The Purge, who would be worse off?

[Lark]

I trust everyone is familiar, for the purposes of this discussion, with the movies featuring "The Purge" in which all crime is "legal" for 24hrs declared "the purge", it features a lot of people locking themselves away behind security systems for the period of the purge but headers go out and kill the homeless, poor and vulnerable apparently, in the first movie there's attempts to inject twists into it and dilemmas about forfeiting the lives of strangers for your nearest and dearest and neighbours aggrieved at people becoming rich supplying the security systems they need.

However my question is who would be the worst off in such an arrangement? The movies dont feature class struggle at all and the seems, in movie land at least, like the poor are easy prey for the rich, would it necessarily be so?

 

[muir]

This is predictive programming for the coming civil unrest

They want everyone locked into a dog eat dog mindset

they do not want people to create neural pathways of cooperative feelings

They will keep showing survival programmes and films for example zombie films that enable you to vicariously experience fear responses and flight or fight responses to build neural pathways of selfish survival instincts instead of concepts of working together as a wider community to overcome challenges

This is because they do not want to meet any united resistance when the clamp down comes

 

[54tjsioU]

I saw the first movie and was very disappointed. Beautiful idea, horrible execution. It is so far from the reality of what would happen I just couldn't say it was a good movie.

The idea in The Purge is that everyone goes out and kills to expel the anger that they have accumulated over the past year. To think that rich people would be out there killing poor people is just the stupidest notion I've ever heard, and ever watched. I agree the rich would pay to get security built in. If anything they'd hire body guards, which they already do. However it is a million times more plausible that the minimum wage workers would go out and kill, everyone. Lol like it's not even a question. Horrible enactment of a beautiful idea -for a movie.

If anything look up revolutions in history. The people in power are very lucky if they're able to survive. You very rarely hear of a 'great leader' who wasn't killed. Except for Mandela, who actually did get to die of old age.

Stupid, stupid movie. Waste of an hour and a half -_-

That one guy though, really great evil grin *nods*

 

[Lerxst]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] I agree. I think "The Postman" was a much better rendition of a free-for-all society.

I think The Purge was just a story about backstabbing neighbors. They just included a back story about this "Purge" to add tension and plausibility. I don't think there's really much else worth reading in to it.

 

[muir]

@muir I agree. I think "The Postman" was a much better rendition of a free-for-all society.

I think The Purge was just a story about backstabbing neighbors. They just included a back story about this "Purge" to add tension and plausibility. I don't think there's really much else worth reading in to it.

Totally as the economy worsens and the police militarisation build up increases i've noticed the films and TV shows are becoming more and more visceral, more and more fear/adrenaline based

There's a lot of run and fight type stuff eg the walking dead...it's really edge of the seat stuff but disturbing and brutal in outlook

 

[Lerxst]

I trust everyone is familiar, for the purposes of this discussion, with the movies featuring "The Purge" in which all crime is "legal" for 24hrs declared "the purge", it features a lot of people locking themselves away behind security systems for the period of the purge but headers go out and kill the homeless, poor and vulnerable apparently, in the first movie there's attempts to inject twists into it and dilemmas about forfeiting the lives of strangers for your nearest and dearest and neighbours aggrieved at people becoming rich supplying the security systems they need.

However my question is who would be the worst off in such an arrangement? The movies dont feature class struggle at all and the seems, in movie land at least, like the poor are easy prey for the rich, would it necessarily be so?

So, to actually answer this....

I'd think the rich are more likely to have the means and resources to defend and arm themselves with whatever was needed for whatever they wanted to do. For instance, it takes a good chunk of cash to fortify a building, buy a high powered sniper rifle with night scope and silencer. They could just park themselves on a rooftop and pick off people at will with equipment their money bought. The poor who picked up whatever they found on the street, a rock, stick, board with nail sticking out, would be easy prey for a rich person with a vendetta.

On the other hand, a rich person has a lot more to lose and less to be upset about, so they'll likely just hide behind wall/gate/door and wait it out, while the angry poor people try to plan a way to get through their defense.

Now, what would have been a neat twist would have been showing 1,000,000 people march on DC and kill every member of every branch of government during the Purge...

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think there is a lot of unjustified anger directed at people who are well off. I think well off people would perish at the hands of less well off people.

 

[Faye]

The second movie is all about class struggle. Go see it.

I think the very poor and the very rich would be the worst off. The very rich especially because they have a lot of valuables.

 

[sassafras]

I see it extending beyond social class and all too easily fanning out into gender, race and religion.

At which point, who's better off depends on who's in the majority in what area.

 

[muir]

I see it extending beyond social class and all too easily fanning out into gender, race and religion.

At which point, who's better off depends on who's in the majority in what area.

Good point!

The purge is already going on in some parts of the world

For example the israelis are purging the palestineans in gaza

 

[sprinkles]

I think the rich people would have to watch out for their own kids and spouses. The first movie covers that a bit. But yeah they'd probably have better equipment, better security, and cash to possibly hire assassins or put out bounties against people they don't like. There'd likely be a lot of in house killing.

I also have to wonder what such an idea would do for insurance policies and wills.

 

[Lark]

I see it extending beyond social class and all too easily fanning out into gender, race and religion.

At which point, who's better off depends on who's in the majority in what area.

I felt class was an elephant in the room in the first film, although there was perhaps a racial dimension to the fact that the target of the lynch mob at one point was a black man. Watching it I thought that either race and class were conflated in the US or were at least conflated in the minds of the film makers.

What I would say is that the whole idea of "all crime is legal" concentrated mainly upon the anti-personnel or petty violent acts sorts of crime, sexual violence between men and women and adults and children wasnt considered much, nor the function that an annual night or 24hrs of chaos called legal activity would enable huge financial irregularities or mafia money transfers and things of that kind.

The masses killing the political classes and aparatniks is not that interesting a possibility, I think that is truly misdirected rage, I think its less legit than other sorts of class struggles but then most of the most insidious class struggles people dont think of as being class struggles at all.

 

[cvp12gh5]

I think there is a lot of unjustified anger directed at people who are well off. I think well off people would perish at the hands of less well off people.

Unjustified anger, jealousy, resentment...I agree. But I think the rich would be at an advantage for obvious reasons.

The only disadvantage they might run into is underestimating the people who resent them for having more in terms of what money can buy. The lower and middle class may have less, but that doesn't necessarily mean less intelligence. And if you get a guy that is smart enough, psychotic enough, and determined enough, he will find a way into your fortress...eventually. He will plan year after year until he comes up with the perfect plan. The plan that will lead him to his ultimate goal...eliminating you from this earth.

Jealousy can motivate people in strange ways and someone who is resentful enough will go to great lengths to hurt their "enemy" just so they can feel better about themselves. Once you're dead, you no longer have more than him. The smart rich man who understands this (human nature) and plans accordingly will be safe.

Annnnd this is why we need more good psychiatrists in this world (if they ever plan on doing this in the future).

 

[sprinkles]

I felt class was an elephant in the room in the first film, although there was perhaps a racial dimension to the fact that the target of the lynch mob at one point was a black man. Watching it I thought that either race and class were conflated in the US or were at least conflated in the minds of the film makers.

What I would say is that the whole idea of "all crime is legal" concentrated mainly upon the anti-personnel or petty violent acts sorts of crime, sexual violence between men and women and adults and children wasnt considered much, nor the function that an annual night or 24hrs of chaos called legal activity would enable huge financial irregularities or mafia money transfers and things of that kind.

The masses killing the political classes and aparatniks is not that interesting a possibility, I think that is truly misdirected rage, I think its less legit than other sorts of class struggles but then most of the most insidious class struggles people dont think of as being class struggles at all.

Race and class are at times conflated here. I'm not sure if it was intentional in the film or not, but it probably was.

Though I pretty much predicted everything in the film because I know all the stereotypes and stigmas it's based on.

 

[sprinkles]

Unjustified anger, jealousy, resentment...I agree. But I think the rich would be at an advantage for obvious reasons.

The only disadvantage they might run into is underestimating the people who resent them for having more in terms of what money can buy. The lower and middle class may have less, but that doesn't necessarily mean less intelligence. And if you get a guy that is smart enough, psychotic enough, and determined enough, he will find a way into your fortress...eventually. He will plan year after year until he comes up with the perfect plan. The plan that will lead him to his ultimate goal...eliminating you from this earth.

Jealousy can motivate people in strange ways and someone who is resentful enough will go to great lengths to hurt their "enemy" just so they can feel better about themselves. Once you're dead, you no longer have more than him. The smart rich man who understands this (human nature) and plans accordingly will be safe.

Annnnd this is why we need more good psychiatrists in this world (if they ever plan on doing this in the future).

In the original film just a big strong truck with some chains was enough to rip the shutters off the secured home of the protagonists. And it was rich kids that did it. And the psychos that wanted revenge turned out to be the other rich people in the neighborhood. I think that's accurate because violence usually comes from somebody you know.

This is something that SWAT actually uses in real life when they face security doors that can't be rammed down easily. They can rip the whole side of a building off if they need to.

I don't think most people would want to live in a structure that could hold off a determined attack for a whole day - not to mention it'd probably be against building codes.

 

[Lark]

The postman was a much, much better book than it was a film, in fact the name and some of the beginning of the movie is pretty much all they have in common, there's storylines which are much more like something from Farscape and The Hulk in the book.

In the book the character who is the leader of the supremacists is actually a super-human in strength, there's a brief but interesting meditation upon how he has supporters who envy his power but know there's no point in challenging it because they literally are inferior to him, its totally different from the film in that respect, totally different. The character of the postman himself is different in that he organises but doesnt personally lead and when his forces are killed off and diminished he has to deal with the repercussions of the people decidind he has sealed their fate with his rebellion.

There's no epic battles either, there's a much smaller population and selection of characters in the book too. There never is a re-established post office, not really and they deliver to within an area which might be a single region, not even a state, of the US today.

 

[cvp12gh5]

In the original film just a big strong truck with some chains was enough to rip the shutters off the secured home of the protagonists. And it was rich kids that did it. And the psychos that wanted revenge turned out to be the other rich people in the neighborhood. I think that's accurate because violence usually comes from somebody you know.

This is something that SWAT actually uses in real life when they face security doors that can't be rammed down easily. They can rip the whole side of a building off if they need to.

I don't think most people would want to live in a structure that could hold off a determined attack for a whole day - not to mention it'd probably be against building codes.

Everyone is capable of carrying out such acts, regardless of class. All they need is a chip on their shoulder and an unstable personality.

But, in such a situation, I don't think the rich would go after each other. Yes, it would happen, but it would be for very specific reasons (like sleeping with the guys wife, etc). Even then, people with money usually get even in other ways that don't necessarily involve killing each other. They are more likely to get at someone by hitting them where it hurts. And by that I mean ruining them in business, which equals loss of $$$. A rich psychopath that is hungry for blood will go after anyone, but mainly people that don't benefit him personally (imo). And rich people can benefit other rich people in regards to business connections. Killing each other would be bad business.

Now I agree that most of the violence will come from someone you know. And that would include people that work for the wealthy. My fil was CEO of his company that he sold two yrs back, and he was in charge of hundreds of employees. And everyone one of them had a hatred towards him. They would kiss his ass to his face and talk horribly about him when he wasn't around. You just had to hear the hate in their voices and the look of contempt in their eyes when they would bash him. They would comment on his car, his clothes, his house...everything. One woman even called him the devil. No one is perfect, but he didn't deserve any of that. But they were brought up to have a bias against people with money. Common ones being:

-Money is bad
-Rich people are evil
-Underdogs and the little guys are good, big entities are bad
-You have to sell your soul to get rich
-Money causes good people to go bad

In their minds, (as he was signing their paychecks) he was plotting to ruin them somehow. It was crazy. And I know this because I worked there. These people would say all of this in front of me not knowing that I was dating the boss's son.

My fil didn't have a clue that his employees felt this way. If there was such thing as the purge, he would definitely have been a target. That is why I say the rich should never underestimate a person that resents them just for being wealthy.

And during a purge, the rich people would not stay in their everyday home. They would have a structure built elsewhere for situations like this. People are already building these structures for protection in fear of a doomsday scenario.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6281]CrazyBeautiful[/MENTION]

Oh definitely, and those tropes are what make the original movie. It implies all of them which is exactly why we don't see any resentful poor people or middle class attacking the neighborhood.

Token kid questions morality of the purge which sets up moral quagmire for the movie.

Kid spots convenient hunted black man and lets him in. It has to be a poor black man so they can deconstruct the stereotypes by having the kid let him in and show how he's innocent and just wants to live. i.e. they pick a black man to create tension which would not be present if it were a sharp dressed white businessman instead.

18 year old guy is dating the man's daughter against his wishes. Sneaks in before the purge lockdown to "talk" to her father. Soon as you see this guy it should be blatantly obvious that "talk" is going to mean "attempt to murder". He wouldn't be so conveniently placed there otherwise.

The black man goes missing in the house. The rich kids who were hunting him finally show up and demand him so they can finish the job, but he's nowhere to be found which sets off the moral quagmire when the family is threatened. This obviously sets up their descent into evil and then asking themselves "what have we become??" and of course they have a moral change of heart and never push the black guy out to be murdered, they protect him instead and the rich kids break in to slaughter the entire family.

The rich neighbors come to the rescue, but in reality they want to kill the family themselves. Black guy stops them and reveals he was big damn hero all this time. Of course.

 

[Tin Man]

I saw the first movie and was very disappointed. Beautiful idea, horrible execution. It is so far from the reality of what would happen I just couldn't say it was a good movie.

The idea in The Purge is that everyone goes out and kills to expel the anger that they have accumulated over the past year. To think that rich people would be out there killing poor people is just the stupidest notion I've ever heard, and ever watched. I agree the rich would pay to get security built in. If anything they'd hire body guards, which they already do. However it is a million times more plausible that the minimum wage workers would go out and kill, everyone. Lol like it's not even a question. Horrible enactment of a beautiful idea -for a movie.

If anything look up revolutions in history. The people in power are very lucky if they're able to survive. You very rarely hear of a 'great leader' who wasn't killed. Except for Mandela, who actually did get to die of old age.

Stupid, stupid movie. Waste of an hour and a half -_-

That one guy though, really great evil grin *nods*

Completely agree with this.

Also the people in that movie were really really dumb. All crime is legal; all crime. Corporate embezzlement, incorrect disposal of toxic waste, nuclear armament.

And what do they do? Kill and loot. I wish that was the reality because I would be a king in that world.

 

[Lark]

Completely agree with this.

Also the people in that movie were really really dumb. All crime is legal; all crime. Corporate embezzlement, incorrect disposal of toxic waste, nuclear armament.

And what do they do? Kill and loot. I wish that was the reality because I would be a king in that world.

See that's part of what I was thinking about when I created the thread, provided the rich could avoid the threat of personal injury a single day of upheavel isnt going to bother them, the sorts of white collar crime they could commit in a single day of lawlessness is liable to leave them much better off and everyone else much worse off accordingly.