I was interested in the “moving cities” that were proposed through Science Fiction in Abbot C.’s article, all made by a question of “But what if a city could move?”(74) Therefore, in our tutorial session, we talked about various moving cities, including a train in a film, Snowpiercer. The train, which represents an industrialized past and technology superior future, is a “moving city” through the ice where social discriminations are greater as a “generation ship”.(81) The train a material that shows both oppression and privilege, the ground of a rebellious plot. I guess that was why I felt like everything was pointless as the train crashed. Because the survivors’ moving city” was destroyed, they had no city to live in now. I think these traits, a dystopian background and a moving city (train) make the audience more interested in watching the Sci-fi movie: Snowpiercer.
Hyunjoo Kim (3035821427)
I enjoy that you discussed Snowpiercer at length especially the implications of the movie ending.
I would argue that the train crash was an act of hope. The Snowpiercer is like a religion with the Wilford as the God-like figure who saved humanity through the train; engineers is the most occupation as it keeps the eternal engine running; hospitality works hand in hand with security to keep order and absolute control over people. In a way, a dystopic, extremely twisted, high-tech Noah’s Ark on tracks. All people on board were so absorbed in what’s happening within the train but neglected that the environment around them except Namgoong who pointed out the world is warming up for rehabilitation. Having only one bomb in hand, he took a leap of faith to liberate the survivors of the crash from the bounds of the train.
I urge you to also watch the Netflix TV series which shares the same structure and themes but a different progression with Bong Joon-ho serving as the executive producer, the monologues at the beginning of each episode are create reflections of the world. Overall, good effort!