Snowpiercer

Written and Directed by Joon-ho Bong. Written by Keey Masterson. Starring Chris Evans (Curtis), Kang-ho Song (Namgoong), John Hurt (Gilliam), Ed Harris (Wilford), Tilda Swinton (Mason).

Bottomline: Snowpiercer walks a fine line between humor and horror (the horror of war-type, not the monster-movie-type)

3/4

In the future, an effort to quell global warming accidentally resulted in freezing the Earth. The last survivors of mankind have survived for 17 years aboard a train that continuously travels around the planet.

From that introduction, you might suspect that there is an environmental subplot… There is also an equally subtle class struggle theme. As Tild-og’s (Tilda Swinton’s) character Mason explains, ‘there is a hierarchy and everyone should know their place.’

That statement goes over well with the impoverished passengers at the back of the train…so they hatch a plan to release, from the prison car, the security engineer/drug addict Namgoon (Song) who can open doors all the way to the head of the train. Led by the brooding but attractive Curtis (Evans), they fight to overthrow the totalitarian Wilford (Harris).

The cinematography is really great. Speaking about this with my wife, she convinced me that the action-sequence shaky camera is appropriate and well done.  The camera and characters are on a moving (therefore bumpy) train. The camera is moving with the characters that are running along fighting, which is also a bumpy activity. It’s not like in Batman Begins, where the action is hard to parse; the shaky camera is an artificial way to heighten the excitement.

The music is good enough, I think. To be honest, I saw this movie last weekend and I can’t really quite remember the music, so take that for what you will. What I do remember distinctly are the sound effects. Snowpiercer is a perfect example of how to make a chilling effect without having to actually show anything. As a friend described, the sound effects are “disturbingly visceral.” The sound of bone crunching under the weight of a hammer or the strike of an axe leaves a lasting impression. This is a really violent movie so you’ll get a lot of these of sound effects.

This is a mildly, stylized film. It’s not Sin City (Miller, 2005) stylized but more Hannah (Wright, 2011) stylized. That is, the movie has characters who could be in a comic book but the movie overall retains a general sense of realism. Its touch of theatrics is strange at times (and kinda creepy) particularly with Mason (Swinton). In her first monologue, she explains that the people in the back are like a shoe, during which, she places a shoe on the head of a man whose arm is sticking out of the train (so it freezes solid – it’s a punishment). It’s bizarre and funny but, at the same time, really dark.

I am a huge proponent of films showing instead of telling. It is a movie, after all. Snowpiercer tends to be on the telling side of the spectrum, unfortunately. It talks about interesting things, sure, but I would’ve still liked to see more instead of sitting through monologue after monologue.

At first I thought I really enjoyed this movie but after thinking about it and talking about it, I began to see some issues. First: plot holes. Massive plot holes and unanswered questions. I usually don’t knit-pick when it comes to movies, especially when the movie is science fiction. But you get to a certainly point… I hesitate to get into many of the issues because of spoilers. But I will mention one. How does the train run? We learn that the train drives through ice and purifies it to make the water but what fuels the engine? If there exists some super engine, why didn’t the world use it to combat global freezing?

A second major issue that I have is the take away feeling. When I rate a movie, I really great movie reminds why I love film and it gives me a new perspective or a new lens through which I can view the world. When all is said and done, Snowpiercer doesn’t tell me anything that I didn’t already know. It sets all this stuff up but it doesn’t give me something to chew on. We get a lame ending that doesn’t provide any sense of closure.

Would I recommend Snowpiercer? Maybe. If you are in the mood for something dark and gritty and violent and have already seen Oldboy, then sure but don’t go out of your way to see it though. Now, if you haven’t seen Snowpiercer, then mind yourself of spoilers in this next section. I’d like to discuss some details about the movie, particularly the ending.

After a long painful journey, Curtis finally meets Wilford. Harris explains the whole plot. The rebellions (there were several in the history of the train) were a conspiracy to lower the population on the train to preserve the ecosystem in the train. Willy Wonka Wilford now wants Curtis to run the train. It seems like Curtis is almost on board until he sees the use of child labor. Meanwhile, Namgoon and his daughter have placed an explosive on the door of the train. The bomb goes off, the train crashes and Namgoon’s daughter and a child laborer are the only survivors. They leave the wreckage and look up on a snowy mountaintop to see a polar bear. They make eye contact with the bear and the movie ends.

First off, bears. Why bears? Why bears? Clearly it’s possible for a child laborer and a seventeen-year-old drug addict to survive if a polar can. Alone. In a still frozen planet, with no food or supplies. Great! How am I supposed to react to this? Am I supposed to feel relieved that humanity has survived…for maybe a day or two longer? I would’ve much preferred if everyone died in the train explosion. The camera could’ve floated away to do a close-up on a plant that blooms.

Even before this ending, the big reveal of the child laborers rubs me the wrong way. Thematically, I get it. Yeah, child labor is the pinnacle of evil. Wilford explains that the parts of the train break after a while and they use children as cheap replacements. How do they expect this train to last any amount of time if they are duct-taping it together with children? Maybe I’m being knit-picky. Perhaps the children and bears exist as nothing more than symbols so the logistics should be ignored.

In a similar way, one might ask what is the purpose of the people at the back of the train? From what I saw, they provided absolutely nothing. They weren’t forced to work they just sat in the back and waited for their food. One of the big plot twists (a predictable one at that) was that the rebellions were planned events of population control. Why were the poor people allowed on the train in the first place if they were going to be used for no purpose? Unless their purpose was to be future allegorical figures…

To a certain extent, I can just go with the flow and accept these quirks in a symbolic way but just like with my suspension of disbelief, it has its limits. I think I would be more sympathetic if the end result drew me to some deeper question but it didn’t. After the arduous journey, I am left with an image surrounded by a disappointing haze of ambiguity.

What do you think about Snowpiercer? Did you find it satisfying? Did you want it to end differently? I mentioned that I wanted the train to just crash but part of me wanted Curtis to take control of the train. Leave a comment with your thoughts and, as always, thanks for reading!