|
Snowpiercer Most people see this movie as a very on-the-nose example of class struggle. But I see it as a commentary on how we humans build and interact with the very system that we collectively create to sustain ourselves as a species. The system always has its apologists, supporters and opposition, but deep down all but the most extreme zealots understand that the system has to change with time or fail, and the longer it takes for change to occur, the worse the inevitable failure will be. It ties in nicely with what Nassim Taleb says about fragility of rigid systems. In the movie the system is represented by the train and its architect. All people on the train are grateful for what the train has provided them: safety from certain death outside. The poor at the back of the train are constantly threatened and preached to by the train loyalists how important it is for everything to stay as it is, that the train is eternal and will be there forever as long as they obey and believe. But as it becomes apparent that the loyalists are lying and things don't seem all that rosy with the train, the poor start to push forward, for information, and ultimately, change. As they go forward in the train they discover that the wealthy passengers have fallen into either hypernormalisation or a drug fueled apathy. They either believe so much in the train that they can't see how it could ever fail, or they know that it will inevitably fail but have given up hope to do anythin about it - perhaps facilitated by their own relative comfort (why jeopardize such comfort for an uncertain, risky change?). After watching the movie, it struck me how we're perpetually living in an unsustainable system, but we avoid the abyss by constantly changing from one unsustainable system to another. |