It punches down, actually

Parasite (d. Bong Joon-ho)

Who is this movie for? We have two screen-like windows in the film. For the less prosperous family, it’s a small submerged opening while for their wealthier counterpart, it’s large and magnificent—and the view ain’t that bad either. The reason I ask this question is because, while the movie seems to be about class resentment, the characterization of the rich folks tend to be facile, and, as the climax shows, perhaps not worth the fury in placing a knife through their Chanel sunglass-ed illusions. In other words, the rich are way too nice and naive for the film to be an effective grilling of them; well, because it’s more likely that the film will be seen and appreciated by this demographic. The poor, as the film shows, have no appreciation of art unless it is googled.

If the director is aiming for some type of statement about class, the one he comes up with is quite devastating: instead of class solidarity, in-fighting within the lower classes are the cause of much violence and pain. In fact, the representation of the third family in the film, the one that does not begets any children, is shown as both mentally deficient (misplaced loyalties) and mentally ill. They are not of this earth, literally; they are not of the formal nor gig/grift economy either but merely surviving.

Meanwhile, the financial situation of the grifting family is equally quizzical. With their combined income, as the patriarch says, they could move out of their cramped, semi-underground quarters, but they don’t. There isn’t any improvement except for the occasional dining out. Where is the money going and what do they plan with it? This economic factor becomes blurry because the film has a) other allegories in mind and b) it is not really interested in a Marxist or quasi-Marxist commentary. It just wants to show that there is an economic divide and if you rich folks (self-identifying or wannabees) are naive enough, you guys will be taken in.

The other important specter is North Korea. As a character points out, a key edifice was built as a place to hide from bombs and creditors. The movie seems to conflate the two in its second half, which is why the economic aspect becomes less prominent, less biting. The doubling repetition of a character and his fate does not make sense, narratively and visually, if the underlying de/re-unification of the Koreas is ignored. The final sequence stages a wishful reunion not just with the flesh and blood characters but of these two nations.

#2019 #126