Skip to main content

Bong Joon-ho Rabidly Admonishes the Inequities of Capitalism and Class


Nobody makes movies like Bong Joon-ho and Bong Joon-ho’s movies are unlike anything else in cinema. His genre-eclectic style, darkly comic sensibility, and relentlessly sharp social commentary has made him one of the most unique figures in world cinema, finally recognized for his keen artistry and exemplary voice by Cannes this summer when they awarded him the Palme d’Or for his latest feature Parasite –a film highly deserving of the accolade. It’s Bong at his fiercest, his most relevant, and his most artistically adept as he ruthlessly skewers wealth disparity and class politics in the modern age.
Much like Bong’s masterful Snowpiercer, the major theme of Parasite isn’t subtle. The opening scenes introduce us to the Kim family living in a squalid basement apartment each folding pizza boxes for a living in circumstances so dreary and desperate they keep at it even while their home is being gassed with insecticide to meet their quota. They piggy-back off an extremely volatile wifi signal and are accustomed to a drunk regularly urinating just outside their window. By contrast, the wealthy Parks live in absolute splendour in a clean and capacious modernist home not far away, where they never have to interact with the working class outside of their servants. Through a friend, Kim Ki-woo (Choi Woo-Shik) gets a job with the Parks as an English tutor for their teenage daughter, and slowly but surely the rest of the family integrate themselves into various roles in the Park household: Ki-jeong (Park So-dam) as an art therapist for the younger son, Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho) as a chauffeur, and Chung-sook (Jang Hye-jin) as the family housekeeper, sabotaging the current staff and hoodwinking the extremely gullible Parks in the process.
The Kims, in spite of the deviousness and deceitfulness of their actions, are thoroughly likeable and resonant from beginning to end; because not only is their situation immensely sympathetic, but their employers are so grossly privileged yet easy to manipulate it’s impossible to feel bad for them. Ki-jeong, posing as “Jessica”, in one scene identifies a detail of the childs’ drawings as suggestive of schizophrenia to the utter horror of Park matriarch Yeon-gyo (Cho Yeo-jeong) who is incapable of seeing through the young womans’ obvious bullshitting. However what makes the comedy in these cons so affective is how authentic the Parks are in their ignorance –they aren’t cartoon characters –as well as how clever and shrewd the Kims are, scripting whole conversations and intricately plotting their subterfuges to the finest detail.
But of course the film is much more than simply a comedy of poor people playing off the naivety of rich people, because they are doing so at the expense of other poor people, specifically a driver and housekeeper they arrange to have fired. And it’s in the outcome of this maliciousness that the movie gets most interesting in its second act. I’ve written at length on Bong Joon-ho’s fascination with weirdness to convey commentary, and it’s exactly what he does here through a bizarre twist that drives home the frequently unremarked upon truth that for the working classes under capitalism, ones’ success is dependent on another’s failure. Someone must be left behind for you to get ahead.
Bong’s principal target however remains the rich who benefit most from the warped system. But he chooses not to play the Parks as overly harsh –we never see them directly mistreat or look down their noses at the less-fortunate. It’s perhaps worse in that they seem to barely acknowledge their existence. Park Dong-ik (Lee Sun-kyun) can only identify Ki-taek’s particular smell as the kind he senses in the vicinity of subways. The Kims have one particularly interesting conversation when left in the house alone, where they acknowledge the relative niceness of the Parks, but also that it’s a tainted niceness borne out of their wealth and the fact they’ve never had to work or suffer to achieve anything. There’s an underside to their every courtesy and refinement. One morning, Yeon-gyo remarks on how nice the previous nights’ rainfall was to Chung-sook, whose whole neighbourhood was flooded out because of it. Never afraid to delve into the darkness of the issues and ideas he addresses, Bong weaves a hardened resentfulness of the manner in which the upper classes perceive and ignore the lower classes throughout the film, and lets it simmer with the care of an artisan until the time comes for it to burst forth with a fury.
Bong blends a few different types of movies with Parasite and demonstrates his acquired expertise in each of them. From the way he frames comedic beats to building tension in a couple suspenseful scenes, to shooting one Kim deception with the pacing and editing of a heist movie, he’s got an understanding of the versatility of cinematic language to rival any great filmmaker, and delights in breaking it down. There are humourous moments that are also unsettling, grimness undercutting major emotional beats. And all of it is natural. Bong shoots the Parks’ manor emphasizing its’ spaciousness, its relative emptiness and isolation to capture the essence of luxury, while the Kims’ apartment is cramped and dilapidated with even the colour grading seeming to improve with the Kims’ comfortable employment.
Every actor is great too. Song Kang-ho stars in his fourth movie with Bong and is excellent in one of his sharpest roles yet, and easily his most compelling character since The Host. The Korean-Canadian Choi is just as good, carrying the film in a number of moments, particularly towards the end. Jang is a delight as the warmest (yet still severe) member of the Kim clan, Park Myung-hoon plays a wonderfully nuts surprise character, and Cho is superb as the lethargic idiot housewife, owning many of the movies’ funniest moments. But the breakout star has to be Park So-dam, who carries herself in every scene with an exquisite degree of confidence and control; conveying a commitment, tact, and skillfulness in her character that far outshines her co-stars. The same performance quality that was evident in Go Ah-sung in The Host.
But then, it’s not exactly the same -because Parasite is incomparable. As potent as Snowpiercer, as passionate as Okja, as unrelenting as Memories of Murder or Mother, as fresh and unique as any film this South Korean Master has made in his twenty-year career. A vehement condemnation of the repercussions of late-stage capitalism expressed in a resoundingly singular way, its’ final moments are haunting; tragic and meaningful and strangely close-to-home for many across languages and cultures. The worthy last nail in the coffin Bong longs to bury classism in.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more