Fascinating, but poorly edited
The concept is very interesting, but the story is bogged down by long cuts of irrelevant visuals and gaming footage that were included for (presumably) artsy and dramatic effect.
shareOh, I am so glad you said this. I just finished the movie and wanted to make a similar observation. I wanted to learn about this couple--why didn't they have jobs? Are they mentally handicapped in some way, other than being addicted to the internet? What happened with their new baby? The defendants "promised" they wouldn't play computer games anymore. Yeah, right.
None of these questions are answered, yet we are forced to watch long, boring sequences about nothing. Even the closing credits over the footage of the fish--I found that ridiculous.
I rarely say this about a documentary, but it was TOO LONG. If the filmmakers could not find enough relevant material about the actual subjects, then take out the artsy-fartsy stuff. Do a nice, 40-minute short subject and be done with it. Less is more.
It is my opinion that the director was trying to make the film appear high-brow with numerous meaningless sequences, such as the child with the inverted umbrella. This is not high-brow, it's just stupid. The movie looks like it's trying to be an Ingmar Bergman film. Again, less is more.
You and the OP are 100% correct. This film has a pathetic veneer of "the color and movement of gaming" in a lame, attampt to silently explain how would could be addicted, but it never had the guts to probe the real issue of addiction further. More lacking came when the film couldn't even focus on the "parent's" background more. What a waste of an opportunity to explore the first time the world saw parents kill their child and use video game addiction as a defense.
shareYup you're all 100% spot on. This Doc had the potential to be INCREDIBLY interesting but it was artsy *beep* with very little information of value, and no follow-up with the parents and new child (I use " parents" loosely).
I REALLY hope they succeeded this time around for the child's sake especially. after their PATHETIC sentencing, a literal slap on the wrist, there is no reason they can't be perfect parents this time around.
It pissed me off how everyone in the movie was like "they didn't know how to parent", or they "didn't know how to feed him ", or "they didn't know what the crying meant" and the endless comments like that. THEY WERE INTERNET "ADDICTS" YET THEY CAN'T GOOGLE THAT *beep* Like wtf.
Such a frustrating movie. Makes me want to have another kid and raise him 100% on video and make tutorials so no parent ever makes any stupid mistakes or has excuses ever again =S
I agree with your points 100%. The audience is limited by the fact that we don't know exactly what kinds of social services are offered in South Korea. If this had happened in the United States, those parents would have had their second child taken away from them.
I hope that South Korea has some type of program where this couple is visited frequently by a social worker and monitored closely. "Internet Addiction" does not explain this couple's dazzling ineptitude at caring for a baby--I suspect that one or both of them must be mentally impaired somehow.
It would have been nice if the filmmaker could have delved a bit more into this issue instead of trying to make an art piece out of the story.
I'm inserting this after the series of commenters who thought the doc was too long, too "artsy fartsy" with it's shots, an "art piece," etc. And I'm disturbed because --
Wow. You didn't "get" it!
I thought it was wildly poignant. Scary.
The mundane sequences (why fix your gaze on an image of ants crawling on the sand in a graveyard for so long -- unless you were getting across the irony of how that's exactly what we do with a computer screen)...or portrayals of the couple in weird, fractured color graphics (their strange-looking, "fractured" lives; their own "virtual existence" that OD'ing on gaming obviously created -- otherwise their baby would be alive today)...and the actual clips of the arguably bad and certifiably creepy role-playing game featuring Kardashian-hipped women with Flock of Seagull hair, the bad voice actors providing the game's characters,...and attaining the dopey "enema," er, I mean "Anima" star of the game (which is the ultimate irony, devoting time and attention to the game and attaining the high game levels creates this little child -- while the couple's LACK of devotion and attention to their own human child had the little girl dying from malnutrition in the room next door to where the computer is!) I mean --
Guys! Do you not get this? Do you not see this? Freaky. Surreal. Ironic. Messed-up.
It's a bit scary: you might be "desensitized" to all of this. You could be the "fish who doesn't know it's wet" which is featured in the doc! In other words --
You're proving the point of the documentary. (You gotta admit: that's a little scary, y'all!)
And the last 10 minutes we're pummeled with the data, actual news reports, quotes, all pointing to how gaming is sucking the grey-matter out of our skulls. Or as the doc says, brain scans show the gamer's brain is similar to the alcoholic or meth head's brain.
Gaming is an addiction. I think it funny how you wanted a "true crime" documentary, but you couldn't see how this documentary was a mirror on society. (I also think it's interesting how ppl couldn't read the captions fast enough. Gaming. But cannot read subtitles in the time given. Hmmm...)
Your points are well taken. However, I want INFORMATION from a documentary.
I don't think it's too much to ask to want to know the actual psychiatric diagnosis for these people, why they didn't have jobs, and what steps were taken to prevent them doing the same thing with their second baby.
I did not tune in to this documentary to get metaphorical crap from an Ingmar Bergman wanna-be. I want to learn about THESE PEOPLE. I had basic questions that I wanted answers to.
I don't need to be lectured about how I am "a fish who doesn't know it's wet." I am not an internet gaming addict, and I didn't starve my children to death. So I'm trying to learn something here.
I got all of your criteria from a total of about 8 minutes of the movie. I didn't need to watch the other 67 minutes of filler to get it. e.g., after one of the observers says, "A fish doesn't think about being in water" (I'm paraphrasing), I didn't need to see 20 seconds of a neon fish sign flashing silently on a billboard followed by another 15 seconds of fish silently swimming in the water. PLUS all the visuals, which I agree sometimes were effective at creating a mood, didn't really compensate for the very static headshots used to film people who were commenting, because the visuals themselves became static in the way they were used throughout. I found the length and drawn-out pace aggravating even though I thought that the movie was bold. This editing issues I believe got in the way of the movie winning awards and being able to reach more people about the virtual reality epidemic we're facing in the world today.
shareI was cleaning the house and saw this disturbing doc was on again...so came back here to see what y'all are saying...
Keely...I dig yours and previous poster's comments, too..... but --
Also found it creepy how the doc's SLOW PACE of the scenes elicited impatience, boredom, irritation. That's perhaps a statement on our A.D.D., speedy/drive-thru society, perhaps? Yet there are those who can game from 9AM to 9PM?
But you're right: editing is KEY to any theatrical release. Crap editing can turn a movie into crap. But I gotta think this is deliberate. I'll stick by my impression that the film-maker was screwing with us by doing the prolonged, creepy, "Bergman-esque" decisions. How can we gaze at a computer screen for hours at a time but can't handle 115 minutes? That's the statement. What switch gets flicked so the absurdity of snuffing-out 6 hours on a game is tolerated...but this doc isn't? Because it's arguably weirder to pretend you're a sniper or Kim Kardashian than to see something you know will end in 115 minutes... Anything that kicks-up debate is doing a good job; regardless.
And as for "no info" being known or shared on this phenomenon's presence in humanity... I dig that, too. But is that important right now? Isn't this a Klaxon's bell that we even HAVE this kind of creepy behavior existing; i.e., a dulled and brainless condition that's arguably cultivated by...over-use of gaming? To the point a baby dies? Wild..
I find this WILD... CREEPY...SCARY... I love how it kicks up controversy. And I'm not sure this doc's place is to identify or label it when it's a relatively newly identified malady. Movies like "Her" and "Strange Days" aren't faraway fantasies after all...
I think your points are well taken and I like what you're saying.
shareI'm so tired of coming on sites like this-eager to read OP's opinions only to be confronted with a poster, like yourself, who states that because an opinion is different from yours - the other viewer obviously "didn't get it". And more specifically, posters that don't share your opinion must be, with regard to this film, "Desensitized" to internet addiction (sweeping generalization) and dramatically, "You gotta admit: that's a little scary y'all". (um,a bit dramatic, whatever).
Frankly, your comments indicate a narcissism and self-absorption that is ruining sites like IMDB. I think you might want to spend a few minutes reading up on what a documentary actually is..
Many viewers, myself included, longed for more information on this couple-rather than scattered bits of information about them presented seemingly at random. The doc seemed to take the easy way out -spending the majority of the time pointing it's finger at the internet rather then spending, if not a balance of time, at least a bit more time exploring this couple's background and mental illness. Both were almost glossed over-which was shocking. I think the film could have probed deeper however the director was intent on only presenting a certain view point and sticking with that until the end rather then presenting multiple sides and letting the audience decide why this horrible tragedy occurred. The director's viewpoint was crammed down our throats. I was left frustrated and with many unanswered questions.
I think it's wonderful you enjoyed the documentary. I'm glad you're one of the few who "got it".
Fwiw, I spend the majority of my time reading fiction/non-fiction, not surfing the internet.
Cheers
Are they mentally handicapped in some way, other than being addicted to the internet?Asperger's syndrome perhaps? I'd of been interested to know more about the couple's life details.
Om Mani Padme Hum share