Much Ado About (What’s the big deal?) PARASITE

Closer look at the award-winning film

Story KEVIN LAMBERT

Much of the world has been buzzing about a certain wellregarded Korean film that won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2019. This film would win a plethora of awards: Blue Dragon in Korea, Golden Globes, SAG Awards, New York and Los Angeles Critics Choice Awards, just to name a few. It’s nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, which is not uncommon, but the last foreign language film to win was, well, never. (“The Artist” was silent with lines in English.)

The film, written and directed by the auteur Bong Joon Ho, is described as a tale of two families: one rich; one poor. The families enter into a symbiotic relationship, and a third family is found to have been interloping all the while. It’s all very metaphorical, and complex, but also simple; it starts off as a bleak comedy and a fairy tale.

So, here comes the spoiler warnings: I have no intention of dancing around the plot or ending for those who haven’t seen the film. You’ve been warned.

I’ve had a number of conversations about the film and nearly all of the reviews are glowing. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 99 percent for critics and a 93 percent audience score (if you’re into that kind of thing). The film is satirical, funny, and points to the class struggle that saddles the world. Something about the acclaim however, feels off. Many Koreans shrug at “Parasite” and are otherwise nonplussed. Is the satire effectively landing on the audience it was originally intended for?

Approaching this film, I sat down for a chat with an old friend, Michael Aronson, after seeing a post he made on Facebook. Michael’s YouTube video on the Seoul Subway has over 1.4 million views. It was even played on the subway. Pretty neat. (Michael's YT: p00lman) The thread started: I saw Parasite. This movie has no third act. Why is anyone talking about a movie with no third act, which fails to pay off its subplots and all of its themes. It's so lazy it's almost impressive.

Fair enough. I’m not going to copy paste his whole critique but it’s pretty solid: The film is about nothing. The poor family isn’t trying to take over the rich family, and they have no stated goals for improving their own status. There’s no stated goal and nothing for the family to achieve. An idea that seems to run parallel to RTE reviewer, Paddy Kehoe, “A film is hardly effective satire if it doesn't point up a route, however obliquely, towards radical change."

So, we chatted. Here’s how it went.

The film is satirical, funny, and points to the class struggle that saddles the world. Something about the acclaim however, feels off.

K: So, what makes “Parasite” so relevant right now? Is it because of K-pop? BTS?

M: I feel like western media talks about “Parasite” like they talk about Gangnam Style, like they never took it seriously for the satirical message - it’s just a fun video. “Parasite” is a fun movie, but all the superficial elements are about class - a Cinderella story where they’re pretending. They’re undercover in this foreign world. The film explores class like a cosplay.

K: An inverted Rapunzel. Instead of being trapped in a tower they're trapped in a basement. I don’t know how that pans out, but it ties into the fairy tale thing.

M: [As for being relevant] I feel that the first act was strong because the characters are aware of the disparities they face, but they’re also clever enough to overcome their lot in life and there’s something appealing in that. They don’t have upward mobility, but plotwise, they pull themselves up from nothing, and you judge them by how well they’re keeping up appearances, how well they lie, or what stories they concoct. They reinvent themselves.

K: Let’s get to this third act: you said, the third act is so lazy it’s almost impressive. Let’s talk about that.

M: I don’t know why other people aren’t more critical of the third act. Like when Kiwoo takes it upon himself to murder the former housekeeper and her husband in the basement with the rock...

I feel that the first act was strong because the characters are aware of the disparities they face, but they’re also clever enough to overcome their lot in life and there’s something appealing in that

K: It’s supposed to be Chekhov's gun, something like that.

M: Ki-woo is the main character because it’s his plan, his initiative, and he moves the plot by getting them the jobs. In that vein, it’s logical for him to come up with a solution on his own, I mean, murder is hasty, but at least it’s a good use of that rock - that Chehkov’s rock.

K: I didn’t see that in Ki-woo. For him to go downstairs and want to kill the old man - that’s not really set up.

M: When Ki-woo goes into the basement he drops the rock, and the crazy housekeeper’s husband picks it up, and it appears he murders [Ki-woo], but he doesn’t? So, he gets out of the basement and he’s bloody from smacking his head against the light switch in desperation, because the rich savant kid knows Morse code.

K: The Morse code thing: It does seem out of place?

M: There are a lot of potential subplots for the kid (Da-song), to have. Because his sister (Da-hye) claims he’s faking his art savantness and we don’t know why. He’s got the super smell thing where he can seem to know Mr and Mrs Kim use the same detergent. But the kid has no agency in the film.

K: Which is also sad because Da-song has some nasty PTSD - if there’s anyone who really suffers in the film it’s this kid...

M: Maybe it’s intended to be a punchline? It happens right before Ki-jung is murdered? It’s just a messy scene to me.

K: Why is it called “Parasite”? Who’s the parasite?

M: I don’t think they ever use that term in the script, in the dialogue ... when I asked

my brother to watch it, he asked, ”Is it a body horror movie?” (Michael replies) “It’s not even a horror - it’s just a metaphor.” It doesn’t describe any of the situations in the movie accurately or what a parasitic relationship is: the parasite drains nutrients away from the host, such that it harms the host, and that’s not happening in any of the scenarios. They’re all doing legitimate work for the rich family. They got the jobs in an illegitimate fashion, but the work they’re doing is real work - despite the deception.

K: Right. From what we’re told, these people earned those jobs and they had the qualifications…

M: Ki-woo, faked his [degree]. He was enrolled in uni when he wasn’t; but the rich mother doesn’t even look at the diploma. He recommends Ki-jung, based on a false story; she was supposed to be the rich kid’s art teacher. And when she first visits, the kid produces art on his own, so she does the job appropriately.

K: By the rich mother’s own metric, this person is qualified to teach art. Ki-jung won her over by discussing the painting...

M: And the father’s driving skills were tested - and he passed. The rich guy is holding a cup of liquid and it doesn’t spill

at all, and the mom is a housekeeper and does all the things she’s supposed to do.

K: But the rich family sucks ‘cause they’re aloof?

M: The rich CEO gets a little mad at Ki-taek when he questions the CEO’s love for his wife. So, the CEO flexes his upper class stature, whatever the imbalance of power may be, but I thought it’s legitimate thing to get angry at.

K: He says, “you work for me - do this.” It’s unfair, but not some huge ethical blunder. We’ve seen bigger conflicts in an episode of Friends. Not worth stabbing someone over.

M: Perhaps the story is more about eating the rich.

K: Maybe that’s a better title.

M: Right. “Eat The Rich” - if this film was a home invasion horror it still works.