Bong Joon-Ho’s 2014 film, Snow Piercer is a stylistic and genre heavy tour de force from a director who is interested in dissecting the world that we find ourselves, one that sees a genuine crisis of the efficacy in its structures and the rising tension between the classes that comprise that structure. Its heightened style while slightly absurd in some moments, presents an effective allegory for the structure of a class society providing a stinging critique of the ideologies that justify a hierarchical structure that sees the abjection of a large portion of the population for the purpose of ensuring a life of comfort and excess for those of the privileged class.
In the face of the growing effects of global warming and climate change, the international community devises a plan to cover the atmosphere in a chemical called CW7, an agent that reverses the effects of global warming causing a cooling event that quickly gets out of hand covering the entire planet in a thick sheet of ice. This causes a mass extinction event that sees all species of the world and most of humanity to be wiped out. The few that survive a gathered up a placed in side of a giant train called the Rattling Ark. This ark was developed by a famed railway industrialist named Wilfred who’s dream is to create a luxury railway that contains within it a completely self sufficient system. At the core of the train is what is called the sacred engine, a technology whose actual mechanics seem rather occult and serves as an object of almost religious importance among those on the train, with its overseer being seen with a similar sort of reverence.
The prospects of human existence has been totally limited to the narrow corridors of this train with the train effectively becoming the world in its entirety. The world of the train is divided up with those with the most living in the front and those with the least living in the back. This division of life was established during the crisis with people purchasing tickets that allotted them a position on the train. Life in the rear is an existence of total abjection as hundreds, perhaps thousands of people are forced to live in a tightly pack corridor, never seeing the light of day, and being forced to eat physically repulsive protein bars made from the crushed shells of cockroaches accumulated on the train. This division of social life resonates deeply in our world today as those how have money a capital are able to position themselves in such a way that allows them to go beyond the difficulties of the world allowing them to feel a sense of security while those who exist and the bottom of the system are forced into interacting without while never gaining anything in return.
The train is governed by the logic of social order that as Tilda Swinton’s character, the outrageous Minister Manson, states “we must each of us occupy our preordained particular position.”However, this system is destabilized when a back car resident named Curtis, played by Chris Evans, decides that it is time for those of the back of the car to rise up and confront those at the front. The moment for revolt presents itself when Curtis discovers that the guns that the guards carry have no bullets because bullets have gone “extinct,” a term used in the film when a resource has been completely exhausted on the train. This moment shows that the force that those in front have on those on the back is largely symbolic as they themselves are subject to the limitations of life on the train. Although they do retaliate with brutal force later on in the film, even having some bullets in reserve, this crack in the power of the front is key in inspiring this revolt.
` As they move further along on the train, the society of those who live near its front is shown to be a frivolous and decadent world that is visually quite different from the world in the back. With its is garnish technicolor palette and victorian pastiche, the accommodations at the front of the train are meant to evoke an aesthetic of excess that is clearly frames the drastic difference between those who are allowed to indulge in material comforts and those in the back whose life is portrayed in stark grays.
In a scene that takes place in the educational booth of the train, we see the process of indoctrination that happens among those at the front as they are taught the history of the train and it’s creator and encouraged to feel and undying love from him because without his “mercy” they would left to freeze and die. This idea of the mercy and good will of Wilfred is a reoccurring theme in the film asking very interesting questions about our relationship to the system and how it changes depending on our social position. To some extent everyone on the train is dependent on the system that Wilson developed. However, for those at the front of the train, this is a system that provides them with a surplus which in turn they are able to feel a sense of love and obligation towards the system. This is quite different from the dependency that those in the back have. While it is true that without the train those in the back would also die, the fact that the are left to live in squalor makes it impossible to feel the love and devotion to Wilfred that those in front do. In a way those in the back have been relegated to a position that is worse than death. Furthermore, this dichotomy between the interpretation of the will of Wilfred amongst those up front and those in the back show how authority is able to control people either by making them envy and worship authority or fear it.
Curtis’ final encounter with Wilfred it is revealed that Curtis’ entire revolt was a carefully planned event devised by Wilfred in order to implement his regime of social engineering by culling the population of the back of the train. However, Wilfred’s control is shown to have legitimate limits. In their original plan, Curtis’ revolt was meant to end earlier than it did with fewer casualties that take place. Wilfred decides to compensate by killing more people in the back as punishment for this, but the effect on his rule is obvious. Wilfred is interested in Curtis in so far as he presents a legitimate threat of contingency in a structure that is supposed to be meticulously crafted for perfect order. Curtis is able to subvert Wilfreds’ plan making him a genuine threat to the order of the train.
In response to this realization, Wilfred makes an offer to Curtis asking him if he wishes to take the role of caring for the engine. For an instant, it seems as though Wilfred will when over Curtis with the promise that he will have the authority to rule over the train assuming the role of its godlike overseer when, in a moment that is highly reminiscent of the classic Ursula K. LeGuin story Those Who Walk Away from Omelas, it is revealed the child of one of Curti’s companions, Timmy, was taken in order to replace an essential part that is necessary to keep the engine alive. This brings a new resolve to Curtis as he decides that this is a system that can no longer be allowed to continue and, in a decisive move against the social engineering of Wilfred, Curtis is able to pull Timmy out of the machine causing a ripple effect that sees the demise of the sacred engine.
The engine goes up in flames taking causing the train to be sent off it’s track killing Curtis in the process. While the fate of everyone else on board is uncertain, the ending of the film sees one of Curtis’ companions, Yona, leaving the train with Timmy by her side as they walk out into the hostile world outside; however, this is not a hopeless ending as the last thing to be seen is a polar bear walking freely on the outside, being a sign of the potential new world to come.
This film asks us serious questions about our relationship to the broader structure that we find ourselves in and how that structure is designed to maintain a certain order that is simultaneously perceived as scientific and mystical at the same time.The metaphor of the train is a very clear representation of the stratification in our society with the most abject among living in darkness having any semblance of autonomy and self determination violently taken away from them while the most privilege live a life a frivolous decadence sedating themselves with a constant regiment of material comforts. While the story telling is by no means subtle, it has a clarity in its critique of modern structures that allows it to portray the nature of these structures in a highly dramatic way.