I think my analysis on the social critique ended up in the trap of a lot of this conversation, and that's on the belief that this film only exists as a social critique. I simply think the social critique there is, is on the folly of ever trying to get ahead in a capitalist system. If Bong's critique was more incisive or heavy-handed (and thus fall into the boxes some of you seem to wish he'd fallen into for sake of tidy analysis), he'd risk both the ambiguity that allows us to have this conversation, as well as the human drama and comedy that are more universal.
Just wanted to add, though I'm falling back into the conversation on strictly the social question: I was not trying to claim that the Kims did anything honestly, but certainly they got into their positions using cunning, which one could argue is as valuable if not more in a capitalist system, and once they got there they did their jobs proficiently. Getting into those positions is, for the Kims, getting ahead. It's far beyond folding pizza boxes for money. They do not need to aspire to become the Parks to aspire toward upward mobility. But once they all have gainful employment, the taint of being underclass remains, in this case in their scent. Even the Park father, in perhaps the only thing that comes close to heavy-handed, pontificates on the virtue of the underclass not becoming overly familiar with those above them. OK, OK...not that discussion isn't valuable or that I'm not taking in other perspectives...I'm just getting caught in the weeds again, though...