"Parasite" can only be made into a movie, not a novel. To read a novel, one must first analyze the words with the mind, and then the imagination of hearing, vision and even other faculties. The power of the film lies in "seeing and hearing is believing", and using the editing rhythm to manipulate the audience's two senses (eyes, ears) and breathing, summoning them: Drop your disbelief! Just come in for the ride! Put your unbelief aside! Come take a ride on the roller coaster!
If the medium of the movie involves more senses, and all the five elements of "eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body" are involved, "Parasite" does not hold at the "nose" (smell) level: the smell of a family in the basement is always there. People have an instinctive aversion to peculiar smell; how could this family win the affirmation of the rich in the first place? It is even more bizarre that Miss Fu falls in love with the odorless poor boy who gets along close together. Since the film later emphasizes the lingering smell of the poor and is therefore disgusted by the rich, it cannot be said that the audience's "retrospective" reflection is too harsh. Of course, if the brothers and sisters were so clever and could pretend to be a higher class, knowledge, and talent without being seen through, they would not have fallen to the point where the whole family was trapped in the basement. Feng Junhao calls "infiltration" the theme of the whole film, but the condition for his construction of the story is to ask the audience to voluntarily give up their minds.
The director's control over the language of the film is impeccable. Since the discovery of the reversal of the Chamber of Secrets, I became more and more engaged, agreeing with the thrills, worrying about fate, and applauding at the end of the play. The family in the basement rescued a little bit of households and escaped by rafting in the torrent. The God's perspective of the street overhead shot was unforgettable to me. After watching this movie, I felt heavy in my heart for a long time. I thought of a lot of relevant social news. I even thought of the past when a poor friend helped me do housekeeping for a rich friend: I have been to both of my homes. These personal feelings are not brought about by the depth of the movie itself; the old sayings such as "the rich have nice capital" are just commonplace. "Parasite" disregards all sorts of far-fetched and completely relies on the manipulation of the audience's emotions to achieve the work. The danger of doing so is that once the emotions pass, the audience who is willing to think deeply calm down and find that they do not like this insulting IQ setting after all. The characters in the film follow the plot, all of which are flat and lack delicate and true interpersonal motivation. The spectator was exhausted, and the audience enjoyed it, but I don’t want to watch it a second time, because it can’t be an aftertaste, and it can’t stand the analysis.
Isn't it true that all tense and suspenseful films are destined to be shallow? No. Classics that emphasize both suspense and artistic depth include "Third Person", "Eyes Wide Shut", "Lone Killer", etc., and of course many works by Hitchcock. Bong Joon-ho's own "Memories of Murder" and "Mother" are also popular, but they are much deeper and more interesting than "Parasite".
The film does not intend to explore the root causes of the disparity between the rich and the poor, or even present the subtle interaction between the rich and the poor. The president did not explain how he became rich. Their family is considered to be kind. The president’s tragic death is a disaster to Chi Yu (the driver killed him out of impulse), and the cause of the disaster lies in the two poor people fighting for the rich. The selfishness that "parasites" benefits each other tore each other-the most gimmick is the scene where the two parties snatch the mobile phone with the "revealing video". According to Marxism, the rich feed on the poor by means of exploitation. Although it seems to be the opposite, it is the capitalists who provide the workers with jobs; in the film, the luxury houses are built on the toilets of the poor and not owned by the rich. Above the basement of knowledge, of course it is a symbol, and it seems to imply a Marxist vision from a geographical level, even though the information is vague. Outside of the film, in our real society, because the global flow of capital is heavily represented, the questions of "who exploited who" and "who is parasitic on whom" are difficult to answer simply; South Korea's economic chaebol dominates, plus The world's stagnant social mobility, structural unemployment... The ruthless system is so unjustified and cannibalistic. In "Parasite", the poor infiltrated the rich by all means to survive, stepping on other poor people to maximize their own interests, and eventually lead to tragedy. There are a lot of things that can be discussed. In order to maximize the effect of the melodrama, the director sacrificed logic and made the story out of reality and failed to show credible class interaction. The film lost its value as a text for serious discussion.
Forever, the blessing of Cannes does not mean anything. The film is undoubtedly smart. It caters to the mainstream audience's psychology and the political taste of the film festival review. However, it is not even a film whose story is justified.
View more about Parasite reviews
