- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The other films at the Cannes Film Festival were even worse.
The jury included people with other educational disabilities .
The Grand Prix was awarded to Soviet films “Solaris” Andrey Tarkovsky (1972) – this is “I can still understand, but”Repentance” Tengiza Abuladze (1987) – I can't do this.
Or maybe the problem isn't in the movie? 😉
First of all, it is absolutely normal that you didn't like a film that was recognized both at the festival and at kinopoisk. But before you throw stones in the direction of this film production, think about it, maybe it's just something completely different from what you've seen before, and to understand it, you need to go beyond the ideas of “good cinema” that you are used to. It's like if you've spent your whole life admiring Shishkin's landscapes and then suddenly see Picasso's cubism. Of course, the first feelings will be misunderstanding and negativity, but sometimes you need to be able to abstract from these feelings and give yourself a chance to discover something new, previously unknown.
However, let's talk about the movie. First, let's study the director and his background. Bong Joon Ho is a South Korean film director. We immediately note for ourselves that for the average Western viewer, Asian films very often seem a little “strange”. Here and different metnalitet, and the way of life shown, and in general, the philosophy and attitude of Eastern cultural and creative figures have other trends. One of the most acclaimed films of this director is “Through the Snow”, and it is much closer and more understandable to the Western audience. From this, we conclude that it's not that a person doesn't know how to make films, but just this time he made a completely different movie, complex and ambiguous.
The declared genre of the film is comedy-drama, and already here the question arises-and where exactly to laugh. I will try to give a subjective answer to this question later.�
What is the film about? The most basic leitmotif is the gap between different social classes. An obvious juxtaposition of two worlds: a dirty basement, a wayward family that even steals the Internet from neighbors, and a clean (to the point of complete minimalism) house of a wealthy couple with children, a maid and purebred dogs. At first glance, everything is simple – a poor family, like a parasite, sticks to the well-being of a rich one, and deceives money out of it. But is it true? We slightly change the viewing angle, and we see a nervous rich lady who, with the help of money, makes the whole world spin around her. It seems that everyone is deceiving her, and she is a simple “fool from the alley”. But it seems to me that it is correct to quote the classic here: “I'm happy to be deceived myself!” She doesn't understand real life very well, her world is filled with ghostly worries that make her life full. In addition, the viewer intuitively understands that just as a poor neighborhood cannot exist without a rich one, so a rich one cannot exist without a poor one. The director perfectly uses the power of contrasts. Here's the disaster of an entire neighborhood being flooded overnight, and here's a sunny morning full of holiday preparations. And Madame Park's throwaway remark about how good it was that it rained last night. What turns out to be a collapse for some becomes a minor plus for others.�
The second layer of the film is the characters ' personal relationships. And here not everything is clear. The viewer does not admire either the cold relationship of a rich family, or some careless relationship of a poor family. “But how? After all, all the members of the Kim family helped each other to work for the Paks” I would argue here, it seems to me that this showed more of the family's desire to survive, and together it is easier to do it. Again, the comparison with parasites: where one appeared, the rest will soon appear. Can we talk about warm feelings between parasites here? Unlikely. More like a mutually beneficial cohabitation. Even the family idyll of the Paks smacks of falsity. Madame and Mr. Park act like sophisticated people who don't want to admit what they think is inappropriate. But in the dark, in each other's arms, they both voice something that would have seemed low and disgusting to them just a short time ago. Their daughter, under the guise of lessons, begins an affair with each new teacher ( and the same repeated phrase of the cavaliers “we are serious”, clearly indicating that this is not so). And a little son that no one listens to or wants to understand. Several times he seems to give his parents a chance to prevent a tragedy(he talks about smells, translates the message in Morse code), but the parents are deaf and blind to the attitude of their child.�
In short, the director tells us that in a rich family not everything is fine, that in a poor one: although people are socially in different places, but in the family the situation is no better for anyone.
The third layer, I would call the symbolism layer. This film can not be taken literally, the violation of everyday logic is possible (on the verge of absurdism) precisely in order to focus on ideas. There are a lot of things here: the basement with the poor couple (the Kims see essentially their own reflection), and the “basement” smell from the workers, which is easier for the Paks to ignore and cover their nose with pictures than to change anything, and the stone that brings good luck, which the poor son saves in time for the flood, and the constant theme of the game of Indians, Behind each image there is some thought, or even several. This is interesting to dig into, and this is what makes a movie worthy of an award.�
Fourth layer, visual solutions. Here you can write another essay, so I will rather describe my favorite frame. Like the Kims ' daughter blowing lint off a peach tree in the sun. How much in this frame is the understanding of their imminent victory, hopes for a bright future, and the grace of cunning.�
Of course, the scene of Mr. Park's murder is like a cherry on top of the director's ideas. Even killing on your own lawn can't stop you from reveling in the basement smell of poverty. In the way he covers his nose, there is already a reflexive disdain for all people, like the Kim family. Which is the last straw.�
And a lovely open end. Whether Kim's son was able to carry out his plan, or whether it remained the desperate dream of the poor guy from the basement, is up to the viewer to decide.�
The director laughed at this society. He ridiculed both prim wealth and nimble poverty. It was either a parable or a caricature. Wi-Fi in the toilet, a madman worshipping a businessman, a cake in the face of a murderer, laughter after a tragedy.
Some films are simply forbidden to be taken too literally. Sometimes you just need to trust the director, and try to look beyond the strange or even absurd events of the film.
In general, I would advise you to get acquainted with Korean and Chinese films. Asian cinema is very original and thus attracts attention. Start with the classics that have already become classics – “Oldboy “(South Korea, 2003),” Love Mood “(China, Hong Kong, 2000),” Hero ” (China, Hong Kong, 2002).�
Do not be afraid of violations of everyday and familiar logic (this is still a movie, not mathematics ), give yourself up to the mood of the film. Cinema is more than a story about some events, it is first of all art, like a river, the flow of which you just need to give yourself up and see where it will lead you.