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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

So, crank open that hatch. Breathe some fresh air. Go. Live your life.

Love and Monsters (2020) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, Michael Matthews goes some way towards rehabilitating a title that seemed forever doomed to horrific associations with one of the worst Russell T Davies Doctor Who stories (and labelling it one of his worst is really saying something). Love and Monsters delivers that rarity, an upbeat apocalypse, so going against the prevailing trend of not only the movie genre but also real life.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.