Will “Parasite” walk away with an Oscar?

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/q0t9LCv2aKas2kTTcTKlMbI_mxk=/0x0:2732x1821/1200x675/filters:focal(933x471:1369x907)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63896794/d17a1588_7c4a_11e9_8126_9d0e63452fe9_image_hires_174143.0.jpeg

For a winner prediction at the 2020 Oscars, I would name the Korean film “Parasite”, written and directed by Bong Joon-ho. In my opinion, it stands a good chance of winning the Best Screenplay Award and the Foreign Language Film Award. 

One reason for my prediction is that “Parasite” has a well-crafted screenplay. It is a black comedy set in Seoul and, with the use of irony and satire, it sheds light on the wide gap between the rich and the poor. The film’s name itself invites reflection on the reality that the poor, just like a tree plundering parasite, often depend on the rich for their survival.

The story delivers the message that the Korean society is stratified, with the poor condemned to the lower stratum, hopeless of ever climbing up the social ladder. The Kims, living in a shabby basement apartment, have to sneak into a Wi-Fi signal for internet access and put up with men urinating outside their home. Conversely, the wealthy Park family enjoy bountiful space and luxury in their well-designed modernistic house. There is also Park Myung-hoon, who has secretly been living in the bunker beneath the big house for long years. In fact, the audience are deeply impressed by the stark contrasts portrayed so vividly in the film. 

The emphasis on the peculiar smell the Kims cannot do away with is a sarcastic touch. The smell, assumedly from the underground train, is an indelible mark of poverty enabling the Park family to tell them apart. And, finally, it is that smell that triggers an unplanned murder, thus implying that social divisions, if not bridged in time, will lead to unamendable conflicts.

Another attempt at sarcasm is the philosophical humor used in the dialogue. Song Kang Ho, the father, often remarks on money’s ability to iron out all problems. When Chang Hyae Jin, his wife, says, “If I were rich, I would also be kind”, the audience smile approvingly at the sarcasm well used. The mind behind the film also intends to mock the Koreans’ blind adoration of Western products; the Park couple have confidence in the tent’s durability in the thunderstorm because “it is American made”. 

Instead of being a medium for slapstick humour, “Parasite” provokes much compassionate thinking, with no laughs getting in the way. The most bitter sarcasm of all is the reference to the fact that it is useless making plans, as is mentioned more than once by Song Kang Ho. And there is rigorous evidence throughout the entire film. The planned camping birthday celebration, for example, has to be put off because of the thunderstorm. What materializes instead is a spontaneous garden party. While the audience are gleefully engaged in the festivity, the film takes a dramatic turn; what is meant to be a war game ends up being real violence. Above all, Ki-woo, Song Kang Ho’s son, is the one intent on having everything well planned. He tries in vain to seek wealth and status first through his success in university education and later through his intended marriage with the rich girl who is the daughter of the Park couple. And towards the end of the movie, his voice-over narration is about another grand plan of rescuing his father trapped in the bunker, leaving an unanswered question about its success. This gives the story an impressive wind-up. 

All in all, Parasite” has an award-worthy screenplay. However, in view of the severe competition from the other nominees, I have more confidence in its chance of walking away with the Best Foreign Film Award.

Movie Review: Little Women

picture from "https://screenrant.com/little-women-movie-2019-cast-character-guide/"

“Little Women” is a film adaptation based on a novel of the same name authored by Louisa May Alcott. Having read the original book decades ago, I was, while watching the movie, intent on identifying details of which I still treasured vague memories. 


Understandably, to squeeze the substantial content into a two-hour film would mean the exclusion of some details. Nevertheless, quite a few reminiscences of the original story are recognizable. Jo’s remark “Christmas won’t be Christmas without presents” is actually the very sentence the novel begins with. There is then the touching scene of the four girls offering their breakfast to a poor family on Christmas Day. Another recallable detail is the sisterly rivalry developed between Jo and Amy; one related incident is Amy’s falling into the half-frozen pond because Jo has intentionally hidden from her the existence of the lurking danger. Of course, one won’t forget the old man seeking consolation from Beth’s playing on his late granddaughter’s piano. We remember also how Jo sells her hair, her only pride, for the sake of her father lying sick in the army hospital. The film is thus high on adherence to the original story. 


On the other hand, the director has updated the story and offered it to the audience in increments. There are some details new to the readers. I cannot, for example, quite remember Mag quarrelling with her husband about spending 50 dollars on a garment. My memory is only limited to the four sisters’ youthful struggles. Their marriages are probably described mainly in “Good Wives”, part 2 of “Little Women”. And definitely, Jo was not the author of “Little Women”, contrary to what is described at the end of the movie. 


The film draws attention to its orderly orchestration of the tale’s segments, using well-paced flashbacks and non-linear timelines. The initial shots may appear to be a set of puzzle pieces as the many characters involved and the seemingly scattered and unrelated incidents may cause confusion of thoughts. But as the story unfolds, the audience gradually find themselves drawn to Jo’s nostalgic memories and thus get a clearer picture of what has happened to the March family as the time elapses. With the use of different genres of music, the film guides the audience back and forth between the sisters’ teenage stage and their adolescent years. The upbeat background music enhances the setting for the interaction between the noisy, chatty and playful teenage girls. Conversely, the music will suddenly switch back to an unhurried and melancholy genre, setting the mood for Jo’s obsession about the troubled present. And coloration also plays a part in the effective use of flashbacks and flashforwards. The audience won’t fail to notice the implication of maturity in the various shades of blue chosen for the costumes. In stark contrast, the teenage girls are almost always dressed in natural, fresh and vibrant colours of green and beige. 


Where flashbacks are concerned, there is, too, a skillful presentation of a lapse of time between two related incidents. At one scene Amy is blaming Laurie for treating her as the second choice after Jo and then comes the scene where Jo turns down Laurie’s proposal. Likewise, immediately following the scene of Jo happily greeting Beth, who has just recovered from her scarlet fever, she is seen again rushing down the same staircase, this time only to find her mother crying sadly over Beth’s death. The use of such switch shots produces a very strong dramatic effect: the audience will always remember the traumatic loss the family suffers from. 


 The actors and actresses are also well chosen; Joe with her vitality and rebelliousness, Amy, the jealous and selfish girl, and Mag, the clothes-conscious lady all bring to mind the characters in the novel. The only exception, I am afraid, is that the actress playing the role of Beth is too plump to give the impression of a frail, sickish looking figure.


All in all, the innovative screen adaptation would satisfy both the novel’s loyalists and the first-timers and is, therefore, a good movie well worth our time.