Sad? The characters got exactly what they deserved. Every character was driven by pure greed. It is fitting that they end up as beggars at the end of the film. The money ends up exactly where it should, it bought a fabulous public house for the hard laborers of a railyard, complete with a huge chess room, with enough leftover for a lavish free lunch. Do you think railworkers had such luxury when Ron Moody's character was on top? Or what about the couple who have the decoy chairs that Dom DeLuise hounds from Siberia to the beach side vista. That couple did okay by the revolution as well. Or what about the fact that Ron Moody's house was turned into a convalescent home for old women. No one family needs a house that big, the space is more logically used by the state to care for the sick.
Do you think that if any of the antagonists of the film had actually found the jewels they would have used it to help anyone? No, they were all selfish and greedy, and it is perfectly fitting that they end up at the bottom depending upon nothing but the kindness and giving of others. It's also worth noting that all the antagonists of the film represent an institution Marx spoke against and helped to keep the people down.
Not that it isn't also critical of the effects of the Russian Revolution, just look at the scene in the Bureau of Housing as an example, or the scene where they impersonate the secret police.
All I'm saying is as someone who is *beep* dirt poor right now, I thought this movie had a pretty happy ending.
reply
share
mstanley-1
14 years ago
While being critical of the revolution, it also definitely put it out there that the rich ruling class that were overthrown were "bloodsucking parasites" as Langella put it, as someone who was a street beggar in a society who discarded people like this. There is no "black and white" in these kind of historical situations, as those with simpler world views seem to believe.
reply
share
drnossal
9 years ago
That's pretty typical of poor people, they are made happier by the thought of making everyone as miserable as they are, rather than by the thought of making themselves wealthy. It's that kind of thinking that keeps them destitute.
Improving society with other people's money is a fine idea, until of course you run out of other people from whom to steal. The only good thing about that is that's when the walls you built to keep your slave populace from fleeing tend to fall (or be torn) down.
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?"
reply
share
redbrioche
8 years ago
Hello, where do you think the wealthy get their money? They don't work much, but happily take the value produced by others for themselves. Do you think poor people are poor because they are all lazy? They might not have had the opportunities that the rich have had or just never had inherited anything. BTW, I think this is one of the funniest movies ever made and Ron Moody was its star, a fit follow-up to his brilliant Fagin in "Oliver". Dom DeLouise was hysterical and Frank Langella was appropriately slick and slimy. Mel Brooks should be proud of it, it is better than some of his late movies. It seems to have somewhat influencedThe Grand Budapest Hotel
reply
share
redbrioche
8 years ago
Sorry, accidentally cut off -- that GB Hotel film was also great -- maybe Eastern European humor is hard for some people to understand.
reply
share
drnossal
7 years ago
"Hello, where do you think the wealthy get their money? They don't work much, but happily take the value produced by others for themselves."
LOL!
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?"
reply
share