Squid game In the last few weeks it has become a truly cultural touchstone, separating the audience and critics along interesting fault lines.
Is the show a big critique of capitalism about South Korea’s wealth inequality and class discrimination, or is it just a commentary? Is it a blame for capitalism as an economic system, or a blame for how money controls and distorts our lives?
Did the show’s creators focus on setting up a possible second season, so too many threads were hanging at the end of the first season? Did you win the Cliffhanger ending? Is it worth a big and shocking twist?
One of the issues among the viewers was the introduction of VIP. This is a collection of very wealthy sociopaths who come to fund the game, pay prizes, and see people kill each other each year (while indulging in various falls).
I wrote about my VIP Three biggest problems with squid games We talked about the article, and how uncomfortable they were, how they broke my devotion to the show quite badly. I argued that they would have been more mysterious and premonition if they were simply not spoken.
I wrote this follow-up with 127,000 views of my article, compared to the current 1.6 million criticisms of my review. Obviously, TikTok viewers rarely continue to read the source material.
With such numbers, especially Caroline’s argument is just a Straumann who can’t get involved in the actual issue I’m making, so I really need to reply and offer a counter-argument. (In her second and third videos, she’s much better at tackling the entity than the “pitfall” tactics).
Her first point is that it’s ironic, and perhaps even a little insidious, that Forbes Magazine has such anger at VIP. After all, this is a show that offers a compelling critique of capitalism, and Forbes is a capitalist champion. Aha!
Forbes is involved with VIPs and is on their side, so this must be the reason I want VIPs to be less noticeable and unpleasant. Forbes doesn’t like to see the rich drawn in such a terrible way. For some reason it doesn’t bother me so much if there is a silent, mysterious rich VIP who was watching financially desperate people slaughter each other. .. .. Or something.
But this is a false reasoning. For one thing, I’m not Forbes. I am a Forbes contributor. Forbes is a freelance writer who has a contract to be paid based on the success of postings here. It’s certainly working capitalism, but it’s not Caroline’s idea.
This is not Forbes’ editorial board, which provides a spectacular critique of squid games. This is my opinion and will not be compromised by editorial obligations or requirements. As anyone who has bothered to read my work knows, I am not a passionate advocate of free markets and capitalism. Even so, I didn’t mean to defend the super-rich VIPs who enjoyed watching people slaughter each other.
Think of it this way. “TikTok made a video about my article. Since TikTok is a Chinese-owned company, there is clearly a communist agenda,” he could have argued against Caroline’s video. ..
But no, TikTok didn’t make more Caroline videos than Forbes wrote my article. This is a false reasoning for that face. My colleague Paul Tashi wrote a review of the show and didn’t mention VIP either. Miraculously, despite both writings at Forbes, we often have different opinions about things.
This is one of those too clever discussions that say nothing because research efforts have not been devoted to the video. When criticizing an article, first reply to the author and then to the publication (unless, of course, the author does not have a name). Not all outlets are monolithic.
That’s certainly the case with her bigger point that the show deliberately makes VIP grotesque and scary. No one disagrees with the idea that these characters are portrayed as terrible, slimy bastards. That is what it should be.My problem is how Is not why. The dialogue is not well written. The job of narration is horrifying.I believe in the lack quality Actively hurt the show during these scenes.
Caricatures weaken the debate. Caricatures of enemies and political opponents may feel good, but they are short-sighted. If the squid game is trying to seriously criticize wealth inequality, portraying VIP as a portrait of a rich man is the wrong approach. (The last twist scene I hated still did a much better job of making the case).
Mysterious Silent may be a bad solution, but I don’t know if anyone is out of the VIP scene and wondering, “How terribly accurate the depiction of the ultra-rich.”
Rather, the jarring voice work and childish conversations (69 jokes, really?) Draw attention from the more compelling side of the story. VIP is distracting. They didn’t have to be.
There is another side of this that I wanted to touch on. One of the VIPs is portrayed as a lecherous old man trying to rape a masked cop who thinks he’s a server.As Anthony Rapp Pointed out on Twitter, This is a “tired metaphor equivalent to homosexuality with decadence and perversion.”
Ultimately, VIP depictions rely heavily on this kind of lazy metaphor. Not the fact that the super rich are portrayed as vulgar and evil, but the laziness and lack of quality control in these scenes rank me as a critic. The premise of the whole show depends not only on the description of VIP, but also on its beliefs. Again, this is pretty obvious.
PS people are also having problems with me saying the cop is dead. I don’t know if the cop is dead, but frankly, I find that the distinction has nothing to do with my widespread criticism of the cop / frontman story. Even if he was alive, the subplot went nowhere, made little sense, and had virtually no reward. Sure, that could be improved in Season 2, but we’re not talking about Season 2. We are not dealing with theory, we are dealing with what we know.
Read my original squid game review here.