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

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

My only objection is that we don't talk seriously about movies on the detrius thread. It's just not done.

I created these threads so I could enjoy movies in the least-intellectual, most frivolous manner possible.

shh!

hello!

BURNING (dir. Lee Chang-dong, 2018) - Murakami adaptation feat. Yoo Ah-in, Steven Yeun, and Jeon Jong-seo

xp not sure what you mean by that

I'm not minding the discussion of Burning, just skipping it

KU's tie at the top is sure to please all

https://www.keithuhlich.com/2018/12/10-for-2018-introduction-list.html

Simply the best.

he has the courage of his convictions, that's for sure

ayyyy La Flor!

KU likes If Beale Street, which counts as "a remembrance of things past stagnating at the level of storyboard/previz"

he has the courage of his convictions, that's for sure

Honestly the only thing I care about in my critics.

what's this guy's deal with women, or possibly writers? The Favourite is "rancidly homophobic" on the part of the male director, not the female writer, a bunch of actresses are credited for directing a film that had some improvised dialogue, and the first X-Files in 200+ episodes written by women gets credited to the now-extremely-bad male writer who started the show 23 years ago

Eric knows him better than i do, he could ask.

He mentioned he deliberately intended to credit directors and show creators for TV-based list entries ... but let's be honest, authorship is a moving target in some of these cases in the first place, no matter how much we've tried to force the role of show runner into some kind of Sarris-approved auteurist reading. And I don't think it's unsavory to point out the communication the past and present are having with each other when it comes to TV reboots.

I haven't watched the new X-Files myself, so I can't speak to whether he was right or wrong to credit Chris Carter. But he told me he intends to give credit to the show's writers (many female) in a longer write-up.

The Favourite, otoh, he believes to be homophobic specifically because of how Lanthimos directs it, not how it was written.