The Official Movie Thread

[Einherjar86]

Spoiler

I assumed you meant "returned" in a permanent context since they clearly "return home" every day. Murder referred to the climax of the film, when they are finally "returned" to the slums.

Spoiler

I did mean permanently. The flood is more consequential than the maid's murder in forcing them to return home.

Spoiler

I've said before that since the family places highest of weight on reference rather than anything else, the deception to jump-start the family was from the friend, not the son. Once the son recruits his sister is when the film begins to encapsulate the greed theme.

Spoiler

So let me get this straight:

When the family invents the deception themselves, it matters; but when the idea is someone else's, it doesn't? The son's initial deception is insignificant because he didn't come up with it himself?

Talk about denying characters agency.

Spoiler

k so quit repeating your poor word choice? Forced is not correct and is used because of your bias. Yes I agree it's about "can", which is why I keep calling greed the prevailing and dominant theme.

Spoiler

I said they're forced to do what they did if they wanted to enjoy the luxuries of the Parks' wealth--not that they're forced to behave that way no matter what. I stand by my word choice. If they wanted to gain entry to the house and enjoy its luxuries, then they had to act deceptively. That's what the film suggests, through and through.

Spoiler

This is irrelevant. To argue that the film is about the greed inherent in a material/capitalist system, the underlying point must be that the there is a choice. You deny choice with forced.
Parasite does literally the opposite of forced. There are no excuses in the film, only repercussions.

Spoiler

They do make a choice; but the film is saying something about the choice they made, which is that it was necessary to make if they wanted to enjoy the Parks' wealth. So in that particular sense, they were forced to act that way--which is what I've been arguing.

Spoiler

You're not following your own argument. I said, from the beginning, the rock exists as a critique on Asian/Korean cultural beliefs that a rock can somehow improve your life's luck/fortune/whatever. You say no, it's hollow & is emblematic of the rise and fall of the family. You've then shifted from the hollow position, which is where this discussion started, to simply say "it's how the family perceives their financial windfall". Which has not been in contention

Spoiler

I am following my own argument, you're just incapable of human communication.

The Kims (or at least the father and son) see the rock as a mystical artifact--i.e. "Asian bullshit." This artifact promises good fortune--i.e. upward social mobility. The father and son perceive the rock as promising this, and treat it as such; but it doesn't deliver them good fortune--hence its mystical qualities are false (or, hollow, empty, void) as is the Kims' upward social mobility. These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

All the Kims are able to achieve is temporary luxury through deception. The father and son likely see the rock as responsible for this, but their eventual expulsion from the house (or isolation in the basement) reveal the rock's powerlessness.

Spoiler

Do i need to repeat everything so you can follow along? You are ignoring the dominant korean aspect of the film because you want to frame Parasite as a capitalist film when it is in fact korean.

Spoiler

Because it can't possibly be both of those things.

 

[CiG]

Not really convinced by this idea that Parasite is some uniquely/distinctly Korean film. Its context is Korean but it's absolutely a universal film because its subject is class, and can be applied across cultures with very little tweaking.

 

[RadicalThrasher]

Tonight

Spoiler

 

[Slammed]

^ I saw the preview for that a few weeks ago. Looks fucken weird. Interested to hear how it is.

 

[CiG]

Be a shame if it got too hyped and talked about, then you'd be forced to avoid it.

 

[Slammed]

It's not like Star Wars, there is no 'force' to be worried about, it's completely selective. But rest assured if RT offers a review in 20 posts I wont be watching it.

 

[CiG]

I hope he does now.

 

[Slammed]

Yeah go on RT, do it!

 

[CiG]

 

[RadicalThrasher]

A little later tonight

Spoiler

 

[RadicalThrasher]

^ I saw the preview for that a few weeks ago. Looks fucken weird. Interested to hear how it is.

Ha definitely fucking weird. Cross john carpenter's the thing with some cosmic horror and nicholas cage and this is what you get.

 

[Slammed]

For some reason I expect that from Cage these days

 

[RadicalThrasher]

For some reason I expect that from Cage these days

His performance in this matched the rest of the insanity happening in this movie. He was born for a role like this

 

[Slayed Necros]

Watching

 

[CiG]

NW:

 

[Einherjar86]

A little later tonight

Spoiler

Classic campy noir. I still love this movie despite its numerous flaws.

 

[rms]

Not really convinced by this idea that Parasite is some uniquely/distinctly Korean film. Its context is Korean but it's absolutely a universal film because its subject is class, and can be applied across cultures with very little tweaking.

Class is universal, Korean framing of class is Korean. To cast aside/ignore the Korean aspects of the film (when the director himself said he thought the film was too Korean) is in the face of how the film was made and the director's vision.

And the dominant point of discussion of how this film was viewed more universal/western was fabricated in the tweet and Ein's head. There is literally no evidence to support the position and in fact several instances to convincingly counter it, yet it persists. Of course the film can be both, and I have only challenged framing the film in a western lense, which I think the tweet and Ein has.

Spoiler

I did mean permanently. The flood is more consequential than the maid's murder in forcing them to return home.

They left the home because the family returned from their camping trip. They had no idea their home was being flooded when the family returned home. They came back to work the next day so it wasn't permanent. Your confidence of the events in the film, even as shown to be incorrect, has not wavered.

When the family invents the deception themselves, it matters; but when the idea is someone else's, it doesn't? The son's initial deception is insignificant because he didn't come up with it himself?

Yes, I think that's a significant difference in the deception in the film. The son didn't just "go along" (to deny agency) nor was he against deceiving the family. But, I think there is a clear and significant difference between the justification of the friend to deceive the family (to protect her virginity) versus

The father and son likely see the rock as responsible for this, but their eventual expulsion from the house (or isolation in the basement) reveal the rock's powerlessness.

this is such a leap from anything demonstrated in the film that I don't know why I continued with this. I am starting to think this is what Parasite looks to you at this point, with the rock:

 

[Einherjar86]

Class is universal, Korean framing of class is Korean. To cast aside/ignore the Korean aspects of the film (when the director himself said he thought the film was too Korean) is in the face of how the film was made and the director's vision.

And the dominant point of discussion of how this film was viewed more universal/western was fabricated in the tweet and Ein's head. There is literally no evidence to support the position and in fact several instances to convincingly counter it, yet it persists. Of course the film can be both, and I have only challenged framing the film in a western lense, which I think the tweet and Ein has.

Haruki Murakami is a Japanese writer, so it only makes sense to consider the Japanese context. But he's also a globally conscious and globally-read writer, and his novels can't be separated from his knowledge of and engagement with non-Japanese sources.

Likewise, BJ-h is a Korean director, and so it makes sense to consider the context of Korean classism and poverty; but he's also a globally conscious and globally-watched filmmaker, and his films can't be separated from his knowledge of and engagement with non-Korean sources.

The Korean class context is emblematic of BJ-h's views on global capital. There is plenty of evidence to support that.

Spoiler

They left the home because the family returned from their camping trip. They had no idea their home was being flooded when the family returned home.

Spoiler

That doesn't contradict what I said, you jackass.

The rain cancelled the Parks' trip, so the Parks returned home; the Parks returned home, so the Kims had to leave. All of this revolves around the rain/flood. They could have killed the maid and still stayed in the house.

Spoiler

Yes, I think that's a significant difference in the deception in the film. The son didn't just "go along" (to deny agency) nor was he against deceiving the family. But, I think there is a clear and significant difference between the justification of the friend to deceive the family (to protect her virginity) versus

Spoiler

This is a totally arbitrary distinction and carries virtually no water. The son didn't come up with it because he wasn't in the position to; his participation in the scheme has more material significance than his lack of planning.

Spoiler

this is such a leap from anything demonstrated in the film that I don't know why I continued with this. I am starting to think this is what Parasite looks to you at this point, with the rock:

It's literally what the film shows us. But okay, fine. Let's call this, shall we? You're not budging and neither am I.

 

[CiG]

Class is universal, Korean framing of class is Korean. To cast aside/ignore the Korean aspects of the film (when the director himself said he thought the film was too Korean) is in the face of how the film was made and the director's vision.

You're overstating the Korean-ness of Parasite. The universal subtext transcends the cultural minutiae on the surface. It's a not uncommon worry that a film is too specific to a culture, Australia for many years openly worried about whether its films were "too Australian" but it's an absurd thing to worry about if your goal is storytelling.

 

[challenge_everything]

The story of Parasite could be easily transposed into any Western country anyway.