Your take on Spring, Summer is a very simplistic, two sentence dismisal, and your review of Address Unknown is downright harsh. Spring, Summer is absolutely gorgeous, nobody can film nature like Kim Ki Duk. The changing of the seasons and the routines of the floating temple are some of the most beautiful images ever recorded on film. The story is simple and beautiful, one of the best depictions of the universal religious theme of fall and redemption, death and rebirth, one that is as Christian or Hindu as it is Buddhist. As for Kim's view of sexuality, I dont think one should use personal politics as a prism through which to judge films.
Address Unknown is more difficult to defend despite it being among my favorites. By far one of his most drab films, it still contians some beautiful images. The making of the gun, a girl walking on a long road when suddenly a company of soldiers scurries behind her. A dead man buaried upside down to his shoulders in a frozen field. I love the way the movie showed the differing ways in which war devastated the lives of all those involved. From the one eyed girl, to the hatefilled mixed race youth, to the single mother, and the family whose father died in the war, and finally the American soldier, all owe their misery to the war. An antiwar film that shows the lingering effects of war on those that survived it, not many such films I can think off. Criticing the American soldier is unfair, he cant act, but Kim Ki Duk doesnt speak English and had no way of directing him.
Thanks for the response. It actually re-enforces my view of Kim, since it shows we have very different perspectives on art and this accounts for our differing opinions of this director.
I do not think politics can, or better yet should, be divorced from art, and furthermore I'm not convinced that it ever really is, even by those who claim they can separate them. For example, you praise ADDRESS UNKNOWN for its antiwar message and for how it shows the devastation of war on all involved. How is this not political? I should also add that a consider form to be as political as content, and it is Kim's form more than his content that I find regressive.
The "beauty" and "universality" (a very suspect term, in my opinion) of SPRING, SUMMER ... is part of its reactionary sexual politics. The decision by Kim to present the American characters in ADDRESS UNKNOWN despite a lack of knowledge of English shows the schematic nature of all of the characters and Kim's treatment of them. The manipulation of the film reminded me of fascist filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl, another director who not coincidentally was also praised for her beauty and who wanted her art to be divorced from politics. It was this manipulation that caused me to have no emotional reaction to the characters and their plight, because they came across as "emotion and political delivery devices" (to paraphrase Sam) than actual characters.
My reaction to Kim is similar to some left-wing critics of Michael Moore. These critics agree with Moore's message but are offended by his methods, finding them as reactionary as those on the right. Similarly, I found the description of ADDRESS UNKNOWN potentially very interesting, and I think a director like Lee Chang-dong could have done something great with this material. It's Kim style and approach, not necessarily his content, that I dislike.
Don't think THE ISLE would change my view, if I do return to Kim's films it would more likely be through his more recent films. I am still intrigued by the possibility that I am missing something, especially upon reading that the "Buddhism" of SPRING, SUMMER.. was largely made up by Kim, who was actually raised Christian. Maybe there's some greater irony that I'm missing. But as for the emotional response some people get from his work, it's not to my sensibility.