this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2020
0 points (NaN% liked)

Main

15770 readers
237 users here now

THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)

(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)

A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!

Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!


gun-unity State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership

guaido Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources

smoker-on-the-balcony Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)

frothingfash Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with

just-a-theory An Amainzing Organizing Story

feminism Main Source for Feminism for Babies

data-revolutionary Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide


ussr-cry Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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