I got in trouble because someone posted a thread telling everyone to watch Parasite because it explains how reactionary chuds are actually good people deep down and they're just the beleagured working class and shit, and I responded to that talking about how in my own lived experience, people at the bottom are actually pretty chill and the working class chud thing is kinda exaggerrated and the reality is that a lot of chuds are middle class Boomer Karen small buisiness tyrants who love to throw their weight around. Everyone jumped down my throat and started putting words in my mouth and it became a minor struggle session. However, some other people were more chill and I tried my best to put it aside and evaluate the movie on it's own merits, thinking maybe those losers had just missed the point and it was actually good but in a different way than they interpred it. Here is my review:

The first half was slow. It was basically just the plot of The Music Man but edgier and more repetitive. I didn't feel invested in the characters and I felt like their definining chracteristics were that they were poor and also jerks. Yeah yeah I know the entire internet is screaming at me that the whole point is that capitalism forces them to be jerks, but like, does it though, in the movie? They didn't have to turn against other workers to get the first two hired, and it wasn't clear (at least to me) that that income wasn't enough to get by.

Then we have the bit with the guy in the basement. They could've absolutely just let him chill down there, but they didn't, because they were jerks. And because they're jerks and the relationship becomes antagonistic, it causes them all sorts of problems. It seemed to me like their jerkishness was more of a liability than an asset.

The climax didn't make any sense and wasn't believable. Like, the father secured this gullible rich fuck through whom he was able to secure a livlihood for himself and his family, and he randomly decides to throw it all away because the rich fucker said he smelled bad? And before everyone jumps down my throat for defending the rich guy, I'm not, fuck him, I'm just talking about the father's motivations.

The resolution was the worst part by far. Is there any sort of messaging about banding together with your fellow worker? Absolutely not. The son just fucking decides he wants to get rich enough to buy the house and that works, because the system is fair and anyone can get rich if they just try hard enough. What the actual fuck. Why didn't he just decide to get rich before any of this happened and save me two hours?

This is basically no different from people upholding The Joker as a socialist film. Socialism isn't just random acts of violence against rich people. Hating rich people, especially hating particular rich people, doesn't automatically make you a socialist. The movie doesn't make any sort of statement on where the Park's wealth came from which leaves the audience to figure out whether it's earned or unearned, and if you didn't already have socialist values then you could easily come away siding with the Parks. So why does everyone act like this is some great socialist masterpiece?

  • Provastian_Jackson [he/him]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    booooo genuinely bad review and I'm not going to go point by point.

    explains

    it doesn't "explain" anything It's not a non fiction book.

    also jerks

    incorrect. They were endearing as fuck. Name one way in which they acted like jerks that doesn't come down to 'they deceived rich people'.

    because the rich fucker said he smelled bad

    Watch the movie please. He never decided he was going to throw it all away because the rich man said he smelled bad. You made that up.

    The son just fucking decides he wants to get rich enough to buy the house and that works

    No. The ending is a fantasy. The director himself said so and I think it establishes so from the vantage point we witness it. The spectator is looking up from downstairs and seeing out the panorama window. The window involves imagination, remember we watched the little boy in his teepee. It LITERALLY is like we're looking onto the stage of a play.

    Socialism isn’t just random acts of violence against rich people

    I'd call it more of a cynical movie. A capitalist realist movie. The director himself says that the theme isn't what you're saying it is.

    My dear and beloved comrade, you didn't understand the movie.

    The movie doesn’t make any sort of statement on where the Park’s wealth came from which leaves the audience to figure out whether it’s earned or unearned

    And maybe you didn't understand Karl Marx either

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
      hexagon
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      incorrect. They were endearing as fuck. Name one way in which they acted like jerks that doesn’t come down to ‘they deceived rich people’.

      When they got other workers fired. Bam, done.

      Watch the movie please. He never decided he was going to throw it all away because the rich man said he smelled bad. You made that up.

      I literally just finished watching it when I wrote this so maybe we saw different movies.

      No. The ending is a fantasy. The director himself said so and I think it establishes so from the vantage point we witness it. The spectator is looking up from downstairs and seeing out the panorama window. The window involves imagination, remember we watched the little boy in his teepee. It LITERALLY is like we’re looking onto the stage of a play.

      There was no indication in the movie that it was a dream sequence. People were complaining before because I hadn't seen the movie and now they're complaining that I haven't looked up everything the director said and don't have a fucking degree in film studies, jfc.

      The movie doesn’t make any sort of statement on where the Park’s wealth came from which leaves the audience to figure out whether it’s earned or unearned

      And maybe you didn’t understand Karl Marx either

      Oh, I see you're engaging in bad faith then, got it. I very clearly followed that up by saying "and if you didn’t already have socialist values then you could easily come away siding with the Parks" but I guess you're just ignoring that.

      Literally any movie that depicts rich people is socialist now because we know that they're bad and why so there's no need for the movie to explain it or anything. Cool.

      • Provastian_Jackson [he/him]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        When they got other workers fired

        an expansion of their deception. There could only be one person doing each job anyway. The only time they aren't "jerks" is when the rich people get to decide who.

        I literally just finished watching it when I wrote this so maybe we saw different movies.

        Another good movie to argue about is Richard Jewel. Watch that one next.

        There was no indication in the movie that it was a dream sequence. People were complaining before because I hadn’t seen the movie and now they’re complaining that I haven’t looked up everything the director said and don’t have a fucking degree in film studies, jfc.

        I wouldn't call it a dream sequence. I would say that it's invoking the imagination. So let's say that it actually did happen. Then the imagination is YOURS because it's your imagination that lets it be plausible that a poor boy works his way to wealth. We don't have to say it's Mr Kim's dream sequence.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
          hexagon
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          an expansion of their deception. There could only be one person doing each job anyway.

          Holy shit lol. Galaxy brain.

          Another good movie to argue about is Richard Jewel. Watch that one next.

          Fuck no I've never heard of it but I'm not taking your recommendations.

          I wouldn’t call it a dream sequence. I would say that it’s invoking the imagination. So let’s say that it actually did happen. Then the imagination is YOURS because it’s your imagination that lets it be plausible that a poor boy works his way to wealth. We don’t have to say it’s Mr Kim’s dream sequence.

          Ok.

          • Provastian_Jackson [he/him]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Fuck no I’ve never heard of it but I’m not taking your recommendations.

            I didn't say it was a good movie, I said it was good to argue about. Don't...don't you want to argue?

              • Provastian_Jackson [he/him]
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 years ago

                ok I hope you win because a lot of people are literally just parroting things they read about the movie. I came up with "invoking the imagination" on my own 🏅

              • grylarski [they/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                No offense intended here at all, but the whole thing ends with how he's sort of brain damaged, so it's very obvious the sequence about getting rich later is a dream

                • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                  hexagon
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  That's a good point, but he was also shown going about his life normally and such so I didn't put the pieces together.

                  Still didn't like it tho.