NYFF Review: Sympathy For Lady Vengeance

[Note: This review contains no spoilers of any kind. This poses quite a challenge, as it limits the ability to truly defend the film, and to fully explain why it is so damn terrific. Those who are familiar with Park's revenge films, and this blogger's love of them, will (perhaps) find the below useful and/or of some interest.] When director Park Chan-wook was at Cannes with Oldboy, he made the following statement during an interview: "With the development of civilization and the rise in education levels, people have had to hide their rage, hate, and grudges deep within them. But this does not mean that these emotions go away. As relationships become more and more intricate, the rage only grows more and more. While modern society is burdening the individual with a growing sense of rage, the outlets through which people can release their rage are becoming narrower. This is an unhealthy situation, and it's probably why art exists. In reality, however, the vengeances represented in my movies are not actual vengeances. They are merely the transferring of a guilty conscience. My films are stories of people who place the blame for their actions on others because they refuse to take on the blame themselves. Therefore, rather than movies purporting to be of revenge, it would be more accurate to see my films as ones stressing morality, with guilty consciences as the core subject matter. The constantly recurring theme is the guilty conscience. Because they are always conscious of and obsessed with their wrongdoings, which are committed because they are inherently unavoidable in life, my characters are fundamentally good people. The fact that people have to resort to another type of violence in order to subjugate their initial guilty consciences is the most basic quality of tragedy characteristic in my movies thus far." An important statement to consider when looking at the three films that make up his revenge "trilogy". (Park explained on Thursday that he never set out to make a trilogy -- his decision to do so was a spontaneous reaction during a somewhat hostile press conference in Korea.) Though his latest film builds upon ideas presented in the first two films, it ultimately winds up somewhere highly unanticipated. Sympathy For Lady Vengeance, the best and most solid film of the three, is truly in a category of its own. Lacking the bleak, almost claustrophobic nature of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, or the devious, playful, noir-infused cleverness of Oldboy, this is Park in a far more sublime mode, who this time takes an almost experimental approach to the material. Religion, specifically in its attitudes toward revenge, repentance and atonement, absent from the first two films, hovers over Sympathy For Lady Vengeance, though this is no way a simple lesson in Christian morality. Park relies heavily on symbolism throughout the film when addressing the uses (and even abuses) of religion -- from a Christian choir dressed in Santa suits, to the various Christ/Mary invocations (see poster, left), to priests with questionable intentions, Park peppers the film with symbols and allusions, but maintains a healthy distance from it, and rightly so. Also noticeably different in this film is the presence of the outside world, particularly the media. In both Mr. Vengeance and Oldboy the stories were contained and limited to the characters involved. Rarely was there interaction with strangers, and the media, though present in both films, never served to comment on the events at hand. In Lady Vengeance, the media is in some way responsible for creating Geum-ja (Lee Young-ae), the titular lady seeking vengeance. Her beauty captures the hearts of many, and though the film opens with her release from prison, she already has a cult following purely based on her looks. The sins of her past are washed away from the public eye thanks to her beauty -- even the church actively courts her to be a spokesperson -- the commodification of rehabilitation, of sorts. Unlike the (mostly) straightforward narratives of the first two films, Lady Vengeance avoids linearity in favor of trips back and forth in time, and by the occasional shifting of narrative focus. Fans of the series will spot allusions to the past two films (very clever at times), including a few that are clearly meant to throw us off. Choi Min-sik (star of Oldboy) is back, and though not as central to the story, his performance is once again incredible. (A comparison of this character to Oh Dae-su will make for a fascinating study, but not here, not now.) What makes Sympathy For Lady Vengeance such an overwhelming success is the manner in which Park drags us into the fray and forces us, for the first time, to consider what we would do in such a situation. For unlike the socio-political circumstances that trigger the multiple vengeances of Mr. Vengeance, or the elaborate, purely fantastical scheme that is Oldboy, Sympathy For Lady Vengeance has at its core a device that, while not original, is one that all but the cold-hearted will have some sort of personal reaction/response to. Sympathy For Lady Vengeance is far more disturbing than its two predecessors -- not for its graphic violence, but for its ability to force us to think about the difficult questions raised, and the even more difficult solutions. Can violence be used a means for the atonement of sin? Is redemption possible after such a horrific act? Park has taken great leaps forward with this film, and it's the kind of film that even those who hated Oldboy might enjoy. There's still so much more to digest (and even more to say), but, as stated above, virtually impossible without giving too much away. This is definitely not Filmbrain's last word on the film. Sympathy For Lady Vengeance screens at the New York Film Festival on Friday 30 September @ 6:00PM and on Sunday 2 October @ 8:30PM. Full details and tickets can be found HERE. A bit of advice -- if possible, avoid reading any plot description before seeing it.

Comments

[Glenn Kenny]

Okay, let me get serious for a second here. "Yuppie" is not, by strict definition, a pejorative term, although I obviously intended it in a sense that should be inferred as slightly to the left of neutral. My point being, "fanboy" and "pretentious" are terms employed by certain classes of people as a blanket dismissal, a way of closing off argument, an underhanded assertion of one's own "authoritativeness," and what not. It's a little distasteful to see paid movie writers lord it over bloggers by describing them with a term that implies social ineptitude, living in one's mother's basement, etcetera. It's cheap, easy, and bad critical practice.

[Grady Hendrix]

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

I hate to drop a spoiler in this mostly high-toned discussion, but I think Park does wrap up what happens to the Australian parents, although he does it in such an oblique manner that it passes almost unnoticed.

The parents drop off to sleep on the couch with their daughter in Geum-Ja's apartment. Then we see the daughter waking up in the room full of smoke, and next the daughter is running to her mom seemingly oblivious to the cold and snow although she's just wearing a nightgown and bare feet. They're dead. I think the clues are there so we can piece together the fact that those damn eternally burning candles have set the apartment on fire, and killed the parents and daughter.

I'm not saying Park is a big brained genius or anything, but I think the reason he plays it so obliquely is because the rest of the movie is chronicling the deaths of relatively unattractive characters and he treats their deaths as spectacle. But when a sympathetic character dies he doens't focus on the grisly details, or the physicality of the act, or turns it into an exploitative plot point, but he just shows their ghost or spirit. It's the gentlest thing a director can do.

I could be full of it here, but did anyone else feel this way?

[Filmbrain]

Though it sounds good, and makes some sense, Park did confirm at the press conference that the parents are not dead. The smoke was not from the candles, but from the cigarette smoke that the ghost of the boy is smoking at the end.

[md'a]

Glenn, as someone who owes his career to his dorky personal website (and who still maintains that site, in however skeletal a form), I assure you that I'm not lording anything over anybody. It's not remotely a question of professional vs. amateur or print vs. Internet. Fanboy is as fanboy uncontrollably salivates over perceived kewlness. I'm not going to pretend that this sensibility doesn't exist or that certain filmmakers aren't clearly catering to it. Yes, it's dismissive, but this is the comments section of a blog, not a critical essay.

[Glenn Kenny]

I cede you your points, but suggest they raise a few questions themselves. To wit, insofar as filmmakers actively cater to what we'll call a "fanboy" sensibility, to what extent can this be empirically proven rather than critically speculated upon, and to what extent is catering to a "fanboy" sensibility something that makes sense to film financiers? ("Hey, back my movie—there aren't all that many droolers out there, but believe me, they're REPEAT VIEWERS!") Insofar as you express your contempt for those who "uncontrollably salivate over percieved kewlness," yeah, I tend to have a few laughs at the expense of ChillerCon attendees and the like myself, but I don't think Filmbrain's analysis even begins to touch the periphery of the kind of reflexive tub-thumping such fellows have come to represent. But as you said, this is the comments section of a blog, and we're already way off topic, but I suggest some of these issues could use a good going-over in some other forum.

[Steve]

At least no one's yet complained that LADY VENGEANCE panders to hipsters. After the last SLATE Movie Club, that word's become about as meaningful as "liberal," coming from the mouth of Ann Coulter.

[Ryan]

Not my intention to spam Filmbrain's blog, but if you're interested, Glenn, D'Angelo and Sicinski were among the participants in a pretty spirited discussion on the very topic of dissing-fanboys-as-criticism on my blog a five or six months back. Not that that ancient blog post can serve as a forum for the present discussion.

[Filmbrain]

Ah...don't get me started on the Slate Movie Club! Armond White proclaiming us bloggers as little more than "snake-hipped word-slingers". If only!

Thanks for the link Ryan. Nice to know that D'Angelo can enjoy Sin City without being a fanboy. I was getting worried there for a moment.

[Mikko Pihkoluoma]

I don't know if I score any extra points for saying this, but like Ms. Dargis (who Mr. Sicinsky quotes in his review), I believe "[Park] is a slick hipster and a reactionary presence in world cinema, and his ascendancy must be curbed."

I've thought so ever since I saw Joint Security Area at the Helsinki International Film Festival in 2001, where it was greeted with applause. I gave Park another chance with Oldboy, but like I suspected it was an awfully simple and stupid film, that mostly everyone I've met likes.

I'm not terribly concerned over the fact that Park stylizes violence without any critique; I think he does that, but that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that he pretends to be more complex than he is, and people are stupid enough to go with it. I've always been skeptical towards filmmakers who use ethical conundrums and "complex" plotlines as simple means to be treated as "serious" (smart, or talented for that matter), and I think Park is probably the most overrated among them.

[Steve]

Thanks for being so patronizing, Mikko. (Finally, someone dissed hipsters here!) Perhaps you should see SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE and LADY VENGEANCE before dismissing Park: to my mind, OLDBOY and JSA are his weakest films, and I can understand why someone would write Park off if that's all he's seen. You and Tony Rayns should have a nice talk about the need to save the world's Western cinephiles from themselves and the irresistible ascendancy of those horrible frauds whom only they can detect.

[md'a]

This is indeed getting a little far afield, but please note that I did not (and certainly would not) call Filmbrain a fanboy. I just said the film is pandering to that demographic.

[Mikko Pihkoluoma]

I consider myself a hipster (and I do intend to keep up with Asian cinema), which is all the more reason to hate Park. I can see that his films have attractive elements in them. But that's all there is to it. I don't see anything truly original, interesting or profound about his work. Then again I pretty much think the same about the Spanish Oscar Winner Alejandro Amenábar. I'd be actually surprised if Park didn't move to Hollywood and/or make a film with a handicap/retard to win himself an Oscar.

I will have an opportunity to watch SFLV at the London Film Festival, but I don't think I'm after the type of intellectual pain his films give me. I might have a look at SFMV, but only if it doesn't have a plot-twist in it; does it? I'd much rather watch Fight Club for the 17th time than another Park film.

...I'm sorry for the patronizing, but I can't think of another way to express my feelings. I am deeply concerned that these type of films are as popular as they are. I guess my rants don't help to convert anyone, but there's always hope...

[hazylium]

Hello! I'm new here- I haven't watched Sympathy for Lady Vengeance but I thought Sympathy for Mr Vengeance and Oldboy were pretty good movies. Perhaps it would be constructive for you to explain why you believe Park's movies are, well, stupid and awful, Mikko?

[Mung Geh]

Mikko. I, along with a few people in my Film Theory class here in Seoul, would love to hear your idea (or a list) of films that are truly original, interesting or profound. Also appreciated dearly will be the list of filmmakers that you deem as serious, smart or talented. Your answers(lists) would enrich and enliven our class debates on global film critiques of Korean films.

And for those of you who might be under the impression that Park Chanwook is a right-winger, well, he isn't. Actually, he is a card-carrying member of left wing political party called Min Joo No Dong-dang which roughly translates to Democracy For Laborers.

[Mikko Pihkoluoma]

I think among others Wong Kar Wai, Takashi Miike, Takeshi Kitano, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Kim Ki-Duk and Chung Ji Woo are well worth those words (truly original, talented, profound). Also, I'd much rather watch another film by Im Sang-soo or Jang Sun-Woo than more Park.

As for explaining the idiocy of Park... It's pretty darn difficult. I just find his aesthetic ideas mundane on every level. His fixation with "complex" plotlines (that are generally not very captivating or surprising) and the bland "Hitchcockian" cinematography are two of the most irritating qualities.

[Jake]

Nice list of directors, Mikko.
Guess we now know where he's coming from.
I would have never guessed Takashi Miike is truly original, talented, and profound.

[meowmeow]

First,thanks for great review and interesting discussion here.
I just saw SFLV. One thing I noticed is 2nd part of movie(parents revenge). It almost felt like watching play-within-play. It was very theatrical. I think Park likes to use or to borrow or to express Shakesperean-like meta-theatrical thinking. "oldboy" had those devices and "cut" was very obvious. I also find many devices and elments in SFLV. In a sense, Park is the most western director korea ever had.
His theme is almost like that of theatre of cruelty or shakesperean tragedy or greek tragedy. Park studied western philosophy in catholic university. His idea and philosophy and exploration is very traditional western issuses which were frequestly expressed and explored in western philosophy(I may not be pc here or may be naive). I had never seen reviews from so-called critics in this perspective. Critics often think they are watching shock asian movie but for me as a korean, park's movie is most foreign(western) thing ever I seen. Of cource, it is well made.
this is my 2 won.

[mrbrigante]

Take away Park's success of Oldboy at Cannes, take away Lee's status in Asian Cinema, and let's imagine this was made by an unknown, what's left of this film is nothing but a montage of provoking and disturbing scenes placed one after another. That's not a movie. It's just a sick music video. The narrative doesn't exist after the first 30 minutes. The dialogue isn't used as a means of advancing the plot or revealing the true nature of the characters, all it does is to try to produce cheap laughs and most of the times, they fail.

Whoever gives glorifying reviews on this movie is just being self-indulgent. Let's face it. The movie doesn't make us laugh, doesn't move us, in fact there's not a single socially redeeming quality whatsoever.

I've been Park's biggest fan and that's probably why I was so disappointed but he has to realize this film is nothing but an artistic masterbation. We get that Park's capable of producing flashy images. We get that he has a quirky sense of humor. But is there anything else that he's showing us here? Either entertain us or provoke us to think. All he did was to prick our senses with a needle every five minutes trying to wake us up and by the time the movie is over, we realize if we stopped watching it after 20 minutes, we really didn't miss anything.