Continued from Part 1 but this time with spoilers
Snowpiercer, the groundbreaking post-apocalyptic sci-fi film directed by Bong Joon-ho, has now made its way onto Netflix streaming. This is amazing news, because more people need to know the message behind this film. I have been so eager to continue my analysis of the film, but the weight of this charge has born down heavy on my shoulders. It doesn’t help that this guy from Jay’s Analysis basically did his college thesis on Snowpiercer, and he’s more well-read and a way better writer than I. He covers a lot of the points I wanted to make, and in much greater detail. But for what it’s worth, I’m going to just keep putting articles out about it until something profound happens.
In the first article, we got into the details of Agenda 21. I tried to relate the dystopian dispensation of Snowpiercer’s landscape to the claustrophobic system of corridors that the U.N. has envisioned for the world as a solution to humanity’s interference in nature. We’ve shown you how their attempt to sequester us from the environment has already begun to trickle out right under our noses in the form of the subtle, but constant procurement of protected federal lands by federal agencies (think EPA, NWF, Parks and Rec., etc.). They’ve been using the exact same tactics represented in the opening credits and prologue of Snowpiercer: a clamor for synthetic antidotes to invented (or at least exaggerated) environmental problems (represented here by climate change).
There are a lot of underlying themes in this inspiring tour de force having to do with world government, and they are not subtly presented. I’d like to continue the journey through the film drawing parallels to what’s happening in the world, but I’d first like to discuss some of the red herrings distracting from the true targets of Snowpiercer.
What Snowpiercer is Not About
To the viewer who has not been initiated regarding the this-is-actually-happening global agenda of the elite, Snowpiercer‘s message might seem extremely generic. Even people who are paid to review movies on a daily basis seem to think it is simply an allegory about class warfare.
Star Chris Evans, in the blu-ray’s special features, echoed this exact sentiment: “Well, the film itself is, you know, an allegory for, you know, class warfare and this kind of social structure.” Nailed it. I’m sorry, but Captain America sounded more like Miss America when he made this observation. It’s just the sort of response that an actor or laymen might have in the can for a rainy day when asked to discuss any media remotely involving class struggle.
No one—absolutely no one (except for Jay from Jay’s Analysis) seems to have done the research and figured out what this movie is about. It’s time to review the reviewers!
“Ok, I’m afraid the train is a rattling microcosm of society as we know it. But you can forgive Bong a few ham-fisted lunges at profoundity [sic] given the film’s sheer visionary splendor.” -Peter Travers
Either this guy actually doesn’t get it, or more likely, being a deeply embedded mainstream media shill, he is contributing to the dumbing down of the American public by drawing attention to the superficial class message rather than the far more obvious (to the knowledgeable) and extremely relevant message of globalism and Agenda 21. How can we expect this guy to see that the writers of the film have transplaced the climate change dialogue to its rightful position as a technocratic/scientific elite contrivance that will have been the scapegoat necessitating environment-destroying policies leading to our subjugation? Could he even understand that sentence if he read it? Even if he could, he would never explain it in a freaking Rolling Stone article. (I’m mostly kidding; it wasn’t that great of a sentence.)
I guess I’m expecting too much from a magazine that featured a suspected terrorist on their cover, a place that has in recent history only been reserved for positive or otherwise edgy “rockstar” figures. (Yes, they had Charles Manson and other disreputable figures on there in the Sixties, but that was a time when they were more of a Time/Life sort of publication.) I just think it was a bad idea, distasteful, and evident of a deeply insidious agenda.
I don’t think the most relevant concepts of Snowpiercer are something that can easily be explained in a little blurb like the one in Rolling Stone anyway. So please bear with me as I try to transcend the blurb, because if you haven’t been immersed in these ideas, it’s an incremental learning process that gradually instills comprehension. Upon watching and rewatching the film, this knowledge will help draw relevant real-world parallels from several key scenes. These masterstrokes by Masterson and Bong are anything but “hamfisted.” In fact, they’re shockingly on the nose, and I was surprised they took their sharp criticism of globalists to the degree they did. Perhaps they felt at this time that the concepts presented were too obscure for a mainstream audience to relate them to real-world events, and they just unleashed them thinking it wouldn’t go past the subconscious of most viewers. Of course, we know Weinstein didn’t feel this way. I guess he overestimated the conscious thought of American viewers.
Read more of Peter Travers’ review here: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/snowpiercer-20140626#ixzz3IjKIDv00
I must admit, I was pretty disappointed by this one. The Huffington Post seems to be in the know for the most part, especially in the groundbreaking health discoveries department (they even feature Dr. Mercola regularly). The title of the review was “The Last Snowpiercer Review You Will Ever Need to Read” by James Crotty. Not to be disrespectful to your slightly more respectful online news source, James, but titles like this one make your publication sound like the shills from Rolling Stone. You even used the term ham-fisted in your review! This is an important freaking film, and it really sounds like you’re trying to get people to not look any deeper.
Case in point, Crotty:
“There could have been more wry intelligence baked into this child-like script about a post-apocalyptic world in which an attempt to stave off global warming has gone horribly wrong, leaving a frozen planet and a perpetually moving, self-sustaining, and cartoonishly careering train that smashes through ice and snow generating water and power for the planet’s remaining survivors onboard. The inhabitants of this “Rattling Ark” allegedly represent a microcosm of the world left behind, in which Americans run the show, and dentally challenged Brits provide a simulacrum of wisdom and absurdist order, and South Koreans save the day on behalf of an Asian/African-American future. In a script less clever by half, the train could have better served as Matrix-like metaphor for conventional reality. But, instead, the screenplay by Kelly Masterson (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead) and Bong Joon-ho (Mother) — based on French graphic novel Le Transperceneige by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette — goes for tired Occupy Wall Street clichés about the haves and have-nots. Or, in this case, about the 1% at the pampered front of the nuclear-powered train — which gains in speed and strength the longer it moves — and the huddled masses in steerage, who must subsist at first on cannibalism and then, after their first revolt, on a gelatinous protein bar made from (oh, never mind).”
Child-like script?! Look at the first sentence you wrote. How is this plot anything like anything that’s ever been made? You act like it’s so predictable. I just hate the reductionism of this paragraph. The worst part, though, is where he says it’s “an Occupy Wall Street cliché about the haves and have-nots.” (Though Occupy are “hipper” and share much of the same tenets and goals) I definitely see this film’s message as more in line with the Tea Party/Liberty movement message, as its conclusion and underlying theme centers around the ruling figure’s reduction of the world into an isolated system that needs to be precisely engineered for stability. But maybe that’s just who I identify with more (the old fogies).
Just as the Occupy movement seems to have missed a big chunk of the picture of how injustice currently plays out in the world (honing in only on the wolves of Wall Street and corporations; or the 1%), these reviewers seem to have similarly missed the truth boat, assigning a “class warfare” stamp to a much more complex and elegant portrait Snowpiercer paints. This film is attacking a strategy of subjugation that is truly evil—the elite’s use of scientific tyranny, manufactured scarcity, fearmongering, distraction, false flags (planned rebellions), embedded cointel, and yes, even class warfare to “manage” humanity according to their twisted worldview. This worldview, of course, is written clearly, in the real world, on the Georgia Guidestones:
Click for Full Photo
Folks, it’s time to expand your mind and your point of reference! Do some research and learn what is really going on in the world! I suppose I shouldn’t hold it against everyone too much, because I was lucky enough to have just learned about geoengineering not 2 months before seeing this movie. You can confirm this timeline from the dates I posted Modern Life Survivalist articles about chemtrails and the subsequent Snowpiercer review:
- I write the chemtrails article in August based on a tip from Prince
- 2 months go by
- I get the heads-up from my bro that the director of The Host has a new film that’s the best sci-fi movie he’s ever seen, and
- Woosh—chemtrails in the opening scene!
Like I said in my last article, the synchronicity was beyond uncanny.
Be a Shoe!
Alright, alright, just to maintain credibility, I’m going to thoroughly address the certainly present class theme: I will give you one scene that is completely about class, as well as very poignant. The scene where Tilda Swinton channels Margaret Thatcher while a crazed Scottsman is punished for throwing a shoe at the head of another higher-up with a yellow coat. Very concisely and to the point, the scene summarizes the perspective of puppets of the elite:
“We must all of us on this train of life, remain in our allotted station; we must each of us occupy our preordained, particular position.” *She puts a shoe on the Scottsman’s red ‘fro as he reacts to his arm going through the last stages of deep freeze* “Would you wear a shoe on your head? Of course you wouldn’t… a shoe doesn’t belong on your head. A shoe belongs on your foot. A hat belongs on your head. I am a hat. You are a shoe. I belong on a head. You belong on a foot. Yes. So it is.
“In the beginning, order was prescribed by your ticket. First class. Economy. And freeloaders like you. Eternal order is prescribed by the Sacred Engine. All things flow from the Sacred Engine. All things in their place, all passengers in their section. All water flowing—all heat rising—pays homage to the Sacred Engine, in its own particular, preordained position. So it is.
“Now, as in the beginning, I belonged to the front. You belonged to the tail. When the foot seeks the place of the head, the sacred line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe!”
So, who wouldn’t think that this is the main theme of the movie, as it is presented so early on and in such a fresh way? But oh wait—it’s done so quickly and concisely, and in such an obvious way, no less by a subordinate to the true “man behind the curtain.” The director must be just doing a crappy job on theme development, because anyone else would expand the theme in a much more subtle and drawn out way. Wrong!
Perhaps the reason this blatant (dare I say hamfisted?) scene is so early on in the film is to conscisely present the obvious subtheme of class as a backdrop as well as a distraction from what’s really going on. Also, notice that it is presented humorously (but not without a sense of menace due to its brutal content). Notice how the CIA-type guy leans on the other one’s shoulder as if he’s bored of hearing the same diatribe that has obviously been presented again and again, as if to say, “Yes, we get it, everyone is assigned a certain place in life and there’s no way to go up or down.” Well, I must say this actually is significant in the context of the true theme, globalism, because in a communist system, one will most likely occupy the giant bottom-feeder stratus (or “proletariat” class à la 1984), and like the train, the higher classes will use up most of the space and most of the resources, but will only represent about 15% of the population (or “the Party” class à la 1984 again).
Let me take a moment, as we’re discussing this scene, to talk about Terry Gilliam. Almost every reviewer mentioned how John Hurt’s character, whose name was Gilliam, was obviously a “ham-fisted” tribute to Brazil. I felt that these comments from reviewers were lazy at best—the equivalent of a critic’s raising their hand in excitement when they catch an easy reference. The more clever Gilliam- and specifically Brazil-esque reference was the image of a shoe on someone’s head, except in this movie, with an entirely different meaning:
I don’t know. Maybe when Terry Gilliam employed this hilarious anticipation of futuristic style in his seminal Brazil, he actually was precognisantly evoking the future iconic imagery of Snowpiercer with its accompanying be-a-shoe speech. Either way, the reference is just too good, and I’m totally blown away, because Brazil has been my favorite film since I saw it in middle school. Super clever, Bong/Masterson. Mad props (for an awesome use of props).
A striking (or dodging, depending on the politician) parallel to this scene in our world is the amount of shoe-throwing that has been going on in the last decade or so. George W. Bush dodged the one in Iraq very deftly in my opinion, adding an excellent quip in response to what he thought of the assault: “It looked like a size 11.” But Hilary lucked out, not even really noticing the first shoe thrown by her assailant, then kinda pretending she dodged a moment after the second was thrown. I actually thought her comment asking if it “was a bat?” was pretty funny. Random. In any case, I am not sure what happened to this pair of pedorthic perpetrators, but I don’t think it was anywhere near as horrifying or humutilating as what happened to the red-headed gentleman in the above scene. Then again… we don’t know.
Exploring the True Theme of Snowpiercer
Well, I got carried away on the be-a-shoe scene in this article, so I’m satisfied to leave it at the suggestion that the movie is not about class warfare. At the next stop, we’ll depart from the hackneyed platform of financial station, and explore the more compelling junctions with reality that Snowpiercer traverses. I’ll provide more evidence that its major antagonistic force and most relevant theme is global control by a deceptive elite that will readily pare down the population to a manageable level through manipulation of resources, control of information, cointel, and consent of the masses. So leave your baggage behind as we get our cabooses in gear and go full steam ahead! All aboard!