I so wish that American filmmakers would have the guts to include complex, flawed characters in complex, disturbing stories like this more often.
Enough Hollywood endings.
"Empathy leads you to very bad decisions, many times." - Glenn Beck
A surprise ending, or an attempt to conveniently wrap up a messy storyline? The problem with the film; to film a scene in the first person with the intent of showing one what the character is seeing (the truth, what actually happened)makes for great film. However, when that same scene was shown in the third (or arguably the second) person previously in the film with a different outcome, one can logically assume what was seen originally was incorrect. This makes what the veiwer has seen incorrect, when that veiwer is watching what is to be presented as evidence to the conclusion of the mystery. The director has now achieved the 'surprise ending' by placing the blame of the incorrect conclusion on the viewer, when again, the viewer is going only on what the director presented her or him.
Excellent performances and beautiful use of mise en scene ruined by a shoddy story. Is there truly no one else that feels this way?
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
MASSIVE SPOILERS
The problem with the film; to film a scene in the first person with the intent of showing one what the character is seeing (the truth, what actually happened) makes for great film. However, when that same scene was shown in the third (or arguably the second) person previously in the film with a different outcome, one can logically assume what was seen originally was incorrect.
To be honest, where Joon is concerned, there is no surprise.
There are enough clues to prepare us what to expect. Joon, for instance, easily forgets it's Jin-tae who broke the car side mirror. It takes him a while to recall it's Jin-tae all along. He also easily forgets why he and Jin-tae went after the hit-and-run guys, which happened only seemingly an hour before.
The length of both times match the length of time from his actions to when he recalls seeing the girl and the junk seller. His narrative of *any* incident is rarely straight-forward, too.
All that shows us that Joon should be treated as an unreliable narrator. I think we viewers like to believe he'd be a reliable narrator, because of the mother's solid faith in his innocence. But as it turns out, he is indeed unreliable. That might be a factor of the "surprise" for some.
In any case, Joon's version doesn't have an outcome, and he did tell the truth. The difference between Joon's version and the junk seller's version: Joon's version is fragmented, which is consistent with earlier incidents we saw.
In Joon's version:
after the stone was thrown at his feet, he turns to go up the hill. That's the last time we saw him in his version.
In the junk seller's version:
after the stone was thrown at Joon's feet, he turned to go up the hill [Joon's version ends here], and turns round when the girl calls out a question and makes some comments.
The director has now achieved the 'surprise ending' by placing the blame of the incorrect conclusion on the viewer, when again, the viewer is going only on what the director presented her or him.
Then, you aren't keen on films with unreliable narrators or use the Rashomon effect? :D Such as The Accused, Wicker Park, Snake Eyes, The Usual Suspects, Courage Under Fire, Memento, Belle de Jour, Basic, Hero, and Rashomon? All these films have different perspectives of a sole incident.
Is there truly no one else that feels this way?
Although I don't feel the way you do, I'm certain there are some who do share your view.
That said, I do have some problems with Mother. Particularly the other boy. It was unnecessary and mawkish. Furthermore, the police should know that the other boy would never be able to do what he "did". Anyone in the medical field can easily blow his case out of the court. People with his disability simply don't have that ability to do those actions. People with Joon's disability do have this ability.
Sure, it's heavily implied the police was willing to believe because everyone knows everyone in this town while the other boy is, or so it's implied, an orphaned outsider. Just another statistic in the system. But still.
Also, the blood on his top? If she has a nose bleed "every day", like her friend said, anyone can back up the other boy's claim. The case against the other boy is so weak that my lip was still wearing a sneer when the credits rolled. :D
The script (apart from those quibbles) and the performances are ace, though. Thanks for your time.
To be fair it's hard to compare their police/courts with ours. I remember a lot of people had problems with Memories Of Murder cause here cops wouldn't be so helpless and inept, but here crime is more rampant, innit? To the point where we might have a murder happen every day, but how many do they have? Especially in a small town.
But basically from the looks of it, even early on the cops aren't that much interested in the facts and the most honest truth. Just solving the case. What is most likely, is what happened. What is the easiest thing to believe, is the only thing to believe. Etc.
I'm sure the film is flawed, as are plenty of other films. However, at the end of the day the one thing that was most important, and made me forget about everything else, was the point of the story.
A mother's love for her child.
Some say, boy you're always teasin, I think you best be leavin.
To be fair it's hard to compare their police/courts with ours. I remember a lot of people had problems with Memories Of Murder cause here cops wouldn't be so helpless and inept, but here crime is more rampant, innit? To the point where we might have a murder happen every day, but how many do they have? Especially in a small town.
True. Yes, it's important to remember that the events, as portrayed in Memories of Murder, took place during late 1980s when the infrastructure of the national police was still minimal. While South Korea has urban cities, it's largely a rural country. For example, the Chijon Family (arrested in 1994) was caught through luck. South Korea simply didn't have the manpower and resources (due to its Japanese occupation and the conflicts between North Korea and South Korea) to make connections between killings.
Recently they discovered a 22-year-old soldier, during his three-year period of doing the national military service, committed a number of murders at every spot he was stationed. Due to the geographical distances of these murders, they wouldn't have known this if it wasn't for a victim's father's persistent investigation.
Serial and mass murders did happen before the 1980s. During the 1800s, there was a killer who hunted and killed a number of people on a Korean island. The methods of his killing confused its residents into believing there was a murderous ghost. His killings partly inspired Blood Rain (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462684/), but it's not noted in any English-language summaries of this film.
I think most mass killers and serial killers aren't known to the US and other English-language countries because of the language barrier. Some are known because they were highlighted in films like Memories of Murder, The Chaser (great film!), and other films.
But even so the court, however rural, do deal with the medical factor within a trial, even back then, which is what I questioned.
Whoa. A wall of text! I hope I didn't bore you to tears with this. My apologies if I did.
But basically from the looks of it, even early on the cops aren't that much interested in the facts and the most honest truth. Just solving the case. What is most likely, is what happened. What is the easiest thing to believe, is the only thing to believe. Etc.
True, but not exclusive to South Korea, surely? :D Miscarriages of justice are common in every country, right? Derek Bentley of 1950s-era Britain, for instance, was hanged for a killing his younger crime partner committed when pretty much everyone knew Bentley wasn't responsible for the killing.
I'm sure the film is flawed, as are plenty of other films. However, at the end of the day the one thing that was most important, and made me forget about everything else, was the point of the story.
A mother's love for her child.
Is it out of love, or guilt? It's not clear if his disorder was a result of her attempted murder, or she tried to kill him because he had a disorder. I'm inclined to think it's the former, because that kind of disability is usually a result of a severe head injury or brain damage.
I agree with your comment that Mother is a good film because it is.
Ya, well the first bit of it is a lot of text. For basically a point I didn't really try to make. Thanks for the history lesson though.
It isn't exclusive to South Korea, but if you could believe it else where why not simply say so for this go around? I mean surely there are ways around medical evidence and such. Plenty of cases are won by the most minimum of circumstantial evidence. Especially if a person can't afford a decent lawyer.
I believe love. Guilt is, tough really. A mother's love is very hard to describe, especially cause I'll never be one. But whenever something goes wrong or right in a person's life who is the first to blame/thank?
I think that's embedded in most people, including them. So whatever the son does is a reflection on them, so in that sense there is guilt. Especially in South Korean families. If you notice when someone is at fault the entire family is blamed too. At least that's how a few movies I've seen from there, showcase it.
To answer your question of whether it's love or guilt? I think it's a mixture of both, because if she didn't love him she wouldn't feel guilty. So yeah, good question. One we can mull over, though really most emotions are hardly ever felt on their own. It's usually a mixture of a bunch of them.
Some say, boy you're always teasin, I think you best be leavin.
Thank-you for an interesting and informative post.
Don't worry, you're not alone. Well acted and shot but poor story and ending. I worked out the 'twist' half way though the film. :/ Really not worth all the fuss.
http://wrappedbrownpaper.blogspot.com/
"no. This film is a masterpiece. Period."
Not a very astute response huh? You'd think you could refute the flaws pointed out by so many viewers with such an unquestionable masterpeice. Did you see Memories of Murder, and if so what makes you like Mother more? Or, just back up your opinion as I did :)
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
It is a different style of film making. It is not a "flaw" that the director intentionally mislead us. Same thing happens in Shutter Island, but why are you even here? You would think foreign boards would be devoid of guys who post on the Last Airbender boards...
share"It is a different style of film making. It is not a "flaw" that the director intentionally mislead us. Same thing happens in Shutter Island, but why are you even here? You would think foreign boards would be devoid of guys who post on the Last Airbender boards..."
Your use of the logical fallacies poisining the well, red herring, and ad hominem do nothing to further your argument. My opinion is that the film is flawed based on the points I have already elaborated on. If you would care to further discuss your opinion, and remember that's all your stance is, I'd enjoy doing so.
My point is that several times in the film we see Joon's actions in the first person, which later are revealed to be incorrect, based on the fact that Joon does not always remember things clearly. However the most pivitol scene in the movie is filmed in the second or the third person, inferring that maybe we don't remember what we saw correctly, when what we saw was nothing more than the information provided to us as evidence by the director. I am not asking you to agree with me. My opinion is that based on the rest of the film the scene in question is flawed, thus marring the conclusion.
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
That's the thing, how is it flawed? Tell me, is there a rule of filmography that director Bong is breaking? You are basing this all on the assumption that since its in third person, it must be flawed that the director mislead us. We as the audience are not part of the film, the director isn't asking you to solve the mystery. Why does it matter how the twist is unfolded? You are claiming the whole movie is bad based on something only you seem to have a problem with. How did a "flawed" film like this even win awards and gain acclaims?
share"That's the thing, how is it flawed? Tell me, is there a rule of filmography that director Bong is breaking? You are basing this all on the assumption that since its in third person, it must be flawed that the director mislead us. We as the audience are not part of the film, the director isn't asking you to solve the mystery. Why does it matter how the twist is unfolded? You are claiming the whole movie is bad based on something only you seem to have a problem with. How did a "flawed" film like this even win awards and gain acclaims?"
I have stated multiple times the points I conceive as flaws. I am not asking or trying to convince you to agree with me. The director films several scenes in the first person with the sole purpose of later revealing the same scenes as incorrect memories of Joon. This is great in regards to making what people are calling a twist. However, the most significant scene of the film, the climax, the scene that the mystery is built around is filmed in the second or the third person. Now assuming that the scenes that were filmed in the first person which are later revealed as incorrect memories of Joon (as he has some obvious memory issues) it is inferred that we the audience have the same issues, or so short an attention span that we possibly don't remember what we actually saw. The audience is always part of the film or there's no film, and yes, the director is asking me and every other audience member to solve the mystery when he releases a movie billed as a mystery. I have never stated the whole film is bad but rather have praised many elements of the film. Finally, awards and acclaim generally have nothing to do with the quality of a film, rather the quality of the film's marketing and capital gains, which even then does not assure a quality film or awards (i.e. Hitchcock, Welles...). Have you seen Memories of Murder and if so which do you personally hold in higher regard?
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
However, the most significant scene of the film, the climax, the scene that the mystery is built around is filmed in the second or the third person. Now assuming that the scenes that were filmed in the first person which are later revealed as incorrect memories of Joon (as he has some obvious memory issues) it is inferred that we the audience have the same issues, or so short an attention span that we possibly don't remember what we actually saw.
There were three versions of the scene that the mystery was built around:
The one we see in the beginning was in 3rd person, as in what we see as the audience happened.
The other two versions are both versions told by character themselves, so we see whatever they remember (or lied about).
The version the junk-collector gave does not conflict with the scene we saw in the beginning, it was simply a longer version of the scene (the first one ended when the girl threw the rock at him and he started to walk away).
The version that Joon recalled, however, does somewhat conflict with what we saw in the beginning, because in the beginning scene, there was no indication that he saw someone else. Also in his scene, the girl goes into the abandon building, and backs out when she sees the junk-collector inside. In the scene in the beginning, she went right in.
So, what the audience saw (the first scene) was never in question. The only scenes in question were the different versions that the two suspects gave.
"The version that Joon recalled, however, does somewhat conflict with what we saw in the beginning, because in the beginning scene, there was no indication that he saw someone else. Also in his scene, the girl goes into the abandon building, and backs out when she sees the junk-collector inside. In the scene in the beginning, she went right in.
So, what the audience saw (the first scene) was never in question. The only scenes in question were the different versions that the two suspects gave."
You seem to contradict yourself while proving my point. Information is omitted from the most important memory of the film. Whether or not he has a fuzzy memory is irrelevant to the viewer. It is a large to leap to conveniently reach the conclusion, and still does not ring true for me.
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
You seem to contradict yourself while proving my point. Information is omitted from the most important memory of the film. Whether or not he has a fuzzy memory is irrelevant to the viewer. It is a large to leap to conveniently reach the conclusion, and still does not ring true for me.
No, I didn't contradict myself.
The version Joon recalled was never meant to be taken as fact, it was his version based on what he remembered. Same withe the junkman's version.
It's been two years so I don't really remember if there were other scenes that were, like you described, first shown as a 3rd person scene but then later retracted as "incorrect memory", but it doesn't apply to the scenes I was describing.
The first scene (what the audience saw) was not in question, but does not show the scene in entirety.
Later you have the story told from two point of views, based on the the memory of two different suspects.
[deleted]
Actually, I found the twist to be pretty standard as far as this sort of movie is concerned. It's like Shutter Island or Drag Me to Hell, it's all there in the basic story. The difference is, this one didn't become obvious until we found out it was going to be that sort of movie.
The onlyn thing that kept the ending from ruining the movie is how well played it actually was.
I felt let down by the ending to be honest. Felt too ambiguous to me
Edit- or maybe i just don't want to believe the son did it. One of those
My site http://dirtywithclass.wordpress.com/
I guess my problem with Mother, and most films with twist endings, is rooted in the fact that in many of those films we are intentionally shown an inaccurate version of events, generally due to some malady of the character who we view the story through. I love a good mystery, but films like Mother, and as someone else mentioned, Shutter Island, are really just dramas with a surprise ending. It's not a whodunnit if rather than the clues adding up to a conclusion, these clues are revealed to be incorrect; a figment of ones imagination or a characters repression. It seems like taking a shortcut, an easy jump from climax to conclusion, rather than doing the meticulous editing required to portray a great mystery.
"I promise to start growin' dope again and get my life back on track."
I understand your point. the thing that is lacking is that we see the scene when it happened chronologically. if it came later out of joon's partial memory it would have been more believable and it wouldnt damage the twist.
still great movie. but I agree, not perfect.
Yes, the ending was very clever, certainly in the same league as many Agatha Christie endings. I enjoyed this whodunnit!
~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER