OH LORD! DON'T ASK ME WHAT I MEAN!

after all that we've been through, only tears can tell the truth...

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

remade! im @667s now

[udoretrovirus-archive]

ok im remaking now! i'm @667s now, i'll be following all my mutuals back

[notlikingbestgirl]

Out of Touch

[sawasawako-archived]

bong joon-ho was really like “parasite, on a literal level, is a movie about how a poor family slowly infiltrates the home of a wealthy family and takes over their residence. on a symbolic, allegorical level, it’s about how the wealthy are society’s parasites because they hoard wealth and resources, guard them selfishly, and leech from the working class. also water is a metaphor for how the consequences of climate change disproportionately affect the lives of the poor and disenfranchised and only manifests as a minor inconvenience for the rich. also the whole city is designed to physically mirror class stratification, with the wealthy family living on elevated ground while the poor family lives halfway underground.”

[sawasawako-archived]

also—and i haven’t heard him explain this in an interview but i’m pretty sure it was his intention—the infiltration serves a dual purpose. he wanted to expose the social naiveté and complacency of the rich by juxtaposing their credulity with the tactical adroitness of the poor family.

another thing to note is how he makes the poor family the protagonist(s) of the movie. in this way, it’s easier, by nature of the fact that the audience experiences events from their perspective, to sympathise with them and not the rich family being manipulated. they are allowed complexity and humanity in the narrative and you can’t help but feel satisfied and even a little triumphant on their behalf when they successfully take over the rich family’s home.

in contrast, the rich family is deliberately denied interiority in the narrative, rendered generic and almost archetypal as a result of being positioned as the object and not the subject. the mere act of shifting the privilege of perspective away from them effectively divests them of narrative power and casts them as the suckers, the fools. they are not demonised—in fact, they’re decent enough people in their own right and you could even sympathise with them if you ignore the spectre of their stuctural power and the fact that they’re socially and politically obtuse—but they do not need to be demonised to be distasteful.

and THAT is the true genius of the movie: the wealthy are not cartoon villains—that is not what makes them malignant. it is the very fact of their existence as a class that makes them malignant, an existence that is not neutral but inherently violent by nature bc their wealth and the complacency that comes with the privilege and comfort attached to that wealth depend upon the active impoverishment of the working class. the poor are poor not bc they lack intelligence, or talent, or resourcefulness, or capability; they are poor bc they are rendered poor through the exploitation of their labour and subordination to the wealthy class. bong joon-ho makes salient this sober reality through a very realist approach to constructing the narrative. parasite is a home invasion movie that turns into a horror film that doubles as a social satire.

and it’s not like the poor family doesn’t face the consequences of their actions—they do, very brutally. they don’t get the last laugh. it’s a depressing movie bc it denies its audience a happy ending. the writers and director know that a happy ending is not possible in the world of parasite, our world—not when you still operate within the terms of the system. ultimately, the poor family did not “win” bc the comfort and luxury they obtained are ersatz, and their presence in the wealthy home—symbolic of their farcical penetration into the wealthy class—is parasitic in nature. it was a temporary freedom, in the end almost illusory bc they end up back where they started. the son’s pledge to his father to work hard and get a job so he can ascend the socioeconomic ladder briefly infuses the narrative with hope and optimism, but then we’re brought back down (literally) to reality and left with the sinking feeling that nothing much is going to change.

and you know what. that’s pretty depressingly accurate

[pacrinorc-deactivated20201216]

i also think the movie critiques the lack of class solidarity between the working class. another reason the kim family don’t get the last laugh is because they don’t show any empathy for their fellow working class families. they’re in it for themselves—something that capitalism teaches us to do well. the poor fight each other to escape poverty rather than work together to end its cycle. as a result, we get this violent climax and the pessimistic conclusion: we’re back where we started.

[udoretrovirus-archive]

Hm. I Will Remake Tomorrow

[cadaverkeys]

Eboy this...egirl that.... And what am I ? An ediot...

[2-beadyeyes-deactivated20251104]

my recreation of one particular vanessa stockard painting

[birlinterrupted]

I can’t get over how awkward this headline is

[kidomarus]

[ratliker1917]

its so fucking funny to me that trillizard666 is a fucking mall cop AND his life consists of being haunted by “kung pow penis” forever. imagine if a 15 year old recognized him and said kung pow penis to him and threw a milkshake at his face.

[udoretrovirus-archive]

mmm been kinda wanting 2 remake lately