Parasite

[bobbie solo]

I have been vindicated!!!

[allegate]

I have it ready to watch. both my son and my wife say they don't want to watch a scary movie with me. I tell them is isn't and they won't agree without seeing a trailer but I've been told to not do that. so this morning after it won I said "the oscars don't nominate scary movies, much less give them awards!" and she said "yes they do" and refused to provide an example.

I know I'm going to watch it with them this week.

[bobbie solo]

how old is your son? might not be appropriate for him.

[marodi]

I have it ready to watch. both my son and my wife say they don't want to watch a scary movie with me. I tell them is isn't and they won't agree without seeing a trailer but I've been told to not do that. so this morning after it won I said "the oscars don't nominate scary movies, much less give them awards!" and she said "yes they do" and refused to provide an example.

I know I'm going to watch it with them this week.

How can I contact your wife to tell her that The Exorcist, arguably the scariest movie of all time, was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars?

Apart for Parasite wining, my favorite moments of last night were Taika Waititi winning; Brie Larson, Sigourney Weaver and Gal Gadot presenting, Joaquin Phoenix breaking my heart with his honesty and all his feelings and of course, freaking Eminem bringing the house down.

[allegate]

don't you dare!

[marodi]

Nah, I don't need a reenactment of Marriage Story.

[allegro]

Every time my husband hears them say “Parasite,” he sings the Kiss song.

and of course, freaking eminem bringing the house down.

YAAAAAAAAAASSSS!!!!

Also, so happy for the accolades for Parasite.

[Haysey_Draws]

The amount of people losing their shit and complaining because Parasite won when they haven't even seen it is fucking depressing!

[Jon]

The amount of people losing their shit and complaining because Parasite won when they haven't even seen it is fucking depressing!

My favorite is the complaint, "If this was an American film, it would just be a mediocre Netflix Original". Well, no shit.

Just saw this with the wife last night. Here's my question:

Spoiler: Did anything in this film happen, or was the entire thing a daydream (similar to the last sequence where he buys the house)?

[Toadflax]

Spoiler: Did anything in this film happen, or was the entire thing a daydream (similar to the last sequence where he buys the house)?

Spoiler: As someone who analyzes movies for a living, I can tell you this question comes up about a lot of movies. Here are the two things I always say:

1. If it's not in the text that something isn't actually a real part of the story, then there's no reason to believe it isn't real. A movie like The Usual Suspects makes it very clear that the story didn't happen, and something like Inception purposefully raises the question and refuses to answer it. Most movies never do either of these though. People will argue the third act of such and such movie is actually a dream being had by such and such character, but there's no actual evidence to back it up, so it just ends up being a lot of blind conjecture for no reason.

2. None of the movie actually happened. It's fiction. That's obvious, of course, but my point is what difference does it make whether it's fiction or fiction-within-fiction? Does it change the themes and ideas presented by the story? Whether it's a movie about a family who infiltrates a rich family's house or a movie about someone dreaming about doing that, it's still the same story.

[Volband]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, I was so happy!
@Haysey My pleasure!

At least I wasn't trying to disprove the hype, and I didn't think that the movie being Japanese was an obstacle. That was never a factor for me, I thought that the dialogue and general feel of the movie was universal but like I said, the over the top violence scene was too much for me, it didn't fit with the rest of the tone of the movie, and ruined the resolution of this film. Sure, it was trying to transmit the anger of the lower class towards the upper class but this is something that wouldn't happen in real life, at least not like this. A different climax scene and I would had been raving about this movie.

Understandable, but the climax of that movie had its purpose imo. The movie became so intense, that it was due for such a release. It was predictable, but I prefer this compared to some crazy twist.

[Jon]

Spoiler: 2. None of the movie actually happened. It's fiction. That's obvious, of course, but my point is what difference does it make whether it's fiction or fiction-within-fiction? Does it change the themes and ideas presented by the story? Whether it's a movie about a family who infiltrates a rich family's house or a movie about someone dreaming about doing that, it's still the same story.

That was kind of what led me down this thought process in the first place. There seem to be things that are "red herrings" but overall do not take away from the (obvious) message of the film. Are they actual red herrings, or is it perhaps another (unnecessary) layer to who or what is a "parasite".

The vast majority of the "serious" dialogue revolved around dreams, chasing dreams, etc. The random similarities between the different groups that are meant to show we're all the same, we're just separated by class... then why throw in "red herrings" that all lead to the same, underlying conclusion?

Ultimately, it's these straight forward films with just a little layer of depth (whether intentional or not) that intrigue me.

[Volband]

That was kind of what led me down this thought process in the first place. There seem to be things that are "red herrings" but overall do not take away from the (obvious) message of the film. Are they actual red herrings, or is it perhaps another (unnecessary) layer to who or what is a "parasite".

The vast majority of the "serious" dialogue revolved around dreams, chasing dreams, etc. The random similarities between the different groups that are meant to show we're all the same, we're just separated by class... then why throw in "red herrings" that all lead to the same, underlying conclusion?

Ultimately, it's these straight forward films with just a little layer of depth (whether intentional or not) that intrigue me.

I highly doubt that the movie was Spoiler: a dream, there is really no reason to think that imo. Sure, you just listed a few, but those were some integral parts to the story. Ie. It is very important that those "losers" have dreams, or to know that they had them. It's a drama about classes, and the movie does a great job not to portray anyone plain white or plain black. Does the boy deserves what he had and got? He is an unemployed nobody... BUT he tried many times... BUT he also failed... BUT he fits in nicely to a job he is not qualified... BUT he immediately betrays his friend who got him the job in the first place... it is up to us to decide.

The only question is whether this is a Spoiler: dream after his head injury. Did he die? Did he suffer brain damage? Did he survive and actually saw his father's message? If he did, did he actually buy the house, or is THAT the only dream sequence? If a director portrays this clearly that something might be a dream, I don't think there would be much debate about whether everything before that was a dream or not. That would honestly lessen the worth of this movie, because why spend 95% of the movie seemingly in a normal way, then throw in some magical story arc for the last 5%, if this is ALL just a dream? Not to mention, why would anyone dream the first part of the movie? Like, why would you dream of your love being killed and your father being imprisoned? Naaaah.

[Jon]

Spoiler: dream after his head injury. Did he die? Did he suffer brain damage? Did he survive and actually saw his father's message? If he did, did he actually buy the house, or is THAT the only dream sequence? If a director portrays this clearly that something might be a dream, I don't think there would be much debate about whether everything before that was a dream or not. That would honestly lessen the worth of this movie, because why spend 95% of the movie seemingly in a normal way, then throw in some magical story arc for the last 5%, if this is ALL just a dream? Not to mention, why would anyone dream the first part of the movie? Like, why would you dream of your love being killed and your father being imprisoned? Naaaah.

Spoiler: The movie opens talking about dreams and plans with a friend who gives him the job recommendation. The friend says exactly what the main guy does later, he intends to return and marry the daughter later.

Why is the mother asleep the first time she's introduced? Simply to get across that she's a rich, carefree woman? Completely unncessary as the archetype was set up and played out perfectly from that point. She talks about day drinking later, is she actually a lush and they never really explore it?

The mother tells a story about the kid and how he saw a ghost in the basement. Turns out it was the husband of the ex-housekeeper. The main dude's dad ends up in the basement. This honestly sounds like it's the same kid. He grew up and knows it wasn't a ghost in the basement, but instead was a person, who somehow lived there for 4 years (a fantastic story)

The main guy's father and the ex housekeeper's husband both worked "random" jobs. The basement guy mentions his last job was at a cake shop.

I could keep going, but there's tons. Again, why have all of these connections when it's not necessary? Why are they beating you over the head with it?

[Balthier]

This was a great movie, but 'The Wailing' is still my favorite Korean movie ever.

[Volband]

Spoiler: The movie opens talking about dreams and plans with a friend who gives him the job recommendation. The friend says exactly what the main guy does later, he intends to return and marry the daughter later.

Why is the mother asleep the first time she's introduced? Simply to get across that she's a rich, carefree woman? Completely unncessary as the archetype was set up and played out perfectly from that point. She talks about day drinking later, is she actually a lush and they never really explore it?

The mother tells a story about the kid and how he saw a ghost in the basement. Turns out it was the husband of the ex-housekeeper. The main dude's dad ends up in the basement. This honestly sounds like it's the same kid. He grew up and knows it wasn't a ghost in the basement, but instead was a person, who somehow lived there for 4 years (a fantastic story)

The main guy's father and the ex housekeeper's husband both worked "random" jobs. The basement guy mentions his last job was at a cake shop.

I could keep going, but there's tons. Again, why have all of these connections when it's not necessary? Why are they beating you over the head with it?

The mother is asleep, because she's portrayed as a simpleton. We are even told before ever seeing her, that she is dumb. Her husband takes care of their wealth, and she has no job whatsoever, just living the high life. Being asleep during daytime is a good indicator that a person has too much free time, and too little to do.

Whether Spoiler: the dad ended up in the basement or not may be a dream. Remember, everything after the boy got struck on the head may or may not be a dream, a fantasy. If it's a dream, then it is a motivation for him, to finally achieve his (heh) dreams. If it's real, then it is the cycle of being a parasite. The poor were comfortable enough in their own world, and would have given half their limbs to have quarter of the wealth they eventually ended up having by working there. But they got complacent, they got arrogant, they got selfish. When they met the basement dweller, they were already rich, and they only cared about themselves - a trait they kept criticising in the rich, not realizing they became even worse than them from all the money. The dad ended up taking his place, essentially being in an even lower class than where he was at the start of the movie. It is a typical old tale, where the greedy gets punished for their black heart.

I don't get the job reference. My only takeaway from jobs was that the poor father had a business, which could have been very very successfull, making them quite rich as well, and essentially changing their whole life trajectory. But as business is, the coin landed on the bad side, and he had to forfeit it. To me, it represents a "could have been...", and you can see how irritated the father is. Everyone but him can have an honest laugh at their poor state, but he finds great shame in it. He thinks it was unjust, and he is more than a peon. I extremely love the scene where he Spoiler: threatens to hit his wife.. They play it off as a joke, but it seemed like everything but. His ego is extremely fragile, plus he was drunk, but his wife knows exactly what kind of person he is, and gives him a look which says "you can play the big boy to strangers, but you can't fool me".

I think the movie is stacked with random references which you can interpret in many ways, like my previous paragraph about the father's chicken shop or what was it. Sorry, but if it was a generic American movie, we would have a 5-10 minutes long explanatory scene, where he starts talking about what I just wrote, so that everyone understands his inner struggles. In Parasite, thisi s just a footnote: yeah, he had a business.

The thing is, Spoiler: dreams are a main part of such a story. Everyone who is poor or unsuccessful are dreaming about the opposite. "Man, if I had just ONE chance to prove myself, to handle some big cash, I would be even better than all those undeserving rich people who probably did nothing for their money except exploiting others!!! Just one chance, that's all I ask!! One day...!!!" And I think this movie works so much better as a non-dream. After all, it shows the bad side of both worlds. It shows how power can corrupt, or what power-hungriness can do to your senses. Like a cautionary tale. If it's all a dream, then what's the message? Don't eat before sleep, because you'll end up having nightmares?

I've searched for interviews with the writer/director, this is what I found about the ending: Spoiler: “Maybe if the movie ended where they hug and fades out, the audience can imagine, ‘Oh, it’s impossible to buy that house,’ but the camera goes down to that half-basement,” he says. “It’s quite cruel and sad, but I thought it was being real and honest with the audience. You know and I know — we all know that this kid isn’t going to be able to buy that house. I just felt that frankness was right for the film, even though it’s sad.”

Basically it means that the only dream was when he actually bought the house, and maybe his father being trapped, because that may or may not be part of his dream for motivation. But then ends with a "lol nope".

[BRoswell]

...but this is something that wouldn't happen in real life.

To me, this is never a valid complaint when it comes to films, because films are not real life. They're the distorted funhouse mirror version of life. I can't remember the exact quote, but the comedian Richard Ayoade once said that the second you put a lens on a camera and point it at something with intention and purpose, you've left reality behind. It's already exaggerated, so adhering completely to reality is a moot point. It's not real life. It's a film.

I can't really see that climax being unrealistic though. There's nothing particularly fantastical about it in my opinion.

At least I wasn't trying to disprove the hype, and I didn't think that the movie being Japanese was an obstacle.

It's Korean, by the way.

[allegate]

the local art theater is showing a color and B&W version of the film, which should I go to?

[Jon]

The mother is asleep, because she's portrayed as a simpleton. We are even told before ever seeing her, that she is dumb. Her husband takes care of their wealth, and she has no job whatsoever, just living the high life. Being asleep during daytime is a good indicator that a person has too much free time, and too little to do.

Whether Spoiler: the dad ended up in the basement or not may be a dream. Remember, everything after the boy got struck on the head may or may not be a dream, a fantasy. If it's a dream, then it is a motivation for him, to finally achieve his (heh) dreams. If it's real, then it is the cycle of being a parasite. The poor were comfortable enough in their own world, and would have given half their limbs to have quarter of the wealth they eventually ended up having by working there. But they got complacent, they got arrogant, they got selfish. When they met the basement dweller, they were already rich, and they only cared about themselves - a trait they kept criticising in the rich, not realizing they became even worse than them from all the money. The dad ended up taking his place, essentially being in an even lower class than where he was at the start of the movie. It is a typical old tale, where the greedy gets punished for their black heart.

I don't get the job reference. My only takeaway from jobs was that the poor father had a business, which could have been very very successfull, making them quite rich as well, and essentially changing their whole life trajectory. But as business is, the coin landed on the bad side, and he had to forfeit it. To me, it represents a "could have been...", and you can see how irritated the father is. Everyone but him can have an honest laugh at their poor state, but he finds great shame in it. He thinks it was unjust, and he is more than a peon. I extremely love the scene where he Spoiler: threatens to hit his wife.. They play it off as a joke, but it seemed like everything but. His ego is extremely fragile, plus he was drunk, but his wife knows exactly what kind of person he is, and gives him a look which says "you can play the big boy to strangers, but you can't fool me".

I think the movie is stacked with random references which you can interpret in many ways, like my previous paragraph about the father's chicken shop or what was it. Sorry, but if it was a generic American movie, we would have a 5-10 minutes long explanatory scene, where he starts talking about what I just wrote, so that everyone understands his inner struggles. In Parasite, thisi s just a footnote: yeah, he had a business.

The thing is, Spoiler: dreams are a main part of such a story. Everyone who is poor or unsuccessful are dreaming about the opposite. "Man, if I had just ONE chance to prove myself, to handle some big cash, I would be even better than all those undeserving rich people who probably did nothing for their money except exploiting others!!! Just one chance, that's all I ask!! One day...!!!" And I think this movie works so much better as a non-dream. After all, it shows the bad side of both worlds. It shows how power can corrupt, or what power-hungriness can do to your senses. Like a cautionary tale. If it's all a dream, then what's the message? Don't eat before sleep, because you'll end up having nightmares?

I've searched for interviews with the writer/director, this is what I found about the ending: Spoiler: “Maybe if the movie ended where they hug and fades out, the audience can imagine, ‘Oh, it’s impossible to buy that house,’ but the camera goes down to that half-basement,” he says. “It’s quite cruel and sad, but I thought it was being real and honest with the audience. You know and I know — we all know that this kid isn’t going to be able to buy that house. I just felt that frankness was right for the film, even though it’s sad.”

Basically it means that the only dream was when he actually bought the house, and maybe his father being trapped, because that may or may not be part of his dream for motivation. But then ends with a "lol nope".

Thanks, Vol.

[BRoswell]

the local art theater is showing a color and B&W version of the film, which should I go to?

I would suggest color since that's how it was originally shot. I was curious to see the black and white version, but it was only playing for three days here and I had to work all three days. Here's hoping the upcoming Criterion Blu-ray has it as a bonus feature.

[zero]

Saw Parasite last week, and while I thought it was entirely enjoyable and entertaining, I do not see how it won a bunch of Oscars. It simply was not that great!

Spoiler: What I found interesting and quite compelling is that this film did not seem to demonize either lower or upper class. Usually a film which has a story-line dealing with social class divisions will tend to depict a "good" and "bad" class, but in my opinion this film treated both equally. It would be interesting to know if anyone else noticed this.

[zecho]

Spoiler: The movie opens talking about dreams and plans with a friend who gives him the job recommendation. The friend says exactly what the main guy does later, he intends to return and marry the daughter later.

Why is the mother asleep the first time she's introduced? Simply to get across that she's a rich, carefree woman? Completely unncessary as the archetype was set up and played out perfectly from that point. She talks about day drinking later, is she actually a lush and they never really explore it?

The mother tells a story about the kid and how he saw a ghost in the basement. Turns out it was the husband of the ex-housekeeper. The main dude's dad ends up in the basement. This honestly sounds like it's the same kid. He grew up and knows it wasn't a ghost in the basement, but instead was a person, who somehow lived there for 4 years (a fantastic story)

The main guy's father and the ex housekeeper's husband both worked "random" jobs. The basement guy mentions his last job was at a cake shop.

I could keep going, but there's tons. Again, why have all of these connections when it's not necessary? Why are they beating you over the head with it?

I think this is quite a reach, with most of it being just poetic story telling of the family meeting the same fate as the original house keepers after not showing them empathy. But the "random jobs" are all actual jobs that the poor in Korea took in the past, with the businesses being actual get rich quick schemes that gained popularity. There were tons of those shops opening at once and they all failed due to market saturation. That actually happened.

[allegate]

the job thing reminds me of Gangnam Style and a Stephen Chow film that I'm forgetting the name of where if you're a native speaker you get the little in-jokes and things that just can't come across in translation or without knowing more about the area.

[Volband]

Saw Parasite last week, and while I thought it was entirely enjoyable and entertaining, I do not see how it won a bunch of Oscars. It simply was not that great!

Spoiler: What I found interesting and quite compelling is that this film did not seem to demonize either lower or upper class. Usually a film which has a story-line dealing with social class divisions will tend to depict a "good" and "bad" class, but in my opinion this film treated both equally. It would be interesting to know if anyone else noticed this.

3 out of their 4 Oscars pretty much go hand in hand. If you are selected for being movie of the year, you should get best foreign movie as well, and if you are the best movie, you bound to have at least one of the following: exceptional writing, directing and/or visual effects. I think your spoilered out comment is a great answer to why they deserved best writing. You need very good writing and acting to pull it off. The only criticism I can think of about the writing is that it is kind of predictable, but I think some CRAZY, UNEXPECTED turn would've taken away from the movie's message - hell, from this topic and my personal experience alone, I know people who thought that the movie had too many random turns already, so there's that.

The only Oscar which may not be "deserved" is best directing. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the directing in more than one ways, but I would not have been shocked if another movie got to take that award home.

[Kodiak33]

I think Tarantino or Mendes should've won Best Directing...but whatever. Really liked Parasite and I need to see it again. I think it nailed everything it needed in order to win best picture. Great story, directing, acting, entertaining, etc.

[BRoswell]

Details for the Criterion edition coming in October.

-New 4K digital master, approved by director Bong Joon Ho and director of photography Hong Kyung Pyo, with Dolby Atmos soundtrack on the Blu-ray-New audio commentary featuring Bong and critic Tony Rayns
-Black-and-white version of the film with a new introduction by Bong, and Dolby Atmos soundtrack on the Blu-ray
-New conversation between Bong and critic Darcy Paquet
-New interviews with Hong, production designer Lee Ha Jun, and editor Yang Jinmo
-New program about the New Korean Cinema movement featuring Bong and filmmaker Park Chan Wook (Oldboy)
-Cannes Film Festival press conference from 2019 featuring Bong and members of the cast
-Master class featuring Bong from the 2019 Lumière Festival in Lyon, France
-Storyboard comparison
-Trailers
-PLUS: An essay by critic Inkoo Kang

[allegate]

I think there's supposed to be a line break because I don't see the appeal to a Dolby Atmos commentary track. Do they take up the whole soundstage so it's like you're in the room with them? :lol

[Reznor2112]

So excited for the Criterion release... when's the next 50% Criterion Day?

[onthewall2983]

They do two Barnes and Noble sales a year, in July and in November

[allegate]

just in time, nice.