love

Author Topic: Parasite  (Read 5455 times)

Will

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 912
  • Justice for Elijah McClain
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Parasite
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2020, 01:02:10 PM »
Maybe you can enjoy it on a purely visceral level. That would be my only problem with the film. However, I would argue that if it dipped more into its intentions, it would be vulnerable to becoming a didactic mess (not unlike KNIVES OUT which has far less of an ambitious scope and still fails). It's a tricky wire to walk.

Perhaps humans lack the same amount of empathy in socialist or communist societies, but the point remains that the main focus of capitalism isn't the laborer but the labor. At the root of capitalism is to attain labor for cheaper and cheaper until the laborer works for free. But when everything is replaced by automation, what happens to the laborer? That's a question capitalism doesn't have an answer for because it, by design, doesn't need an answer for it. In this sense, capitalism is ultimately a suicidal ideology for the working class. There are flaws with communist or socialist societies, no doubt, but the reason they exist is to put the impetus back on the laborer, not the labor.


Do the poor in the film demonstrate empathy and kindness or do you see their lack of it just a response to the capitalistic system?


The latter.

The father offers empathy and kindness in the form of trying to relate to the rich dad several times. The rich dad rebuffs him and reminds him that their relationship is pure transaction. This is but one of many small details that the rich family does not care to treat them with empathy or kindness. They can be nice, as the daughter states, because they're rich. But they're not nice. They're just polite. Empathy and kindness are commodities that are far too expensive for them.

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Parasite
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2020, 11:03:04 PM »
Maybe you can enjoy it on a purely visceral level. That would be my only problem with the film.

I am assuming this part if responding to the comment about the ability of rich people to enjoy the film.  It just seems presumptuous to dismiss that the Rich can’t enjoy or understand the film given that the film, It is not like the director and some of the actors are not themselves in a similar class themselves.  Or many other musicians and artists that may promote similar themes. 

I may get around to responding to the other comments later or after a rewatch. Though they maybe better in a non-movie thread if they are less about the film itself and more about the virtues and evils of capitalism and socialism. 
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

Will

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 912
  • Justice for Elijah McClain
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Parasite
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2020, 12:18:52 AM »
I'm sure some people can enjoy THE BIRTH OF A NATION on a visceral level too. Doesn't make it any less fascist.

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Parasite
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2020, 02:39:27 AM »
I'm sure some people can enjoy THE BIRTH OF A NATION on a visceral level too. Doesn't make it any less fascist.

I think maybe I mistook your overall point and opinion on the film.  I assume you don't like the film at all and believe fails in what ever message that you think it is trying to deliver between the classes?  So it really has nothing to do with the film can't be enjoyed or properly understood by people of Wealth? 





"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Parasite
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2020, 09:53:26 PM »
Do the poor in the film demonstrate empathy and kindness or do you see their lack of it just a response to the capitalistic system?

This is one of THE questions when it comes to the social commentary in the film. Everything pre-deluge, especially as the Kims scheme their way into the Parks' service, shows a family that believes in "plans", essentially that they can rise in the system. (Interestingly, the promise of education hasn't helped them in this pursuit.) If you buy into free market capitalism, whether you're one of its elites or not, empathy is a luxury you can't afford. I think a big part of this film is not "kill the rich" or a deep-seated misanthropy, but an illustration of the folly of trying to get ahead in a system that is rigged against you. You can get educated. You can be smart and cunning and possess all of the other valuable attributes to get ahead, but more than likely, if you start poor, you can scratch and claw but you'll more than likely remain in the same place. The deluge was a stark reminder of how vulnerable you are when you live payday-to-payday and have accumulated no wealth to speak of. That's when the joke ceases to be funny, and the audience and the Kims come to a reckoning.

At the same time, the actual parasite living in the concrete shelter is perhaps colored as the most contemptible of all. He has a strange god-like worship of the Park patriarch and absolutely no drive or sense of agency. That's why Kim Ki-taek ending up in that position is such a huge blow, imo. And, of course, the film ends with Kim Ki-woo's dream of working hard, getting money, and purchasing the house in order to liberate his father, a pipe dream that's even a bigger blow considering how the myth of hard work leading to upward mobility has already been crushed in the film.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Parasite
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2020, 06:05:04 PM »
Do the poor in the film demonstrate empathy and kindness or do you see their lack of it just a response to the capitalistic system?

This is one of THE questions when it comes to the social commentary in the film. Everything pre-deluge, especially as the Kims scheme their way into the Parks' service, shows a family that believes in "plans", essentially that they can rise in the system. (Interestingly, the promise of education hasn't helped them in this pursuit.) If you buy into free market capitalism, whether you're one of its elites or not, empathy is a luxury you can't afford. I think a big part of this film is not "kill the rich" or a deep-seated misanthropy, but an illustration of the folly of trying to get ahead in a system that is rigged against you. You can get educated. You can be smart and cunning and possess all of the other valuable attributes to get ahead, but more than likely, if you start poor, you can scratch and claw but you'll more than likely remain in the same place. The deluge was a stark reminder of how vulnerable you are when you live payday-to-payday and have accumulated no wealth to speak of. That's when the joke ceases to be funny, and the audience and the Kims come to a reckoning.

At the same time, the actual parasite living in the concrete shelter is perhaps colored as the most contemptible of all. He has a strange god-like worship of the Park patriarch and absolutely no drive or sense of agency. That's why Kim Ki-taek ending up in that position is such a huge blow, imo. And, of course, the film ends with Kim Ki-woo's dream of working hard, getting money, and purchasing the house in order to liberate his father, a pipe dream that's even a bigger blow considering how the myth of hard work leading to upward mobility has already been crushed in the film.

Had a second watch and I can see Bondo’s point

A few observations.. as you mention, that are smart and cunning and posses all the attributes that they could get ahead. But I think he fails to show that if you start of poor, you will always be poor. They never indicate that they family tried to make their situation better by any real honest effort. They manipulate and scheme their way into the jobs, they have no regards to replace other people in similar positions, The boy is first gets the job through the trust of his friend, knowing his friends intentions/relationship with the girl but moves in on the girl anyway, they openly mock the family they work for, they miss treat the dog when they are taking advantage of their house, they poor water and video guy outside their house when he pees in the alley, etc

The myth of hard work is never demonstrated as they never try to do anything honest at all or have any empathy for others (if you dismiss that poor can’t have empathy since they can’t afford it).

Eventually the two poor families end up in a battle for survival, not really to keep the bottom rung on the ladder just to keep them out of a likely having to go to jail.

I haven’t read any interview from Bong Joon Ho so have no idea if he has talked about the themes, or if people in Korea have the same take on the film as it has taken on here, Oddly, Korea is an example of where lots of families were able to claw their way out of poverty by concentrating on education and working very hard (working for a Korean company, even outside of Korea is quite difficult) but it probably gets harder as they grow wealthier and now they face the middle class stagnating. 

But if this is the main theme that we should take away from the film, I think I understand why Bondo thinks it fails. 
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Parasite
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2020, 07:46:29 PM »
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...
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 08:20:20 PM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Parasite
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2020, 09:27:40 PM »
The funny thing is that they are proficient in their jobs and possible that if they kept realistic expectations, it would have been enough to get ahead, they may have. But there is a certain amount of envy and a condescending attitude towards those that they were working that did them in. They quickly abused those position the first chance they had once the Parks went out of town that then starts the downward spiral to the end.

Don’t get me wrong though, it is still one of my top films and you are probably correct about the social critique which allows the conversation in the end.
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

 

love