|
|
Post by stuartoxlade on May 21, 2019 4:21:01 GMT -5
1. Hell yes. 2. Doubtful. Do we all think that those burning 'parties' are where Ben erases evidence from his victims and keeps those trophies in his box? or was Jong-soo desperately trying to find an answer to a question he'd never know the answer to? I think Jong-Su is trying to find an answer here, and simply latching on to whatever makes the most sense to him, which is why the ending happened the way it did. Could it be construed that "burning greenhouses" might be a reference to using someone and discarding them when you're finally bored with them? I think you and chocollama are right here - I was certain what he means by 'burning greenhouses' is basically him saying 'I take their bodies there and I burn them', which is what I meant by covering up evidence. I think the cryptic way Ben talks about the greenhouse he chose being 'real close' was his way of telling Jong-Su that he knows that Jong-Su has identified him being a killer and he just wants to toy with him as he's a sociopath. Ultimately I think he wanted to get caught and that's why he ends up driving out to a place to meet him where he could easily not be seen if anything went sideways. The funniest part for me was knowing that the cat was genuinely real (or was it?). I think if I met a girl and was asked to check in on her cat for a month and I never saw it, it would drive me crazy (and ultimately lead me to whack off in her room whilst staring at the skyline) |
|
|
|
Post by tao on May 21, 2019 8:48:44 GMT -5
I think Jong-Su is trying to find an answer here, and simply latching on to whatever makes the most sense to him, which is why the ending happened the way it did. Could it be construed that "burning greenhouses" might be a reference to using someone and discarding them when you're finally bored with them? I think you and chocollama are right here - I was certain what he means by 'burning greenhouses' is basically him saying 'I take their bodies there and I burn them', which is what I meant by covering up evidence. I think the cryptic way Ben talks about the greenhouse he chose being 'real close' was his way of telling Jong-Su that he knows that Jong-Su has identified him being a killer and he just wants to toy with him as he's a sociopath. Ultimately I think he wanted to get caught and that's why he ends up driving out to a place to meet him where he could easily not be seen if anything went sideways. The funniest part for me was knowing that the cat was genuinely real (or was it?). I think if I met a girl and was asked to check in on her cat for a month and I never saw it, it would drive me crazy (and ultimately lead me to whack off in her room whilst staring at the skyline) No, no.... I think he's rich, he's bored, and he works his way through a succession of girlfriends and just basically casts them aside when he gets bored with them; I honestly don't think he killed anyone at all, it's just that's what Jong-Su (and you guys!!!) want to think because you're being provided with incomplete evidence. Remember pantomime. You gotta want it. I think "burning greenhouses" could be a metaphor for how he goes through girlfriends. |
|
|
|
Post by tao on May 21, 2019 8:59:32 GMT -5
Yo, OK... check this out; this guy brings up some good context. Note, it's all an opinion, and I wasn't able to read all the comments, but he explains it pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghosty on May 21, 2019 11:41:08 GMT -5
Yo, OK... check this out; this guy brings up some good context. Note, it's all an opinion, and I wasn't able to read all the comments, but he explains it pretty good. Interesting take and I was not entirely convinced Ben kills the women, but I think it's the interpretation that has the most supporting evidence. Then again, like someone in the comments on that Reddit post said, our information is filtered through the lens of Jong-su, a country bumpkin who is clearly jealous of Ben. |
|
|
|
Post by tao on May 21, 2019 12:50:01 GMT -5
Yo, OK... check this out; this guy brings up some good context. Note, it's all an opinion, and I wasn't able to read all the comments, but he explains it pretty good. Interesting take and I was not entirely convinced Ben kills the women, but I think it's the interpretation that has the most supporting evidence. Then again, like someone in the comments on that Reddit post said, our information is filtered through the lens of Jong-su, a country bumpkin who is clearly jealous of Ben.  |
|
|
|
Post by chocollama on May 21, 2019 17:07:28 GMT -5
Yo, OK... check this out; this guy brings up some good context. Note, it's all an opinion, and I wasn't able to read all the comments, but he explains it pretty good. Interesting take and I was not entirely convinced Ben kills the women, but I think it's the interpretation that has the most supporting evidence. Then again, like someone in the comments on that Reddit post said, our information is filtered through the lens of Jong-su, a country bumpkin who is clearly jealous of Ben. I think I'll firmly stand on the "Ben kills the girls" side of this. While it's a totally valid point that we are seeing this through our country bumpkin's perspective, I never saw anything that made his out to be an unreliable perspective. And I do think there should be stock taken into Ben's quick bit about having never cried. The way he talks about how fascinating it is to watch other people cry and his general, obvious high intelligence indicate to me that he may be a sociopath. Not to mention that from the night Hae-mi disappears, he seems like he keeps leading and teasing Jong-su. Like a "do you get what I'm saying" or "whatcha gonna do about it" kind of tease. Still, it's a fun thought experiment to try and run through the film in my head to see where Ben could be entirely innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by tao on May 21, 2019 19:38:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by essien on May 22, 2019 9:36:07 GMT -5
So I have to admit, I haven't rewatched this film as it felt too soon, but I do remember it well and I have done all the other further viewing/reading that I'd set... But yeah, when I'm watching an ambiguous film, I tend to take an Occam's razor approach to how I think about the plot. Ben was a serial killer. The story he told about 'burning greenhouses' was a metaphor for killing women. The way he talks about getting an 'urge' to burn greenhouses was closely aligned to the psychology of serial killers getting an urge to kill. He's never burned a greenhouse in his life, and this is supported by the fact that none of the greenhouses near Jong-su are damaged. Ben confides in Jong-su by using an ambiguous metaphor just to fuck with him. He's a sadist and thrives on this sort of thing. In every Lee Chang-dong film there's something incredibly tragic that happens, and in this case, it was the murder of Hae-mi. I didn't really agree with the Reddit analysis that tao posted. While there were some interesting and credible points raised, it reminded me too much of a high school English literature teacher overanalysing every detail. I know some people enjoy this kind of reading but I personally avoid it. For anyone interested in how this compares to the Murakami short story, the skeleton of the plot is similar to Burning but there's a lot more background to the characters in Burning and there's no violent confrontation at the end of the short story. The link between the burning of barns/greenhouses and the murders is less overt in the short story too. It's a 15 minute read and I'd really recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet discovered Murakami. A few thoughts on the film from me. I absolutely loved it and gave it a 5/5. Like other reviewers have mentioned, the first hour and a half felt a little slow and aimless for me at first, but the pay off in the second half was exceptional and I wished I'd been playing closer attention when I realised where it was going. I loved the look of the film, particularly the lighting of the scenes at dusk and dawn. I thought the quote Andrew used in his review about the intangible Lynchian vibe of dread was interesting. I also got a Murakami-esque vibe from it too - and not just because it was based on one of his short stories - but because of the focus on an introverted main character whose normal mundane routine is interrupted by extraordinary events. There were other elements of the film which felt like nods to Murakami too which weren't in the short story - particularly the featuring of a cat sub plot and the nature of the relationship between the protagonist and the female character. Looking forward to rewatching this at some point in the next few years. |
|
|
|
Post by essien on May 22, 2019 9:53:27 GMT -5
As mentioned, I also worked through the rest of Lee Chang-dong's back catalogue. If you enjoyed this and want to see another of his works, I'd strongly recommend Poetry. It's a really intimate character study of an elderly lady suffering from Alzheimers. The story is beautifully told, despite the plot taking more than a few dark turns. I was lucky enough to see a screening of it earlier this year. Another 5/5 for me.
While the rest of his films are all good and worthwhile, I don't think any of them quite hit the heights of Burning and Poetry.
Secret Sunshine was the one that came closest. The protagonist, a single mother, returns to the hometown of her dead husband with their son. She tries to make a life for herself in the community only for another tragedy to strike. It's genuinely moving and the performance from the lead actress was excellent. 4/5
Oasis is highly rated but didn't really do it for me. It follows an unlikely relationship between a man with learning difficulties and a woman with cerebral palsy. I think at the time it would've been quite groundbreaking to represent a relationship between a disabled couple in this way, but there's so many elements of it that are problematic now. 3.5/5
Peppermint Candy starts with the suicide of the male protagonist and then, in seven parts, tracks the events which have led him up to this point. It's well crafted but I didn't feel much of connection with it. 3.5/5
Green Fish is Chang-dong's first feature film and was a bitch to find. I ended up buying a DVD copy on eBay. Compared to his other works it feels slightly derivative. Man falls in with the mob as a result of a love interest and gets in over his head. Still, it's an entertaining watch and interesting to see some of Chang-dong's idiosyncrasies in their formative stages. 3.5/5
|
|
|
|
Post by tao on May 22, 2019 16:03:09 GMT -5
So I have to admit, I haven't rewatched this film as it felt too soon, but I do remember it well and I have done all the other further viewing/reading that I'd set... But yeah, when I'm watching an ambiguous film, I tend to take an Occam's razor approach to how I think about the plot. Ben was a serial killer. The story he told about 'burning greenhouses' was a metaphor for killing women. The way he talks about getting an 'urge' to burn greenhouses was closely aligned to the psychology of serial killers getting an urge to kill. He's never burned a greenhouse in his life, and this is supported by the fact that none of the greenhouses near Jong-su are damaged. Ben confides in Jong-su by using an ambiguous metaphor just to fuck with him. He's a sadist and thrives on this sort of thing. In every Lee Chang-dong film there's something incredibly tragic that happens, and in this case, it was the murder of Hae-mi. I didn't really agree with the Reddit analysis that tao posted. While there were some interesting and credible points raised, it reminded me too much of a high school English literature teacher overanalysing every detail. I know some people enjoy this kind of reading but I personally avoid it. For anyone interested in how this compares to the Murakami short story, the skeleton of the plot is similar to Burning but there's a lot more background to the characters in Burning and there's no violent confrontation at the end of the short story. The link between the burning of barns/greenhouses and the murders is less overt in the short story too. It's a 15 minute read and I'd really recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet discovered Murakami. A few thoughts on the film from me. I absolutely loved it and gave it a 5/5. Like other reviewers have mentioned, the first hour and a half felt a little slow and aimless for me at first, but the pay off in the second half was exceptional and I wished I'd been playing closer attention when I realised where it was going. I loved the look of the film, particularly the lighting of the scenes at dusk and dawn. I thought the quote Andrew used in his review about the intangible Lynchian vibe of dread was interesting. I also got a Murakami-esque vibe from it too - and not just because it was based on one of his short stories - but because of the focus on an introverted main character whose normal mundane routine is interrupted by extraordinary events. There were other elements of the film which felt like nods to Murakami too which weren't in the short story - particularly the featuring of a cat sub plot and the nature of the relationship between the protagonist and the female character. Looking forward to rewatching this at some point in the next few years. lol, I don't in any way endorse Reddit as a trustworthy source; I found the differing viewpoint interesting; I did start reading IQ84 from Murakami years ago, but lost interest, mainly because IIRC it's over 1,000 pages long... |
|
|
|
Post by stuartoxlade on May 23, 2019 2:47:28 GMT -5
Completely side-plot related - any thoughts on what his Dad did and why he was facing a sentence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghosty on May 23, 2019 12:25:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghosty on May 23, 2019 12:33:13 GMT -5
Here's something I just thought of: do y'all think Ben always uses the "burning greenhouses" metaphor if he decides to confide in others about his "hobby," or just in Jong-su's case?
|
|
|
|
Post by chocollama on May 24, 2019 12:29:25 GMT -5
Actually just thought of something for the Ben is innocent argument: when he shows up in the final scene, he sounds more inquisitive than sarcastic about Jong-su's request to come meet with him and Hae-mi. I think he was legit surprised by all of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by itschewthirty on May 27, 2019 16:26:49 GMT -5
Here's something I just thought of: do y'all think Ben always uses the "burning greenhouses" metaphor if he decides to confide in others about his "hobby," or just in Jong-su's case? The way his character was written, it seems like Ben would find some way to connect with his "audience" and use their past experiences/observations to tie in his true meaning of what he does. I remember in the very first act of the film Jong-su asks Ben what he does for a living and he simply says "I play". I really enjoyed the ambiguity of his character throughout the film though. The last 30 minutes were phenomenal and the scene where he actually uses the makeup kit on his current relationship had my head spinning. At first when you see the makeup kit when Jong-su is snooping around the bathroom, as well as the jewelry in the drawer, you're thinking yeah, this isn't even his house, and the mystery of his character just takes you from there. |
|
