching down on the Moon when they leave the train for the first time. They have no memory of what it’s like to be on the Earth. For them to procreate, it’s going to take a little time. So, for me, it’s a very hopeful ending. But of course there are so many deaths, and so many sacrifices … it’s not so sweet. But those two kids will spread the human race.
Um, no. No they don’t.
I’m a firm believer in authorial (or directorial) intent, but an ending has to fit with all that has come before. And there is simply no way that those two “train babies” could survive and “spread the human race” in a snow-covered barren wasteland. Nobody could. Bear Grylls, the greatest survivor on the planet, could live an extra day. Maybe. Those kids, however, would be eaten by that polar bear within five minutes.
So the end of the movie is really about how one political ideal tried to trump another, while a third destroyed both. And then everyone was eaten by polar bears.
Surprisingly, this makes for a very Christian ending. Snowpiercer is certainly not a “Christian” movie, but it could be considered Christian in the sense that it tells a parable that ends with a Christian truth: there can be no redemption without the Redeemer.
The wrong way: Taking this South Korean sci-fi post-apocalyptic thriller too seriously by seeing Big Themes that aren’t really there.
The right way: Not taking this South Korean sci-fi post-apocalyptic thriller too seriously but seeing Big Themes that are (if you look closely) really there.
Update: At National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg engages with my review and disagrees with me about Curtis:
This strikes me as a bit unfair. We learn about his one-time desire to eat babies from a heart-wrenching story told by Curtis himself. He says the thing he hates about himself most is that he knows what people taste like. We learn that he was saved — as in he regained his soul — by seeing the self-sacrifice of Gilliam and others who literally chopped off their own limbs so that lives could be spared and the hungry might eat. Witnessing this act was quite clearly was transformative for Curtis. He was born again as a better man. Carter finds Christian themes in the film. This struck me as the most obvious.
Fair point. Maybe I was being too harsh on Curtis. Goldberg also adds:
As for Gilliam, the most revealing thing he says in the whole film is that Curtis should cut out Wilfred’s tongue the moment he sees him. “Don’t give him a chance to talk to you.” (I’m quoting from memory). That advice implies — I think — that Gilliam is not quite the partner Wilfred thinks he is (and that Carter assumes he is). If Curtis followed Gilliam’s advice, Curtis would have never been clued into Wilfred’s ideological scheme.
When I watched the movie, I missed that line about cutting out Wilfred’s tongue. If that’s true — and Wilfred was lying about their chummy relationship — that would indeed change some of my reading of the film.
What say you, reader? Is Curtis a hero or a villain? nak downloadlah citer ni best tak rugi tengok rupanya ketapi tu pusing globe. bayangkan 17 tahun dok dalam tu. 17 kali kau pusing bumi.
Pages:
[1]