Filmbrain reviews Marathon (and reveals his heart of stone...)

A confession. Films that depict triumph in the face of adversity -- the ones often labeled "uplifting", inspirational", or "a story of human triumph" -- do little for Filmbrain other than leave him bored or frustrated. A character inflicted/born/suffering with disease/condition X overcomes obstacle Y and, against all odds, achieves goal Z. While this model makes for the kind of cookie-cutter screenplay that audiences and Oscar adore, they are more often than not maudlin affairs that rely on cheap, heart-tugging manipulative gimmicks to ensure that there's not a dry eye in the house. Such is the case with Jeong Yoon-chul's debut feature, Marathon. Like many films in this genre (if we can group them as such), Marathon is based on the true story of a young Korean man with autism who has completed several marathons, and is the current record holder for the fastest time in a triathlon. While a documentary on the subject might have been interesting, the feature film we are left with brings nothing new to the table except for a healthy dose of misogyny (more on that in a moment). Lead actor Cho Seung-woo gives a dedicated, impressive performance as the somewhat Rain Man-esque Cho-won, though at times he comes off as more adorable than afflicted. Marathon begins promisingly enough with a montage that shows the difficulty Cho-won's parents experienced when he was a young boy -- frustration, fights, and a feeling of utter uselessness in trying to get through to the boy. After an incident where they lose Cho-won momentarily at a zoo, the mother (Kim Mi-suk) decides to sacrifice everything and everybody in order to raise her son. One quick fifteen-year jump cut later, we find Cho-won already running in a small 10K race. His mother (her character isn't even given a name) is still in full control of his life -- encouraging him, nagging him, and standing up to anybody who says the slightest word against him. After realizing he has the potential to run great distances, she decides to prepare him for an actual marathon. Enter Yun Jung-won, the gruff but loveable former marathon runner who is sentenced to coach at Cho-won's school as punishment for a DUI conviction. Nothing more than a lazy drunk, he eventually gives in to the mother's continual pleading and becomes Cho-won's private coach. Cue second act, which begins with the coach ignoring and taking advantage of our autistic hero. Naturally though, he will turn both himself and Cho-won around in time for the overly manipulative third act, which is excessive by any standards. The film takes an ugly turn about two-thirds in when writer/director Jeong decides to lay all the blame (for just about everything) on the nameless mother, and hammers this point repeatedly. As the only female character in the film, it comes off as little more than bashing, especially when you take into consideration the men in Cho-won's life. His father, who walked out on the family years before, is blameless, as is the younger son who all but ignores his brother. Adding insult to injury, Jeong has the mother come down with a painful perforated ulcer, which leads to a hospital bed epiphany where she admits to her ex-husband that it is indeed all her fault -- that Cho-won runs not out of his own desire, but out of a fear that his mother will desert him (as she did years ago at the zoo). A bitter sequence that chooses to punish rather than empathize with a mother who was forced to raise a child alone in a society that didn't acknowledge autism as a handicap. It's a cheap shot that only serves as a device to give the heavy-handed third act an emotional kick. Once the self-sacrificing mother takes responsibility for destroying everybody's life, the film re-concerns itself with the titular race, and plays out to a conclusion that will come as a surprise to nobody. With its overly manipulative piano and strings score, Marathon is a slick looking, well acted and directed drama that is marred by a sloppy, unoriginal, and at times unpleasant screenplay. Marathon was a box-office smash in Korea last year, which comes as little surprise, as Jeong has skillfully applied a Hollywood formula that leaves audiences both tearing and cheering.

Comments

[Adam]

Filmbrain,

I have yet to see this film but I had a similar impression you had going into it, that it'd be from a certain able-bodied vision of disability that is a cliche when it's not a stereotype.

And, having seen many a misogynistic South Korean film (PLASTIC TREE, SEX IS ZERO, etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if I found the same problems you do here.

However, there's a cultural factor here that I feel is important to incorporate with the argument. Koreans commonly refer to mother's as the mother of their son, that is, in this case, the mother would be continually referred to as "Cho-won's Mother". Although your argument may still hold, it does complicate a little the implied critique that "she doesn't even have a name." She has a culturally congruent name that many Korean mothers cherish.

But, some Korean mothers may also resent this, feeling that such relegates them as solely the mother of a son limits and not a human individual. (This is the problem with Madonna/Whore dichotomizing, stripping our Mothers of their complex personhood to feed some patriarchal need to force them into unrealistic compartmentalizing. I find Im Kwon-taek to often step into this need.) This may relate to what some Korean diasporic women have noted about the fact that "uri", the Korean word for "we", "us", or "our", can also be used singularly for "my", linguistically limiting the individual's expression w/in the collective. Korean-American writer Ha-yun Jung has noted in her contribution to THE GENIUS OF LANGUAGE: FIFTEEN WRITERS REFLECT ON THEIR MOTHER TONGUES, that "Perhaps this is why I write in English, and not the language I was born into." So your argument about the "nameless" mother might be going along a similar line, but this may be one of those moments that cultural context will help the argument be received better.

Just thinking out loud, that's all.
Happy New Year! btw.
Adam

[Adam]

In typing this out too fast, this sentence makes no sense - "But, some Korean mothers may also resent this, feeling that such relegates them as solely the mother of a son limits and not a human individual."

What I intended to say was this - "But, some Korean mothers may resent being relegated to an identity defined soley as the mother of a son, finding this too limiting of their individuality."

[Filmbrain]

Very interesting, Adam. Thanks for that.

Does referring to someone as "X's mother" extend to strangers as well?

I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on it. Perhaps my reading of the film is incorrect, though even allowing for cultural difference, I still think the mother gets a bum rap in the film.

Shall I send you my DVD? I have no use for it anymore.

[Jimmy]

Sounds dreadful. But please don't apologize for not liking films about overcoming adversity. It's just another way to reach for the lowest common denominator, often in a nobler guise. Like stories about redemption. Or Scots fighting for independence from Britain.

[Adam]

Filmbrain,

Yes, my understanding is that strangers do call other mother's "(Insert son's name) Mother." I'm guessing your argument still works too, just that, without that cultural aspect, it makes your argument vulnerable to a valid critique in its own right.

And since one of my interests is portrayals on disability in cinema, (If anyone else is interested in that topic too, check out Martin F. Norden's THE CINEMA OF ISOLATION), I'll might email you to take you up on that.

Adam

[Filmbrain]

I was going to mention Oasis in the review -- as an example of a film about a person with a disability that is not a saccharine heart-tugger, but a challenging and complex story -- but I ran out of time.

[Duncan]

You're right about Oasis, but I don't think it fits the standard mold you're talking about, if only because the characters don't triumph over their adversity. (It has been interesting in the various reviews I've seen to watch reviewers trying to diagnose Sol Gyeonggu's character; he's been called all kinds of things from retarded to I don't know what. Nothing like armchair diagnosis.) Lee Changdong generally plays interesting variations on genre in his films; I'm very glad to hear that he's begun work on a new one.

Some Korean friends have recommended Marathon, but I hadn't motivated myself to spend the money to get it when there are other films I'd rather see. (Where I live, Korean DVDs that aren't slasher / "extreme" and that haven't gotten a Region 1 release mostly don't turn up in the rental venues, so I generally have to buy what I want to see.) Now it seems I may have been right after all, but if Adam doesn't want your copy, I'd be glad to reimburse you for postage costs if you really want to get rid of it. Sometimes one needs to see things one isn't that wild about.

Duncan

[Hess]

I agree with your point. Which brings me to your praise of HAPPY END. I know you really like the film, but I don't know how you can miss its vengeful, sanctimonious misogyny when you see so clearly through MARATHON's bullshit.
The ending (with its popular "it-was-just-a-dream" theory) always seemed like a cop-out to me, to excuse the images and situations presented in the film.
BTW, really enjoy your site. Apart from Darcy's page, you're one of the only astute guys riffing on Korean films on a steady basis. Thx.

[Filmbrain]

Duncan -- The fact that Oasis doesn't fit the mold is what makes it interesting. It's actually quite a tough film, and doesn't provide us with any easy answers.

I'm also thrilled Lee Chang-dong is working on a new project.

[Filmbrain]

Hess -- you are absolutely right about Happy End. However, I think that the obvious misogyny at the end is meant more as a criticism. The film is all about the emasculation of the husband, tied in with the economic crisis that Korea was going through at that time. Traditional roles are challenged, and new paradigms are required. I think the shocking ending is critical of Korean masculinity, and the inability for Korean men to handle or accept these changes.

Like you, I never bought into the "it was only a dream" interpretation.

[nkw88]

Man who has son and daughter is usually called
as 'X's father' as woman as 'X's mother'.
Usually Koreans call people with their social
position rather than their names.

[Hess]

Filmbrain -- You have a point (and I'm not blind to what you're saying) but this is a case where the images and the actions, I think, completely overwhelm any self-criticism the film has to offer.

What also troubles me about the argument is the portrayal of the wife. She commits adultery, yes, but to assume that she is a bad mother, too, is just egging it on; and when she cries and apologizes to Choi Min-Shik, I can't help but think that the film, perhaps inadvertently, suggests a vindication and righteousness that I find way too rewarding for Choi Min-Shik's character.

So, maybe the film is meant to be critical of both the husband and wife, as the economic situation pushes them to the extremes of their traditional gender roles. Still, even this seems to suggest that professional, working women should be cautious about the "freedom" that they have -- that is, don't forget your family values, ladies.

As a Korean man, I must say that men are in a much more privileged position to get all high handed about women "forgetting about their families" (which is, I think, what Hur Jin-Ho said at a press conference for his new flick, APRIL SNOW). While my reactions to the murder bring me to your interpretation that this is about "the inability for Korean men to handle or accept these changes," the murder drowns that argument with what is visually presented to us (It's FIGHT CLUB all over again).

Speaking of Lee Chang-Dong, have you seen GREENFISH? I tend to think it's the weakest of all his films, but still good with a competent performance by Han Suk-Guy. Everyone I've talked to seems to have that haunting death scene seared into their memories -- a scene, which I think, might be one of the best death scenes in cinema. That could be a cool thread-- best/most memorable death scenes in a movie.

[Filmbrain]

Hess --

I do believe that the criticism falls on both of them, yet I'm not sure I agree that there is a suggested righteousness. But then again, that may be part of the film's genius -- an ending that easily supports multiple interpretations.

I just picked up April Snow -- am looking forward to it.

Yes, I have seen Green Fish, and, yes, the death scene is quite haunting. I love the idea of the "best death scene" thread -- perhaps I'll do that.

[Adam]

Hess,

I definitely agree w/ you regarding HAPPY END. Jeon Do-yeon's character is just positioned too 'perfectly' for us to solely sympathize with the 'plight' of Choi Min-shik's character to allow for an argument that it is a male-self-criticism regarding male reactions to emerging female freedoms. (Now, as for whether its a well-done film style and structure-wise, I definitely think that is the case, although I disagree w/ it's argument.)

HAPPY END is an example of what I call "Nice Guy Catharsis", or more appropriately for South Korean film, "Vegeneance For Mr. Sympathy", where men who have refused to align with certain patriarchal precepts are provided catharsis for the 'It's-just-not-fair' hurt of still being rejected by the women they desire. SEX IS ZERO, PLASTIC TREE, and Hur Jin-ho's 3 films all present this theme. In Hur's case it's most disturbing since his films are primarily seen as romances when they're just as much revenge films. (btw, Hess, I don't know if Hur made the same comment at an APRIL SNOW press conference, but I was at the post-screening Q/A of ONE FINE SPRING DAY where he was translated to have said that and my friend confirmed the accuracy of the translation for me.)

[Filmbrain]

Adam --

I don't know....as someone who is usually very sensitive to such issues, I just don't read Happy End that way. I think where our sympathies lie says more about us than the director's intention.

Is Choi's character really so sympathetic? Isn't he guilty of wallowing in self-pity over his unemployment? Is he a model husband or father? Even if men (Korean or otherwise) do identify with his character, isn't the end even more of a shock? As if the director is showing what we are capable of? I have never viewed the end as a fist-pumping victory for men, or a "the-bitch-got-what-she-deserved" sort of thing. There are plenty of films like that -- and I'm not referring solely to Korean films -- but I just fail to see Happy End as one of them. Perhaps (and this may very well be the case) it is my cultural distance that is responsible for my (mis)interpretation?

I'll have to re-read Kyung Hyun-kim's chapter on the film again -- I can't recall what his take on it was.

[Hess]

Adam--

Thanks for the correction. I've never been over the moon about Hur's films but that quote really soured my previously pleasant experiences with his films.

On the other hand, I was really impressed with his contribution to the TWENTIDENTITY Omnibus (though there are still remnants of that "nice guy" syndrome neatly tucked away in the short running time).

[Adam]

Filmbrain,

Well, it has been a while since I've seen the film, but I have watched it a couple times, and the feeling that resonated w/ me is how we are positioned to detest Jeon Do-yeon's character. Perhaps Choi's character isn't set up as "sympathetic", but by placing him against Jeon's 'evil' character, I find the structure privileging sympathy towards him rather than her. But, as your coutnerpoints challenge, this might require deeper exploration than I have provided here and couldn't do justice towards until I'd seen the film again with your counterarguments in mind.

But based on my past viewings, I don't see HAPPY END as exemplifying, say, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE argument of 'Beware the violence we can do'. The dream sequence at the end isn't enough for me. I don't see signs that we are supposed to interpret HAPPY END as a cautionary tale for men, just a cautionary tale for 'uppity' women and a cathartic release for the so-called nice guy.

Adam

[Toto]

Note to Jimmy: Scots never fought for independence from Britain, just from the English. In a way they're more British than the Sassenachs (if you discount Viking influences). But if you get your history from American Australians with a penchant for Latin and Aramaic, I can't say I blame you. Redemption? Heroic failure?

Films about being crushed by adversity, and finally giving in, can be fascinating or incredibly dumb. But there are too many of the other kind (the kind our dear Filmbrain doesn't like) to allow most to rise against their own adversity - conforming to the cliché. I wonder, would Filmbrain enjoy these films more if they didn't make up ninety-five percent of industrial cinema's output? Sometimes I wonder if this allergic response he has (from overexposure, and an appreciation of the possibilities of the alternatives) doesn't stop him from missing out on a few pearls in the swill the industry throws at us...