Words: 1019
After having buried 10 conservationists , the students have a garden full of tomatoes proving that ” conservationists serve great as fertilizers”(NOT) and since that in life they served no good to the society from the liberals point of view, in death they can. The students invite the guests with an already planned ending for all of them: death. They are in continuous disagreement with them in order to find something that they , n turn, see as wrong and reason the death of the guest , this taking some of the guilt off their shoulders and considering it a “good gets for society’ .
At the slightest “counter-idea” they hurry the dinner and get to the exciting part of it by using phrases such as: “it’s time for dessert “. Len the movie ,this is seen in the scene where the anti ecologist gradually considers their point of view as well and starts rethinking; confused of him agreeing to the libertarian point of view, and used to Just having their guests poisoned, the group of students does not break the “Sunday ritual” and assures the guest( by saying ” you are entitled to your own opinion”) , who comes back to his conservationists point of view.
This goes to the original argument :insignificance of life. As the movie progresses the students kill more and more people ;slowly not taking into consideration their status in society , Just their “closed-minded” ideas. The director stops introducing the guests by their names as they will eventually die;instead, continues by defining(l want to say it in a different way) them by their causes and slowly Just shows the piles of soil that were once their guests.
The students decide a matter of life and death by either last questioning the guest : “if you were in a bar with a guy called Doll Hitler , would you kill him to save all those life’s or would you let him live”? Or “it’s 4 to 1 . He lives. ” This again, shows the insignificance of life and how little they care for the others and their fate. RACISM (DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACKS ) From the very beginning ,Luke is the one who initiates the idea of having “the deadly dinner” ,even though his colleagues are reluctant.
He is also the one to have suggested not to call the police ,and instead Just hide the murder . While he starts off as the most rational in critical situations, he becomes the most irrational ,cruel and “quick-tempered” ; he is also very sarcastic throughout the movie ( ” keep them in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant” he says to a sex offender they have had as guest) . By the end of the movie he loses control and gets to the point where he is about to kill one of his own mends.
THE LAST SUPPER (RELIGIOUS REFERENCE) In the movie, the 5 students are supposed to take the place of the apostles and the guests are Jesus, who is going to be sacrificed. The characters are also given names of apostles Dude,Pauline,Marc,Luke and Pete) The difference is , the roles are reversed, while the apostles are meant to spread the good word of “Jesus” to other people, they kill him. This could also mean that the students represent only two apostles :Judas(who betrayed Jesus) and Peter (who denies he knows him ) ;While Jesus is aware of his scarification , the guests aren’t .
The guests are also served “very good food” as it will be their last meal . Unlike most movies where good always wins over bad in the end, “The last supper” ends by having Norman -(the very conservatism celebrity that is present in short scenes throughout the movie ,watched and critiqued by the students ) killing the 5 students with their own weapon and later describing himself as a “humble ,humble servant” in his presidential campaign. Why is it being satirized? ) I believe that the director is trying to say that both the right and left wing /wingers can become evil/ harmful when taken to the extreme :extreme conservationists ( the guests) and extreme liberalizes(the students) 2) Another problem I think the director meant to point out how easily people lose their life’s over different causes (like those mentioned in the movie: homosexuality , anti-ecologist, racism). This makes me wonder ,” Is it really worth it to die for it or to take a life? And “When can you say it was right for you to decide that someone’s existence isn’t important to the society anymore ? ” . This argument can be evidenced by history itself. Situations where people have died and been killed because their opinions or way of being did not correspond to the majority are many, hence Stalin’s saying : ” If you are not with us , you are against us. “Another example is the time of “The inquisition” (an example Ewing Galileo Gillie’s scientifically proven idea that the earth revolves around the sun did not correspond to the original statement . N order to avoid imprisonment , he was forced to deny his statement. ) 3) Throughout history , “blacks” have always been seen as the “bad guys” with bad intentions . Len the movie , they have chosen the “head of the plan” ,a black , meaning to make fun of the concept and the stereotyping . 4) “Good doesn’t always win in the end , especially in the real world” is what the directors expressed through their last scene . Corrupted people become the leaders of our countries. Is it effective?
In my opinion, “The last supper” is a good movie, with a well-planned plot that is rather a continuous sarcastic response to certain topics such as : discrimination, the unnecessary deaths of people and intolerance. This film made me question my own tolerance of different views; it also made me think of how ,as a libertarian myself do I change the world without imposing my own views. Some minus points , from my perspective, are the repetitive scenes in the dining room of the guests and the students and the rushed through scenes that take place in the middle of the movie.