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

intheblanks, you did notice there was a litter box filled with cat shit, right?

FWIW, re the ambiguity of what Ben is or isn't, there *is* a definitive answer, according to Yeun, it's just that only he and Lee Chang-Dong know it and he is sworn to secrecy. :)

this is a Murakami adaptation though, a certain amount of magical realism is to be expected. I didn't think the cat shit made the film any less ambiguous, in fact that whole part of the movie where Jongsu is cleaning an absent woman's apartment echoed Synecdoche, New York - so I don't think things that would be concrete proof in another movie necessarily have the same effect here.

xp

xp Yeah, of course I did, I never said Haemi didn't have a cat. I said that Lee intentionally doesn't show the cat in the early scenes in order to introduce uncertainty around the cat in the later scenes.

i'm not even arguing that the "ben is a serial killer" thing is wrong, it just seems odd to deny that the director intentionally makes it foggy

did anyone else notice how the music goes from non-diegetic to diegetic during the sunset scene? right before Haemi starts dancing, the jazz score suddenly sounds like it's coming from a car or an overhead speaker

like, there's another way to look at the film where a guy is increasingly and dangerously detached from the world around him--he's jobless and without prospects, he is losing his only family member to prison, he pushes away the person closest to him by calling her a whore, and is just increasingly unhinged. And he ends up concoct an elaborate conspiracy theory about this rich asshole who has this friction-free life, and who is incredibly easy to resent. So he murders him.

There's just nothing to indicate that Jong-soo concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory. Nothing. It's not in the film. It's just making things up to say so. He's intrigued because Ben says he burns barns, then he begins to suspect Ben is lying about burning barns, then he finds strong indications that Ben is a serial killer.

The short story can be read here, btw: https://www.mrflamm.com/uploads/2/2/0/0/2200902/barnburningbyharukimurakami.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0kDGX2j5oTA26gJTObgbv58F2UwOpwe63S3oJ9M2EXW7CCCkkTKhes3PE

i don't know, he murders Ben because Ben has the watch of an ex-girlfriend, and because he believes but can't really confirm with certainty that Ben also has Haemi's cat. Also because he heard Haemi have some sort of (maybe) fight with someone on the phone. Those aren't strong indicators to me, and more likely evidence of an increasingly delusional character, but ymmv.

Admittedly, I haven't read the story, so I'm only going on the film here.

But then what do you think happened to Haemi, and the cat for that sake? Who cleaned the flat? Why didn't a barn burn? And how did Ben get the watch? There's a simple explanation for everything in this movie, and it's you're prerogative to not believe that, but the film is only mysterious if you decide not to believe it.

The other thing, btw, is that IF Lee Chang-dong made a film where whether or not a bunch of young women are killed is just a mystery to be embraced, then that's the oldest cliché in the book, it's sexist bullshit, and it's awful that the film world is falling for that. And the implications for the film world holds true, since apparently a lot of people really do believe that, and still love the film. But that's not what Burning is. There's one story that makes everything makes sense it's just that the story - this charming man is hurting women - is one we still don't want to believe. It's not mystery against mystery, it's mystery against taboo. It's a bit like in L'Avventura, where there is a pretty reasonable and prosaic explanation for Anna's disappearance - she is depressed and commits suicide - and not anything that really speaks against it, it's just that the taboo against suicide is so strong, and the willingness to hope for her survival even stronger, that it seems otherwise.

Anna's suicide in L'Avventura, which was my conclusion twenty years ago, seemed less ambiguous based on her character as written and the actress' performance.

Who cleaned the flat?

Who did? I honestly don't know.

accept the mystery

― devvvine, Thursday, December 13, 2018 7:58 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the awesomeness of this post needs to be acknowledged

xp i'm pretty mixed on the film; honestly i'm more inclined to agree with the "IF" analysis you say Burning isn't. I found the performances great, and the gradual build-up in sinister mood, as well as the direction in key scenes to be outstanding. That said, at a certain point I started to feel I was watching another Vertigo homage, mixed with some L'Avventura and Blow-Up/The Conversation for good measure, where there is this obsessive search by the deeply troubled man for the mystery of what happened to this woman. Obviously I'm painting those films, which I truly love, with an EXTREMELY broad brush. I'm just saying there's a tiredness to seeing that thematic ground covered yet again. I don't think that's all there is in the film, but my feelings were, ahem, ambiguous.

And for what it's worth, I don't doubt the serial killer thing because Ben is so "charming." From his introduction, he's an unlikable asshole. And I must say, commending Lee for avoiding a tired, sexist cliche in favor of the so very not cliched "serial killer" plotline is a take I wouldn't have come up with.

Well, I just got that take accepted as a paid assignment, so...

https://media.giphy.com/media/D16XHdsB1PBxm/giphy.gif

Congrats, good luck with the piece

Will this be in English?

Oh no, only in Danish. And I'm not going to write it until spring, so it's a long time away.

It's not like he just forgot to show the cat.

As with pantomime, you just have to forget that it's *not* there.

There's just nothing to indicate that Jong-soo concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory. Nothing. It's not in the film.

This is heavily underscored as very possible--see my above post!

One other odd element that doesn't really fit: right before Ben is stabbed he asks where Haemi is.

It's a bit like in L'Avventura, where there is a pretty reasonable and prosaic explanation for Anna's disappearance - she is depressed and commits suicide - and not anything that really speaks against it, it's just that the taboo against suicide is so strong, and the willingness to hope for her survival even stronger, that it seems otherwise.

hyper-literally solving the mysteries of deliberately ambiguous narratives is massive point missing.

UK release date is Feb 1st.

xp in the text message that summoned him there, the main character claimed he found Haemi. id have to watch it again but i think it's... ambiguous... as to whether that mean he found her dead or alive

Regardless of the realities of Ben, it's pretty key, as mentioned above, that Jongsu is shown as having troubled and problematic ideas of who and what Hae-mi is. Both director Lee and his co-screenwriter have mentioned the moment when he calls Hae-mi a whore. The film would be pretty lame if Jongsu finished the story off heroically ending the life of the woman killer Ben. Jongsu is also bad news, in a different way.

"I also wanted to make it clear that the emotions and the thoughts that Jong-su has may not be right. I wanted the audience to sort of feel that doubt and suspicion, and be aware of how unreliable this character may be. For example, when Hae-mi dances against the sunset, afterwards Jong-su tells her that she's a whore. In other scenes Jong-su shows a very passive attitude, and even in the last scene, where he commits the murder — that may or may not have been a part of reality, but I wanted the audience to follow Jong-su's narrative and put themselves in his perspective and feel his confusion and emotions, but at the same time distance themselves and look at him critically."

Yeah it's not clear at all to me that Ben is a serial killer - all the evidence against him is circumstantial. You can't even know for sure that his cat = Haemi's cat! It's equally likely that this is a story that Jongsu wants to believe, because it fits with his suspicions about the Bens/Gatsbys of the world.

Like so much of this movie is about Jongsu's insecurities and barely concealed rage - whether directed at women like Haemi, at Ben, at his inability to write like Faulkner, or at his father, and it all comes spilling out at the end.

i felt that Ben was definitely a serial killer but yeah, the movie gives more attention to Jongu's story as you outline

Roz OTM - the evidence all points clearly towards Ben, but said evidence is entirely circumstantial, and the entirety of the ending tips toward highlighting how unbalanced the person analysing that evidence is.

Lee will be appearing at MoMA's 6-film retro of his work in 3 weeks. I haven't seen Peppermint Candy in a long time, and two of the others ever.

https://www.moma.org/calendar/film/5043?locale=en

clearly v artfully ambiguous film

steven yeun is so perfectly creepy

Loved this

Eric finally saw Burning

This episode of Tidying Up gets really dark pic.twitter.com/FStux31u6o

— Eric Allen Hatch (@ericallenhatch) February 13, 2019

he did this one last week

BURNING (2018):

(･_･)っmaybe
(っ / Ben
Lﾉ┘

　 ∧___∧ didn’t
⊂(・＿・ ) literally
　ヽ ⊂二/ mean
　(⌒) /

／　　　　　＼green-
|　　●　 　● | houses
＼　　＿＿ ／

— Eric Allen Hatch (@ericallenhatch) February 7, 2019

Saw this at the weekend, just starting to engage with this thread...was Haemi even murdered?

My recollection from Murakami us that he likes people to disappear. It's there in L'avventura..

..and other films too. Its there in Teorema.

Did Haemi and Jong-Su even know one another? Striking how he really can't remember her at all. Throws up the possibility that she appears and disappears, leaving an emptiness in Jong-Su that eventually lapses into psychosis.

ya - he burns down relationships

xxp

really liked this film a lot, appreciated the second viewing even more than the first. agree with the thoughts expressed above that Lee was leading us to the conclusion that Ben was a serial killer, but also that Jong-Su was descending into an irrational state

I felt like my understanding of what was really happening in the story kept changing with every scene

i believe that's what the director was masterfully executing!

Also enjoyed this film and its pacing after being willfully spoiled on this thread with everyone's talk/interpretations.

Didn't Hae-mi mention that her cat was not fond of strangers and might hide from Jong-Su, when she asked him to feed it? When Ben's cat escapes the apartment and Jong-Su is able to catch it, I read that scene as the cat knowing Jong-Su from his visits to Hae-mi's apartment, therefore, it's her cat.

The last scene was brutal. Ben's expression, their hug, the cars in the background and on that road, shedding his clothes, etc.

Also, the cat only comes to Jong-Su when he says the name of Hae-mi's cat. I mean, it's not proof of anything, but it's pretty clear what we're supposed to take from it.

Wowww, so good. I have to sit down and think about this for a couple of days.

On Netflix now right? Will try to watch on the next week

Yeah, added Monday.

https://www.freersackler.si.edu/events-overview/films/

There'll be a screening of Burning this Saturday (2 p.m.) at the Freer Gallery, to be followed by a reception and informal discussion. I'm not 100% certain I'll be going, but I'm curious if anyone else is interested.

That was intense.

one major criticism: there should have been more ambiguity surrounding the cat's existence to raise the possibility that some other agent was pooping in the apt, or if indeed there was any poop to begin with.

poop truthers

makes you think...
https://s.put.re/aJaaQYnL.png

enjoyed reading this thread again. was thinking about Lee after watching Oasis for a second time. I really like the moments in that film just before they receive their Jajang noodles that is a sudden break from reality, and also in the subway later