|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.117.254.46
I finally was able to see this Korean film last night. It is the story of a Buddhist monk, living alone on a lake in the mountains, raising a young "budding" (?) monk. The film starts in the Summer, as the young boy torments a fish, frog, and snake by tying a rock to them and watching them struggle. The old monk sees this, then in the middle of the night, ties a large rock to the young boy, and tells him that he will remove the rock only if he finds the critters and removes the rock from them. However, if any are dead, then the rock will remain in his heart for the rest of his life. The boy searches to find the fish and snake dead.Spring finds him older, I suspect in his late teens. A young girl comes to visit the old monk to be cured of an unstated ailment. After a little while, the young girl and the budding monk are engaging is very un-Buddha like acts. The old monk warns the young man that these thoughts can create emotions which lead to murder. The young girl is cured, and so the old monk sends her away. The young man's passions having been roused, he leaves as well.
Fall arrives. The old monk now has a cat. He arrives with a package of fish wrapped in newspaper. The paper contains a headline of a man who has murdered a woman. It is the former budding monk. He arrives back shortly thereafter, a much changed man. More violent. Much more aggression. The old monk beats him, ties him up over the floor. Then takes the cat's tail, dips it in ink, scrolls over the outside deck. He then hands the older man a knife, telling that carving out the symbols will release his anger. Shortly thereafter, two police officers arrive to take the man into custody. They respect the wishes of the monk, and allow the man to continue the carving. When he is completed, the monk and two police officers color in the carvings. The policemen and the man leave, presumably taking him to jail.
Winter arrives. The lake is frozen over. The man returns now to an empty house with gray in his hair. He has been to prison. He has learned martial arts. The old monk has left his clothes, which the middle age man now wears. Arriving shortly is a woman whose face is completely covered with a cloth, and who brings a small baby. She appears to meditate in front of the Buddha statue. In the middle of the night, she walks upon the ice, and falls into a hole, leaving the baby.
Spring arrives. The baby is now a young child, and the man has assumed the position of the old monk, teaching the child. The cycle is complete. Did the old monk go through the same experiences? Role credits.
There is so much more about the film that is decribed here. This is one of the most perplexing films I have ever tried to decribe. So little actually happens, but so much happens. The best I can say is that it is almost like a religious experience, trying to define what cannot be defined. For example, one of the last shots shows the lake and cottage from mountains, and it almost looks inpenetrable (sp). Yet two police officers, a young girl and her mother, and a young lady and her baby make it there. The young boy takes the boat to the shore, yet the old monk is there with him, yet not wet. And there is only one boat. They never fish, have no gardens, yet are never hungry. The film is such a visual delight.
Am I recommending this film? This is one of the most moving films I have ever seen. It is, if nothing else, spiritual. If you like "artsy", if you need to analyze films from a techinical point of view, if you needs answers and logic, then the film may not be for you. But if you like to succumb to the moment and let a film simply absorb you, there is not a better film. A film I will not soon forget, and one of the best I have seen.
Follow Ups:
Kim Ki-duk is among the most laughably bad filmmakers of the last decade. Seek out Tony Rayns's superb essay on Kim for a thorough analysis.
- http://A horrible, pretentious, pseudo-spiritual mess. Sure to be like by those who find Tarantino (Open in New Window)
Do you ever provide anything more than conclusions? How about analysis, and, heaven forbid, some real examples from the film to support your argument? Or would that require too much thought? Or is there a parrot on your shoulder which tells you what to say, but does not tell you anything to support it's slogans?
A rebuttal, and links to several more:
http://harrylimetheme.blogspot.com/2004/11/tony-reigns.html
Rayns's article isn't presently online, it seems. I can only suggest tracking down the issue of Film Comment where it appears.
I first caught "Spring.." on satelite one late night, and within 5 minutes, I knew it was by director Kim. There's an unmistakable character and feeling to all his films, mainly a feeling of disconnection in disturbed characters who don't talk much at all.Certainly "Spring.." is one of Kim's most friendly and gentle films and enjoyable, but who can forget the fish hooks in "The Isle"..
Kim could also work a little more on understanding the female sex, a common criticism of his works.
WOW ending. It's like they needed to put in some action to appeal to Western audiences.
Still, a very powerful film, beautifully filmed, with a delicate and sensitive feel unknown to Western directors.
It's a good thing you and Rico aren't novel critics or you'd spend your whole lives re-counting stories.
"WOW ending."Not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to the scene in whcih the woman falls through the ice? If so, I never thought "wow", or was otherwise shocked. But then, that may be my Americanization, conditioned to years of violence through movies. I'll write Von Trier and ask him.
"It's like they needed to put in some action to appeal to Western audiences."
Action? If you thought that was action, then you need to get out more. No, the purpose of the film, I think, was to show the cycle of life. How to get a small baby in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of a lake, to start the cycle all over again. Well, I guess the director could have used a stork to drop the baby boy there. Or he could have had the baby in the basket with a sign telling the proprietor of the inn to take care of him. Need to appeal to western audiences? The film grossed about 2.3 million in the U.S., doing about 42k it's first weekend. Which is better than it did in Europe. Obviously, it did not appeal to western audiences. Unless he was so inept that you think he tried, and failed. If he is going to pimp himself out, why no go all the way - have some heavies come in with a man who cheated the mob, who also has a son. Have the heavies shoot the father in massive gun fire, leaving the little boy to fend for himself. The monk, hearing the gunfire, comes to the rescue, finds the little baby, then takes him home. Now THAT would a designed for a western audience. A woman falling through the ice? Uh, no.
"Still, a very powerful film, beautifully filmed, with a delicate and sensitive feel unknown to Western directors.
It's a good thing you and Rico aren't novel critics or you'd spend your whole lives re-counting stories."I am not sure what you mean by that. Your "comments" are largely the same as mine, except I made mine first. At least Rico and I would not be the subject of an expose on plagiarism.
I was reminded a lot of The Return.
.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
s
.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: