You got it both right and wrong. In "Parasite", the family did indeed have talents, and they were often morally wrong: for most of the movie, they're bad-guys. But the movie is successful for the questions it raises:
- why should the poor always be "good" and yet if the rich are just a little bit good, they are considered saints.
- why assume that talent has anything to do with it. The poor family seemed smarter than the rich family. But how much of success is really based on "talent" rather than knowing the right people at the right time?
The movie was good because it didn't really take sides on these issues, while throwing the question directly at your face. The very fact that you're asking the question means the effect was successful.
He could be more intelligent and productive than the poor family. Just because some people deceive you (in your off time) doesn't mean they're smarter than you in any general sense.
They do care who serves them; that's why they fire their driver for his perceived infractions, and housekeeper for her illness. They're looking out for the safety of their family.
You compare their behavior at the party. The rich guy held his nose. The poor guy stabbed someone to death. You complain about him not helping the wounded people - well who wounded them in the first place?
The poor dad isn't forced to play a clown any more than the rich dad; they're inhabiting equal roles in the playacting. Nobody's humiliated or owned; the dad is quite apologetic about the whole thing.
If I remember correctly, the ending scenes shows the son dreaming that he would study and work hard so he can finally afford the house and free his father. Do you think this is a realistic goal. How many years would it take him to buy such a mansion?
If you're looking for answers, this movie won't answer them. However, if you're asking the questions than the movie already did it's work.
Are they more intelligent? Surely not, since they were duped by the other family. Do they really care about other people and what's going on in their surroundings? Not really, they never bothered to figure out any of it, they are blissfully unaware of the of the less fortunate, untouched by the reality around them until it affects them directly. They don't care who serves them. Are they more virtuous? Not exactly, look at how they behave on the party when the girl gets stabbed. The dad takes his boy who fainted and tries to pick up the car keys, all the while pinching his nose in disgust of the 'poor people smell'. Does he help any of the wounded people? What are their actions?
> The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well.
How about the part when they act like they own them? One example is dad having to wear a costume for the boy because the boss is paying overtime for his non-working day. The driver dad is not exactly in a position to refuse or he could ruin his position (we saw how easy it is to get replaced), so he has to put up with it, humiliate himself and play the clown. The rich dad doesn't see how this is a problem, money should buy everything after all.
The movie is an allegory and it requires a deeper look and a bit of thinking. Contrast and compare this movie to 'Us', you will find similarities in how it deals with social class.