Ki Duk-kim passed away

Ki Duk-Kim has died from Covid complications.

Tainted with the #MeToo controversy and also with animal cruelty in his films. But I can separate the art from the artist here. Some of his films moved me greatly.

RIP Kim.

Shame, loved his Bin-jip.
Requiescat in pace Kim.

R.I.P. I really like every movie of his that I've seen (3-Iron, The Isle, Samaritan Girl, Bad Guy & Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter & Spring). If anything, his direction was uncompromising. You have to admire how willing he was to risk alienating or disturbing audiences to to say what he wanted to say.

These days my feelings toward him are like 30% admiration/70% disgust.

"I'll do whatever it takes to realize my vision" is great unless you're the person being assaulted or the animal being mutilated (in an era where CGI and effects render that a completely unnecessary act).

A loss of a great talent is about the best I can say. Some of his films meant a lot to me before they were tainted by knowing more about his process. (I am . . . not what you call a "separate the art from the artist" person, to say the least). I have complicated feelings knowing he won't ever make another film.

Rest in peace. I thought 3-Iron was something special.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

A great director.

I was big on him when I was just starting to get into Asian cinema. I believe he and Chan-wook Park were the first two Korean directors I discovered.

I was still big on him when I watched Birdcage Inn one year ago.

I watched most of his films. Haven't seen his early Real Fiction and his 4-or-5 newest films - all after Moebius.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Yikes. Never heard of him, but, if he’s associated with animal cruelty I don’t want to know further.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

I was incredibly disappointed to find out that the animal sequences in his films were real (in my naivete I assumed they were special effects somehow) and that he has been accused of abusive behavior toward and sexual assault of his actresses.

That said, the film I would still feel comfortable recommending is 3-Iron (Bin Jip), a beautifully shot romantic drama. Then again, if you're one of those people who finds films of tainted directors "guilty by association" (I am one of those people), I'd understand if you wanted to keep his filmography at arm's length.

Ugh, don’t tell me more. Anyone who abuses an animal is the worst form of pond life.

And he was also abusive to women?

I didn't know about the animal cruelty either, which films of his has the animal cruelty in? No need for it at all especially for entertainment...

I've only seen one of his films and the animal abuse was horrific. An excerpt from my review.

And yet you'll find people calling this film 'beautiful and meditative'...which just goes to show people make their own truths.

I believe it is in The Isle (which I have not seen) that

In Spring, Summer . . .

Doesn’t really have anything to do with “makings their own truths” so much as separating that act (and it is indeed reprehensible) from the film itself.
It is beautiful. It is indeed meditative. It is wonderfully filmed.
Those acts alone should not detract from those qualities.
People seem to focus on those acts and decide right then and there that it isn’t a good film. It’s a bit disingenuous.

Sorry but I can't feel beauty or meditative if I'm watching real animals being torture in a film. Actually there's nothing meditative about the story, it's the beauty of the landscape and the way it's filmed that creates an illusion of beauty and meditative qualities.

It does detract because the involvement in a movie involves suspension of disbelief. But real animal cruelty crosses that boundary in a way that many people cannot reconcile.

If someone actually killed a person or committed actual sexual assault or physically/sexually abused a child for the purpose of making a movie, would it be disingenuous to find that a reason to dislike that film? There is a difference between challenging/upsetting fictional content and upsetting actual content. Would you watch a movie that contained a scene where an actor actually molested a child? Of course not (I hope I am correct in saying this!). Because the amorality of molesting a child cannot be outweighed by a thoughtful story and lush photography.

Thinking that an adult directed a young person to commit the acts of animal cruelty only gives it another gross layer.

In some international cuts of the film, there is a second sequence in which the rocks are wedged in their mouths. The American release cut that second sequence and replaced it with something less reprehensible (involving a turtle, I think?).

__________________

Me either. The hubris of these people to think they can inflict suffering on an animal is beyond my comprehension. Write a movie that contains no animal cruelty! Problem solved!

To me, it’s not a movie. More like a snuff film. None of which I have the least desire to see.

Exactly--you leave the realm of fiction and are actually watching real pain being inflicted on a creature for the purpose of entertainment.

I'd love to be more into Westerns, but watching horses' legs be broken as they are yanked with tripwires is incredibly upsetting to me.

Oh, gross.