1054 Parasite

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#176 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:12 am

cpetrizzi wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:00 am
I've had many similar students who I urged to better themselves. Because of their "condition," many of them actually get full rides to state colleges. The goal is to see them matriculated, get through in 6 years, and graduate so that they can have a better life for themselves (and their family). It's really 100% THEIR decision whether they choose to go or not to go. Some do make it through with a lot of support and some don't make it. I'm still in contact with many of my former students. Some went on to graduate school and even gotten their PhDs. Other made the choice to have kids out of wedlock, drop out of school, and become car salesmen. Whose choice was it to go on those different paths? Society's to blame?

If you think it's a condition, then I'm sorry. Those students will truly never escape their "condition."
Wow. There’s this thing called systemic inequality that affects disenfranchised populations based on a lot of factors (including history...) and makes it a little bit harder than some to pull up those bootstraps. I’m glad some people you’ve worked with have been given opportunities, but not only is that not representative of all people of a lower socioeconomic status but the mentality of thinking, no sorry- being confident, that you’re competent in knowing what it’s like to walk in the shoes of a position you can’t fathom is called narcissism, while your retorts are solipsistic, so congrats.
cpetrizzi wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:38 pm
Do many of you think people are generally good or bad?

I've asked a question taking class out of the equation. In my line of work, I interact with hundreds if not thousands of various types people of every year. I'd have to say there are about 2-3 "bad" seeds out of every 100. I'm not talking about bad in an evil sense (even though there may be), just bad as in they might lean towards unethical behavior as the Kim's did.
I don’t even know where to begin here. Grouping people into categories like good or bad is so ridiculous especially when using this subjective assessment. Your brief observations of person to person contact allows you to play god and dub someone a “bad seed”? I’ve got a theory: people who think they can label people this way or judge the ethics of one’s behavior (and in some strange cases even extend this to actual statistics) exhibit qualities that are worse than many of these bad seeds. But that’s my subjective assessment, and I’ll leave it at that before I say something that gets me in trouble here.

I apologize for derailing the conversation but this is just too insane.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#177 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:16 am

Mr. Sausage -- I wish I could see the film from your perspective. I _expected_ I would be able to do so (based on what I had read in advance). But it just does not register in that way for me.

User avatar
cpetrizzi
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#178 Post by cpetrizzi » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:12 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:12 am
cpetrizzi wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:00 am
I've had many similar students who I urged to better themselves. Because of their "condition," many of them actually get full rides to state colleges. The goal is to see them matriculated, get through in 6 years, and graduate so that they can have a better life for themselves (and their family). It's really 100% THEIR decision whether they choose to go or not to go. Some do make it through with a lot of support and some don't make it. I'm still in contact with many of my former students. Some went on to graduate school and even gotten their PhDs. Other made the choice to have kids out of wedlock, drop out of school, and become car salesmen. Whose choice was it to go on those different paths? Society's to blame?

If you think it's a condition, then I'm sorry. Those students will truly never escape their "condition."
Wow. There’s this thing called systemic inequality that affects disenfranchised populations based on a lot of factors (including history...) and makes it a little bit harder than some to pull up those bootstraps. I’m glad some people you’ve worked with have been given opportunities, but not only is that not representative of all people of a lower socioeconomic status but the mentality of thinking, no sorry- being confident, that you’re competent in knowing what it’s like to walk in the shoes of a position you can’t fathom is called narcissism, while your retorts are solipsistic, so congrats.
Did you even read what this was in response to? I guess not. And yes, I'm very aware of systemic inequality, racism, and everything else. I'd even say it makes it incredibly harder for the disenfranchised to pull up those bootstraps. But if you blame the system, then most of these people will never get out of their predicament. If you treat people with respect, give them credit, and focus on choice, then they actually have a chance. But this is now far off topic than the original post that I fear now it's irrelevant.

And how is my own socioeconomic upbringing relevant? I'm not getting into specifics here, but I've been on the other end of the spectrum more times than most I'd imagine (maybe not) but wondering where the next meal was coming from was my main concern growing up (I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy or even you). How dare you turn this into a personal attack. Shame on you. I've been called a lot of things, narcissist is a first. I'm actually amazingly empathetic and everyone loves me.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:12 am
cpetrizzi wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:38 pm
Do many of you think people are generally good or bad?

I've asked a question taking class out of the equation. In my line of work, I interact with hundreds if not thousands of various types people of every year. I'd have to say there are about 2-3 "bad" seeds out of every 100. I'm not talking about bad in an evil sense (even though there may be), just bad as in they might lean towards unethical behavior as the Kim's did.
I don’t even know where to begin here. Grouping people into categories like good or bad is so ridiculous especially when using this subjective assessment. Your brief observations of person to person contact allows you to play god and dub someone a “bad seed”? I’ve got a theory: people who think they can label people this way or judge the ethics of one’s behavior (and in some strange cases even extend this to actual statistics) exhibit qualities that are worse than many of these bad seeds. But that’s my subjective assessment, and I’ll leave it at that before I say something that gets me in trouble here.

I apologize for derailing the conversation but this is just too insane.
It's pretty clear what I meant, why I said it, and how it relates to this film. My interactions with people are actually not brief (as you so ignorantly assumed) and much deeper than normal day-to-day observations. I was just curious as to how others felt. I'm actually a pretty optimistic person and try always to see the "good' in others. However, even with this lens about 2-3% of people I come across have incredibly little moral fiber and a tendency to break bad (pretty clear now?). I've become quite intuitive about people and have many years of training doing this. I can see from your point of view how this would seem insane (godlike) to you, whereas to me it's completely normal (it takes me less than 5 season, usually a couple of minutes or hours). So reserve your armchair psychobabble and try not to judge others too quickly. There are people in the world who can do things you can't do.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#179 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:52 am

I never brought up your socioeconomical upbringing and was very careful not to assign any such label of “narcissist” but your post was indicative of the trait of narcissism in how it seemed to be coming from a pedestal assigning “blame” as you just said (plus the “everybody loves me” statement fits in the definition so you’re not doing yourself any favors there). I don’t blame the system but see it as more complex a give and take than the “being _ is a choice” which invalidates barriers people have to access beyond will power, which may feel like giving respect but also takes it. Also, regardless of two people’s experiences, everyone has their own unique set of risk vs protective factors, so my point is literally that one person can not assume another person’s abilities based on experience (and even if you hypothetically grew up under the same socioeconomic strains in the same neighborhood same skin color etc. it’s impossible to ‘know’ another’s experience). And you’re right that I have no idea what you do and I’m sure you’re good at it. I believe in intuition too, but I have a problem with it when that intuition moves from subjective account of that person’s worth by one’s individual metric (a natural form of judgment that we all engage in because it means we have our own set of values and beliefs, which is a strength) and when that metric is then taken to be fact, which de-values the other and allots the judge with a sense of objectivity in their assessments. I realize that my comments were harsh and I’m genuinely sorry for having offended you but I wish you would take some perspective and see how your own comments could be viewed as offensive themselves and perpetuate very harmful thinking that affects people negatively. This isn’t psychobabble, it’s perspective, an urge to exhibit humility, take a step back and try to be right-sized and curious about the world instead of an expert. I’m sorry if I somehow misinterpreted your posts but I read through your multiple arguments in favor of that stance so I don’t believe my judgments were too quick. Having said that, I don’t judge you as a whole person. There are traits here that bother me to no end, but I’m sure you are empathetic and have many positive traits like everyone. The ones that rub me the wrongest possible way are what I pointed out, but I’ll stand by my words that this is a subjective assessment (as I said in my post before) and so we have the same amount of worth, and I have no idea who you are or what your abilities are just as you don’t know who these other people are or what theirs are (unless you disagree?) so I’ll keep my observations to the trait that your posts’ argument emphasized in that moment in time and refrain from commenting on your moral value, which I have no right to do, just as I would hope you would do for others.

User avatar
cpetrizzi
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#180 Post by cpetrizzi » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:39 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:52 am
I never brought up your socioeconomical upbringing and was very careful not to assign any such label of “narcissist” but your post was indicative of the trait of narcissism in how it seemed to be coming from a pedestal assigning “blame” as you just said (plus the “everybody loves me” statement fits in the definition so you’re not doing yourself any favors there).
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:52 am
I’m glad some people you’ve worked with have been given opportunities, but not only is that not representative of all people of a lower socioeconomic status but the mentality of thinking, no sorry- being confident, that you’re competent in knowing what it’s like to walk in the shoes of a position you can’t fathom is called narcissism, while your retorts are solipsistic, so congrats.
Your carefully worded "critique" of my thinking absolutely did infer I was narcissistic and from a certain socioeconomic class. You commented on my "mentality of thinking" or noetic response implied I couldn't understand what it's like to be from a lower socioeconomic class. While that normally would be a good assumption, it wasn't valid in this case since I disclosed my childhood to you. I never assigned blame, I have simply stated it's a choice whether to remain in said state or try to dig your way out of it. My everybody-loves-me quip was clearly a joke I added to lighten the mood. Clearly I'm not loved in at least one place.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:52 am
I don’t blame the system but see it as more complex a give and take than the “being _ is a choice” which invalidates barriers people have to access beyond will power, which may feel like giving respect but also takes it.
I see everyone as having a choice to do whatever the heck they want to do. I'm not marginalizing the lower class, I'm actually giving them the power to pull themselves up (as you called it). The system will always be the system, right? Keeping down the poor, or keeping down the (insert minority of choice here). That's simply a cop out. In our film, the Kims had that choice and focused on the long con, infiltrating a well-to-do family, even though they had a decently happy life for themselves. As someone said, they weren't completely distitute. They ate, had shelter, collected baubles, actually had a tight-knit family, etc. They Parks made a choice by letting the Kims in (one by one) and relying on their status to keep out of harm's way. Never in their wildest dreams did they think events would unfold like they did. The Parks were naive to a fault, Ms. Park even more so although Mr. Park did seem to have some basic intuition that he never followed up on fully. You seem to think I'm saying the poor have a choice; I'm saying everyone has a choice! And except for that random act of god, able-bodied adults end up where they want 99.99% of the time.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:52 am
Also, regardless of two people’s experiences, everyone has their own unique set of risk vs protective factors, so my point is literally that one person can not assume another person’s abilities based on experience (and even if you hypothetically grew up under the same socioeconomic strains in the same neighborhood same skin color etc. it’s impossible to ‘know’ another’s experience). And you’re right that I have no idea what you do and I’m sure you’re good at it. I believe in intuition too, but I have a problem with it when that intuition moves from subjective account of that person’s worth by one’s individual metric (a natural form of judgment that we all engage in because it means we have our own set of values and beliefs, which is a strength) and when that metric is then taken to be fact, which de-values the other and allots the judge with a sense of objectivity in their assessments. I realize that my comments were harsh and I’m genuinely sorry for having offended you but I wish you would take some perspective and see how your own comments could be viewed as offensive themselves and perpetuate very harmful thinking that affects people negatively. This isn’t psychobabble, it’s perspective, an urge to exhibit humility, take a step back and try to be right-sized and curious about the world instead of an expert. I’m sorry if I somehow misinterpreted your posts but I read through your multiple arguments in favor of that stance so I don’t believe my judgments were too quick. Having said that, I don’t judge you as a whole person. There are traits here that bother me to no end, but I’m sure you are empathetic and have many positive traits like everyone. The ones that rub me the wrongest possible way are what I pointed out, but I’ll stand by my words that this is a subjective assessment (as I said in my post before) and so we have the same amount of worth, and I have no idea who you are or what your abilities are just as you don’t know who these other people are or what theirs are (unless you disagree?) so I’ll keep my observations to the trait that your posts’ argument emphasized in that moment in time and refrain from commenting on your moral value, just as I would hope you would also do for others.
Even though I agree with much of this, I'll give you a bit of insight. I judge noone and treat everyone the same in my classroom. Whether you're black, white, brown, worth a million dollars or worth nothing, I hold my students to very high, almost unimaginable, standards --- think old-fashioned schooling. I'm known as tough but fair. Most students, especially today, have never been held to high standards by parents, family, friends, co-workers, or especially the system which hands out trophies like candy. This type of thinking is harmful, does noone any good in the long run, and only perpetuates these societal issues we've been discussing by keeping the class structure stable. Noone benefits from believing being disenfranchised (I'll be PC for fear of being called out again, haha) is a "condition." In fact, overall depression and anxiety related disorders are at an all-time high, especially in teens because of this exact thinking.

At first my students fail, A LOT. I don't care if you think you're the smartest person ever, I'll tear you right down and show that you aren't. I don't care if you think you're the dumbest person ever, I'll show you something someone did that was dumber. But once they learn the rules, they acquire tiny successes. Over time, they succeed more and more. After a while, their successes outweigh failures. Now they have acquired what's called "self-worth." You don't get that by chance. You earn it through hard work: blood, sweat, and tears in my class. In the end, you have earned your stripes. It's your choice what to do with them.

You do realize that this all stems from me disagreeing with someone's comment that "poverty is a condition." I'm amazed that not everyone here has a problem with this. Me saying it's a choice brought the onslaught and comments about my character, which is utterly hilarious. You seem to think I devalue others, which is completely untrue and in opposition of my beliefs. I believe in the growth mindset and that all able-bodied adults are in control of their own destiny. You have a more fatalistic approach it seems.

As a gesture, why don't we move on from this and focus on Parasite.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#181 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:14 am

You can interpret or bold my comment however you want, but I clarified what I meant in my previous post and acknowledged that it came off specific when it was meant general. Going further to tell me my intent is a bit ironically in line with my entire point. I’m sure you’re a good teacher and I don’t honestly have any gripes about your methods or intentions. You sound very well intentioned, and in no way malicious, from my point of view, but it’s the black-and-white thinking that I find harmful. Your argument is a bit like the All Lives Matter one. I’m glad you see people as having agency, because you’re right, but just because your experience was one of overcoming barriers to success does not mean that other people don’t have their own individual makeup or different struggles and strengths that make the journey their own to navigate. Your preferred narrative is a good one because it allows you to see hope for others and be optimistic but the minute that stops and moves into something dangerous is the expectation that all people have the basic same skill sets as you to achieve the same way. It’s basically social learning theory ignoring biological, psychological, cultural, and systemic components.

Do you really believe that statistic that able-bodied adults wind up where they want almost 100% of the time? That’s just not true. And what is “able-bodied” because I think you’re ignoring mental health, which affects a significant portion of the population, amongst many other things. To use a few diverse examples, if a child has extreme anxiety that goes untreated or unnoticed, or hell even if they are treated, does that child grown up not have their own set of challenges that may impact the ability to achieve their dreams? To use a more extreme example, a child who is sexually abused or sold off into prostitution in her family to help them eat, once grown, have the same opportunities to wind up where they want, despite trauma affecting the brain and being socialized toward maladaptive expectations for relationship dynamics? Is a divorcee whose partner cheated on them just as easily able to resign their baggage of trauma and get that trusted relationship they seek as the person whose only experienced faithful relationships? Look, I wouldn’t do the job I do if I didn’t think that people were capable of growth and change and achievement in spite of risk factors, but I can’t pretend that support is not important and that pure will power is the straight shot to this success. There is a difference between being fatalist/allotting no agency and acknowledging people have control, capacity, and will power while leaving room for other factors that affect us in this world as contributions to their fate, outside of a natural disaster or act of God or whatever.

For the record, you haven’t posted enough, nor been unapologetically mean-spirited, to be “not loved” here. I just think some of the declarations you’re making are ignorant of experiences outside of your own while making assumptions that you know what all people are capable of, which is a problematic cocktail. Your actions at work and in your life may be positive, you may be a productive and positive member of society, but it’s the switch to making blanket statements that apply to everyone that’s the problem. I also work in a very behavioral setting and some of my students respond well to that ‘tough love’ approach while others are harmed by it. We need to see people as individuals with individual strengths, barriers, effective interventions, etc. and come from a place of curiosity as non-experts, what we call a person-centered approach, which is not exactly new, and sees people are the experts on themselves while we remain nonjudgmental and flexible in our evaluations. It’s a humanistic lens, while many people are used to objective ones that tell people about themselves subconsciously. Please understand I’m not arguing on the other side of the coin of your view: I don’t see people as incapable or believe in gentle coddling. I've used a tough love approach myself and found success in some and failure in others, and I don't think we should abandon our teaching styles in favor of the person's preference always, but there is a middle ground and I do see it as a multi-faceted issue. And beyond all of this I hope you can see how that initial post of “being poor is a choice” goes against a humanistic lens which acknowledges the dignity and worth of all people by insinuating that some may choose not to better themselves, and why it might rub someone the wrong way or come off as self-important, even if that wasn’t your intention.
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#183 Post by Brian C » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:25 pm

His reasoning is suspect, in that he says that being eligible for both categories is an advantage to the foreign film(!), while also being a disadvantage for the same reasons.

Maybe needed to think that one through a little bit more, Mick.

User avatar
FigrinDan
The Immortal Dead
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:43 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#184 Post by FigrinDan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:37 pm


User avatar
cpetrizzi
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#185 Post by cpetrizzi » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:48 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:14 am
Do you really believe that statistic that able-bodied adults wind up where they want almost 100% of the time? That’s just not true. And what is “able-bodied” because I think you’re ignoring mental health, which affects a significant portion of the population, amongst many other things. To use a few diverse examples, if a child has extreme anxiety that goes untreated or unnoticed, or hell even if they are treated, does that child grown up not have their own set of challenges that may impact the ability to achieve their dreams? To use a more extreme example, a child who is sexually abused or sold off into prostitution in her family to help them eat, once grown, have the same opportunities to wind up where they want, despite trauma affecting the brain and being socialized toward maladaptive expectations for relationship dynamics? Is a divorcee whose partner cheated on them just as easily able to resign their baggage of trauma and get that trusted relationship they seek as the person whose only experienced faithful relationships? Look, I wouldn’t do the job I do if I didn’t think that people were capable of growth and change and achievement in spite of risk factors, but I can’t pretend that support is not important and that pure will power is the straight shot to this success. There is a difference between being fatalist/allotting no agency and acknowledging people have control, capacity, and will power while leaving room for other factors that affect us in this world as contributions to their fate, outside of a natural disaster or act of God or whatever.
Yes, I feel that everyone winds up where they want for the most part. Why would this be not true? But this gets many people riled up so I have to further qualify by saying adults (18+ or 22+ whatever your definition is). I do feel many children today are overly coddled and are not respected to think and make their own decision. Many children from around 7-17 can handle many things that adults may not realize. I'm not getting into childhood psychology, that's your field, so I'll leave it at that. But I strongly believe that everyone needs to acquire self-esteem.

I added "able-bodied" to my prior posts which to me means both physical, emotional, and mental (I actual had that written but deleted it assuming it was obvious). I'm talking about adults who are ABLE to be productive members of society, hold a job (whether it's at a convenient store or CEO doesn't matter), maybe support or raise a family, find some happiness, and basically live a decent, meaningful life. Noone goes through life unscathed! People deal with debilitating chronic depression, trauma, and some bad luck with maybe a divorce or a tough loss, but these should OBVIOUSLY be dealt with by professionals who can provide proper treatment. Did you really go there with childhood prostitution? Ridiculous and rather childlike. Also, I never said that everyone is equal or gets the "same opportunities." That's your interpretation of my words. I said people end up where they want to be. You can nitpick my words all day and come up with specific examples, but I'm not going to apologize for my viewpoints.

You are completely missing my point. Since you are in the health field, you can understand the problem with these numbers: 21.3% of people in the US receive government assistance and (this is from memory) 48% of people at some time in their life received welfare or government funding. How many of these people were able-bodied and could have gotten themselves out of this position maybe with some help? I'm guess a fair amount (besides childhood prostitutes, but Kimmy Schmidt did...). All of this is from the belief that poverty is a condition.

Funny thing about the Kims. I saw them as very resourceful individuals all in their own way, with very good specific skills that could have (with some help maybe) gotten themselves out of poverty and led a meaningful life instead of being parasites and committing crimes. I'm not naive and realize conditions around the world and in South Korea are far more deplorable than the US. And I can't comment on those specific condition either. However, until people realize it's their choice and not their destiny to be where they are, nothing will really change.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#186 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:24 pm

No one goes through life unscathed, exactly, so everyone to some degree wouldn't fit your now-loose definition of able-bodied (which I definitely don't think should be assumed and the parameters are vague, and such a significant portion of the population suffers from some mental or physical health issue the umbrella doesn't then leave much room for this conversation). Also, if you agree that support is necessary, then are you assuming that all people will receive all necessary services to then be in a space to access "where they want to be" which I'll just refer to as life goals (my words, not yours)? Under that idealization, I think we agree, but unfortunately I don't think the world works that way. If you are saying that 99.9% of people with all the variables in place, including skill sets, to succeed wind up succeeding (which I would also disagree with) then what about those who don't and live in poverty? Wouldn't that go against your initial declaration that being poor is a choice? I feel like we get further away from the blanket comments that triggered this discussion: you said that you feel that "being poor is a choice" and that you have a moral detector by which you can separate the bad seeds from the good ones. Now there are all these contextual factors to your points and yet they still wind up in a state of rigidity. Why is bringing up the child prostitution example childlike? It was an example, not an attack (and a very real-life example that happens far more often than people would think, in my experience), served at doing two things: one, exposing that some low socioeconomic families engage in behaviors that create more risk factors while others don't, which exemplifies that not all have the same chance despite that common denominator; and two, just an example of trauma in childhood creating barriers to people winding up where they want to be once they reach that window of adulthood you allude to. Is this topic just too uncomfortable to sit with, since we are apparently now only talking about the people who have their lives together set up for success, even if that specifies the focus beyond the all-encompassing statements you made that I took issue with in the first place?

You're right, you never said "opportunities" but don't you see the connection between opportunities to fulfill goals and the fulfillment of goals? Look, I completely agree in an anti-coddling position and that everyone needs to be provided opportunities to acquire self-esteem. We are in agreement actually on a lot of these issues, a strengths-based perspective, and providing chances for people to develop and practice skills. But there is a HUGE difference between empowering people and believing that failure is because they want to fail, or that people want to be poor, homeless, in jail, etc. or the many other places they could wind up that, apparently, they want to? I really wish you'd flex your perspective enough (NOT change it) to see that my issue is with full-tilt comments like the end of your last one that places the sole responsibility on the choice of the agent and doesn't account for other factors. I am NOT saying that people don't have responsibility! This isn't a "blame society" or "disempower the individual" rant, quite the opposite. It's just asking for some perspective to see the magnets that stunt the finite amount of will power human beings have (which is a research-based fact, pointing to external supports as the building blocks of strengthening said will power). I repeat for the nth time, I am not advocating for fatalism or pessimism or de-valuing the individual, just a peripheral multipfaceted model of looking at things, and I see you posturing in those directions over the course of your posts but remaining grounded in that 'bootstraps' position, which is yours to have, but I really struggle to see how you can't get outside of yourself to see why the way you've worded things may be insulting despite the intention. No one's asking for an apology or for you to alter your worldview, but just engage in perspective-taking as any discussion warrants. Anyways, I'll apologize again for any harm this has done to your ego (I don't know how else to say it, I'm not trying to be rude), not my position, and say again that I am aware that I could have been gentler in my approach and apologize for that too, but this has spun into a yarn. It sounds like you're a strengths-based positive person in your work, and I say in earnest that I don't believe you're harming people in your interactions, you're probably helping them. I just find the narrow single-dimensional plane of looking at the issue of poverty or will power in assigning absolute responsibility in overcoming hardships to be dangerous and one that contributes to perpetuating systemic oppression on a macro-level. That's it. By the way, every question I asked in this post is also serious in trying to get at your point, so if you have responses to them, I'd like to understand better. I'm seeing Brian's post looking back asking for this to not happen now, so I'm sorry for detailing the thread. I'll gladly continue this conversation on assessing the obstacles to total-agency (or the absence of them) over PM if you want to keep having it, as I think it's a worthy one to have if we lower our pistols.

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#187 Post by Nasir007 » Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:54 pm

cpetrizzi wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:38 pm
Nasir, you've distilled my post to black and white, which was not fair. Also, I don't think anyone could "fall" into being poor. You seem to see it as a condition, like an illness. It's not. In fact, it's almost a mind-set, and I'd go so far as to say, choice.

If you ask people what class they consider themselves, most would say "middle class," whatever that means. What's amazing is that this range is at the poverty level to many times more than that. I'm reluctant to give actual figures because this would not pertain to global economies, but in the US it might mean a family of 4 making anywhere from $40,000 to $1,000,000 per year. I know many people who fall outside this range on both sides that live fairly "normal" lives. Even some billionaires see themselves as regular people. Most are all very "good" people. I don't adhere to monetary levels to determine rich or poor. My definition of a poor family is one in need of some type of assistance, definitely living below the poverty line, and most likely have a substandard amount of education (though due to some circumstances might have a college degree). To me rich simply means being able to live comfortably without working. That could mean a family living off of their ancestors' generation wealth or a barber who has saved 30% of his income, invested wisely in a no-load mutual fund, and is living off the cashflow of a $5,000,000 nest egg. See how "poor" or "rich" really isn't a condition?

The Kim's were dispicable. They tried to game the system and lost. The Park's also lost, but just because they were trusting and naive. If this were a true class commentary, wouldn't we all want the underdog to win? Many here have said that they felt more for the Parks than the Kims. Do we have a poverty problem in the world? Sure, I guess. Here in the US many Democrats/Liberals feel that a tax on the wealthy (2% for those over $50,000,000; 6% for over $1,000,000,000) would solve certain problems since it would theoretically produce trillions of dollars in the next 10 years. You know what would actually happen? Nothing close to that. Those people that control all the companies would pass on those taxes to, guess who, the middle class. And we would be burdened with paying trillions of dollars more.
cpetrizzi, I think you have an overtly capitalist view which while I agree with intellectually, I don't see playing out in practice. You seem to pre-suppose equality of opportunity. I simply don't think that exists today (at least in the US but also) in most places.

There are genuine legitimate circumstantial and other constraints, beyond the control of individuals, which make poverty more than a mindset.

Even if I go by just a narrow use-case of myself, there are legitimate barriers that prevent me from doing as well as some of my peers. Barriers that I cannot readily overcome. Barriers which are situational, systemic and institutional.

I have already noted that I don't see the Kims' actions as objectionable (the non-criminal ones) and even then I have an ambivalence towards what they could or could not get away with. I relate most of all to their decency or gumption or something else within them which makes them compelling characters worth rooting for - or at least worth taking an interest in. Like say Pattinson's character in Good Time. I think we can at least presuppose a morally gray universe or a morally indeterminate or subjective universe. And in that universe, I don't find the Kims despicable. Maybe imprudent or a bit foolish, but not despicable. I have a different kind of capitalistic view - within constraints do your best. But I recognize the constraints and I recognize that there are constraints.

With that I will stop, I don't intend to write another novel. And I think the topic has been done to death but I wanted to do you the courtesy of responding to your interesting post.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#188 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:52 pm

Nasir -- I find neither family fundamentally "decent" -- the only real difference is one of "manners".

User avatar
cpetrizzi
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#189 Post by cpetrizzi » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:24 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:54 pm
cpetrizzi, I think you have an overtly capitalist view which while I agree with intellectually, I don't see playing out in practice. You seem to pre-suppose equality of opportunity. I simply don't think that exists today (at least in the US but also) in most places.

There are genuine legitimate circumstantial and other constraints, beyond the control of individuals, which make poverty more than a mindset.

Even if I go by just a narrow use-case of myself, there are legitimate barriers that prevent me from doing as well as some of my peers. Barriers that I cannot readily overcome. Barriers which are situational, systemic and institutional.
Nasir, thanks you for your respectful reply and furthering of our discussion even though I feel it has developed into a diatribe that has a "flame on" feel, à la, the Human Torch. However, my main point was to 'counter' your statement that poverty was a "condition" by saying it was a "choice." Possiby "mindset" is closer to what I mean, but choice or mindset is what I was referring to. For example, Type 1 diabetes is mainly a condition, whereas Type 2 diabetes is mainly a choice, since it can usually be averted (90% of the time) by following a healthy lifestyle and diet. I realize there are exceptions. A skinny-fat person can sometimes get Type 2 diabetes just like a person who has made good life decisions can end up poor. However, my original thesis is that people make choices that direct them on certain paths in life, some good, some bad, some rich, some poor. Where you start in life is random; where you end up is not by chance.

Since I'm from a capitalist state (US), you are 100% right that my viewpoint of wealth is derived from large corporations and citizen oligarchy (think Gates, Buffet, Bezos) who run the show. If you are from a socialist country, you'd have a view that wealth is mainly produced by the working class. I thought this was evident from stating "I'm reluctant to give actual figures because this would not pertain to global economies." I was trying to make a point that the overwhelming majority of families in the US view themselves as "middle class" which itself seems highly of ironic. For example, a family living in the Bay Area in CA (a very expensive place in the US to live) making $75,000 lives quite differently than one making $750,000. Both feel the "struggle" and hardships of being part of the working, middle class. Neither family considers themselve "rich" or "poor" and both feel "squeezed" between the other classes, maybe they are the ones overly taxed because the "poor" pay near nothing or that the "rich" use all tax loopholes. However, both families live "ok" to "well" relative to the circles they are in. The first one may never take a vacation while the second may be accustomed to taking 1-2 vacations per year. One lives in a 1-bedroom apartment, is first generation and considers themselves lucky to be able to put a decent meal on the table every night for their kids. The other lives in a $2.5 million, 5-bedroom home and sends their kids to private school. There is an obvious class distinction between the two families even though they themselves don't perceive it since they see themselves as "middle class."
Nasir007 wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:54 pm
I have already noted that I don't see the Kims' actions as objectionable (the non-criminal ones) and even then I have an ambivalence towards what they could or could not get away with. I relate most of all to their decency or gumption or something else within them which makes them compelling characters worth rooting for - or at least worth taking an interest in.
Parasite has certainly done its job by stirring up controversy, I'll give it that. Also, I don't object to the movie itself since I view it as a satirical black comedy; I object to it being touted as revolutionary cinema which addresses class distinction. That's pretty much my point. The Kims are the villanous parasite and I never root for them at all through the movie. You stated you did and I'm wondering why. They are in fact very astute and resourceful criminals who prey on the Parks. Being disenfranchised doesn't mean they have the right to do what they did by infiltrating and utterly demolishing the lives of a decent family. I'm at a point where I think secretively Bong's thesis is that the lowest 10% of society needs to be "washed" away with the garbage (this is my attempt at humor).

As I stated earlier, we know quite a few poor families and help them when we can. Almost daily, I encounter those who love to say they want to help the poor and change the system, but very few actually do anything about it. Their only goal is to be perceived as morally superiority. I also currently have homeless students and am strongly urging them to go to college every day. Some will be able to move onto a better life with the help provided, others will sadly not. You can't force anyone to do anything, it's their choice whether to better themselves or stay where they are.
Nasir007 wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:54 pm
Like say Pattinson's character in Good Time. I think we can at least presuppose a morally gray universe or a morally indeterminate or subjective universe. And in that universe, I don't find the Kims despicable. Maybe imprudent or a bit foolish, but not despicable. I have a different kind of capitalistic view - within constraints do your best. But I recognize the constraints and I recognize that there are constraints.
I have recently discovered the Safdie brothers and have seen both Good Time and Uncut Gems recently. I love the gritty texture of the characters and story lines in both movies. Pattinson plays a very realistic dude wronged by the system, who makes some fabulously "bad" decisions throughout the film. Honestly, I loved BOTH of these way more than Parasite and can extract so much social commentary from Good Time (Uncut is primarily about gambling addiction but Sandler's character makes some horrendous decisions also).

I don't agree that the universe is morally indeterminate like some limits in math. The universe actually knows nothing of morality; it is purely a human construct so to some extent subjective since humans are mostly driven by emotion. Is murder ever justified? Is stealing wrong if you're hungry? Kant says any killing is wrong. But one of the Morality Tests says to push the fat guy off the bridge to save 10 people on the train is the answer: killing 1 to save 10 is right! I'm more intrigued by the decisions Pattinson and Sandler make and how they are perceived by the audience as good/bad, right/wrong.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#190 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:46 pm

cpetrizzi wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:24 pm
And except for that random act of god, able-bodied adults end up where they want 99.99% of the time.
cpetrizzi wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:24 pm
A skinny-fat person can sometimes get Type 2 diabetes just like a person who has made good life decisions can end up poor.
*But only 0.01% of the time, or if they want to

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#191 Post by swo17 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:10 am

My personal credo is that I'm 100% responsible for my own position in my life, but I should assume that everyone else is 0%

User avatar
cpetrizzi
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#192 Post by cpetrizzi » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:14 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:46 pm
cpetrizzi wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:24 pm
And except for that random act of god, able-bodied adults end up where they want 99.99% of the time.
cpetrizzi wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:24 pm
A skinny-fat person can sometimes get Type 2 diabetes just like a person who has made good life decisions can end up poor.
*But only 0.01% of the time, or if they want to
If the moderators let me play along, here goes...

Since I've done my homework now, let me bump my estimate up to a whopping 0.03%, which is the 1 in 3000 chance of being hit by space junk or a meteorite. You win. Game over.

Good news swo17! You are only 99.97% responsible for your life. I did the Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method incorporating an IBNR meteorite debris tail.

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#193 Post by feihong » Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:51 am

Brian C wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:25 pm
His reasoning is suspect, in that he says that being eligible for both categories is an advantage to the foreign film(!), while also being a disadvantage for the same reasons.

Maybe needed to think that one through a little bit more, Mick.
That staggered me as well. He also described it as "fortunate" that Green Book took the Oscar that could have been had by Roma. Whatever you think of Roma, I don't think you could find too many people who thought it was fortunate that Green Book got the Best Picture Oscar.

Thanks for the nice comments before, by the way. I also think it would be cool to get back to discussing Parasite on this thread, at some point.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#194 Post by nitin » Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:52 am

“Pattinson plays a very realistic dude wronged by the system...”

Is this really about Good Time?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#195 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:49 am

One positive that will likely come out of Bong’s strong winnings tonight is that Memories of Murder will probably finally get a stateside blu-ray release as more Americans attempt to seek out his other work

User avatar
Timec
Spencer Tracy had it coming
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#196 Post by Timec » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:59 am

Neon now has Memories of Murder, and it looks like they're planning to give it a theatrical and Blu-ray release.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#197 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:08 am

Image

black&huge
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#198 Post by black&huge » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:59 am

Memories of Murder still doesn't have a stateside blu release? News to me but this is great news.

User avatar
CSM126
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
Location: The Room
Contact:

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#199 Post by CSM126 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:41 am

Just saying: Neon recently initiated a relationship with Criterion, so…

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

#200 Post by denti alligator » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:24 am

Washington Post writes the film is „both original and oddly familiar, a product of the male gaze that still holds sway over Hollywood.“

First of all, the film wasn‘t made in Hollywood. Is the writer suggesting it won because it mimicked the male gaze?

Is every film made by a man a product of the male gaze? Have these writers not read their Mulvey? Did I see a different film?

Post Reply