Nerd Pride Radio

This is the discussion thread for the All New Nerd Pride Radio Movie of the Every Other Week!

This thread is only for those who have seen the movie recently. Commentary from people who haven't seen it will be deleted.

This Every Other Weeks Movie: Burning, selected by buckett

WARNING- ALL SPOILERS FOR THIS MOVIE ARE ALLOWED! For real, if you haven't seen it, don't read any further!

Discuss!

I’ll post full thoughts later. But when you realize what “It’s a metaphor.” means. Whoa. My stomach dropped out.

I feel like, had this been an American film, at some point they would have had Jong-su have an epiphany where he says. "It's a metaphor," out loud to make sure we got it. I'm so glad they didn't, because I spent 30 minutes yelling at him in my head, "It's a metaphor!"

And while it's obvious to us as an audience what happened, imagine it from his point of view. Would you be willing to murder a dude over compelling circumstantial evidence?

I enjoyed this a lot. I even enjoyed the languid pace of it, which normally starts bothering me after so many minutes focusing on trees in the middle distance... but here it worked for me. I think because it highlighted the isolation and disconnectedness of our protagonists.

I have more thoughts, but they're still sort of scattered. I finished this just before going to sleep last night and still haven't processed all of it.

Hey all I know this movie won't be for everyone but I think it is a masterpiece and it was one of my favorites from 2018, so I hope some of y'all got something out of it.

I think there is a ton to talk about this movie as it's purposefully ambiguous but the first question I ask people is: Do you think Ben is guilty? If so of what?

I have my own theory that is a bit of a copout but I find the different answers to this question fascinating.

Stray thoughts and quotes:

Hae-Mi dancing to Miles Davis is an iconic movie moment.

It cracks me up that Jong-Su is irritated that Ben "listens to music while he cooks pasta." Classic rich person behavior.

"There's no country for women." Probably the biggest criticism I have seen of this movie is that Hae-Mi is too much of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl which is fair. But I think that's only because that's how Jong-Su sees her. There are glimpses into her interior life but Jong-Su doesn't actually give a shit. On the periphery there are many references to the constant pressures placed on women in Korean society but Jong-Su is just fixated on his perceived rivalry with Ben. The director did make the choice to make this almost entirely from Jong-Su's POV so I can understand people wanting more viewpoints. But I do think the movie is ultimately a rebuke to Jong-Su's toxic masculinity.

I want to read the Murakami short story this is based on.

Aren't all protagonists nuts?

It's a metaphor.

They are baring their souls. Jong-su describes how awful his dad is, but he's also describing himself. Ben talks about burning down greenhouses, but he means he kills women.

Hae-mi has characteristics of a MPDG, but right from the beginning, she openly presents how broken she is and Jong-su never reacts to any of it. She opens with, "I got pretty. I had plastic surgery." Followed shortly by the explanation of "'You're ugly,' is the only thing you ever said to me in junior high." And this Memento style story of Hae-mi is capped off by the well story. Final punctuation from Ben, "She said you were the only person she trusted." That is the tale of a desperate, lonely girl willing to do anything to find a connection. "Why do you take your clothes off so easily in front of men?" Yeah, she told us that pretty clearly. I like your point about how often they mentioned how hard it is for women. And then I hearken back to the metaphor: they're everywhere, forgotten and neglected. No one will much care, and the police have better things to do than look into one disappearance.

I also wonder how much of an American accent Stephen Yeung has. They gave him an American name, and there were multiple moments highlighting America's toxic attitudes.

To answer your question: I think Ben is guilty of murdering women. I think he was a serial killer and a sociopath and responsible for Hae-mi's death/disappearance. The evidence is thin. She didn't take a trip, because her bag was there. Maybe something else terrible happened to her, but then why was her room so clean. And maybe the cat was made up. Maybe Ben's cat was unrelated. Her own mom said she's a liar, but then Jong-su's mom confirmed the well. That was enough for him and for me. Of course, I was convinced by the metaphor, but that's meta. But it HAD to be a metaphor, because Ben insists that he did burn one down, but it was too close for Jong-su to see it.

The only thing that makes me doubt is Ben's last moments. "You said it was about Hae-mi. Is she with you?" I had trouble determining who was who in the captions, but I thought Ben said that. Why would he use those words if Hae-mi is dead? Or even if he is just a really clever actor, why would he agree to meet on that pretext in a remote location if he knew Hae-mi was dead? Two lines and now I'm questioning my own judgement. But I still think he did it.

Hae-mi is a MPDG and it bothered me a bit. The movie tried to "make up for it" with the other very apt, dark commentary on the role of women in modern Korea, but it didn't stop her character from being a device to motivate Jong-su. Essentially, she wasn't a real character. But for that matter, neither was Ben, really. This is Jong-su's story, and I think buckett hits it on the head about how this is a commentary on his toxic masculinity and repressed anger. That's the reason for the whole discussion of his dad, right? They're the same, Jong-su is just trying to deny it. When he called Hae-mi a whore, it was fucking devastating. The look he gave his mom when she was going on about needing 5 million. Yowch.

But Jung-su's objectification of Hae-mi, while very much an important point, is also just one factor in the larger commentary on class and social constructs. Jung-su sees the flash of sunlight when he's having sex with Hae-mi-- this is his one glimpse of something good. Something that makes his miserable life worth living for. Then rich-guy Ben takes it all away, the whole time telling Jung-su that it's just so he can feel something- "That bass in your chest." Is Jung-su really different from Ben? Because ultimately he's just searching for that same thing. And maybe he feels it when he finally murders Ben. The end is ambiguous on that.

I really liked the movie, but it moved a little too slow for me, but not enough to bother me. The tension was incredible. Seriously, when he's telling him that he burned down the greenhouse and Jung-su didn't notice... ugh. So good.

Also, of course Ben killed her. He's a serial killer. He keeps souvenirs of each of his victims. What's an alternate theory?

Just rewatched the "I burn down greenhouses" scene. The metaphor applies to Hae-mi, and no matter how you interpret it, it still means Ben is a sociopath who destroys women for fun. But also, that is a weird metaphor to use for anything other than murder. "I make them disappear as if they never existed." Really, so six women every year respond to your machinations by running away from their lives to never be seen again? That seems weird.

Which I know is me needlessly focusing on the wrong part of the film, but it's stuck with me.

Finally got time to sit down and watch this, where I could pay attention to the subtitles. It was okay. Moved way too slow. Could have achieved the same effect while being about 30-45 minutes shorter. That wouldn’t have been an issue for me if it were in English, but having to spend that long and that slow of a pace while watching for subtitles that need to be read was a bit draining and drew away from my enjoyment of the movie.