‘All the World is a stage, and all the men and women are merely players’ – Shakespeare’s often cited line could be twisted a little to form the plot line for South Korean director Bong Joon-ho’s allegorical post-apocalyptic movie, “Snowpiercer” (2013): ‘World’s a train, and all the humans are merely passengers.’ Adapted from French cult graphic novel “Le Transperceneige”, ‘Snowpiercer’ marks the English language debut for gifted Korean genre director Bong Joon-ho (“Memories of Murder”, “The Host”, “Mother”) and inspired lot of talks about Harvey Weinstein’s unjustified demand for a 20 minute cut, in an effort to make it more palatable to western crowds. Slotted for an August release (in 2013), the film is finally going to be released in USA on June 24th (with cuts). There is no doubt that “Snowpiercer” poses a trickier marketing challenge: its final cut is too violent and dark for PG-13 rating; and, the film’s top-billed actor Chris Evans, outside his Captain America suit, hasn’t got much of crowd-pulling power. But, the studio’s attempt to dumb it down doesn’t make sense, since many recent, big-budgeted movies like “District 9”, “Life of Pi”, “Gravity” are all constantly expanding the boundaries of a genre, blending in both the art and blockbuster traits.
The events in “Snowpiercer” happen inside a train that
travels through a frozen future landscape. How the world’s last remaining
survivors ended up in this highly advanced train? We don’t know how, but the why
is explained. In 2014, humans in order alleviate the growing threat of global
warming launches a chemical substance CW7 into the atmosphere, which only
inflicts a reverse reaction, turning every humans into frozen statues, except
for the precious few, inside the train. Seventeen years later, in 2031, we see
a bunch of grimy-faced have-nots, who are all scrabbling for food in the
train’s tail section. The hundreds of tail-section people live a hellish life
and are controlled by few gun-toting soldiers. They are fed a slimy-looking
protein bar; children are forcibly attempted from the parents and any kind of
insurrection s quelled by using cruel methods. Gilliam (John Hurt), the wise
elder and Curtis (Chris Evans), a stoic rebel with a dark past are the unofficial
leaders of these poor people. Curtis’ second-in command and side-kick is Edgar
(Jamie Bell).
The three of them are planning for a rebellion to take
control of the train and make it all the way to the perpetual-motion engine.
The train with a self-sustainable sacred engine is invented by Wilford (Ed Harris) of Wilford Industries, who seems to be an old pal of Gilliam. Wilford’s
second-in command is the fanatical speaker Minister Mason (Tilda Swinton). She
and merciless enforcers cannot be easily defeated. The one good thing for the
rebels is the cryptic messages they have been arriving from the front section, concealed
in the gelatinous protein bars. The message asks them to free a Korean security
expert, Namgoong Minsu (Song), from custody in the train’s prison car.
The downtrodden passengers push down their oppressors and
free the security expert, to open all the doors ahead. Nam and his plucky 17
year old daughter, Yona (Ko Asung) tag along the group – their reward for
opening each door is a fix of the hallucinogenic drug ‘Kronol.’ Later, the
rebels clash with a group of axe-wielding men in a narrow place. If you think
that the oppressed would push all the oppressors and then live a happy long
life (as shown in “Elysium” or “In Time”), think again, because Joon-ho, to our
delight conjures up both mayhem as well as political allegory. As Curtis &
group advances through each compartment, we are introduced to a new, surprising
facet of this eerie locomotive.
Director Bong’s proletariat revolt progresses, not just with
bloody action, but also with a grand design, which puts us in the perspective of
this international posse, who like us never knows what lies ahead of them. Each
compartment is filled with decadent surroundings and the train’s blithe
one-percenters seem to have been oblivious of their surroundings. The script
written by Bong and Kelly Masterson (“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead”)
gives urgency to the plot where it needed (‘ax fight’) and also slows the pace
to let us identify with the characters and be absorbed in their dystopian world.
Each advance makes us feel that none of the character is safe in this
tumultuous situation.
The characters are well fleshed out for good vs. evil tale. Curtis,
at first looks like the typical malcontented Hollywood hero, but the
character’s arc gets revealed in a specific moment which will make you rethink
about Curtis. Nam and Yona’s characters do not come with the usual Hollywood
label of ‘exotic Asian.’ Bong even makes Nam speak in Korean (hi-tech
translator equipment translates it to English) and walks around in his own way,
instead of cuddling up to his ‘white’ leader. Bong’s long time cinematographer
and production designer Ondrej Neksavil brings up a remarkably rich setting,
even though the film is restricted entirely within the train.
Chris Evans gives an electrifying performance as Curtis,
especially that haunting monologue, which explains his efforts for being the
good guy. However, two supporting performances stand tall: one is Tilda
Swinton’s scene-chewing performance as the ultra-reactionary minister; and the
other is Alison Pill’s morbidly cheerful school teacher role. John Hurt has
been playing the role of shabby intellectual for decades (“1984”, “Midnight
Express”) and so draws out our attention, whenever he is on the screen. The
Romanian actor Vlad Ivanov is particularly menacing, without ever uttering a
single line of dialogue.
Flaws and holes are inherent part of this sci-fi tale (how
the hell can the train run so fast and so long for 17 years?). Towards the end,
Bong, repeatedly hammers the modus operandi of modern-day capitalism, which
makes the political allegories, a little less layered. However, if we could
over look some of the glaring flaws, our mind could provoke certain questions,
which has been asked for long in dystopian movies: Whether mankind is worth
trying to save at all? Does survival incites greater costs? And is it
worthwhile to be inhuman for the better chance of preserving humanity? As I
said, these questions has been asked a lot of times, but in ‘Snowpiercer’ we
could genuinely feel the temptation in a character that facing a difficult
decision, since none of the choices is going to be a easy one. The final choice
or the event that made it happen could be viewed either as optimistic or
pessimistic, depending on an individual’s view. I think only very few big-budgeted
Hollywood movies have posed questions and have dealt action set pieces
secondary to characterization. So, for these reasons alone, we could neglect
the problematic aspects of the story.
“Snowpiercer” (125 minutes) is devilishly unpredictable and
dazzles us ceaselessly. The unorthodox pacing, dark humor, violence and the
film’s view on capitalist society may question its survival in the box-office;
nevertheless this is an enthrallingly executed piece of allegorical sci-fi
cinema.
Trailer
No comments:
Post a Comment