Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019) Movie • Page 9

I feel like the title could describe the poor family and the rich family. Both were living off each other.

 

It’s definitely a look at class and wealth structures. The message I got the most is that by keeping the poor dependent on the rich, the poor will attack each other instead of the rich. The class differences were as subtle as Ad Astra’s daddy issues. I just don’t feel like this story brought anything else to the table. Part of me wishes there was no basement plot twist and it was a continuation of theme breakdown just between the rich fam and the con fam.

It’s an absolute technical genius, from shots and design and whatnot. And I was entranced, so it’s not like I didn’t enjoy it. I just don’t quite understand where all the praise and hype is coming from.

 

the Parks saw the Kims as the parasite but they themselves are the real parasite

 

Well, not every story needs to be subtle. And Ho’s work never has been in its critique of capitalism. But I mean, you admit yourself the genius of the craft. That married to the exploration of the themes you also agree are there, and it seems like that’s where the praise is coming from, right? For me, it’s uniquely able to shift from hilariously dark heist comedy to scathing dystopian satire to class tragedy seamlessly, which is a feat in itself, and an encapsulation of the pursuit of class, wealth, and status in general. I particularly love the thread of the Kim family’s ascent requiring the pushing out of other laborers, a dramatized metaphor for the structure of capitalism, that for all the wealth at the top, the structure doesn’t let it trickle down to everyone, it necessitates pitting the labor force against each other, seeing each other as the obstacle to overcome. Like, there is so much going on in every frame of this movie on all levels of storytelling, theme, and craft, which isn’t to say one has to like it or think it’s incredible, but the “nothing to say” critique doesn’t hold up.

 

I think my reaction is based in the “so what now?” form of question, which I didn’t clearly state last night. The fantasy “I’m gonna make a lot of money so I can buy the house” seems to reinforce the ideals the movie is clearly against, not subvert them. “This is the structure, nothing changes, and lots of people die and remain exactly where they are” doesn’t seem like a critique that holds up to me. It accurately paints a snapshot of everything you mentioned, but doesn’t have something to say about what the better alternative would be. An implied “not this” isn’t enough for me? But I don’t know if that’s a privilege standpoint or what...but I definitely identify more with the working class in the film than the rich class

I like that this movie exists and is getting people talking. I forced so many friends to watch Snowpiercer, so I went in with goodwill. It just didn’t meet my expectation at the story level at the end, I guess. Which is okay, and not something I’m owed.

 

that’s a bingo

 

That sequence is a fantasy. It’s a fantasy built on, even after all he’s been through, the idea of class mobility and moving up to the elite is inescapable in the current system. Then, cutting away from the fantasy to see him in the dark, in the basement, it’s clear he knows it’s a fantasy. It’s not reinforcing the ideal: it’s painting how tragic it is. I don’t think a movie needs to propose an alternative to the system it’s critiquing to say something powerful and human about the system it’s critiquing. This movie is a powerful tragedy about the system it’s critiquing.

 

That's kinda the point, though. It's pessimistic because that's just the reality of the world for a family like the Kims. All the son can aspire to do to save his dad is become one of the elite himself, but even that's a complete fantasy. The film is clearly saying it's bad that that's the only potential solution for him. If there was an easier or even clear alternative then it wouldn't be tragic

 

I don't agree with the idea that a film saying something means it needs to propose a solution. This film dives deeply into themes on inequality, class, resentment, anger, and hopelessness in capitalist society for so many. The film is a brilliant portrayal of that current reality.

The film does not need to show "so what now?" and provide answers, the film should depict the problems clearly and inspire the viewer to think "so what now".

 

Trying to solve the problem of class/capitalism feels increasingly futile and unattainable, to provide a solution would not only be disingenuous but show a complete lack of understanding. Bong clearly understands the themes and knows better than to try and provide an answer none of us have

 

"There's a lot going into that "beef cutting" scene...one you might miss as a non-korean viewer is that the beef used in the scene is "Hanwoo" or the most expensive grade of beef in Korea, similar to Wagyu. Many can't afford Hanwoo, let alone eat it as a snack with instant noodles...it's like caviar on a big mac...this is yet another shade of the rich vs poor..."

 

While a film doesn't need to do that (because no film needs to do anything) I think it is still a valid critique. It's fine to find a work to be a futile exercise if it doesn't propose any alternative or solution (the suggestion of "revolution" or w/e) without viewing that element as a good-bad film dichotomy. I think this film is fantastic but I also don't think it's a a particularly strong work of political cinema.

 

I mean Sorry to Bother You, All the President’s Men, Citizen Kane, the Wolf of Wall Street, brilliant political works highlight the cycles of the systems they’re critiquing all the time without proposing how they should be changed. How many great pieces of art, even political ones, do?

 

Even outside of film, famously politically critical works like A Modest Proposal and Watchmen (the comic) are more about highlighting the cruel absurdity of the reality than inspiring an alternative path.

 

The whole point of wealth inequality and the bizarreness or pure capitalism is that they seem unconquerable, I feel like proposing any sort of solution would undercut the entire film.

 

There’s really only one solution, and a film where people literally eat the rich at a dinner table seems like it’d be pretty heavy handed

You can admit there is a problem without knowing how to solve it. This whole discussion feels very “you’re a leftist, but you have an iPhone!”

 

I just can't agree with this at all. Its really easy to call anything a futile exercise unless it has some radical impact on upending generations-old systematic oppression. By that logic all media is a futile exercise, which I mean I guess the argument could be made that it is, and that's not even a bad place to be. But its weird to knock this film down for I guess being a film and not being also a guidebook to the end of the system it critiques.

 

I already regret saying anything. People around here get so touchy when something they like gets criticized. I adore the film, I’ve made that clear. But it feels like there is an attempt to box in how people should or shouldn’t react to this work. It can succeed as a strong political work for some and it won’t resonate the same way for others. I’m not saying the film needs to propose anything (maybe someone else did?) but I also don’t think it’s fair to dismiss people that want more in this regard. I think the critique is valid and the way it is presented is extremely compelling and will obviously resonate with a lot of people. But for me, it’s not political cinema in the way that I like it.

 

I wrote something longer above but I just want to also reply to this directly: you don’t have to agree! That is (to me) the beauty of art. What moving or engaging for you might not work the same way for me and vice versa. I come from a different background in film than most people around here that I think has been largely incompatible, which is why I have gradually pulled myself further and further away from the entertainment forum. But as I’ve studied different forms of political cinema over the years, stuff like this just doesn’t get me fired up the same way it does others (again, as political art, I think as a “film” it’s immaculate) but I absolutely understand why it does for others. Films that offer such an indictment of capitalism that get noticed on this level are very rare so I understand why it is speaking to so many people that way.

 

To be clear, my posts have been to the person that left the theatre thinking “so what?” which seems like a really undercooked response, I’m not out here thinking this is gonna spark a revolution or anything

Just think it’s a pretty good indication of where we are at (see: absolutely fucked with no way out) and that is good enough in itself

 

Disagreement doesn't mean people are being touchy. Just discussing the film..

 

Aquarius is the best political film of the decade (that I have seen)

 

Lol yeah where are people here getting “touchy”? Seems like everyone’s clearly explaining the reasons why they disagree, and not in an antagonistic way

 

the obvious solution proposed is we all have to stab our bosses