Before Kim Ki-duk Changed Seasons, Pimped Teen Prostitutes, or Played Golf

Korean director Kim Ki-duk's career can easily be divided into two distinct phases. There are the early, gritty films — aesthetically and thematically rough, and leaden with disturbing violence and a healthy dose of misogyny. Then there are the more recent entries — the festival and art-house friendly titles, with gorgeous actors and matching cinematography, and only a fraction of the misogyny. Though some have argued otherwise, I'm convinced that the newfound attention from Western audiences had a tremendous impact on Kim's vision, as if his films were being sculpted to meet the approval of foreign eyes. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring and 3-Iron are Asian films that appealed to people who normally don't care for (or see) Asian films. Full of sumptuous images that signify nothing, and just enough "oriental" mystique to keep foreign audiences intrigued, but not so much as to make it impenetrable or intimidating. (That many viewers and critics considered Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring to be a Buddhist parable speaks volumes to this point. Kim is a Christian, and admittedly knows nothing about Buddhism.) But whereas Western audiences flocked to see Spring.... and 3-Iron (it landed on more than few Top Ten lists), the folks back at home weren't buying it — 3-Iron was ranked 59th of the year at the Korean box-office, with Spring... faring not much better. And though it was wonderful to see a Korean film walk away with the Silver Bear at the 2004 Berlin Film Festival, I would have much rather seen it given to Hong Sang-soo's sublime Woman is the Future of Man over Kim's ode to teenage prostitution, Samaria. As depraved, unpleasant and (at times) offensive as they are, Kim's earlier films are far more interesting than the polished ones, and in their own unique way say quite a bit about Korean ideas of masculinity. True, the women in his films are almost invariably some type of whore, but it's never been clear if the rampant misogyny is Kim's own, or merely a conceit by which to deliver his message about Korean male attitudes towards women. (For a perfect example, see Bad Guy.) In 2000, Kim tried his hand at something slightly more experimental. Working with ten cameramen, he shot a feature film in slightly over three hours, without a single retake. The resulting eighty-minute film, Real Fiction, can best be described as an interesting failure. The film opens on a promising, wonderful, lengthy sequence that calls to mind such films as Blow Up and The Conversation. A sketch artist is drawing portraits in a crowded city park. The camera is kept at an almost voyeuristic distance, and passerby walk through the shot, oblivious to what is taking place. (A PA dashes into frame at one point to move a couple who are blocking the shot — a nice touch.) Multiple layers of dialog are heard, including a conversation in a phone booth — it's as if the entire park was miked. A young woman with a video camera films the artist, though he doesn't acknowledge her presence. At times the POV will shift to her camera — is she a character, or is this a bit of intentional reflexivity? (Or perhaps both?) Some street thugs harass the artist, and demand money from him. A customer refuses to pay for her portrait and storms off. With a somewhat documentary feel to it, Kim seamlessly blends fiction with reality, and the impromptu responses from the crowd provide a genuine bit of energy to the scene. Unfortunately, it's all downhill from there. After being dragged into an empty theater by the woman with the camera, the artist meets his antipode, and this dark, masturbating, rage-driven version of himself convinces the artist to take revenge on those who have ever wronged him. What we are left with is a rather straightforward slasher/revenge film, though of the basest kind — it's more Falling Down than Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Ex-girlfriends that wouldn't sleep with him, current girlfriends who are cheating on him, military men who abused him — such are the trivialities that send him on his killing spree. The experimental framework that was so interesting at the beginning of the film is sadly pushed aside for what winds up looking like any low budget thriller, complete with a cloying synthesizer score that seems well out of place. The continual shift from film to video would indicate the presence of the woman with the camera, though logistically it seems impossible in some scenes. Has she now become a distant observer, or is the film/video split simply meant to signify the difference between truth and fiction? There are too many inconsistencies to say for sure. The single-take aspect of the film is interesting, and it's amusing to watch the actors recover from minor gaffes, but even that grows tired after a while. The reappearance of the woman with the video camera late in the film once again raises some questions of reflexivity, but it's nothing that hasn't already been done in films like Man Bites Dog. After eighty-minutes, the act of questioning what is and isn't real no longer holds any interest. But do we really need to hear Kim's "CUT" to remind us that we've just been watching a film? Real Fiction suffers from being neither fish nor flesh — it too quickly abandons its experimental roots in favor of a puerile narrative that ends on the most tired of clichés. Yet even as a failed effort it is more satisfying than the faux-depths and pretty pictures that make up 3-Iron.

Comments

[Alan Rudolph]

"Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring and 3-Iron are Asian films that appealed to people who normally don't care for (or see) Asian films."

Do you care to back up this blanket claim with anything even resembling a fact?

[Eight Rooks]

"But whereas Western audiences flocked to see Spring.... and 3-Iron (it landed on more than few Top Ten lists), the folks back at home weren't buying it"

Seems to at least resemble a fact to me, given a significant portion of Western audiences typically ignore Asian movies given Tartan et al seem determined to do for them what Manga Entertainment did for anime in the early 90s or thereabouts - or else Western distributors seem determined to mismarket, undermarket or just plain bury them. I did actually really enjoy 3-Iron, and liked SSAW...&S (and as more than merely empty pictures, too), but to see the way they were both trumpeted as the very definition of Asian film by just about every mainstream Western critic under the sun was alternately laughable and sickening. Browsing RottenTomatoes for SSAW...&S in particular;

"An accomplished, contemplative work rooted in the philosophy of Buddhism. "?
"it's a movie rich in Buddhist philosophies, yet full of incidents and observations that are easy to grasp, regardless of your beliefs."
"This is one Eastern film that shows a world view that is very different than the Western view of the universe."

...and on, and on - if the critical response didn't/doesn't scream to you "See this film! It's tranquil, exotic and otherworldly and says things we Westerners can't understand whereas those strange, mystical Easterners can!" then I'm not quite sure what to say.

[Filmbrain]

Well Alan, I can cite a few factors. First off, there's simple empirical evidence. When SSFW&S was released, I must have spoken to fifty people whose only other major exposure to an Asian film was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I saw the sold out crowds at The Angelika.

Then there's the issue of box office -- SSFW&S is the highest grossing Korean film in US box office history. Nearly $2.5 million. (In second place is Chunhyang, at just under $800,000.)

Some other comparable titles (i.e., not mega-releases like Hero, Shaolin Soccer etc.):
2046 $1.4 million
Oldboy $707,000
The World $64,000
The President's Last Bang $9,724

That's a remarkable amount for an art film that played in only 74 theaters. How to explain for the disparity? Sure, many Korean film fans went to see SSFW&S, but to gross those dollars, it had to appeal to a group outside of the normal base.

Then of course there were the reviews, as Eight Rooks pointed out.

Look, I'll admit to a bit of sour grapes. Kim has turned into a huckster. Success changed him, and for the worse, in my opinion. Korea has produced some tremendous films in recent years, few of which have seen distribution, and those that have fizzled away with virtually no notice.

[Alan Rudolph]

But can you really use a flawed critical response as a valid critique of a film?

And if we are really going to use financial success in South Korea to judge the quality of a film, I suppose "Marrying The Mafia" is now one of the greatest films of all time.

[Alan Rudolph]

Sorry, I made my last post before seeing Filmbrain responded. I was going to mention the sour grapes element, I thought it would seem too confrontational, so I'm glad you brought it up instead.

Yes, it is unfortunate that no one has even shown the slightest interest in distributing a Hong Sang-soo film in America, I am most certainly a fan of his too. But you can at least take solace in the fact that the finanical success (as relative as it is) of S, S, F, W, and S certainly seemed to fall into the fluke category, considering 3-Iron made 1/10th of what that film did in the US, and I'm not sure if anyone has even picked up The Bow yet.

[phyrephox]

"That many viewers and critics considered Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring to be a Buddhist parable speaks volumes to this point. Kim is a Christian, and admittedly knows nothing about Buddhism."

Aside from the issues Alan has brought up (re: critical response and popularity), I don't see why that film can't be seen as a simplistic Buddhist parable, even though the director claims to know nothing about the religion. I found it to be one, was I duped? I have very little knowledge of Buddhism, but what I do know resonated with the narrative and the themes of the film.

[Filmbrain]

Alan --

I'm more than willing to get into a discussion of what I find wrong with 3-Iron, though I've already written quite a bit about the film both on this blog and others.

Phyrephox --

As a Buddhist (admittedly a bad one at that), I was bothered by critics who made the kind of statements as printed above. I don't fault anyone for making the assumption -- a temple, a monk, serene beauty -- this must be Buddhism, right? Yet what does that say about the integrity of critics, who couldn't be bothered to do a little research?

[Peter Nellhaus]

I've been watching Kim's films since The Isle, seeing both older and newer films. I don't see a problem with his films being commercially successful. The real problem is that most of the so-called critics are simply not very knowledgable about Asian films or aspects of Asian culture, nor are they interested in filling those gaps of knowledge. Crouching Tiger was embraced by an audience and critics who knew nothing about King Hu. Kim may be pandering to western audiences, but if it encourages a few more people to dig into Korean films, as Kurosawa was the starting point for many of us concerning Japanese film, than I would at least give him credit for giving Korean cinema visability. Speaking of which, I saw The President's Barber today. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Alan Rudolph]

I do not begrudge Takashi Miike because basically every film he has ever made, including no-budget straight to video yakuza films, have been released in America while so few of Kenji Mizoguchi's films have. I don't feel any ill will towards Fernando Meirelles that City Of God was treated by critics and audiences alike as basically the first film to ever come out of Brazil, completely ignoring the work of Glauber Rocha and Nelson Pereira dos Santos.

This just seems to run quite a bit deeper than the quality of the films alone.

[Eight Rooks]

I would say the thing is Takashi Miike is undeniably very good at what he does - at least, several of his films are very accomplished and deserving of a great deal of praise, on visceral, artistic or intellectual levels - but to see Kim Ki-Duk held up unquestioningly as some master auteur is just galling when people ignore that he is, or his films are in some ways deeply mysogynistic; that they deal with simple, easily quantifiable emotions which are in no way especially exclusive to any part of the world; that they're overly concerned with style over substance to the detriment of what real messages or thought they might contain... I don't know, it's been a long time since I read his Western reviews closely and I readily admit I've still only seen three of his films. Nonetheless, I read a fair amount of criticism and analysis of his earlier work on the net and off. I still think it's as close to stating a fact as you can get to say he was simply in the right place at the right time to capture the general Western public's appetite for the stereotypical portrayal of the Asian-psyche-as-Other, decided to capitalise on it and the general press conveniently ignored or were ignorant of his earlier work and decided to trumpet him as "the bad boy grows up".

I'm not sure I "begrudge" him his success as such... as I said I enjoyed SSAW...&S, 3-Iron, even Samaria a great deal and I think they're all three quite some way removed from, say, Memoirs Of A Geisha. I just wish more people could give realistic, informed discourse on anyone in his position rather than simply "oh, it has monks in it, and I assume they're Buddhist - it must be good! isn't he amazing?" which is what far too many of those critical responses and an awful lot of average people came perilously close to.

[Alan Rudolph]

I really fail to see how having a recurring theme of women as prostitutes (keep in mind the charcters are literally prostitutes, not just sexually liberated women called such) is any more or less misogynistic than having female characters that are basically interchangeable ciphers used to illustrate the flaws of men and to be topless underneath a drunk in a hotel room during the third act as they always seem to be in Hong Sang-soo's films.

Of course people also claim Lars von Trier's films are misogynistic and I disagree, so maybe I am just part of the horrible patriarchy.

[Nate]

Filmbrain, i think you make some valid points regarding Kim Ki-duk's "aesthetic" transformation, It was pretty clear to me that 3-Iron was a follow up to his new found formula of filmmaking. It's something akin to a band releasing a sophmore album that basically rehashes the stuff on the first successful album. That said, I still enjoyed 3-Iron, and I still think he's a genuinely talented filmmaker. I can tell you when I saw Samaria, which I admire so much (and I know some people don't), I was astonished at its simplicity and the ways that it moved its unpredictable narrative forward. It goes step by step with such confidence. There's a certain economy and elegance to it that is quite unique today. It's certainly not in the ambitiously flashy style of Old Boy, and while I did enjoy a movie like "The Wayward Cloud" it's clear to me that KKD does not fall into that currently popular style of LOOONG protracted takes either.

Watch 3-Iron again and see that he's made sure that basically every shot has a purpose to move the story forward. There's a general lack of stock shots inserted as place holders between scenes. It's methodical, and whatever plot turns and surprises he has are there with a kind of clock-work timing to keep things from stagnating, and those plots are never hard to follow. But he moves step by step and is able to come to unusual conclusions, which is in my opinion, just basic good storytelling. He doesn't linger or move to quickly for that matter. There's a kind of formal rigour to his movies that I find very pleasing even... can I say umm, "Bressonian"? (And this is to say nothing of the subject matter of his movies.) He tells simple stories in a simple yet elegant style. To say he's "style over substance" to me is wrong because his style is perfectly matched with his substance.

And I have to disagree if you say that the movies try to be deeper than they are because I think KKD tells the story in such a manner that there isn't really anything deeper beyond what you see already. He doesn't seem to pass judgment on the characters or their actions and at least in the movies themselves there aren't pages and pages of dialouge with characters spewing philosophy to make the point. They are what they are and there's really no more or less to them than that. That's why I like Samaria so much. It's probably offensive and off-putting to certain people but.. it is what it is. Period. Whatever political, ethical, or metaphysical interpretations people will make is mostly up to the viewer. I definitely don't think KKD tries to obfuscate things using tricky chronological editing or incomprehensible plots or oblique dialouge to conjure up the illusion of meaning. (With the exception of that last on-screen title in 3-Iron, which I agree unfortunately falls into that category. You could say it was a mistake, but it doesn't DESTROY the movie in my opinion).

I agree that "Spring Summer..." is overrated by critics, but I think it's overrated in the same way that "Lost in Translation" was overrated. Both movies are simple stories with very modest goals and many critics hyped them up beyond that. The movies however remain as they are. And, I think it's a bit unfair for you to criticize the movie by way of the american critics who loved it for whatever "misguided" reasons.

And so what if he is creating "international" movies? Is that wrong? I actually look forward to these movies. Certainly we live in a more multi-cultural world and while I have no problem with movies which deal with specific national cultural or historical issues, do we not have room for movies which try to communicate whatever human experiences are universal to us all? I find that Kim Ki-Duk is a director who can work nicely in that mold. If he was from Thailand or Japan or anywhere else, I would still enjoy his movies the same.

[Filmbrain]

Whatever political, ethical, or metaphysical interpretations people will make is mostly up to the viewer.

To an extent, yes. However, the sexual politics of 3 Iron are pretty explicit -- I don't think we're talking about subjective readings here. While it is a bit toned down from Bad Guy, with its "rape can be romantic" fantasy, the dynamics of the relationship in 3 Iron are hardly what I would call enlightened.

I do agree with you that his style is perfectly matched with his substance. Nicely stated.

[phyrephox]

As a Buddhist (admittedly a bad one at that), I was bothered by critics who made the kind of statements as printed above. I don't fault anyone for making the assumption -- a temple, a monk, serene beauty -- this must be Buddhism, right? Yet what does that say about the integrity of critics, who couldn't be bothered to do a little research?

Not to keep bringing you back to this point, which obviously isn't the heart of your article, but who was talking about such plastic elements? Doesn't the very narrative and themes of the movie ascribe to Buddhist philosphy? It has been a long time since I've seen the film, so I could be mistaken.

[HarryTuttle]

Even if you explain insightfully how Real Fiction is bad, it looks interesting to see anyway. Unfortunately it's never been released here.
Have you seen Mike Figgis' split-screen-single-take film Time Code? It's aslo lose with clumpsy improv, but I loved the experiment.

[nkw88]

Actually, in second place, there is 'Taegukgi' that gets $1.2 million. Chunhyang is in the third
place.

[Susan]

"That many viewers and critics considered Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring to be a Buddhist parable speaks volumes to this point. Kim is a Christian, and admittedly knows nothing about Buddhism.)"

I can't imagine why, especially as a Buddhist, you would say that this isn't a Buddhist parable. It's about a young Buddhist monk and his teacher. They practice Buddhism. They sit before a Buddha statue. There is a cycular theme central to this film which is also central to Buddhism. The Monk teacher self-immolates, a Buddhist practice. He writes a sutra on the platform. The official website echos all of this. I don't know whether or not the director is Buddhist or not, but he's made a Buddhist film. It may not be of the school you belong to, but it is Buddhist. Am I completely missing something here? I don't think it's an unfair assumption to say that this is a Buddhist film, I don't think that shows ignorance on the part of "westerners".

Anyway, I love this movie, and am a fan of Asian cinema, which is how I found the site. Just watched "A Tale of Two Sisters" this weekend and have "3-Iron" and "Bad Guy" on the way from Netflix. Asian film gets very little screen time or promotion here in the midwest US, so I find out about movies from the Internet (like your site) and word of mouth/friends. I think if more people had the opportunity to watch Asian films they would like them, but as it is you really have to seek them out, and sadly many do not. Asia is where the most innovative films are being made right now, in my opinion.

I like foreign films in general because they feature people, places and cultures that I don't get to see every day, and like other westerners, we're probably going to find elements in foreign films appealing that people from that film's country wouldn't. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn't assume that Kim Ki-duk is trying to appeal to westerners - it sounds like he's making films that already appeal to westerners, so if he makes more like them, he might be perceived as catering to western tastes. For some reason his recent films are appealing as much to people back home. Is that because they're bad? Different, sure, but I thought "Spring..." was a wonderful movie. He's probably just being influenced by his environment, entertainment choices, etc. - not necessarily crafting films to appeal to a certain audience.

[Kris]

I agree with you. I find Kim's early films to be terribly misogynistic, nasty, and off-putting... but I'd take "Bad Guy," "Birdcage Inn," and "The Isle" any day over the nicer, more toned-down recent films. I didn't dislike "3-Iron" or "Samaria" but they lacked the pinache and the balls of the earlier, sloppier films. Even when Kim failed miserably early on and made an awful, painfully bad movie like "Address Unknown," at least it wasn't for lack of compromise. And when he crashed and burned, he BURNED, man. Even "Bad Guy," with its angry, violent, juvenile, hateful glee piled on time and time again - the old Kim Ki-duk would top it off with an even more perverse finale, like a rotten cherry on top of cyanide-flavored ice cream. I was disgusted with the film (oddly, the Korean girl I was with really liked it), but I remembered it. It was Kim Ki-duk par excellence, the epitomy of his creative "vision." He was one of a kind, and perhaps the world needed him.

But the new ones? "Samaria" approached - but never managed - the sheer nastiness of his early work, "3-Iron" was pleasant but rather bland and forgettable. "Spring, Summer.." I thought was limp and whiffed of phoniness, derivative of Bae Yong-kyun's stunning Buddhist masterpiece "Why Has Bodhi-dharma Left For the East?" (the sole Korean film to rank in any Top Ten List in Sight and Sound's 1992 poll - twice - but seemingly forgotten today). When Kim himself appeared at the end of "Spring, Summer..." and did extended workout sequences in the snow, that was the major groan-inducer for me.

And then there's the most recent one, "The Bow." Prior to its showing at Cannes there was a major wave of anti-Kim amongst the critics, led by Tony Rayn's piece, and "The Bow" could do nothing but add a heapload of kindling, lighter fluid, and gunpowder to that fire. Good luck finding anyone who thinks that travesty is anything other than laughably bad. I mean that was really, really bad. But it wasn't bad in the way that "Address Unknown" was. "The Bow" was just dull and unintentionally silly.

I don't even know if I can sum it up in words, but though I don't like Kim Ki-duk, I'm kind of glad he's around. I just wish he'd return to swallowed fish hooks and people stabbing out their own eyes.

[nkw88]

It is true that the violence against woman is represented in Kim's films.
But I don't know where 'misogynistic' is in Kim's films.
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of 'misogynistic'.
the violence against woman is a kind of metaphor
of human violence against nature or the strong's
abuse of power against the weak.
So woman in Kim's films usually show her perseverance and inner strength.

[Filmbrain]

Susan --

What you say about Buddhism and SSFW&S isn't entirely incorrect, but it isn't that simple. Say, for example, I write a screenplay -- it's set in a church in a tiny village, and it tells a story about a priest and a choirboy. Knowing very little about the religion, I fill it with rituals that I've seen in other films, or read in books, or perhaps even experienced first hand. Yet the foundation that the church is built on -- the very dogma -- is unknown to me. Would that then make it a Christian film?

It's very simple to grab at the obvious symbols and images associated with a religion, but to truly be considered a Buddhist (or Christian, of Islamic) parable, it has to have roots deeper than the superficial. (Plus, not too many monks practice self-immolation.)

SSFW&S is a lovely film to look at, and it works its magic well. (I actually fell for it the first time I saw it.) Yet it's a not a Buddhist film in the true sense of the word. For that, you'd have to watch Why Has Bodhi-Dharma Left For The East or Im Kwon-taek's Mandala or Come, Come, Come Upward.

As Kris correctly points out, there's no question that Kim's films have changed after the success of SSFW&S. And though Kim (to my knowledge) has never acknowledged it, there's a fair amount of evidence that points to his catering to international/film-festival audiences. (Kris -- you are absolutely right about The Bow. Dreadful.)

However, I couldn't agree more with your assessment about Asian films. It's just sad that many of the better films are never finding their way to our shores.

If I may ask, please drop me a line after you watch Bad Guy -- I'm curious to hear both your reaction to the film, and how you feel it compares to SSFW&S and 3 Iron.