What do you think of the movie Parasite (2019)?

Tools    





I thought the movie was really really really good. But then they kind of perhaps maybe drop the ball in the ending?

WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
The one homeless guy who has been living in the basement decides to go on a murder spree and it's as if the writers thought this would be shocking that it's worth going with this ending, and whatever happens as a result of these murders... happens!

But is this really the best ending they could have come up with? Also, how is it taht the son and the father were able to communicate their letters to each other each other?
The father could use morse code to switch the light on and off, but would could the sun do though to communicate his? Did I miss something?

Also, how is is that the rich family, could not tell that the poor family members were related.
Didn't they at any point think that the children kind of look like the parents?

And it seems to me that some of the subplots do not pay off, such as the one kid having feelings for the kid he is tutoring. Or how the small son's trauma and drawings, never seem to play any part in the plot much, after they are set up quite a bit before.


Also I feel like with the third act, the movie switches genres from a comedy-drama, to a thriller film when perhaps it should have just stayed a comedy-drama and owns it. What do you think?



Welcome to the human race...
I thought the movie was really really really good. But then they kind of perhaps maybe drop the ball in the ending?

WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
The one homeless guy who has been living in the basement decides to go on a murder spree and it's as if the writers thought this would be shocking that it's worth going with this ending, and whatever happens as a result of these murders... happens!

Well, of course it's shocking. We spend at least half the film watching this poor family build up this elaborate con and settle into it only to get blindsided by the reveal of the basement guy and how that drastically complicates things (and also proves an interesting counterpoint in that the basement guy and his wife have been running a similar con to the poor family so there's the question of how to actually address the situation), then when said situation gets resolved poorly the consequences are naturally devastating.

But is this really the best ending they could have come up with? Also, how is it taht the son and the father were able to communicate their letters to each other each other?
The father could use morse code to switch the light on and off, but would could the sun do though to communicate his? Did I miss something?

How else would it end? The poor family's con can't last forever and to have it so that they are forced to fight other similarly desperate people (arguably more so) to maintain it (and have those consequences spill out and ultimately ruin their own con) is a better point than if the rich family simply came to their senses on their own because that would not fit with either their characterisation or the point the film is trying to make about how utterly removed they are from the conflicts of the poor until it's too late.

Assuming that the son's message actually does reach the father (and it's suitably ambiguous as to whether or not it does), I think the idea is that he uses a flashlight to do Morse code while standing on the hill overlooking the house so that the father might be able to see it through the window.


Also, how is is that the rich family, could not tell that the poor family members were related.
Didn't they at any point think that the children kind of look like the parents?

Leaving aside how the rich family is characterised as being rather naive and gullible in the first place, it's not exactly uncommon for family members to not bear a particularly distinctive resemblance to one another.

And it seems to me that some of the subplots do not pay off, such as the one kid having feelings for the kid he is tutoring. Or how the small son's trauma and drawings, never seem to play any part in the plot much, after they are set up quite a bit before.

I think the pay-off for the rich son's trauma about the "ghost" is that he did see the basement guy in the kitchen late one night, so it's foreshadowing more than anything else. Not sure what to make of the poor son/rich girl relationship as of yet, though - might have to watch it again, it's been a while.
Also I feel like with the third act, the movie switches genres from a comedy-drama, to a thriller film when perhaps it should have just stayed a comedy-drama and owns it. What do you think?
I think the way that the tone gradually changes is a point in its favour. Having it start off as a snobs-versus-slobs con artist caper only to change into something...different is what makes it special.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, Iím thinking about you.



WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
Oh okay, but the flashlight thing seems like a long shot, but we also never see any shots of the son using a flashlight to communicate, I don't think. So how did you reach that conclusion, unless they did show that?

Another question I have is, why was Ki-Taek going to kill Mr. Park over the fact that Mr. Park did not like the way the guy in the basement smelt, or how poor people smell? Killing him over how he doesn't like the way such people smell, would be the dumbest thing Ki-Taek could do, so why did he choose to kill him over such an issue like that?

Also where does Ki-Taek keep getting his food from if he is hiding in the basement?
Wouldn't he eventually have to send out for groceries or go shopping, once all the food runs out?

Another thing is, if the guy who decides to start a murder spree, is hiding because he is being hunted by lonesharks, wouldn't going on a murder spree in front of several witnesses, eventually alert the lonesharks as to where he is though?

As for the ending being shocking, I guess I just felt it was kind of a cop out ending.
As if the producers said, hey people don't want to watch a drama without it bein ga thriller, we need an ending with violence, stabbity stab stab, that's what people want for an ending...
Or maybe I shouldn't be looking at it, as a cop out?



Welcome to the human race...
WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
Oh okay, but the flashlight thing seems like a long shot, but we also never see any shots of the son using a flashlight to communicate, I don't think. So how did you reach that conclusion, unless they did show that?

Haven't seen it in a few months so I could be misremembering it. It does seem like a long shot, which is why you can interpret it as being a moment of wishful thinking on the son's part (kind of like Brian Cox's final monologue in 25th Hour, for example). The logical flaw with the plan is that Ki-taek probably wouldn't be able to leave the basement for long enough to see such a long Morse code message, but really they never confirm if Ki-taek gets the message so it's up to interpretation as to whether or not he does get it.

Another question I have is, why was Ki-Taek going to kill Mr. Park over the fact that Mr. Park did not like the way the guy in the basement smelt, or how poor people smell? Killing him over how he doesn't like the way such people smell, would be the dumbest thing Ki-Taek could do, so why did he choose to kill him over such an issue like that?

The last straw, I guess.

Also where does Ki-Taek keep getting his food from if he is hiding in the basement?
Wouldn't he eventually have to send out for groceries or go shopping, once all the food runs out?

As I recall, new owners who are unaware of the house's history move in and he just steals food from them while they're asleep. Before that, I think there's canned stuff down there from the basement guy.

Another thing is, if the guy who decides to start a murder spree, is hiding because he is being hunted by lonesharks, wouldn't going on a murder spree in front of several witnesses, eventually alert the lonesharks as to where he is though?

He's spent years confined in a basement and goes insane to the point where he thinks of Mr. Park as a god who he praises by sending Morse code through the house lights. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised to see him lose it (especially since his wife had died by then as well, which may well have been the thing to trigger him into a violent rage).

As for the ending being shocking, I guess I just felt it was kind of a cop out ending.
As if the producers said, hey people don't want to watch a drama without it bein ga thriller, we need an ending with violence, stabbity stab stab, that's what people want for an ending...
Or maybe I shouldn't be looking at it, as a cop out?

But that violence only really happens in the last 20 minutes of a 2-hour movie and is the naturally extreme conclusion of the constantly-escalating character drama that has unfolded before then. It's kind of like how Taxi Driver only truly gets violent during its ending but that violence is merited by the way that the story and characters are developed.
.



for me the best films in this genre are:
The Hidden
invasion of the body snatchers



WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
Oh okay. Interesting comparing it to Taxi Driver, but in Taxi Driver, I guess I just bought the last straw more. Where as this guy's last straw, it seems everything was going well for him. Sure he had to kill a woman and there is a flood at his place, but he was making money still. I just didn't think the opinion of guy's smell, who hasn't bathed in years, would set him off like that.

Also, why doesn't he just go to prison? Isn't that better than living in a basement, where you can't breath, and getting food would be a challenge, compared to prison, where you can still bathe, and eat easier? The point of being a fugitive is that you find a place that is better than prison, so why choose to live in a place that's worse?

Also, when it comes to subplots being unresolved, another one, is is that there seemed to be some romantic tension between Ki-Taek and Mrs. Park, such as when he held her hand, and they looked at each other closely. What was the point of setting up this subplot, if it is forgotten about with no pay off later, as well?



Setsuko Hara is my co-pilot
That's what the director meant by it, basically, but the way it's presented is way more intricate and ambiguous. Still, it doesn't really matter much, because the film is extremely ENTERTAINING, so just enjoy the ride.

EDIT: Well, it makes more sense in Korea where the class divide is still tangible. Dunno how capitalism relates to all that, but all left-leaning filmmakers seem to think capitalism is the root of all evil.



It's funny how some filmmakers think that captitalism is the root of all evil, if that's true, cause I thought that the film industry was a capitalist thing to begin with, since it's a big money making entertainment business.



Thank God IĎm an atheist.
Spoilers!!!




And it seems to be that some of the subplots do not pay off, such as the one kid having feelings for the kid he is tutoring.

The film is about the collapse of social mobility. Kevin is too poor for anything to ever happen. This is the trump card of the University student and why he chooses him in the first place, even if they did develop mutual feelings for one another, the social and economic gulf between them is too large, it would be a pipe dream.

Or how the small son's trauma and drawings, never seem to play any part in the plot much, after they are set up quite a bit before.

This is part of their social pedigree, they are rich not because they inherited all their wealth; they are wealthy because being they are superior human beings. The scribblings of child are taken early masterpieces of an artistic genius.

Another question I have is, why was Ki-Taek going to kill Mr. Park over the fact that Mr. Park did not like the way the guy in the basement smelt, or how poor people smell? Killing him over how he doesn't like the way such people smell, would be the dumbest thing Ki-Taek could do, so why did he choose to kill him over such an issue like that?

Mr. Kim knows eventually he is going to cross the line with his smell and be fired by Mrs. Park. Remember all the workers lose their jobs over imaginary faults.

As for the ending being shocking, I guess I just felt it was kind of a cop out ending. As if the producers said, hey people don't want to watch a drama without it being a thriller, we need an ending with violence, stabbity stab stab, that's what people want for an ending... Or maybe I shouldn't be looking at it, as a cop out?

Invisible violence that is the common lot of the poor. Sitting in their semi-basement apartment trying to maintain a connection to the world with free Wi-fi, no one sees this as the logical conclusion of the-winner-take all economic system; just last week Trump threw 700,000 people off of food stamps, who noticed?





WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
Oh okay thanks. I know that the two cannot end up together romantically, but I just expected more of a pay off with them still than what we got perhaps.

As for Ki-Taek killing Mr. Park, cause he knows he would eventually be fired, isn't murdering your boss, in full view of 20 witnesses, worse than being fired though? Wouldn't one just rather be fired?



I can enjoy a film that doesn't jibe by my worldview (I kinda have to, since the industry's mighty lopsided in that regard, in both depth and breadth), but it'd be a little hard to do so if a film's message were that vapid/wrong-headed.

I'll still be giving it a watch, though.



Well the movie is still really good though. The more the ending soaks in, the more I give it the benefit of the doubt.



I normally like movies with the point this Korean author tried to make, because Iím cheap, but if they go straight to politics Iíll probably avoid it and eventually dislike it, I think they should just show it like it is, like, I donít know, The Square or Horse Money that I saw last night, they circle around the same point, much more artistic and deep, intelligent, but... I liked Parasites, just probably not as much as everyone else, I think itís being overrated, like, this is the first movie with this patterns, probably one of the firsts from a market that is expanding internationally, or one of the firsts that worth the mention, Korean movies are usually about realistic violence and revenge themes, which can also be viewed as the theme of this one, just more thoughtful.



Welcome to the human race...
It's funny how some filmmakers think that captitalism is the root of all evil, if that's true, cause I thought that the film industry was a capitalist thing to begin with, since it's a big money making entertainment business.
It probably has something to do with how film's potential as an artistic medium is so frequently compromised (if not foregone entirely) for the sake of producing commercially viable works. Just take Scorsese's comments on Marvel movies and what their success has done to shape the state of the film industry for the worse, or people who complain that the invention of high-concept blockbusters like Jaws and Star Wars killed the comparatively experimental films of New Hollywood.



Professional horse shoe straightener
It's very good. Brilliantly directed. In my top 5 of the year but there are a few better than it.

It's very odd how some world cinema gains traction and others don't. All of a sudden Bong Joon Ho is on huge american talk shows and the movie is being talked about for major awards. I'm thrilled that Korean cinema and Bong Joon Ho is getting recognition.

(lets not forget that Suicide squad STILL has more academy awards than the entire South Korean movie industry....#Fu_kTheOscars)



Scorsese seems like a pretty bad example to cite as evidence, given that he was handed $130 million to make exactly the film he wanted at a positively insane length by one of the poster children for capital-based disruption. He just didn't also get to have it put in thousands of theaters, the poor dear.

It's not as if there aren't downsides, but the people who like to talk about the downsides of capitalism are comically bad at understanding (let alone acknowledging) what it accomplishes. As if we're supposed to be mad that people like transient pleasures or plastic ephemera in the face of hunger increasingly not being a thing, for example. Without even getting into it making even their implied superior productions more elaborate, better realized, and better distributed.

I'm glad you mentioned the "killed the comparatively experimental films" thing, though, because it's a prime example of a complaint that ended up looking kinda ridiculous in retrospect. You can't thank anything other than capitalism for the absolute explosion of niche entertainment, far weirder and more experimental than I think anyone could have imagined even a few decades ago. If this can happen under a system alleged to stifle creativity or experimentation, maybe we need to call that premise into question.

Also worth noting that the things people point to as downsides ("look at all these vapid blockbusters!") are still, ultimately, an expression of what most people want. Capitalism doesn't make us want superhero movies more than Scorsese's, it just doesn't override that choice. I wonder if that unstated assumption--that our systems should be explicitly protecting us from ourselves--is what really drives most of these disagreements.

And if the best complaint that can be mustered on this front is "it sucks that more people don't want the things I want," hey, I get it, but that seems a pretty petulant way to judge an economic system. Even without the whole food thing mentioned above.



Welcome to the human race...
Just pointing out to ironpony that there's nothing inherently capitalistic about film as a medium and therefore it shouldn't be surprising that there are filmmakers who are able to regard capitalism with such disdain..



There may not be anything inherently capitalistic about film as a medium (though some interesting arguments about that are coming to mind as I consider it), but ironpony did say "the film industry" in this case, as opposed to the mere act of making films.

I agree it shouldn't be surprising that filmmakers can be disdainful of capitalism; I'd say particularly creative people can be a little disconnected from, and insouciant about, banal things like economic reality. This is also true for wealthy people, and most of the people we're talking about are both. But if someone judges an economic system by how many theaters choose to carry their staggeringly indulgent (though good!) project, as opposed to more tangible concerns, I don't think we should pay them much mind.