This is the thread where we discuss matters pertaining to the detrius that accompanies the "End of the Year in Cinema" -- 2018

Zama worked so well in part for me because Martel's own comments about the movie and what it was up to (especially its looking to depict the ambient banality/quiet absurdity of life under colonial rule, rather than depicting it as some sort of overwhelmingly oppressive terror or a torturefest) were so illuminating

ZAMA brings off its ambiguities better than BURNING did.

i think the llamas should get some awards

between that and the big dog in claire's camera, a good year for scene stealing animals

Add 24 Frames to that list.

many xps - i said armond's work for the NR is more tedious than offensive, and he said "Keep reading. You might learn something..."

Yeah, condescension is his long suit.

Paraphrasing but Lee Chang-Dong talked about how he wanted to sneak all the great questions and mysteries of the world, the issues young people are facing, into Burning, and I felt that, but it's part of what makes it a little difficult to talk about. It suggests truths and lies around us, and it's hard to grasp with words. And so rather than its themes I focus on the unbelievable atmosphere, the humming rhythm of it, the likability of the three main characters and the great lines the actors deliver so well.

Hopefully I can get to watch it sometime.

i was happy to see that in the NYT Mag's big spread on the year's best actors, they chose the OTHER guy in Burning (whose name few can remember, including me). Just as crucial and a more subtle, difficult role.

I don't dislike Burning, but that anyone can find the characters likable is a bigger mystery to me than anything in the film.

There are no likeable characters in arthouse cinema - haven't you noticed this?

i mean except for the llama

who finds them likable? the 3 main ones are all maladjusted at best.

the two men are sociopaths

I should say, the likability of the performances. Or the sheen of likability about both Ben and Haemi, with disturbances beneath the surface. Jongsu is in some permanent funk, but there's still the fumbling suggestion of someone likable, for a while. Then, not anymore.

I don't dislike Burning, but that anyone can find the characters likable is a bigger mystery to me than anything in the film.

― Frederik B,

I'm not seeing this? Steven Yeun made his empty vessel Gatsby fascinating. It could be I have a fascination with these types.

I find it very hard to discuss this without spoiling the film, but it seems like there's a pretty major plot point people are ignoring...

I can't believe Alfred doesn't think the Yeun character is a sociopath. He spells it out in his own dialogue.

Better: Ben wants Jongsu to think he's a bad ass/sociopath.

It's not what he says, it's what he does

...and ppl disagree on what he does offscreen

Lol. People are stupid.

I'm curious to know what the notionally ignored plot point is.

All the signs point in one direction, but I guess that explains why people think the film is 'mysterious'.

It doesn't matter.

Lol

fwiw Yeun said that Lee told him to decide for himself whether his character did X, and not to tell him.

so shove it, Fred

None of the damning implications about Korean society makes sense without X, and it says so much about how far western film critic society has their heads up their asses that they just go 'it doesn't matter'.

I'll defer to you, Korean sociologist.

so I assume Slant is unveiling Friday -- Indiewire too?

I'll defer to you, Korean sociologist.

― Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), 12. december 2018 23:13 (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, what a strange idea, being a film critic and delving into the context of a film I'm reviewing.

Is there a reason why you're so unpleasant or is it a aggro straight guy thing? We don't agree about a film's conclusion. Big deal.

Dude.

I don't mean to be unpleasant, but if you think this plotpoint doesn't matter, and if you don't care about what the film says about Korean society, you're a shit film critic. Sorry, but that's how I feel. I guess we don't agree about film criticism, then. Big deal?

How'd you reach the conclusion that I "don't care about what the film says about Korean society"?

This banter reminds me of my humanities professor when asked about The Simpsons: "It's a serious comment on the American scene." So are the proliferation of CVS and Dunkin Donuts.

Anyway, despite your intemperate and boorish howling, Violet Lucca made your point several months ago with more finesse:

Still, Jongsoo’s dedication to proving Ben has done something to Haemi also establishes him as the rich man’s foil. Like the U.S., Korean society puts a great deal of value on hard work—it’s a positive trait that’s supposedly rewarded with money and security—which makes Ben’s aloofness and “playing” worthy of punishment on some level. It’s the same sense of a natural social order that should allow Jongsoo and Haemi to be more successful than their own parents, as their parents were more successful than theirs. Instead, the little and great hungers eat away at them, pushing them toward even greater extremes: more debt, more doubt, more malice.

You don't think that's a stupid and poor-shaming reading of the film?

Do go on.

Paju province is a complete dead end. Haemi is not some especially 'hungry' person, she is a victim of regional inequality that wages everything on becoming an idol, and ends up as a 'barn'. And damn right Jongsoo and Haemi should be more succesful than their parents, South Korea was basically governed by the military until 1993 (making it a pretty dark subject where Ben inherited his money from). They are the first generation born in freedom. Lucca is interpolating the US unto Korea instead of delving into the context.

not really sure how that contradicts lucca's take

It's like watching 'Do the Right Thing' and thinking it's about how people should do what the police says.

Also, it's just wrong. Jongsoo spends a lot of time thinking Ben burns barns, because Ben claims he burns barns. Jongsoo only becomes 'conspiratorial' after he finds pretty strong signs that something conspiratorial has happened. This is just a fact, plain and simple. There's not a single indication that he thinks otherwise before he has reason to think otherwise. Not a single one.

have had to skip over the last 30+ posts so Burning isn't spoiled for me

Yeah, sorry, we should have made a different thread.

Lucca is interpolating the US unto Korea instead of delving into the context.

a lesson to learn when you dive into the U.S. politics thread.

That might be the dumbest thing you've written yet.

Fred, go to lunch

preferably a hemlock souffle