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.