Skip to main content

Leave it open, we'll get free fumigation.

Parasite
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I had the ending of Parasite spoiled for me before seeing the film – it was difficult to avoid, given the time that has passed since its US release. Albeit, more in terms of the manner in which violence suddenly erupts than the specifics of who perpetrates it. Some of these mentions alluded to it coming out of nowhere, and thus being tonally inconsistent with the picture. It’s a view I can’t really get on board with, except in so much as there’s nothing so graphic hitherto. Otherwise, though, there’s an air of foreboding and dread running through at least the latter half of the film, however leavened it as points by Bong Joon-ho’s satirical swipes.

Has Parasite been overpraised? Probably, but that’s rarely not the case with a Best Picture Oscar winner (or nominee, come to that). More impressive is that a film so atypical of standard Oscar fare got within a sniff of the prize, let alone waltzed off with it. Sure, the Academy has swung the way of (broad) satire before, most notably with American Beauty this century (well, by a whisker; it was given the statuette in 2000). And sure, Bong’s tendency towards Hitchcockian suspense sweetens the pill. But there’s an unease at the heart of Parasite that’s much less common to feted fare, a sense of how the flames of social fragmentation, as depicted in this microcosm, might be fanned and suddenly explode into mayhem, given the right ingredients, and thus how the bastions of Hollywood themselves, in their ivory towers, might be infiltrated and suddenly dispatched. Perhaps the Academy thought, if they looked poverty in the eye, it will shrink away from them.

The satire in Parasite isn’t actually all that sharp, but it undoubtedly sustains itself much more effectively than the clumsy gesturing of Bong’s most recent efforts, Snowpiercer and Okja. I was expecting – dreading slightly – this film to follow course, and in its early stages, it does rather have a sense of an Ealing comedy by way of Mike Leigh. The Kim family are introduced as indolent types most obsessed with how they’re going to get decent (free) wi-fi signals and avoid habitual drunks pissing outside their window. But once son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-shik) gains entry to the affluent Park household, posing as a university student so as to tutor their daughter Da-hye (Jung Ji-so), the rest of the family quickly follow suit in inveigling themselves, as art therapist (Park So-dam’s daughter Ki-jung) for haunted son Da-song (Jung Hyeon-jun), driver (Song Kang-ho’s father Ki-taek) for dad Dong-ik (Lee Sun-Kyun) and family housekeeper (Jang Hye-junn as mother Chung-sook).

It’s thus a determinedly heightened mood Bong is inviting, one that resists too much probing analysis (the question of why they the Kims Lee Jung-eun’s original housekeeper Gook Moon-gwang in on that fateful evening is really as unrefined as: because there wouldn’t be a movie, or at least not one with such perverse twists, if they didn’t). The essential thesis, when, as is noted at one point, there are hundreds of job applications just for a menial position, is that all it takes is that one stroke of opportunity to show what the downtrodden are capable of (Bong flirts with a talismanic piece of rock as a harbinger for their success, only to reject its properties).

That said, Bong’s approach does, at times, reminds me of Leigh’s self-righteousness, where we’re supposed to empathise with the protagonists as actual people (who, thoroughly unscrupulous as they are, are crucially a family who spend time together and enjoy each other’s company) while the one-percent parasites are ignorant, bigoted fools who deserve what they get. Which is a take, but it’s a less than nuanced one. There’s no effort to by Bong to get to know the Parks, except in as much as they reflect the Kims, and in particular, the manner in which Dong-ik motivates Ki-taek.

That’s also true of the reveal that Moon-gwang’s husband Oh Geun-saw (Park Myung-hoon) has been living secretly in the Park’s underground bunker for the past five years. It’s a very literal depiction of the rich blithely living off the poor, imprisoning the poor, and then, the poor turning against each other in violence for the scraps left them by the rich. Again, it’s the visualisation here that carries the power, rather than the somewhat rote subtext; the very thing of the vast, unknown underground basement lends the proceedings an unsettling air, one that might be even more pungent if we were encouraged to see the Parks as human beings too.

I wasn’t entirely convinced of the necessity of Parasite’s epilogue. On the one hand, it provides the neat circularity of Ki-taek becoming the prisoner in the basement, now serving a self-imposed sentence for murder (notably, a murder committed by a man aware of his own emasculation, as his wife jokingly points out about him at one point, and as he – scarily – jokily acknowledges). On the other, it further emphasises the almost fantastical remove the picture is capable of, with its unlikely Morse code messages, both sent and received, and a new family taking over the Park house without – presumably – bothering, or the estate agents bothering, to glance at its architectural plans. There’s also that Ki-woo’s impossible dream is a little too routine. Mostly, though, I felt Bong was tying everything up too thoroughly, so allowing the impact of the climactic birthday party to dissipate.

And as is often the case, I came away convinced Bong is a better director than writer; he’s a top-flight genre director, and only a so-so social commentator. Fortunately, here the two dovetail much more effectively than in the last few efforts. The scene of the flood and its fallout, contrasted with the Parks’ oblivious luxury is perfectly rendered, while his execution of the suspense/comedy sequences prior to that (the Kims hiding under the coffee table, the slapstick of Chung-sook pushing Moon-gwang down the bunker steps) is masterful. And ultimately, Parasite makes for an unusual Oscar winner, not just for being – to Donald’s chagrin – one not in the English language, but also as the one that most deserved the prize out of the contenders.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.