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?
You're wrong, and Zizek has probably one of the best takes on the movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5RgxTBPxk
His point is that Leftists authors are wrong to so frequently idealize the working class, and make them into paragons of moral actions.
Wealthy people, like the Parks, can afford to be kind, they can afford to be generous in the same way that Bill Gates can afford to be nice to everyone he meets and leave a $10,000 tip every time he goes out for dinner.
Workers being ground up under a wheel of oppression don't have the luxury to be moral, they are forced to do what they need to survive. And if they live in a society with little class consciousness (like modern South Korea) they are almost certainly going to view ruthlessly looking out for their own interests as the only actions they can take to escape from wretched conditions.
The point of Parasite is that we should address the conditions which force the Kims into behaving as they did, acting like it's because of personal moral failings that the working class doesn't band together and achieve class consciousness is plain wrong.
strongly disagree, the most generous people i've ever known are also some of the poorest, this just smells of middle class people looking down on the poor
When I was like 5 I made a comment about how rich people must be generous bc they have so much money to spare and my mom was like, "Do you think they got where they are by giving away all their money?" She's a total chud but I guess she's more woke than half this fucking site.
Are you claiming it's woke to claim that the reason people are poor is because they're generous and not because they get paid starvation wages?
Yes that's exactly what I'm claiming thank you for reading where I definitely wrote that and not just putting words into my mouth.
I genuinely don't know what it means... Like are you saying what being said is if they were more generous they wouldn't be rich? That in my opinion is atleast one thing this site does not deny.
The other interpretation is that getting rich requires not being generous when you are poor. That is why I jumped the gun on how to get richer.
The system rewards people for acting immorally. People who are higher up in the system tend to be worse because of that. People at the bottom can be there for a variety of reasons so it's a mixed bag. Being a sociopath is often necessary, but generally not sufficient to get rich.
Saying "You have to be greedy to get rich" is absolutely not the same thing as saying "People are only poor because they're too generous."
I can promise you that I've heard that take ad nauseum at this point.
The message was not "workers of the world unite" but "without class consciousness we will fall". The main family weren't heroes or socialists or anything.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 🏅
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
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.
The song that plays in this scene is called something like 565 years, which is the time needed for an average income in South Korea to buy that house. They didn't let the other family chill because they didn't have class consciousness and they saw themselves as the middle class after they got more and more parasitey. For me, the movie is a 10/10 masterpiece. Not just because of the class consciousness angle but in general. I mean, it's an alagory, not a perfect reality. Maybe watch this: https://youtu.be/oDz2dbXivDU
All that video is telling me is "The rich people had rich people things and the poor people had poor people things." Like obviously class is a theme but it doesn't really talk about where the divide comes from or what should be done about it or anything like that.
That's why it's a movie and not a lecture. Most profound movies don't answer any questions, they merely pose them. That's why art is such a subjective experience. There is no middle class (in the movie and in real life), yet the main family doesn't see themselves as being part of the same class as the cellar people. Even though they very obviously are. That's what's keeping many from gaining class conciousness. There is no answers given, except the ones in our heads, which have been expressed here before. Why don't they let them chill? Why did they go through such length to swindel the workers out the house? They could cooperate, yet they choose not to. Doesn't that reminde you of liberals who have gained a tiny bit of haram parra.
But again, art is about the subjective experience. If you didn't enjoy the movie, thats totally ok.
I have to admit that my expectations were set by comments like:
Y’all need to watch the movie Parasite to understand why sometimes working class can appear more vile than progressive libs
If you think this post is somehow glorifying or romanticizing the chuds, then you’re missing the point. Maybe the movie can help you see that.
[Your] entire rant about being nice costing nothing is a completely unrelated tangent that misses the entire point of this thread and the quote makes perfect sense in the context of the movie
THE MOVIE EXPLAINS WHAT IT MEANS
Have you watched the movie? You literally can’t always afford to be nice, as it demonstrates.
So I tried to give the movie a fair chance but I definitely went in expecting it to explain things and provide answers, like in a way that would be easier to understand than someone just fucking explaining the concepts they were talking about. Seems like everyone was being intellectually lazy with the tactic of "Just watch this movie and you'll see why I'm right." Maybe someday I can rewatch the movie without the expectation of it explaining things and maybe then I could appreciate it more.
But again, art is about the subjective experience. If you didn’t enjoy the movie, thats totally ok.
Thanks.
No it shows that in his imagination, he's just daydreaming
Did I miss something? I didn't see any indication that he was daydreaming. At most it seemed ambigious.
I missed it the first time (I guess I was pretty done with the movie at that point) but I rewatched the ending and still felt like it was ambigious whether it was supposed to be that or a glimpse into the future. In any case I still didn't like the rest of the movie because I found it boring and with wierd messaging.
I only watched it once but at the time I thought it was quite clear that it was a fantasy
I mean I disagree but I can concede the point and I still didn't like the movie.
because the rich fucker said he smelled bad
Nah, because he awakened too late to the necessity of class solidarity. Pay close attention to the father's character arc. Huge chunk of the movie is about him realizing he has far more in common with the basement guy than he ever will with his employers. The smell is meant to be understood metaphorically.
The real tragedy of the movie is that in contrast, the son never comes to understand this. (And throughout the film was always the most naive character in that sense.) I think you completely misread the ending -- it is pretty clear it's a fantasy sequence.
I did wonder while watching it if some of the cultural nuances and contextual stuff would get in the way of understanding the message. But the movie isn't ambiguous about this at all.
Randomly murdering a rich guy isn't class solidarity. I get that the smell is metaphorical, but the murder still didn't make any sense. They already knew this guy was a rich asshole that they were using to their own ends. The only thing the murder did was to make him a fugitive and get his family in trouble.
I did miss a part in the ending but I still felt like there was some ambiguity, both in the ending and in the film in general.
I mean of course the murder itself isn't class solidarity, but it explains his motivation. In the heat of the moment, he wants revenge for his daughter and recognizes (again, too late) that her death is not solely at the hands of the guy wielding the knife, but because of the way society has pitted them against each other. It's not supposed to be some sort of uplifting or freeing act.
I don't think the movie is perfect precisely because it's easy to misunderstand, but it really is very clear about what it wants to say.
I don’t think the movie is perfect precisely because it’s easy to misunderstand, but it really is very clear about what it wants to say.
Isn't that contradictory?
That gets into a discussion about authorial intent and passive vs. active media consumption that I don't feel like having rn. I probably didn't word that very well, but my point is that the movie is internally consistent. However, I don't think it was originally intended for international audiences, and imo it's set up in a way that is directly challenging a very culturally specific mindset. Considering the overall success of the movie it's obviously not impossible to approach it without those prerequisites, but because it's tailored to a specific audience it leaves a lot of gaps to be filled in without extra guidance. That's true of pretty much all movies though...
I guess my perspective was that I was told to watch the movie because it would explain a concept to me, and people were saying that I didn't understand the concept because I hadn't seen the movie, and yeah I tried to put my expectations aside but I was still kinda expected that it would explain things more clearly and be more accessible. I tried to put all that aside but practically speaking it's hard to make sure that that doesn't influence it at all.
I agree with the take that its not a socialist movie, you can come out of thinking poor Parks if you lean that way. I do think the mother's monologue about niceness being hard for her is meant to create sympathy for working class people being scabby and not awesome. Maybe it is overdone in America, but it isn't in mine. People just hate poor people, as thieving and horrible. And it is a reality, that poverty comes with economic 'crime', and people do turn on each other. I think you'll really like Terry Pratchett's view of the working class in Guards! Guards! – quiet dignity, community kindness and protecting one's own etc. I think people forget that queer ghettos were working class and liberating spaces before.
Why it's still a good movie?
I think it's the rich details: the 'rain' affecting them so differently, the sex scene where they roleplay working class people, the expensive beef in the ramen, the automatic light that is actually literally a man in their basement, never having travelled underground. The stay away me, from don't get to close, don't get real vibe from the Bossman. You see how strangely warped culture is, the Indian fetish in Korea (like wtf), the man who worships someone who doesn't know he exists. It's a good movie for creating class consciousness. You're automatically saying sorta, yes the poor people should have banded together after the movie, or atleast my lib parents did.
-
if you missed the plot but they did want to let the underground guy chill, but the housekeeper took a video of them that she threatened to send because she wanted her job back.
-
you also missed the part where the rich guy asks the father to leave his daughter bleeding to death and while taking the keys from him that condemn his daughter to death, still manages to insult him.
-
It's a fantasy sequence, it's shot like that, he's brain damaged, it ends with him still at home.
Also don't say shit like they seemed okay, like they had jobs and seemed fine. They were relying on temp jobs, one of which got fucked & almost lost their free wifi... that was a precarious existence. They're never able to stop worrying.
if you missed the plot but they did want to let the underground guy chill, but the housekeeper took a video of them that she threatened to send because she wanted her job back.
No, that's wrong. The mother was not willing to cooperate with them and that's what prompted the housekeeper to respond negatively when they tried to negotiate after she got the video.
you also missed the part where the rich guy asks the father to leave his daughter bleeding to death and while taking the keys from him that condemn his daughter to death, still manages to insult him.
No I didn't, I just still didn't think it was a believable response.
It’s a fantasy sequence, it’s shot like that, he’s brain damaged, it ends with him still at home.
I did miss this.
Also don’t say shit like they seemed okay, like they had jobs and seemed fine. They were relying on temp jobs, one of which got fucked & almost lost their free wifi… that was a precarious existence. They’re never able to stop worrying.
Yeah but they were slightly less desperate after they got two of the family members employed and both were getting lucrative payments, and that's the point when they started turning on their fellow workers. And they're the most secure that they've ever been when they turn on the people in the basement. That makes me see it less as being driven to it by desperation and more just being assholes.
It's been a few months since I first watched it, so I'll take your word on the fight between the two poor families. I think then that does make your point in the end stronger I guess, once people start seeing themselves as middle class (he thinks himself worthy of their daughter) they're willing to fight tooth and nail against the working class.
And it's all for naught, because when the ship is sinking, the rich will still make fun of them and leave their kids to die.
His daughter being left to die imo is the last straw among all the little cuts by the rich dude. 'Do your job' 'Don't cross the line'. He wants to just punch him in the face, let it out – the murder is how that anger manifests. He thinks his son is dead too. He has nothing to lose.
Also for what it's worth, Snowpiercer is a way better film, because it quite explicitly calls for revolution.
-
