mainstream?


I was a bit surprised that several people criticized this movie as being more mainstream, as though Kim Ki-duk had somewhat compromised his art to cater for a wider audience. While there is an element of predictability to the story, it would be hard to argue that concepts such as kidnapping and a near-incestuous and/or near-pedophilic relationship (depending on how you characterize the relation of the old man and the girl) would constitute a subject matter fit for the masses.

I found it to be a very powerful and symbolic movie. It is easy to draw parallels with "Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring" for example. In that movie, the temple, which was completely isolated and existed in a time realm of its own, represented an escape from the madness of modern life. In contrast, the boat which initially appears to serve the same role, provides a setting that is in constant turmoil due to the continuous clash between the fishermen, representing modern life, and the old man, who is trying to cling onto his isolated life-style.

Where in "Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring", the main character ends up leaving and being corrupted by the outside world, here it is the opposite, where the isolated life style makes him loose touch with the realities of the world, and the impact of his actions on other people. This results in the girl finding herself torn between these two very different lifes.

I thought it was very brave of the director to, firstly, have explored the other side of the coin, and secondly, have attempted to tackle a controversial subject. You cannot help but develop some level of understanding of the old man actions, and of the girl's appreciation of him despite the facts that are uncovered.

reply

As a movie filmed in basically one location, which has only a few dialogue lines, I would hardly call it mainstream.

You can also draw parallels with "Empty Houses"...

reply

I don't know how anyone can describe Kim KiDuks' movies as mainstream. I think if you look up Independent film, it has his picture in it.

reply

I don't know if "mainstream" is the best word, but this movie was far more accessible to the more casual movie-goer than his other movies. In movies such as Samaria and Time, the action on screen comes secondary to the symbolic significance of what the action is supposed to represent. In The Bow, most everything on screen is what it appears to be - the old man's concern and love for the girl is concern and love, the girl's disobedience and rebellion are just that kind of coming-of-age behavior, and so on. That's not to say that there wasn't far more at work in the film, such as the significance of each of the five colors (including black), but the story existed on a much simpler level than his other films.

reply

Yes I agree and there's nothing wrong with making an accessible film as long as you're not compromising your artistic vision or diluting the message (which he never does). But also this proves he's not a pretentious director. So many directors seem to make movies that are purposely difficult to get into without having an actual point to make if you know what I mean..

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

reply

I agree. Not mainstream at all, just poetic.

And i wonder if "Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring", "The Isle" and this film could not be considered trilogy? The all have very much in common, IMO.


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply