Somebody has to say it: The new film from gifted director Bong Joon-Ho (Okja) is neither his best nor the year’s. It’s fun and wonderful in many ways and cleverly conceived. It’s also self-indulgent, riddled with plot holes and thematically vapid. Movies aren’t required to make profound statements, of course. I point out that Parasite doesn’t only because virtually every other reviewer has insisted it does.
Critics have praised its “savage commentary on economic inequality and the violence inflicted by capitalism” (Dana Stevens, Slate). I suppose that’s because the story concerns a family that’s wealthy, a family that’s poor and the zaniness that ensues once the twain meets. But that’s like hailing Geostorm for its “savage commentary on humanity’s failure to halt climate change.” Referencing a social ill isn’t the same as saying something new, useful or insightful about it. Parasite doesn’t say anything about inequality that Bong’s Snowpiercer (2013) didn’t say already and with more imaginative panache.
How poor are the Kims? Father, mother, son and daughter live in a cramped semi-basement Seoul apartment and make ends almost meet by folding boxes for a nearby pizzeria. When the son, Ki-woo (Choi Woo-sik), hears about an opportunity to tutor a well-to-do high school student, his sister, Ki-jung (Park So-dam), whips up a fake diploma to get him in the door. In short order, the entire Kim clan has adopted false identities to scam its way into lucrative gigs with the family.
How wealthy are the Parks? Father, mother, son and daughter live on top of the world on the other side of town in an ultramodern compound surrounded by concrete walls. Each is a one-dimensional doodle. The daughter instantly falls in love with Ki-woo, who’s changed his name to Kevin. The family’s temperamental young son instantly and inexplicably submits to the will of Ki-jung, who’s changed her name to Jessica and cooked up credentials to work as an art therapist.
So far, so amusing, in a con-job comedy kind of way. The director describes the first half of the film as a “nerdy family version of Mission: Impossible.” Frothy, fast-paced fun. Nothing wrong with that.
But the second half. That’s where things go off the rails. Bong sets a new world record for the number of tonal and genre shifts in a single cinematic work. Which is great in that he keeps you guessing, but — it evidently needs pointing out — doesn’t in itself make the movie meaningful or artistically significant, just unpredictable. And much of it is unpredictable because what happens makes little or no sense.
After the great flood, ask yourself, Where’d everybody get the beautiful dry party clothes? After the script spends time setting up a Morse code situation, ask yourself, Given what comes of it, was that time sensibly spent? After what happens with an incriminating cellphone photo, ask yourself, Whatever happened to that cell? After the blood-drenched climactic sequence, ask yourself, WTF?
You get the idea. To make matters less meaningful, the film offers zero thoughtful comment on capitalism or inequality. It simply gives us poor characters gaming rich characters and assumes we’ll side with the poor. That’s not “savage commentary.” That’s condescension. This is by far the filmmaker’s most commercially successful work to date. Getting fat off a fractured fairy tale about class, Bong acts like a parasite here if anyone does. He’s better than that. So are you.
The original print version of this article was headlined “Parasite”
Related Stories
This article appears in Nov 6-12, 2019.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I suspect it might offer more to say on capitalism and inequality in the context of how all that plays out in the Korean peninsula. There are any number of unsubtle references (even in translation) to Korea’s partition, “the line” dividing the country, and so on…
With that in mind, I think it was a very sharp film – even if it doesn’t necessarily make itself accessible to Americans who might struggle with the extra work of translating its central themes across social and cultural environments. It seems silly to suggest that poverty and class conflict from a Korean perspective would (or should) be immediately readable to an American without some extra thinking or education on the many differences between those societies…
I, too, wish it was a more universalist revenge film; alas, I suspect the DPRK is always Korea’s “elephant in the room” when it comes to how class issues manifest and are discussed there.
The shortcomings pointed out in the text can be cinematic enough. Don’t substitute everything for common sense, nor can you assume that common sense is universal in all the world.
Even if you haven’t seen artistry yet, this movie still has a lot of value and it won’t be compromised.
why can you throw a rotten tomato from a wonderfully crafted movie?
So this criticism seems like the opposite for the opposite…
So this is too harsh… Nevertheless, I respect your criticism
Did this reviewer not pay attention to the movie? I just watched the movie once and can easily answer his questions.
(After the great flood, ask yourself, Where’d everybody get the beautiful dry party clothes?)
> Didnt you see they were giving away clothes at the gym?
(After the script spends time setting up a Morse code situation, ask yourself, Given what comes of it, was that time sensibly spent?)
> It is used as an important metaphor and communication for so many things, and also helps summarize Mr. Kims situation after the incident.
(After what happens with an incriminating cellphone photo, ask yourself, Whatever happened to that cell?)
> Dont you remember the Kims deleted the videos?
(After the blood-drenched climactic sequence, ask yourself, WTF?)
> i have no idea what point this is even making here. It is a movie, not a documentary. Why not? Have you never seen sudden, bloody murders in movies?
Most importantly, if the main criticisms you can come up with are on these nit picky points then you really dont have a legitimate critique at all. As a film reviewer, YOU really need to be better than that.
Strongly disagree that the film presumes that we’ll side with the poor. Jessica was revealed in the early going to be a thoroughly wicked character, and by the time the Kims conspired to put out the former housekeeper, my sympathy for them had almost entirely evaporated. Subsequent revelations made clear that there were no real heroes; most of the characters took a turn as the parasite of the title.
I managed to see this movie before learning anything about it other than its title and the name of its director. While I know Bongs movies and therefore knew it was likely to be stuffed tight with metaphorical commentary on *something*, I watched it like I watch all movies: hoping only for a solid telling of a great story. I believe it delivered.
I dont think a movie has any responsibility to deliver a message. I think it needs to be pleasurable to watch. Any message is of tertiary importance (secondary importance goes to the popcorn not being stale). The moment a movie makes its message important, I regret spending money on it.
If one interprets a message within a well done movie, great. There are countless movies that have been saddled with them by critics and historians (The Wizard of Oz, for example, and Star Wars). But I prefer to just watch, and hopefully, to become immersed. And leave the importance analysis for much, much later.
This was a kick ass story and the telling was insane. A+ in my book.
The video was deleted and the phone also ended up in the trash, as it was on the kitchen island counter as it was being swept off. Clothes in Korea are often one size fit most doesnt make it too hard to find donation clothes that would fit enough for a party (unlike in say, US movies where donated clothes would be absurdly large or slightly too small, too short, etc) the characters clearly know the difference in the clothes.
As for your reaction to the ending, do you not understand why? There are some great articles by much better writers than I, but… Loan shark man had already lost some marbles from being underground for so long. Then he suffered personal agonizing tragedy (to say the least). He defended himself to the max, then took his ultimate revenge on Peaches. Dont underestimate someone who has nothing to lose.
I thought there were many messages regarding lines: class lines, physical barriers, being between the basement and the rest of the world taking a piss on you, even references to N Korea. As another commenter said, there is some cultural background that needs to be understood to get everything.
I think Boon is just reflecting a dark and true part of Korean society and some of the complex feelings that go with it. Like your boss, resent your boss. Take advantage while youre being taken advantage of. Fight for you, but feel guilty. Upward mobility is luck. You have to plan to go up, but never plan so you dont get let down. Older generation attitudes and feelings vs younger. Lower class struggles amongst themselves to belong, when the upper class still ignore them unless they want something from them.
Glad one reviewer out of 100’s sees the emperor’s new clothes are missing. This film would have been a cutting edge of critique of capitalism, circa 1855. But unlike Snowpiercer it had nothing to say. Particularly jarring was the idea that two very intelligent, ruthless, absurdly good looking kids in the basement dwelling family would have to live by folding cardboard boxes. In 1855 in a Dickens novel perhaps. Not in contemporary Korea. That’s not how capitalism works.
thank you. Felt exactly the same way!
Agree completely. The first act was hilarious but the family were comic rather than sympathetic. The second act was tragic without earning it. It was also all over the place and really dragged.
Oh well, it was a lot better than Lil’ Quin Quin that my son made us sit through over the holidays…
I’ll preface my evaluation by stating that I had not seen this filmmaker’s previous works, not do I know too much about Korea’s socio-economic realities. That said, I have no problem whatsoever with foreign language films and subtitles, and a great film should easily be able to overcome this, with more clarity.
As the film developed, I looked past an absurdity or two (how could such a bright and cunning family live in such squalor…if a good satire, that would have been reasoned through), and whether I “liked” them or not (clever, charming grifters), I really liked them as characters, as I did the other family. It was a fun, slightly absurdist comedy, with …I suppose…an expectation of some kind of semi-dark comeuppance in the works. How would it all play out? I was excited to find out.
I near-loved the film until, well, it got weird with the whole story of the housekeeper’s husband living (literally) beneath the Parks, and the bloodbath that ensues…and then, some attempt to find meaning in the final minutes of the film. Okay, tonal shifts and surprises are fine, and yes, the filmmaker can do whatever he wants. One can find symbolism in the Parks being self-absorbed and totally oblivious to those living (literally…and I guess figuratively) beneath them. But, well, is that it…and that’s an excuse for the bloodbath to break out?
In the end, despite great acting, and skilled direction, I enjoyed this film…until I just couldn’t.
I agree with the reviewer. The movie was good but not great. Doesn’t really say anything knew or wholly true. No character arc? The poor family son and daughter was not believable. Good acting though and nice to look at.
I am so glad to find someone else who had problems with the universal acclaim of this film. While agreeing with some commenters that you picked a couple of the wrong details to criticise (eg, the Kims found appropriate clothes from the donated pile in the gym), overall I disliked the film. I admired the superlative acting by a very talented cast, and the skill of the cinematography. But I can’t understand why everyone else calls it “entertaining.” It was very unpleasant to watch this family gaining the trust of the Parks by lying to them and conning them, even ruining the lives of their other employees so they could infiltrate their house. Yes, one found oneself emitting a wry laugh as one saw how the son was setting up the deceit to bring the next family member in. But it wasn’t exactly humour. Yes, there was social commentary, but as you say, Rick, what was new about it? The Parks happen to be rich, the Kims are not. The rather similar Japanese film ‘Shoplifters’ addressed some of the same issues but more subtly, and the family in that film show more tenderness to each other and to the small girl they protect. The core problem of Parasite for me was that I couldn’t sympathize with the Kims because of their repellent behaviour…It looked as if it were going to get interesting when the father suddenly said that Mrs Park was actually nice. But that didn’t go anywhere. The dishonest behaviour continued, making me feel alienated and uncomfortable. And of course the bloodbath at the end is horrifying.