Cannes and Oscar winner: Bong Joon-ho's Parasite
First, a reality check. The Oscar Best International Feature Film (previously Foreign-Language Film) winner - or nominees - is merely a fraction of the best that world cinema has to offer in any given year. That's why through all these years that I've spent my life as an incurable film junkie, I've gradually learned to take the award-giving bodies (and these include your grand old Uncle Oscar) with a grain of salt. Whichever way we put it, to have a hundred or so committee members decide which set of films should be given recognition or award is utterly subjective and limiting, dependent as it is on each one's taste, preference, agenda, established connections, expected gains and what have you. Heck, some members may not even be passionate or knowledgeable about cinema at all! And let's not even begin equating the award-giving bodies organized by the press, actors' guild, industry insiders, etc., with the honors bestowed at the various annual international film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, Venice, Locarno, etc). As the recent Oscar big winner Bong Joon-ho himself says: "The Academy is not an international film festival". The festivals abroad are true havens of auteur/arthouse cinema, a cineaste's wet dream;the award-giving bodies are mostly PR jobs and returning of favors. That's why the huge triumph of the South Korean film "Parasite" (2019) at the recently-concluded Academy Awards (and in other awards events before it) was a culmination of many things: publicity, connections, rave reviews, high box-office returns and prodigious lobbying. But of course, let's not forget the merits of the film itself, which are certainly incontestable. The hard truth out of all this is that the quality per se of a film isn't a sure-way ticket to Oscar glory. However cringe-inducing the use of the term might be, there still has to be some "politics" involved.
Nevertheless, "Parasite"'s big - and even upsetting - triumph at the Oscars is definitely for the books. It's the first non-English-language film in the award-giving body's decades-long history to have won Best Picture and both that award and Best International Feature Film. Not to mention that it also scooped two other major awards: Best Original Screenplay and Best Director. The likes of "Life is Beautiful", "Amour" and "Roma" had similarly been nominated before for both Best Picture and Best IFF, but only managed to get the latter. Even before "Parasite" built its reputation and momentum towards the awards season, I was already able to watch the film on the big screen back in August last year, just a few months after it won the Palme d'Or in Cannes under Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu's jury (likewise considered a milestone, as it's the first Korean film to have been awarded the festival's top prize). I was already planning to write a review of the film then, but for one reason or another it didn't materialize. I think now is the right time to share my humble two cents on this exceptional work.
Before anything else, let me just say that of all of Bong's films (seven features altogether), what I consider to be his best work is still the unforgettable police procedural "Memories of Murder". And even if "Parasite" received almost all the accolades, we can't preclude the fact that there are other equally excellent (if not much better) international films in the previous year alone that practically went under the radar of everyone else, including those involved in the various award-giving bodies. Germany's "System Crasher"? Brazil's "Bacurau"? Colombia's "Monos"? France's "Synonymes" and "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"? Let's not even fail to mention that back in 2018, a masterful Korean film helmed by a veteran filmmaker was likewise championed by critics and aficionados, having a theme that wasn't entirely different from that of "Parasite", that is, class differences: Lee Chang-dong's "Burning". And yet, this film didn't get any major recognition from the Oscars, the Golden Globes, etc. Personally, I'd pick "Burning" anytime over "Parasite". Some say it's because the former is ambiguous, mysterious and deliberate, a sphinx of a film, making it an acquired taste and thus have less recognition. Whereas the latter, while still having arthouse sensibilities, has a pacing and genre workings that appeal to the mainstream, making it more popular and therefore more attractive to the award-giving bodies.
So how is "Parasite", really? It's no different from Bong's previous films. In a good way. What I mean is that it doesn't disappoint yet again and that it's like there's always something new to offer. The ironic thing is that Bong always plays with various genres, more often than not in the same film, and yet we can never ever predict what's going to happen next. His films are rife with seemingly little and trivial details that gradually gain import as the story progresses. Actually, the theme of gaps in social classes has been touched upon already by Bong in his previous films, like in "The Host", "Mother" and "Snowpiercer", but it has never been more vivid and vicious as in "Parasite". We may in fact fault the director for not attempting any subtlety in the film. And yet, surprises keep coming up along the way that turn everything upside down that we're willing to overlook that "fault". Did I mention that Bong mixes up different genres?
At some point, we thought that "Parasite" was going to be a comedy of errors. Then we sensed that it was developing into a home-invasion drama. Until it ratcheted up to become a mystery-thriller, which then gave way to an overwhelming tragedy. But despite all the play with genres, the director's vision never gets muddled in any way. It's precise, sharp and focused. Bong calibrates the story in such a way that we can't pinpoint exactly who the heroes and who the villains are. It doesn't mean that the Kim family is destitute so our sympathy automatically goes to them. There are many times in the film that their behavior is detestable. In the same way that the Park family being affluent doesn't follow that we have to hate them right away. Oftentimes, we worry about what might happen to them if the Kims eventually usurp their household. But then again, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having our sympathies and loyalties divided. By some strange twist, we now root for the poor family over the rich one, even if the behavior of the former doesn't in any way change for the better.
It's because of the screenplay's (co-written by Bong and Han Jin-won) keen attention to behavioral details that either redeem or damn the characters that makes the film "a comedy without clowns, a tragedy without villains". How the Parks look at the Kims or how the Kims cope when they flee from the mansion and become stuck in the heavy rains. How the rich are panicky and gullible, and how the poor are deceitful and manipulative. Or how the fate of the characters is literalized down the social ladder. Who is really the "parasite"? Or does it encompass each one of them? Come to think of it, there are only two sets of characters in the film - the rich Parks and the poor Kims - but our level of sympathy for or disgust at each one keeps being tossed from one side to the other and vice versa, as if in a game of volleyball. That's how dynamic and complicated this "parasitic" relationship is. Bong himself argues that "humane relationships based on co-existence or symbiosis cannot hold" and that "one group is pushed into a parasitic relationship with another". In the film's context, this is because of the differences in social standing and the inequality in economic opportunities and accumulation of wealth.
Even with the play with genres and a mainstream-friendly pacing, "Parasite" still has a distinctively Korean approach to humor and violence. The comedy is pointedly sardonic and satirical, while the bloodbath is unflinching and graphic (though the latter is only judiciously employed towards the end). Where else can a parasitic relationship lead, if not towards destruction and mayhem, or even death? That's most probably the only "flaw" of "Parasite": the nature of such a relationship can already give us an idea how things will end. Still, the manner in which such things will happen remains everyone's guessing game. Bong is one deft storyteller that following the twists and turns of his films is like walking through a labyrinth - we can never fully expect what's going to happen next. With already seven features to his name that began with "Barking Dogs Never Bite", it's a testament to the director's craft that he remains consistent with such a characteristic in his films in varying degrees.
Perhaps, my only worry is that, with "Parasite"'s big win at the Oscars, the film may become too popular for its own good. Remember, the first accolade that it received was the Palme d'Or at the prestigious Cannes International Film Festival. I still believe that whichever film gets to win the highest prize at the festival is marked with arthouse distinction. In the decades-long history of the French Riviera-located festival, never have I encountered a Palme d'Or-winning film that's as immensely popular at the box-office and in the award-giving bodies as "Parasite". Likewise, I can only think of two Palme d'Or awardees that also won the Oscar Best Picture: "The Lost Weekend" in 1946 and "Marty" in 1955. It's a library truth that the Academy and Cannes are worlds apart in terms of film preferences, awards distribution, prestige, etc. But with "Parasite"'s recent win, who knows if those two worlds are already beginning to collide.
Nevertheless, "Parasite"'s big - and even upsetting - triumph at the Oscars is definitely for the books. It's the first non-English-language film in the award-giving body's decades-long history to have won Best Picture and both that award and Best International Feature Film. Not to mention that it also scooped two other major awards: Best Original Screenplay and Best Director. The likes of "Life is Beautiful", "Amour" and "Roma" had similarly been nominated before for both Best Picture and Best IFF, but only managed to get the latter. Even before "Parasite" built its reputation and momentum towards the awards season, I was already able to watch the film on the big screen back in August last year, just a few months after it won the Palme d'Or in Cannes under Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu's jury (likewise considered a milestone, as it's the first Korean film to have been awarded the festival's top prize). I was already planning to write a review of the film then, but for one reason or another it didn't materialize. I think now is the right time to share my humble two cents on this exceptional work.
Before anything else, let me just say that of all of Bong's films (seven features altogether), what I consider to be his best work is still the unforgettable police procedural "Memories of Murder". And even if "Parasite" received almost all the accolades, we can't preclude the fact that there are other equally excellent (if not much better) international films in the previous year alone that practically went under the radar of everyone else, including those involved in the various award-giving bodies. Germany's "System Crasher"? Brazil's "Bacurau"? Colombia's "Monos"? France's "Synonymes" and "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"? Let's not even fail to mention that back in 2018, a masterful Korean film helmed by a veteran filmmaker was likewise championed by critics and aficionados, having a theme that wasn't entirely different from that of "Parasite", that is, class differences: Lee Chang-dong's "Burning". And yet, this film didn't get any major recognition from the Oscars, the Golden Globes, etc. Personally, I'd pick "Burning" anytime over "Parasite". Some say it's because the former is ambiguous, mysterious and deliberate, a sphinx of a film, making it an acquired taste and thus have less recognition. Whereas the latter, while still having arthouse sensibilities, has a pacing and genre workings that appeal to the mainstream, making it more popular and therefore more attractive to the award-giving bodies.
So how is "Parasite", really? It's no different from Bong's previous films. In a good way. What I mean is that it doesn't disappoint yet again and that it's like there's always something new to offer. The ironic thing is that Bong always plays with various genres, more often than not in the same film, and yet we can never ever predict what's going to happen next. His films are rife with seemingly little and trivial details that gradually gain import as the story progresses. Actually, the theme of gaps in social classes has been touched upon already by Bong in his previous films, like in "The Host", "Mother" and "Snowpiercer", but it has never been more vivid and vicious as in "Parasite". We may in fact fault the director for not attempting any subtlety in the film. And yet, surprises keep coming up along the way that turn everything upside down that we're willing to overlook that "fault". Did I mention that Bong mixes up different genres?
At some point, we thought that "Parasite" was going to be a comedy of errors. Then we sensed that it was developing into a home-invasion drama. Until it ratcheted up to become a mystery-thriller, which then gave way to an overwhelming tragedy. But despite all the play with genres, the director's vision never gets muddled in any way. It's precise, sharp and focused. Bong calibrates the story in such a way that we can't pinpoint exactly who the heroes and who the villains are. It doesn't mean that the Kim family is destitute so our sympathy automatically goes to them. There are many times in the film that their behavior is detestable. In the same way that the Park family being affluent doesn't follow that we have to hate them right away. Oftentimes, we worry about what might happen to them if the Kims eventually usurp their household. But then again, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having our sympathies and loyalties divided. By some strange twist, we now root for the poor family over the rich one, even if the behavior of the former doesn't in any way change for the better.
It's because of the screenplay's (co-written by Bong and Han Jin-won) keen attention to behavioral details that either redeem or damn the characters that makes the film "a comedy without clowns, a tragedy without villains". How the Parks look at the Kims or how the Kims cope when they flee from the mansion and become stuck in the heavy rains. How the rich are panicky and gullible, and how the poor are deceitful and manipulative. Or how the fate of the characters is literalized down the social ladder. Who is really the "parasite"? Or does it encompass each one of them? Come to think of it, there are only two sets of characters in the film - the rich Parks and the poor Kims - but our level of sympathy for or disgust at each one keeps being tossed from one side to the other and vice versa, as if in a game of volleyball. That's how dynamic and complicated this "parasitic" relationship is. Bong himself argues that "humane relationships based on co-existence or symbiosis cannot hold" and that "one group is pushed into a parasitic relationship with another". In the film's context, this is because of the differences in social standing and the inequality in economic opportunities and accumulation of wealth.
Even with the play with genres and a mainstream-friendly pacing, "Parasite" still has a distinctively Korean approach to humor and violence. The comedy is pointedly sardonic and satirical, while the bloodbath is unflinching and graphic (though the latter is only judiciously employed towards the end). Where else can a parasitic relationship lead, if not towards destruction and mayhem, or even death? That's most probably the only "flaw" of "Parasite": the nature of such a relationship can already give us an idea how things will end. Still, the manner in which such things will happen remains everyone's guessing game. Bong is one deft storyteller that following the twists and turns of his films is like walking through a labyrinth - we can never fully expect what's going to happen next. With already seven features to his name that began with "Barking Dogs Never Bite", it's a testament to the director's craft that he remains consistent with such a characteristic in his films in varying degrees.
Perhaps, my only worry is that, with "Parasite"'s big win at the Oscars, the film may become too popular for its own good. Remember, the first accolade that it received was the Palme d'Or at the prestigious Cannes International Film Festival. I still believe that whichever film gets to win the highest prize at the festival is marked with arthouse distinction. In the decades-long history of the French Riviera-located festival, never have I encountered a Palme d'Or-winning film that's as immensely popular at the box-office and in the award-giving bodies as "Parasite". Likewise, I can only think of two Palme d'Or awardees that also won the Oscar Best Picture: "The Lost Weekend" in 1946 and "Marty" in 1955. It's a library truth that the Academy and Cannes are worlds apart in terms of film preferences, awards distribution, prestige, etc. But with "Parasite"'s recent win, who knows if those two worlds are already beginning to collide.
Comments