Lol this is exactly my takeaway from that post too. Pretty sure he is implying that "people are inherently evil" is part of thesis of the film which is...not at all the case.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Maureen Dowd of the NYT thinks that Parasite is about "con artists who invade an elegant house and wreak chaos" and that Trump should empathize
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
You're forgetting the part where everyone is a capitalist in the movie. You don't get to both live within a society and not have to participate in its structure.
None of which suggests this isn't actually her take on the film though. You are saying she is using it as some form of ironic zinger and yet there is no acknowledgement that the interpretation is false.
It's not saying "all people are evil", but the main characters are presented sympathetically in order to partially undercut that with their behavior later on.
Because they do absolutely monstrous things over the course of the movie, far worse than anything the rich family does.
Right but that behavior is directly tied to and motivated by elements of the class critique. You can't separate them.
There's one glaring problem with this take though I realize it's maybe for better or worse the more subtle point the movie makes that's also core to the events.
Everyone in the movie is shown to be a parasite in one way or another, but the character that's shown to be the worst of them all is the rich father. He seems pleasant and nice enough at first and most of the movie only subtlety shows his problems, but what leads to the poor father killing him at the end was a lot of small things the movie shows through its course. The dad doesn't care about anyone but himself, everyone else in the movie cares about others to some extent, but the rich father and money earner thinks everyone is beneath him and doesn't even treat them like human. He constantly lies or makes things all about him (telling the dude it's not a driving test and to relax when it 100% is a test to prove his worth to him, talking about "stepping over the line" and how his smell "steps over the line", wanting to fire the driver while not having any skin off his teeth to make a big deal about it and later roleplaying the power play situation from that in a sexual manner), and whenever the poor dad makes humanizing or comparison points to him or his feelings about loving his wife, the rich dad deflects and near the end makes it clear that he is paying him and he will do as he says as part of his job, he is beneath him, they are not friends or equals, he just tolerates him for images and convenience and he'll do whatever he is told to do and to not try to get close to him. He cements this with multiple times implying he doesn't love his wife or kids, even him taking time away from himself for his son's birthday is a noteworthy thing and others can spare to do it if he can (as their time is not as important as his), he has a fetish for those he ridicules and role-playing fucking those "beneath him", and thinks the suffering of others like Indians are just tools for him, not relating the suffering of those people at all or how this might be offensive to others, because he doesn't care.
This is the furthest cemented when all the chaos goes down and the son faints, the rich dad completely ignores the girl that works in his house dying literally on his lawn and doesn't even attempt to save her or take her with him to the hospital, and pushes aside the man who knows him dying also on his lawn for the keys not phased by him dying at all and is just disgusted by his smell, which he earlier describes as the "smell of the poor" that disgusts him. The fact the man in front of him is dying or even killed and hurt others right in front of him doesn't matter to him, or the girl who works for him is dying doesn't bother him in the slightest, he just cares about himself at the end of the day and won't do a single thing to help or care about anyone else's problems, even those suffering right in front of him. Out of people literally bleeding out in front of him, the only thing that really bothers him is the smell which offends his sensibilities. Which is why the poor dad kills him at the end when he see's this moment, he realizes the rich dad is the foulest parasite of all, the one who cares about no one but themselves and feeds off others suffering and commitment to him just for his own pleasure and benefit. He uses others for his wealth and only gives what he can take back, but will cut off anything and anyone as he really doesn't care about anyone but himself.
This is the furthest cemented when all the chaos goes down and the son faints, the rich dad completely ignores the girl that works in his house dying literally on his lawn and doesn't even attempt to save her or take her with him to the hospital, and pushes aside the man who knows him dying also on his lawn for the keys not phased by him dying at all and is just disgusted by his smell, which he earlier describes as the "smell of the poor" that disgusts him. The fact the man in front of him is dying or even killed and hurt others right in front of him doesn't matter to him, or the girl who works for him is dying doesn't bother him in the slightest, he just cares about himself at the end of the day and won't do a single thing to help or care about anyone else's problems, even those suffering right in front of him. Out of people literally bleeding out in front of him, the only thing that really bothers him is the smell which offends his sensibilities. Which is why the poor dad kills him at the end when he see's this moment, he realizes the rich dad is the foulest parasite of all, the one who cares about no one but themselves and feeds off others suffering and commitment to him just for his own pleasure and benefit. He uses others for his wealth and only gives what he can take back, but will cut off anything and anyone as he really doesn't care about anyone but himself.
But the movie is made to try and show the parasite angle from nearly every character in the film, just I took the end stuff to show who was basically the worst character in the film.
absolutely, how do you explain thousands of years of communal living before that? lmao. Lots of people in this thread gonna be looking like Dowd. Even saying they are con artists is a bad take when they themselves had to do what they did to even survive.
yes both the ghost man in the basement and the father guy are failed enterpreneurs
i dont know if i would say that is parasitic or rather symbiotic.
But don't you understand? The poor people are evil for wanting to....eat, and live in a better home....LMAO
Idk they're literally sucking money from the people under them
Alot of people get really mad now if a work doesn't explicitly say someone is the bad guy and that you shouldn't follow their actions. Its baby brain shit.
I don't know the movie makes it pretty clear that it is about class
Generally comedy does not work very well if you backpedal to acknowledge that the supposition behind your joke is false, mis-stated or exaggerated.
I can't prove how she sincerely feels about Parasite. Shit, I'd say it's a 50/50 chance if she's actually seen the movie or just read about it. I don't think it's hard to determine that her opener is a joke though -- while I wouldn't say it's totally hack-y, the premise and form of it is pretty widely employed by others.
The stone that was supposed to give the family success and upward mobility was hollow and fake as it floated during the flood, do you guys not see this symbolism?
I don't understand how you could possibly think that's my takeaway. Their actions are the issue, not their motivations.
No, some people just don't want to question the harsh reality of our society and the affect it has on people so they just misinterpret the film to avoid having to reflect on the message.
The poor family does what they do because they need to survive, they spend the opening scene in a poisonous gas cloud. They're as competent, if not more so than any of the "experienced" staff with no actual credentials to back it up. Every action of theirs is to benefit their lot because they've recieved so little. The rich family is only nice because they can afford to be, it's blatantly said so in the movie.
No shit but their actions are brought about by those motivations (and the circumstances which deny them even the basics of life). The fact that you even suggested that "the poor family behaves more monstrously than the rich family" makes it clear you didn't understand the film.
Their actions are dictated by they society they live in, they are merely trying to survive and are doing those things in the name of self-preservation.
It's crazy how many of you treat that sentence as a sentiment of its there's rather than using it as a one line zinger that matches at the surface level.
Because the opinion article is just as vapid as the sentiment expressed in the zinger.
They established early in the movie that they had no method of upward mobility. Their actions were necessary to raise them out of the lowest class tier. In order to do that, they had to leach off of the rich by hustling and tricking them. That itself is symbolic to being dirt poor in a capitalist system. If you want to get "rich" you have to get lucky, fake it till you make it, and back stab people in your same class.
Their actions are horrendous because they are necessary in order to succeed in a broken system.
That doesn't change the fact it wooshed over a lot of heads.
They go far beyond self-preservation. The plot turn at the midpoint takes place in circumstances that happen as a direct result of going far past that line.
Not necessarily when the structure they live within tells them that infinite growth is good and worth pursuing. Even then, saying they should be content with living in a basement is a weird take.
I think you should read this post:
You mean two poor families trying to secure their path to wealth by stabbing each other in the back?
It's a metaphor.
On first read this did fire off a blip in my shown-ass radar, but after I reflected on it a bit I figured she just thought the dig was too juicy not to sacrifice nuance for. That said, not familiar with her generally, so it might sit in a larger pattern of commentary I'm not aware of.
No, and I would not describe the situation that way between them.
I'm talking about the party they throw for themselves. It's completely unnecessary and goes far beyond "just making a living" and is what puts them in a position to be exposed to the (rightfully angry) ex-housekeeper and her husband. Who are the most sympathetic characters in the movie by a mile and who don't backstab anyone.
Whether or not her interpretation of the film was correct seems to be a staggeringly inconsequential thing to discuss at such length, but I read through all of it so I'm not sure I should be one to talk.
Both are bougie idiots that don't get that the movie is about them. It's worse for Dowd though. She clearly actually watched it and it went entirely above her head.
Parasite, at its core, is about how class division under capitalism makes us disaffected and disconnected from others, whether it's working class people trying to screw each other over to get ahead, or wealthy people having contempt for those below them. I think you have to work really hard to arrive to the conclusion that it's about this specific family being con artists and not the shitty circumstances billions of people around the world live in similar to this family. It's not about the virtuous working class proletariat overthrowing the evil, mustache-twirling, labor-exploiting bourgeoisie or shifty scam artists tricking the naive idle rich.
It's super obvious too. Year 1 film school shit.
It's super obvious too. Year 1 film school shit.
That is not the movie is about. It's a metaphor for the systemic class problem in South Korea
They can have a little luxury, as a treat. The former housekeeper was leaching off the rich family too with her husband (ironically, she wouldn't have had to do that if they payed her enough to afford a home). She also escalated the situation by threatening to narc on the poor family out of her desperation to get her job back.
It's not really about who's the most sympathetic though, it's about the lengths people at the bottom will go to live comfortably in a broken system
It's not really about who's the most sympathetic though, it's about the lengths people at the bottom will go to live comfortably in a broken system
It was even said specifically during the truly despicable party scene, while the rich family was camping, but I guess he was so taken back by the audacity of the poors he missed that lol
*Sympathetic* I guess but they show a similar attitude towards the rich of being subservient as long as they get the scrapes, even the poor husband essentially worshipping the rich man much like how people think the ultra rich are generous because they *donate* a slim percentage of their worth or give them a shitty job, to keep the masses happy and to never rise up for any sort of true equality because it could damage what little they have, they are not *better* people they are simply subservient, as they blindly put it they are nicer because they are rich, being richer than your poor neighbour is still *richer* Yet we live in a society that tells us if you work hard you will get somewhere and to do so requires you to fuck over and crawl ontop of the corpses of your fellow man, that anyone can become rich, the family is only a byproduct and attitude of the fucking horrible equality the world has put on them.
See second sentence.
She couldn't keep her husband in her home. That was the entire reason he was in the basement in that insane situation, because he was wanted by loan sharks and they feared for his life. It's also not "narcing" when you discover someone got you fired and replaced with their mom.
That those two families specifically have very different philosophical approaches (live and let live vs take all you can get) is critical to the film imo.
That those two families specifically have very different philosophical approaches (live and let live vs take all you can get) is critical to the film imo.
The only con of Parasite is that the poor family thinks they're getting one over on the rich family, but they're actually performing all the labour they are supposed to and not realising it. They are actually being exploited.
Like Snowpiercer the villain isn't the individuals it's the superstructure.
Like Snowpiercer the villain isn't the individuals it's the superstructure.
That's completely missing the point of the those two families interactions. The exploited house servant was seen as an obstacle to the poor family's rise through the class system. It's about how the class system pits the poor against each other to obtain a modicum of comfort while the rich give them table scraps for their labor.
That's a really good take. I didn't think about it that way.
I'd guess Dowd thinks the movie is a straight up morality tale; the bad family has bad morals and values and thus, they reap what they sow.
There's no other way to map a shallow allegory for Parasite onto the behaviour she goes onto describe from Trump in the rest of the article.
I'm impressed at how you constantly manage to be wrong all the time.
Bravo dude.
Still running on my first cup of coffee. What do you mean with "performing all the labor they are supposed to"?