5 ms·

I didn’t get the sense it was class strife. The main family was a bunch of scumbags. They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they represen

I didn’t get the sense it was class strife. The main family was a bunch of scumbags. They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they represented the lower class because the others around them weren’t like that. It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the main family is so deceitful and undeserving of benefits.

cycrutchfield 7y ago
They lied and cheated constantly because they were forced to due their poverty. It is absolutely a movie about class inequality and resentment.
- Aunche 7y ago
  They were absolutely terrible people. They weren't so poor that they had to trigger an old lady's dangerous allergy just to get the mother a job.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. It’s pretty blatant. As was the indifference of the rich to the struggles of the poor and their own inhumanity toward them.
    - ALittleLight 7y ago
      In one scene, the poor mother says something like "If I was this rich, I'd be nice too" and then immediately scolds or hits a begging dog. In this scene, the poor woman is relatively rich - she has the house they've taken over for the weekend, plenty of food, and the dog is poor and begging. I interpreted this, as the two events happen one right after the other, as the movie clearly rejecting the woman's claim. Even when she has a lot, she won't share with one who has little and is just fundamentally mean. Likewise, when the main family meets the hidden family - are they generous? They have much from fleecing the rich family, and the hidden family has, and asks, for very little. Nope, the main family is cruel to the hidden family and by rejecting them they initiate the final conflict. Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        > Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend. The original housekeeper is literally lying to her employers, keeping her husband in their house in a secret compartment, where he steals food at night and terrifies their children? And as soon as this material security collapses, they become just as cutthroat as the other family. The case of the original driver is ambiguous. At least to me, it was implied that the daughter concocted the scheme because she felt the driver was trying to find out where she lived because he was attracted to her. Most women I know wouldn’t allow a random guy to drive them directly to their house and especially if he had insisted on it after they asked to be dropped off somewhere else. This doesn’t justify pinning the fake “crime” on him, but to me, that was the subtext. The family friend/original tutor is not desperately poor like the family. In the beginning of the film, he offers the friend the position because he’s going overseas and states his intention to marry into the wealthy family, both of which would’ve been impossible were he not well-off himself. The mother doesn’t “have a lot” when she’s cruel to the dog, she’s feasting on some fleeting spoils. But the whole point of the film is that morality follows material stability, not the other way around.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        My old minister said it this way "We can have all the morals we can afford".
        ALittleLight 7y ago
        The original housekeeper is lying, yes, but is a diligent servant who, on net, is explicitly said to be worth her cost of extra food. Her husband was once accidentally spotted by the rich son, he's not intentionally terrifying the children. They only become as cutthroat as the family, not because they lost money, but because the family kills the wife and the main son tries to kill the husband. I would say the moral arc of the hidden family is a rejection of the "morality follows wealth" idea. When they are in debt and danger their solution is to hide and work hard. The wife sacrifices a lot to keep her husband fed and they seem to love each other. What they're doing isn't perfect, but seems like one of their best options. The hidden family only becomes violent after they are held captive and the wife is killed and the husband nearly killed. I'm not sure how poor the original tutor is. I don't think that's clear at all. He wants to marry rich daughter, but that doesn't mean he's rich. The main son wants to marry rich daughter too. The he mother does have a lot when she's cruel to the dog. She has more food than she can eat and won't spare it. When she and her family have fully infiltrated the rich household, they don't help the hidden husband.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      When exactly is the family "forced" into conflict? They freely chose to take away from other working class people in order to boost themselves. Obviously, the rich were depicted as part of the problem. However, the family could have improved their lives if they restrained themselves.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        Ah yes, they could have continued to be unemployed in their soon to be flooded apartment if they had only restrained themselves.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      > The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. As an empirical matter this isn’t true. If it was civilization would be impossible. Most people are decent human beings working hard to get by. If poverty forced the poor into ruthless competition India or China would have higher rates of violent crime than the US, not lower.
      - WilliamEdward 7y ago
        This movie was a plot exaggerated to be interesting. Most cutthroat behaviour exhibited by the poor in real life is not literally killing, but more like selfishness and conniving.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcv 7y ago
    There's definitely a point in the movie where they squander your sympathy. The kids tutoring their kids isn't so bad (though certainly the second one is more a con than honest tutoring), but as soon as they start to push the other employees out of their jobs, they're advancing at the cost of other poor people. Though some of those others are also dishonest, like the lady with her husband living secretly in the basement. On the one hand, it's easy to dismiss them all as evil people, but on the other hand, people must be pretty desperate to live like that and do things like that. Extreme economic inequality puts a lot of strain on social relationships.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    One of the key findings of research done by Robert Sapolsky is that poverty, on a biological level, increases the tendency to prioritize short-term thinking over long-term thinking. This is not surprising, because people in poverty need to be opportunistic to survive. Cutthroat behavior in poverty is not an example of bad moral character, it's a valid strategy to make it day to day. Being generous is something one has to be able to afford. This is one of the perversions of poverty and our culture that make the movie so great. it showcases how poverty itself forces people to engage in behaviour that makes others look down on them as undeserving, rather than painting an idealized image of the poor. It's quite hilarious how much Protestant folk morality was on display in response to the movie in particular among American audiences.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      >Cutthroat behavior in poverty is not an example of bad moral character I can tell that Dick Cheney is a shitty person, even though he donated more money than I'll make in several lifetimes to charity. Likewise, I can tell that the Kim family had poor moral character, even though they were in poverty. > it showcases how poverty itself forces people to engage in behaviour that makes others look down on them as undeserving I'm sure that's true to some extent in real life, but I don't see how that is portrayed in the movie. The Kim family isn't "forced" to cheat except in the beginning when they had nothing. Equally funny as the "Protestant folk morality" is the belief that poor people 100% a product of their environment.
      - mcv 7y ago
        Had they stopped at the tutoring, nobody would have a problem with it. It's when they started to hurt other (poor) people in order to advance that the situation turned to shit. Of course had the movie stopped at the tutoring, it would have been a boring movie. It's taking the situation to the extreme that makes it an interesting movie. I really hope that in real life, such a family would be happy to have their kids in cushy tutoring jobs and use that windfall to improve their situation.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        Here is an analysis of the movie which may clear some things up for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-gSK2C2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-gSK2C2Q
- remote_phone 7y ago
  They weren’t scumbags because they were poor. They were poor because they were scumbags. That was what I saw. They were an entire family of cheaters and liars but none of the other characters in the same economic class were like that. The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. The workers were very loyal to them until the family lied and cheated their way into their jobs. I enjoyed the movie but if the point was to show economic inequality I feel he missed the mark.
  - dsego 7y ago
    What was the difference between the rich and the poor family? Who is the parasite? What is it exactly that the rich family does better or gives to this world that they deserve the exceptionally better lifestyle? Are they more intelligent? Surely not, since they were duped by the other family. Do they really care about other people and what's going on in their surroundings? Not really, they never bothered to figure out any of it, they are blissfully unaware of the of the less fortunate, untouched by the reality around them until it affects them directly. They don't care who serves them. Are they more virtuous? Not exactly, look at how they behave on the party when the girl gets stabbed. The dad takes his boy who fainted and tries to pick up the car keys, all the while pinching his nose in disgust of the 'poor people smell'. Does he help any of the wounded people? What are their actions? > The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. How about the part when they act like they own them? One example is dad having to wear a costume for the boy because the boss is paying overtime for his non-working day. The driver dad is not exactly in a position to refuse or he could ruin his position (we saw how easy it is to get replaced), so he has to put up with it, humiliate himself and play the clown. The rich dad doesn't see how this is a problem, money should buy everything after all. The movie is an allegory and it requires a deeper look and a bit of thinking. Contrast and compare this movie to 'Us', you will find similarities in how it deals with social class.
    - jlawson 7y ago
      Is it made clear what the rich father does for work? We have no idea how great his contribution to society could be. He could be more intelligent and productive than the poor family. Just because some people deceive you (in your off time) doesn't mean they're smarter than you in any general sense. They do care who serves them; that's why they fire their driver for his perceived infractions, and housekeeper for her illness. They're looking out for the safety of their family. You compare their behavior at the party. The rich guy held his nose. The poor guy stabbed someone to death. You complain about him not helping the wounded people - well who wounded them in the first place? The poor dad isn't forced to play a clown any more than the rich dad; they're inhabiting equal roles in the playacting. Nobody's humiliated or owned; the dad is quite apologetic about the whole thing.
badrabbit 7y ago
The point was to show you their desperation,not to justify their actions. One thing leads to another. There's a scene where the Dad wonders if the old driver they slandered out of a job had found a new one and the daughter responds by telling him to focus on them. I am personally not quick to say I wouldn't do what they did when my whole family is starving.
js8 7y ago
> They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they represented the lower class because the others around them weren’t like that. It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the main family is so deceitful and undeserving of benefits. The Park family was so nice, always honest and considerate of other people! I didn't get the sense they represented the upper class, because frankly, where was the psychopathic ruthlessness of bankers and CEOs? It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the Park family is so modest, and shows that we can all unite together in peace without brutal day-to-day competition.
infruset 7y ago
Cultural question from a non-native speaker: is it customary to tell stories in the past tense when mentioning a movie or book? (I ask because in my language and culture it sounds a bit childish, and because I've also seen stories recounted in the present tense)

cycrutchfield 7y ago

They lied and cheated constantly because they were forced to due their poverty. It is absolutely a movie about class inequality and resentment.

Aunche 7y ago
They were absolutely terrible people. They weren't so poor that they had to trigger an old lady's dangerous allergy just to get the mother a job.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. It’s pretty blatant. As was the indifference of the rich to the struggles of the poor and their own inhumanity toward them.
  - ALittleLight 7y ago
    In one scene, the poor mother says something like "If I was this rich, I'd be nice too" and then immediately scolds or hits a begging dog. In this scene, the poor woman is relatively rich - she has the house they've taken over for the weekend, plenty of food, and the dog is poor and begging. I interpreted this, as the two events happen one right after the other, as the movie clearly rejecting the woman's claim. Even when she has a lot, she won't share with one who has little and is just fundamentally mean. Likewise, when the main family meets the hidden family - are they generous? They have much from fleecing the rich family, and the hidden family has, and asks, for very little. Nope, the main family is cruel to the hidden family and by rejecting them they initiate the final conflict. Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      > Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend. The original housekeeper is literally lying to her employers, keeping her husband in their house in a secret compartment, where he steals food at night and terrifies their children? And as soon as this material security collapses, they become just as cutthroat as the other family. The case of the original driver is ambiguous. At least to me, it was implied that the daughter concocted the scheme because she felt the driver was trying to find out where she lived because he was attracted to her. Most women I know wouldn’t allow a random guy to drive them directly to their house and especially if he had insisted on it after they asked to be dropped off somewhere else. This doesn’t justify pinning the fake “crime” on him, but to me, that was the subtext. The family friend/original tutor is not desperately poor like the family. In the beginning of the film, he offers the friend the position because he’s going overseas and states his intention to marry into the wealthy family, both of which would’ve been impossible were he not well-off himself. The mother doesn’t “have a lot” when she’s cruel to the dog, she’s feasting on some fleeting spoils. But the whole point of the film is that morality follows material stability, not the other way around.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        My old minister said it this way "We can have all the morals we can afford".
      - ALittleLight 7y ago
        The original housekeeper is lying, yes, but is a diligent servant who, on net, is explicitly said to be worth her cost of extra food. Her husband was once accidentally spotted by the rich son, he's not intentionally terrifying the children. They only become as cutthroat as the family, not because they lost money, but because the family kills the wife and the main son tries to kill the husband. I would say the moral arc of the hidden family is a rejection of the "morality follows wealth" idea. When they are in debt and danger their solution is to hide and work hard. The wife sacrifices a lot to keep her husband fed and they seem to love each other. What they're doing isn't perfect, but seems like one of their best options. The hidden family only becomes violent after they are held captive and the wife is killed and the husband nearly killed. I'm not sure how poor the original tutor is. I don't think that's clear at all. He wants to marry rich daughter, but that doesn't mean he's rich. The main son wants to marry rich daughter too. The he mother does have a lot when she's cruel to the dog. She has more food than she can eat and won't spare it. When she and her family have fully infiltrated the rich household, they don't help the hidden husband.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    When exactly is the family "forced" into conflict? They freely chose to take away from other working class people in order to boost themselves. Obviously, the rich were depicted as part of the problem. However, the family could have improved their lives if they restrained themselves.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Ah yes, they could have continued to be unemployed in their soon to be flooded apartment if they had only restrained themselves.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. As an empirical matter this isn’t true. If it was civilization would be impossible. Most people are decent human beings working hard to get by. If poverty forced the poor into ruthless competition India or China would have higher rates of violent crime than the US, not lower.
    - WilliamEdward 7y ago
      This movie was a plot exaggerated to be interesting. Most cutthroat behaviour exhibited by the poor in real life is not literally killing, but more like selfishness and conniving.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mcv 7y ago
  There's definitely a point in the movie where they squander your sympathy. The kids tutoring their kids isn't so bad (though certainly the second one is more a con than honest tutoring), but as soon as they start to push the other employees out of their jobs, they're advancing at the cost of other poor people. Though some of those others are also dishonest, like the lady with her husband living secretly in the basement. On the one hand, it's easy to dismiss them all as evil people, but on the other hand, people must be pretty desperate to live like that and do things like that. Extreme economic inequality puts a lot of strain on social relationships.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  One of the key findings of research done by Robert Sapolsky is that poverty, on a biological level, increases the tendency to prioritize short-term thinking over long-term thinking. This is not surprising, because people in poverty need to be opportunistic to survive. Cutthroat behavior in poverty is not an example of bad moral character, it's a valid strategy to make it day to day. Being generous is something one has to be able to afford. This is one of the perversions of poverty and our culture that make the movie so great. it showcases how poverty itself forces people to engage in behaviour that makes others look down on them as undeserving, rather than painting an idealized image of the poor. It's quite hilarious how much Protestant folk morality was on display in response to the movie in particular among American audiences.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    >Cutthroat behavior in poverty is not an example of bad moral character I can tell that Dick Cheney is a shitty person, even though he donated more money than I'll make in several lifetimes to charity. Likewise, I can tell that the Kim family had poor moral character, even though they were in poverty. > it showcases how poverty itself forces people to engage in behaviour that makes others look down on them as undeserving I'm sure that's true to some extent in real life, but I don't see how that is portrayed in the movie. The Kim family isn't "forced" to cheat except in the beginning when they had nothing. Equally funny as the "Protestant folk morality" is the belief that poor people 100% a product of their environment.
    - mcv 7y ago
      Had they stopped at the tutoring, nobody would have a problem with it. It's when they started to hurt other (poor) people in order to advance that the situation turned to shit. Of course had the movie stopped at the tutoring, it would have been a boring movie. It's taking the situation to the extreme that makes it an interesting movie. I really hope that in real life, such a family would be happy to have their kids in cushy tutoring jobs and use that windfall to improve their situation.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      Here is an analysis of the movie which may clear some things up for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-gSK2C2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-gSK2C2Q
remote_phone 7y ago
They weren’t scumbags because they were poor. They were poor because they were scumbags. That was what I saw. They were an entire family of cheaters and liars but none of the other characters in the same economic class were like that. The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. The workers were very loyal to them until the family lied and cheated their way into their jobs. I enjoyed the movie but if the point was to show economic inequality I feel he missed the mark.
- dsego 7y ago
  What was the difference between the rich and the poor family? Who is the parasite? What is it exactly that the rich family does better or gives to this world that they deserve the exceptionally better lifestyle? Are they more intelligent? Surely not, since they were duped by the other family. Do they really care about other people and what's going on in their surroundings? Not really, they never bothered to figure out any of it, they are blissfully unaware of the of the less fortunate, untouched by the reality around them until it affects them directly. They don't care who serves them. Are they more virtuous? Not exactly, look at how they behave on the party when the girl gets stabbed. The dad takes his boy who fainted and tries to pick up the car keys, all the while pinching his nose in disgust of the 'poor people smell'. Does he help any of the wounded people? What are their actions? > The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. How about the part when they act like they own them? One example is dad having to wear a costume for the boy because the boss is paying overtime for his non-working day. The driver dad is not exactly in a position to refuse or he could ruin his position (we saw how easy it is to get replaced), so he has to put up with it, humiliate himself and play the clown. The rich dad doesn't see how this is a problem, money should buy everything after all. The movie is an allegory and it requires a deeper look and a bit of thinking. Contrast and compare this movie to 'Us', you will find similarities in how it deals with social class.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    Is it made clear what the rich father does for work? We have no idea how great his contribution to society could be. He could be more intelligent and productive than the poor family. Just because some people deceive you (in your off time) doesn't mean they're smarter than you in any general sense. They do care who serves them; that's why they fire their driver for his perceived infractions, and housekeeper for her illness. They're looking out for the safety of their family. You compare their behavior at the party. The rich guy held his nose. The poor guy stabbed someone to death. You complain about him not helping the wounded people - well who wounded them in the first place? The poor dad isn't forced to play a clown any more than the rich dad; they're inhabiting equal roles in the playacting. Nobody's humiliated or owned; the dad is quite apologetic about the whole thing.

badrabbit 7y ago

The point was to show you their desperation,not to justify their actions. One thing leads to another. There's a scene where the Dad wonders if the old driver they slandered out of a job had found a new one and the daughter responds by telling him to focus on them. I am personally not quick to say I wouldn't do what they did when my whole family is starving.

js8 7y ago

> They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they represented the lower class because the others around them weren’t like that. It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the main family is so deceitful and undeserving of benefits. The Park family was so nice, always honest and considerate of other people! I didn't get the sense they represented the upper class, because frankly, where was the psychopathic ruthlessness of bankers and CEOs? It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the Park family is so modest, and shows that we can all unite together in peace without brutal day-to-day competition.

infruset 7y ago

Cultural question from a non-native speaker: is it customary to tell stories in the past tense when mentioning a movie or book? (I ask because in my language and culture it sounds a bit childish, and because I've also seen stories recounted in the present tense)