5 ms·

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.

by Aunche 7y ago

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.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        The fact that your term for the first housekeeper is “diligent servant” should tell you how far your own biases are straining against the intention of the film. The good poor vs. the evil poor is not what it’s about.
        ALittleLight 7y ago
        She is literally a diligent servant. Her job is to be a servant and she is attentive, hard working, cares about her job and the family and the house. I don't see how accurately describing her as a diligent servant shows any of my biases. I don't think the film is the good poor versus the evil poor. I think the film is something like a rich person's horror story - the poor hold you in contempt, they're lying to you, they're parasitic off of you, and they're a danger to you and your children. Even worse, they're in your home! Your interpretation of the film seems explicitly rejected be the film itself as I explained above.
- 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

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.

by 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.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      The fact that your term for the first housekeeper is “diligent servant” should tell you how far your own biases are straining against the intention of the film. The good poor vs. the evil poor is not what it’s about.
      - ALittleLight 7y ago
        She is literally a diligent servant. Her job is to be a servant and she is attentive, hard working, cares about her job and the family and the house. I don't see how accurately describing her as a diligent servant shows any of my biases. I don't think the film is the good poor versus the evil poor. I think the film is something like a rich person's horror story - the poor hold you in contempt, they're lying to you, they're parasitic off of you, and they're a danger to you and your children. Even worse, they're in your home! Your interpretation of the film seems explicitly rejected be the film itself as I explained above.
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