wealeat09 said:
Enzo The Baker said:
wealeat09 said:
It's hard to talk about this movie at all without giving away a spoiler. I almost feel like too much has been said already on this thread about its themes.
On your point, it's a dark comedy, so I see why they went where they went.
I think there are definitely elements of a dark comedy to this one and that's what it has kind of been pegged as, but I think it's a little heavier than that designation.
To TCTTS's comment about the ending:
****Spoilers****
I think it's all subject to interpretation on how you view the ending. To me, with the tension building throughout the movie, I thought a violent crescendo was appropriate. You had someone living in basically solitude for over 4 years, and their livelihood (and wife) was taken away from them by people of the same social class, so I think his reaction was appropriate (there is also a lot of deep rooted anger in the Korean lower class which I think is a nice sublayer). It was also even more poignant because the acts took place in front of a bunch of wealthy people in their 'natural' setting, showing a striking contrast between the social classes. The poor father and the husband who lost his **** are almost mirrors of each other professionally, failing with their bakery and other business ventures. So what the father did to Mr. Park at the end was more than just out of being oppressed personally, but more of a representation of the entire lower-class who is looked down upon by people like Park's family. To me, this over-the-top scene made more sense than in a movie like Once Upon a Time...(which I also loved). Anything less than explciit violence/death would have just been too romanticized IMO for the way it was heading. Which is also why I also loved the VERY end of the movie too. I thought it was brilliant.
Just gonna put this all in black
The captive husband coming out of the basement and going on a killing spree makes perfect sense. The only thing he had to live for was his wife's love and they just murdered her. He wanted as much destruction as possible on the family that killed his wife.
As far as Mr. Kim killing the rich father, it makes sense to me. He saw in that moment how little the rich man cared for his family whatsoever. He noticed it behind the bush. He had just lost all his possessions, then because of knowing the rich man had just lost his daughter.
Everyone was pushed to their limits and it all went haywire at the end.
Saw it in theaters last night. I thought it was good, just not as good as some out there claim.
As Bong probably intended, I was torn about the main family.
At the beginning of the film, I felt very sorry for Kim. But as events unfolded, my allegiance moved towards Park and his family.I have different feelings about the end. Remember, Park had no way of knowing that the family was related. With this knowledge (or even without), Park's reaction to his dying child is understandable at almost any level. He has a limited time to get his kid to the hospital before it's too late. As a parent, the safety of your children supersedes anything else. I can't fault him for his tunnel vision in this scenario. In that same vein, Kim's rage boiling over is also somewhat understandable, although it's his own foolhardy actions that have led to this sequence in the first place. I do find it fascinating that we had two fathers' reactions to watching their children die, and the consequences thereof. Also, I wish we'd gotten some closure as to what happened to the surviving Parks.I'm also surprised, although I'm sure it was a directorial decision, that Kim never asked Park for financial help. Even if it requires him to play the con out further, it seemed easy enough to do. Maybe this has to with Korean culture, but I've seen a dozen or so instances in American life where families--not even upper class, but middle--help out poor workers to help them fix cars, furnish homes, pay for tutoring, etc. If Bong wanted us to hate the Parks, having him deny help would've been the way to do it. Kim keeping Park in the dark about his financial situation and living conditions deprived us of a true characterization of the Parks.
