So... What's the symbolism with the see-no-evil ski mask guys passing around the massive catfish to dip their axes in fish blood and guts?
yea, that made absolutely no sense to me. What a waste of a good piece of fish...all I could think was mafia connections- you know, sleep with the fishes...arrgghh, whatever, it was a good visual
shareI thought it could have been poisonous fish blood or just a poisonous fish, or something like that.
shareDonny, you've got it. Bingo, that's exactly the case.
shareYou act like you know something Undercover but you are not explaining why the poster above you is correct? Care to elaborate? I would really like to know.
shareThey explain it in the audio commentary. The fish blood is poisonous.
shareThanks for clarifying that! I imagine most people here saw it on Netflix like me.
shareyeah that's where I caught it - saw an article listing hidden NF gems
I figured the blood was tainted from the outside world, but thought how do you catch a fish from a speeding train? Then I thought, maybe they packed poison fish in case bullets 'went extinct.' Then I remembered seeing an aquarium car in the trailer, and figured they must somehow be cloning them.
Really enjoyed this - though it's weird that just hours after the man's arm was frozen solid from minutes of exposure, the planet was livable
though it's weird that just hours after the man's arm was frozen solid from minutes of exposure, the planet was livableThere's no way it was.
it's weird that just hours after the man's arm was frozen solid from minutes of exposure, the planet was livable
At the reported speed of the train 50kph, to get frostbite not freeze solid in 5 minutes it would require temperatures of roughly -25 degrees F.
To freeze solid it would require much, much colder temps.
That makes as much sense as putting venom on bullets and then shooting someone 5 times in the heart: "Ha! You now die from this venom.... oh, you are already dead... nevermind then."
Everyone was making sure they killed people by hacking them on the floor reapeatedly, so that venom made no sense.
Unless they just wanted to wound them and then flee, which they didn't. :D
Since when is a carp poisonous? That makes no sense.
shareWhen I saw it, I did wonder if they were trying to imply that the fish blood was poisonous, but then it never seemed to do anything and that's distinctly not a poisonous fish. They could have at least used a pufferfish. It was one of many, many half-baked notions they attempted and then utterly bungled.
shareThat's what I thought too at first but then after seeing the scene, I was like nahhh...getting your head split open with an axe is way more poisonous than fish blood.
~~~"Who do you think you're dealing with? Guess again."~~~
I thought it was more of a mental game. Look at us wasting this giant fish. It means nothing to us but it could feed one of you for a month. So what does that make you to us? And this blood? Soon to be replaced by your own.
shareThis was as close as I could come to what made sense when I was trying to figure out his scene. Intimidation and disregard for what would have been a valuable resource to the rear passengers.
~~~"Who do you think you're dealing with? Guess again."~~~
I don't know if there was much symbolism beyond how would you feel if you were about to go up against those dudes?
shareI thought it was to show how dangerous the blades were, and how easy it was for the front enders to rip the rebels apart.
shareI am actually surprised how NO ONE here actually understood the symbolism of this scene. It's actually very simple and in my opinion straight forward. No it's not poison as one guy mentioned. The reason the guys brought out the fish and cut the fish was to prove to Curtis and all of the lower-class civilians that the axes are real and will hurt them if they try to progress. This was a response to Curtis running up to a guard in an earlier scene and grabbing the rifle and pulling the trigger on his own head.
A lot of the guards didn't know there were some bullets is supply and therefore needed to result in sharp weapons. Also the lack of firearms guarantees that both sides suffer losses and places a balance on the population control. This seen was very symbolic and meaningful to the overall plot of the film. I am very shocked that many people misunderstood the concept.
Becasue, it wasn't executed properly. While you explanation is good, and most likely accurate, it's something that has to be perceived rather then seen. Hence, the confusion.
shareHmmm agree to disagree I guess. I had zero confusion and I understood the concept the second the guy in the back brought out the fish. Well before the first guy cut into it. I thought to myself.... wow they are going to either A) Pass it around and cut into it; or B) Chop it's head off. Option A occurred and a demonstration of power was displayed. I will admit though, I am very familiar with pretty much all the concepts the film portrayed so that scene not only made sense to me. It was very predictable, but extremely well done in my opinion. I honestly fail to see how anyone could be confused about the meaning of that scene. Perhaps Mason should have said "These blades will most definitely cut you down." Or something to respond to the bullets, however I felt the silence was FAR more intimidating. I even cringed at the concept because I knew they were going to deal a major blow to Curtis's people!
shareI honestly fail to see how anyone could be confused about the meaning of that scene. Perhaps Mason should have said "These blades will most definitely cut you down." Or something to respond to the bullets, however I felt the silence was FAR more intimidating. I even cringed at the concept because I knew they were going to deal a major blow to Curtis's people!
The thing is, only the first guy actually cut into the fish. Everyone subsequent to him only dipped their axes in the blood without slicing any of the flesh. Under your theory, only the first guy displayed that his weapon will work, so basically all but the first guy could have been carrying dull spoons instead of axes. This is why I didn't jump to the conclusion you did, nor am I convinced to subscribe to your theory.
shareExactly, I totally agree. But then we aren't as firmly sold on ourselves, or our infallible understanding of the director's intent, as is the poster above who was so disbeliving that nobody 'got it' but them. How totally presumptuous. One guy gutting a fish as a possible symbolic threat, maybe, for all the good it does. However, it all falls apart with the continued blade dipping. I think the real impact the fish would have had on the rear enders was, "Holly crap! That thing would feed us all for a week!"
shareDeleted
shareWell one thing is clear, it isn't a clear cut meaning because neither answer is right. When I watched the movie I thought it was to intimate them in some old battle ritual. On the commentary track like the previous poster said they discuss this. They actually discuss how everyone makes up these deep meanings and it's simply poison...poison fish blood.
Now we so have a problem here. The commentary track is different from most because no one involved in the movie is on the track. It's a group of critics offering their take on the movie.
Which brings us to the actual answer, and proves that the scene is in fact confusing. In A interview with Bong Joon Ho he first answered the question with "ah, the fish". Clearly he's been asked this numerous times. The quote follows :
These moments are what make filmmaking fun and interesting. It wasn?t actually in the script, but when I was making the storyboards, I thought of this idea I mentioned before?a primitive aspect, like tribes in Africa, a ritual before battle to intimidate their enemies. Putting blood on their faces and whatnot. So I came up with this idea of the fish, but I also wanted to bring it back somehow, because it was such a cool concept. We decided to have Chris slip on it. It?s a bit of a strange moment but very natural for me, and Chris took to it immediately. He sort of laughed and said: ?We?re doing all this cool action?you want me to slip on a fish? Why not?? We shot it very quickly.
Not to go all biologist on you guys but poison only works if you ingest it (like drinking poisoned tea), venom is what works when you get in into your blood stream, like a snake bike or in this case, a cut from an axe with venomous blood.
Still a weird scene whatever explanation you lean to, IMO.
I'm glad you mentioned the tribal thing. I know that certain Oriental martial traditions would bloody their weapons before battle in a kind of symbolic, sympathetic magic=i.e by bloodying the weapon they are (hopefully) pre=empting the life fluid of their opponents on their weapons. For instance my Granddad, who served in India during WWII with Gurkas brought back one of their kukri's, the small, curved machete=like weapon which they used. It had a sort of crescent shaped, sharpened hole on the bottom of the blade, just above the hilt, which my Granddad was told the Gurkas would use to nick their thumbs on before battle. Thus bloodying the knife in the manner you wrote. Also I've read that samurai would also do this, I'm not sure if it's an "urban legend" type of thing in this instance, though.
Btw my hyphen key is broken hence the "=" !!!
"Hot lesbian witches!"
There are no right or wrong answers to this kind of thing. It could be poison, it could be your explanation, it can be all of them, all at once. That's the beauty of this movie. One little scene inspires so much discussion, everyone gets different meanings from it and all are valid.
shareIntimidation probably, a poison catfish maybe, but in order to prove they weren't carrying false axes?? Not likely lol it's pretty easy to tell an axe when you see one. Or is it that they thought the tail people suspected the axes weren't capable of penetrating skin?
shareIt was intimidation it to prove that the axe's were real, sharp, and can kill. This was a work of symbolism that I am surprised many people didn't get. The portrayal was to show that the guards were letting the tail people to know that these weapons can kill, unlike the guns that had no bullets in them. The guns without bullets have been used for a long time to control the people in the back. Now that they know for fact that they don't have any bullets, they could revolt. So the blades had to come out to keep the sheep in line.
shareI don't get it; I mean the guns without bullets was a classic bluff, but the second they take out the axes you know there's no bluffing about it. Them opening the door revealing a room full of thugs with axes is like saying "Alright, we're not fcking around anymore", u know? Them going the extra mile with "and just in case you might be wondering, ... YES they are capable of cutting flesh", seems unnecessary. Honestly I'm leaning more towards the fish blood carrying some kind of toxin.
shareThem going the extra mile with "and just in case you might be wondering, ... YES they are capable of cutting flesh", seems unnecessary.Yeah, I have to agree with this. On top of that not really being symbolic, it's not all that practical and awkward overall despite making for a good visual, as someone else mentioned up above.
All the symbolism aside, getting fish blood in any wound is bound to have nasty consequences, especially without any proper medical treatment: http://www.fishlore.com/Articles/DiseasesTransmittedToHumans.htm
So it's not really that far-fetched to assume this is part of the reason why they dipped their blades in the fish blood. Tail-enders don't have any medical supplies or personnel to speak off, so it would make sense to use "dirty weapons" to inflict maximum damage among them.
The assumption being that everybody who got hurt by a dirty axe, won't be able to participate in the next fight and would need to be taken care off by somebody else, taking another person out of the next fight.
they have to show it because some of the rebels are train babies, e.g. edgar, and they have never seen an axe in their entire life.
also fish out of water is another shoe on the head kinda thing.
Just to clarify, I could see it as a simple intimidation move, but not a demonstrative one.
shareBecause why the hell would they carry around a bunch of PLASTIC AXES? It made sense that the guns had run out of bullets and therefore were useless, but where would they get that many plastic axes?! Do you see the flaw in that logic there? No one would have doubted that those axes weren't real because it makes no sense for those axes not to be real!
There, now you can feel better about being the ONLY smart one here coming to that ridiculous conclusion.
A baby sleeps in all our bones so scared to be alone.
I believe it was earlier in the movie when they were in the sushi bar and they were discussing the frequency they would eat sushi. It was something like twice a year. Twice a year, they would eat sushi to maintain the delicate ecosystem. The train is an ecosystem, and the back of the train were the fish. And every so often the fish would needed to be gutted to maintain the delicate ecosystem on the train. Hence the fish gutting scene. Also, as mentioned above, they were used to show how sharp the weapons were.
shareThe Sushi bar was after this scene. Probably about 10 minutes later. Maybe 15 at the most. They had Mason with them cuffed and they caught her in that battle.
shareThings can't happen later in stories that connect to previous symboli moments?
shareThat was actually what I was trying to say earlier in one of my points. This film has so much symbolism through out that it all connect. It'll refer to elements that occurred much earlier! The film was beautiful and a master piece in my opinion! :)
share