Snowpiercer
How does this film articulate cultural identity?
The cultural identity of this film is a hybrid of cultures with an incredibly diverse cast.
In a typical situation I would not consider these characters to be divided by cultures, but by social class. Our reading from the beginning of the semester by Lustig and Koester from AmongUs defines cultural identity as...
"Our sense of belonging to a particular culture or ethnic group. It is formed through a process of that results from membership in a particular culture, and it involves learning about and accepting traditions, heritage..of a culture."
-Lustig and Koester AmongUsSo, in a normal setting our characters would have all come from many different backgrounds, but with this film being set in a post apocalyptic setting all those backgrounds start over and their "culture" and "membership" are those of the cars they are in together. They learn everything about who they are and their place from the very beginning once they are placed in these cars and the "balance" needed to make the train run.
Assumptions?
This film makes the assumption that everyone on the train was in each level of social class before the film begins. We do not get much back story on any of the characters, where they came from originally, what type of life they led before the train, and why they are in the car that they are in. The assumption is that the people in the back were on the lowest level of the social hierarchy, but the film starts seventeen years after the World had been wiped out. We know that at least there is a chance you can move up after finding their friend making protein block, but were some of these people put back there over the years because of their behavior? Were they divided by other means other than social class, but that is the what mattered most?
This film also assumes that no one has tried to overthrow or make contact with the front of the train other than Curtis (Chris Evans, Captain America: The First Avenger) and his team. Not once in seventeen years did anyone think to step up and quit taking what was given to them?
Did Snowpiercer make any statements or did it end in questions?
Snowpiercer definitely posed a lot of questions, while we may see a few cars divided solely by ethnicity, why was the entire train not divided this way? We know why Wilford divided social classes, but what made him think a revolution would never happen? We know why they did not have any bullets, but why were his guards not prepared to defend themselves with something other than guns? We saw the scene of kids learning about the train and Wilford himself, but what about any other forms of education? Where on the train would these kids end up, with their parents wherever that may be, or would they have the opportunity to "better themselves" and move up on the train?
Snowpiercer also ended with a lot of open ended questions. Did the end of the front of the train ruling the back of the train end in victory and hope of a new world with an Adam and Eve type scenario or is that polar bear going to eliminate the last two remaining humans on Earth? The biggest question left unanswered is does one's cultural identity (social class) really matter?
Liked your point about how this film how is assumes no one has even THOUGHT of stepping up to the hierarchy in this film, after seventeen years riding the train, makes it hard to believe everyone just peacefully accepted their position when they show that they have clearly had issues before (the old man.) And they are pin-point accurate with assessing the amount of people on the train (Tilda Swinton, as Mason) she even knew to look under the long extended dress, as if they have had numerous problems in the past. There is for sure some history they did not inform us of background wise.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about Snowpiercer, the more I think that Bong made the ending to shine a positive light on revolution, not negative. A plain reading of the ending is one of hope, though it took literally blowing the entire "world" up, there is hope for our surviving two characters and therefore, humanity.
ReplyDeleteThat's my take as of now. But it could definitely change again...
From what was shown in the film a person's cultural identity/ social class is all that matters. The social class they were placed in determined what they ate, where they slept, and what activities they could and could not do. I believe this metaphor Bong uses is a pretty accurate depiction of what people in real life are subject to due to their class.
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out that we can only make assumptions about the characters backstories. I hadn't realized it before while watching, but it would change things if there was a lot of social mobility on the train.
ReplyDelete1) The Seven are proof that people HAVE rebelled. So is Gilliam.
ReplyDelete2) Wilford did more than anticipate revolution. He and Gilliam together PLANNED and even instigated Curtis' revolution.