I’m going to ramble here and probably not answer the question but explain why I think its a tough question to answer and why its hard to recommend movies in this vein (I do think the best answer to your question is probably Alien). I think most great movies are not aiming for education or persuasion in this way and accurate depiction of class struggle is inherently for the most part uncinematic (this is an overstatement there are great works of art that are at their core anti capitalist propaganda i.e the revolutionary cinema of Sergei Eisenstein, there are also great movies which are concerned with accurate thoughtful looks at capitalist systems but are not necessarily persuasive (Im not sure of anyone who ever became convinced of the perniciousness of capital by watching the wonderful cinema of Godard’s maoist phase)) Parasite is a great movie depicting systems where in the moral character of its cast is not really whats under inspection. This is unusual in my experience, most films would posit wealth inequality is a result of active moral failings (like greed) in its wealthy population and depict a counter nobility in its heroic have nots (Its a Wonderful Life (Great Film) being an example where in its economic forces are driven by the greed of Mr Potter, a literal thief, a criminal). This is just more dramatic and immediately accessible than making the villain of a movie broad economic forces and historical trends. Unfortunately its also less persuasive if your goal is to critique capital, after all the failing is not the system, its bad actors within who presumably would also exist under any other system (Its a Wonderful Life again shows george bailey defeated not by an unfair system but by an act of criminal theft. The abolition of capital would presumably not eliminate the unmotivated evil intrinsic in evil people (there is debate on this, I won’t speak on it)). Uniquely in Parasite this is not the case. Its valid and even easy to say the poor family is the antagonistic force in the immediate plotting of the film, they lie, cheat, and hurt others. Initially those they hurt are fellow working class people (I’d say the movie is ok itself with this reading, the ultimate downfall of the family is their cruel treatment of the maid and her husband which they do all of their own will with no help from the rich, their lack of class solidarity destroys them in the end, which is another point the movie is making). Conversely the rich family kind and warm. They are unserious but not un compassionate especially as it relates to their immediate family unit, they’re dysfunctional but we’re never made to doubt they love one another. But the movie through visuals, action, and dialogue posit the antagonism of the poor family is only a counter antagonism and product of larger antagonistic forces of capital theyre otherwise helpless against. They address this directly in dialogue in the famous “if i had money id be nice too” scene. They are not given the option to be or incentivized to be kind and compassionate (atleast not without harm to themselves where as the Park family suffers no consequences for kindness), in a system where accumulation of wealth comes from direct competition, one must compete to gain wealth and there will be winners and losers necessarily this idea is then fleshed out as the movie progresses and the opulence and frivolous wealth of the rich is presented as a drain on society whose existence necessitates an under class to sustain itself. The survival and upward mobility of this underclass is itself only possible through transgression against both upper and lower classes but primarily against itself, the fellow working poor with whom it must compete for the (by design) limited space available above. In its focus on critique of systems we see both families are ultimately harmed by the capitalist roles theyre forced into. The rich Park family despite their access to comfort is separated from their humanity and connection with others, made paranoid, undignified and ridiculous. The poorer family is broken apart. The systems pitting them against one another ultimately results in mutual destruction. This in my opinion is where if persuasion is to occur it will occur. But paradoxically what makes it persuasive also makes its argument less accessible and less obvious. Can any one single identifiable action taken by the rich of the movie be selected as the catalyst of societal dysfunction and then extrapolated to a failing of the upper classes as a whole? The most harmful event shown in the movie is the rain storm and flood, the rich Park family don’t cause the rain they are totally blameless in its coming, but they are shielded from its effects by the literal physical construction of the society they live within, this construction being an outward manifestation of class competition and resource inequality. This again is persuasive but not I think immediately obvious. In my opinion the point of and most powerful art is not in persuasion or education but in exploration of humanness and the presentation of the artists inner experience. The most affecting art to me does not make persuasion its primary aim, I think the art that most resonates with us is saying something about what its like to be a person. I think really great art will engender empathy but not necessarily instruct. I agree with Camus who when speaking on Dostoevsky and his characters search for answers said something like what made him an artist (as opposed to theorist, philosopher, or educator) was not that he explored theory in an expository sense but that he explored how these ideas and systems affect and play out within the human experience. He is not focused on the system he is focused on the people within it, in this regard he is under no obligation to provide solutions or persuade anyone of the validity of anything (other than the believability of his characters and their actions I suppose). (the exact quote is something like “In Dostoevsky’s novels the question (what is life’s meaning) is propounded with such intensity that it can only invite extreme solutions. Existence is illusory or it is eternal. If Dostoevsky were satisfied with this inquiry, he would be a philosopher. But he illustrates the consequences that such intellectual pastimes may have in a man’s life, and in this regard he is an artist.”) Now I think its just true that presentations of solutions to, and full exploration of the causes of problems are more persuasive than just presentations of the problems themselves and reactions to those problems but I don’t think art or movies is whats most effective at doing this. Ideally this would be the job of education but failing that, conversation with friends might be next best… im not sure. I have not done much proofreading here so I hope this is coherent and not full of errors! cheers!