Burning Film Analysis: A Masterpiece in Social Commentary 

Jungsook doesn't kill Ben simply out of 'retribution', he does it to prevent him from killing more women. Jungsook's idea to murder Ben is solidified when he finds Ben with a similarly naïve, pretty young girl. Ben has narcissistic and psychopathic traits - this makes him vulnerable, as he overestimates his own abilities and underestimates everyone else's. Ben only tells Jungsook about the greenhouses and the 20 he's 'already' burnt down (inc. one 'very close to your farm' i.e. Hae-mi's murder), because he thinks the stupid farm boy won't discover they are a allegory for murdering women. Oh, how wrong he was. It's a commentary on both sexism (women are systemically disrespected and discarded, often as sexual trash, with no consequences for their abusers) and assumed biases in class/income groups (inc. how she culturally appropriates the African dancing, then the wealthy Koreans mirror this and make her into a curiosity, mocking her rudimentary understanding of cultural issues). In the end, Jungsook even refuses to play by the rules of Ben's game, he never asks where Hae-mi's body is before killing him, to ask it gives Ben even more power. Junksook simply kills him, a complete shock to the narcissistic Ben. Jungsook not only takes his life (& his ability to hurt others), but he takes away his power. Tricked and fooled, as he'd fooled all his victims. A fitting punishment for a man who'd otherwise evade justice.

I disagree with some of your takes. Hae-mi's great hunger is clearly to find a deeper meaning and purpose in her life. Not to gain social status. She is a free spirit. Her trip to Africa, crying when talking about the sunset, study of patomime, dancing at dinner etc are all reflections of her deep search for meaning and self expression, not her trying to gain status or assimilate into higher society as you say. Nothing about her character suggests she cares about social status so I don't know where you got that from. Jong-su is the one who makes the choice to send her home with Ben after they return from Africa because he lacks confidence, to which Hae-mi looks disappointed. Her choice to wear the pink plastic watch through the whole film shows she just does what makes her happy in the moment and doesn't really care how she is perceived by others. Also her spitting in the cup in front of Jong-su when they are smoking cleraly shows she doesn't care about looking classy. Her plastic surgery seems to be more of a result of pressure from society and the industry she works in (note her co-worker's speech about Korea being no country for women). Likewise Jong-su does not really seem jealous of Ben's wealth or social status, only his confidence and realtionship with Hae-mi. He studied to become a novelist, which is indicitive of somebody who values creative fulfilment over wealth and perhaps why Hae-mi seems to find a deeper connection with him than she does with Ben. The second point I would disagree with is that the viewer is left wondering if Ben really killed Hae-mi. The director spells it out very clearly. Clue 1: the distressed phone call from Hae-mi the day after Ben's greenhouse speech, Clue 2: No literal burnt greenhouse in the area, Clue 3: Hae-mi's apartment has been cleaned like she packed up and left, but her suitcase is still there, Clue 4: Hae-mi's watch has been added to the collection of womens jewellery in Ben's bathroom drawer, Clue 5: Ben suddenly has a new cat that answers to the name Boil. The story is told entirely from Jong-su's perspective so they can't actually show us the murder, but I feel it is made very obvious what happened.

As a late twenties who lives in Paju, I felt the director's site selection was cruelly perfect. It takes 2 hours usually to get to Gangnam by subway, so whenever I meet friends at gangnam I have felt some kind of deprivation. My friends who live in Seoul or near from Seoul they feel comfort to have meeting at gangnam but to me that has been always pretty hard. Thinking of my personal experiences in Paju, this movie showed amazingly precise insight about Korean young mans' life.

this video felt like listening to a friend talk about a movie you both recently watched. thanks a lot!

I agree with your entire analysis except that Hae-Mi was interested in Ben for social status, I did not get that from her at all. Now I think that was probably Jong-su’s fear, but I don’t think that was Hae-Mi’s actual motive. She seemed curious about Ben but I don’t think she had this drive to obtain social status through him. I mean hell - she pursues Jong-su who doesn’t have a dime to his name.

I love this movie deeply. I’ve seen it twice. My favorite thing about the film is how it explores the ambiguity of perception. You can look at this film from a variety of different angles, but you can never really know the answers to its mysteries. Ultimately, it functions best as a commentary on class inequalities - but it’s also an achingly gorgeous, and haunting, portrait of a young man adrift, seeking greater substance in life, almost finding love and then left with only its aftertaste. There’s one thing I would like to see people explore more in these essays: everyone who has seen the movie understand that Ben’s reference to burning a greenhouse likely refers to the way (we assume) he makes Haimei disappear. But nobody is asking: Why that specific metaphor? What makes Haimei like a greenhouse? There’s a lot to be observed there, I think - from the way these greenhouses are abandoned, remnants of better more profitable days - Haimei is massively in debt, her family having more or less disowned her over it… etc…

the greenhouses that ben reffering are the girls he meets. he burn the girls every 2 months and make them disappear like smoke. abandoned greenhouses means lonely girls. the things that jungso saw at the bathroom of ben is from other women victim ben had killed. ben gave jung so a hint before he killed or made hae min disappear. he told him that he will burn a greenhouse that is close or near jungso's place... but in reality, it is the woman that is close to jungso that made disappear.

Personally, I also like the theory that Ben's 'burnings' are actually a metaphor for fulfilling the wishes of trapped, lower-class women (in Haemi's case which could've included assisting her escape etc). Therefore, I think this theory makes Jungsook's killing of Ben more heartbreaking, as it shows that Jungsook knows that Ben has helped Haemi escape their hellish world, but only acts out in anger and selfishness in that Ben has taken Haemi away from him (further emphasising the resemblance in his and his father's actions).

The subtle hints that the writer gives us to show that Ben is a serial killer are multiple if you pay attention. 1. Him thinking of himself as superior to others 2. His lack of empathy as a sign of him being a psychopath. 3. His a narcissist. when he suggests that the protagonist should write about him after hearing his story. Most serial killers want to be immortalized. 4. When preparing pasta and he talks about him preparing an offering and consuming the offering. 5. The souvenirs he keeps from each victim in his drawer that the protagonist later finds the the girls watch ...

underrated video essay. keep up the good work brother

im a bit late but this is a really well thought out analysis very well done. keep it up friend.

i have the theory that when he say he burn down greenhouse, you can see something, i think he consider greenhouse as prisons for poor people (he talked about metaphorical comparison so its not unreal for him to tell about greenhouses in this way), and whenever he "burns" greenhouses, he just free someone from debt or problems, with his own fortune, maybe when he burn the very near greenhouse from lee jong-su, he just made hae-mi debt free and paid her a better appartment, but he never talk about it so it would be taken as something he does by ego. dunno if someone understood my thoughts, but here it is

I think the film is brilliant yet frustrating. Ironically it gives you this hunger for answers to questions that never get fully resolves. Not even just questions to the narrative but bigger questions like which type of hunger is preferable, on the coming in you might say a hunger for meaning and purpose but much like Maslow hierarchy of needs the the film suggests that type of hunger can only be satisfying once other types of hunger are satisfied. Or at least that’s my interpretation. You could make a case for the film saying the complete opposite. Which is why I find it incredibly frustrating cause it is so open ended and my gen z adhd brain wants a satisfying answer but all the film gives you is questions

Man, I really loved this!

what a great video essay. Thanks for this

Superb analysis of a great film.

If Ben was killer then why was he shocked that Haekim was not there? He knew Jong was obsessively tracking him yet walked right up to car to get stabbed? Also a truck went by after stabbing so why would that be in novel? Seems like it was put there to provide reality to situation. It was not fiction. I lean towards quote about pantomine from Haemi: "It is not believing orange is there but you have to forget there isn't one." To me, this is essence of movie, Jong went looking for vengeance and found it with very loose evidence.

Because of his mother he started to believe Hae-Mi when she told him there was a fountain...basically his mother destroyed him...I don't think Ben killed Hae-Mi...maybe that Jongsu's frustration and envy that some people can be young and very rich and very human led him to find a reason to kill Ben... an exceptional film!

Nice analysis 👍🏻

keep up the good work

Very nice man

Great essay, you made the movie even better !

This is a very deep interpretation of the film. Hearing some of my thoughts being put into words is very satisfying. Thank you.

Great video. And great background music. Can you name the song title/artist? Thank you!

well done!

a very good analysis of this great film. i ve seen it many times, and i always wonder how i dont realise at all how fast the first hour goes by...

I have a feeling that most people completely missed that the whole movie is the thriller novel that the main character (Jong-su) is writing. The house where Hae-mi is supposed to live, is actually where Jong-su lives, and comes up with the idea about thinking his old classmate Hae-mi, and as the fantasy continues, he comes up with the idea that she goes abroad, and meets this mystery man; possible murderer. The dialogue especially with Ben is so obviously something what a young up-and-coming author would write to a main antagonist. So in short, Ben is not a real person, and he hasn't either seen Hae-mi since their school, or he actually sees her working by the shop, or someone looking like her, that remind him of her, triggering him writing his thriller novel. The actions and things Jong-su makes in the film are 95% things that his books main character is doing, not him. One key give away for Ben being a fictional rich kid character is that he never explains or even tries to tell what he does for a living, or where he got his wealth. When Jong-su asks him about it, his answer is something that he came up with, because he doesn't know as a writer really anything about finance or tech, which would make some young man rich. That though is not important for his story. There are other kind of obvious small hints that show the author (Jong-su) is just writing his novel. I would not tend to highlight any social commentary on this film, other than some surface level stereotypes from the imagination of someone lower middle class would come up with. The film is like a badly written thriller by a young person, but the thing that elevates the film itself is the casting, direction, editing, and suspense. The audience is kept almost until the end in suspense that it is really happening, but is revealed while he is seen writing his book towards the end. After that the tension in the film was released, and the murder was the final of the thriller, not "real life" of the author Jong-su.

Baller vid

I think Jong Seo's father story added more to the Jong Seo's fate, they share the same DNA and probably same violent act. The knife collection, his father cases, and burning mother's clothes story might be the clue that ben being murdered really did happen.

I have yet to hear or read anyone discuss the scene where Ben calls Hae-mi and, while we don't hear her, we hear a bunch of men talking in the background. Someone comes closer to the phone - his voice gets louder - zips up a bag, discovers the phone on the ground, and hangs the phone up. What else could it be besides a body bag?

everyday this film haunts me with multiple questions.

I'm glad I watched your essay. It wasn't until Jong-su killing Ben that I started to fit the pieces together, but now I'm thinking I am likely incorrect. My first impression by the end of the film was that Jong-su actually killed Hae-mi. The idea of forgetfulness comes up in the film a lot; Jong-su forgetting about Hae-mi falling in the well, forgetting that a tangerine isn't in your hand, Jong-su missing (or forgetting?) about a potentially burned down greenhouse, etc. Jong-su might also forget that he has a violent past. Given his father's violent history, and the out of pocket comment about Hae-mi being a whore right before she disappears, I think it's possible he's guilty of murdering Hae-mi, subconsciously forgetting about it, and then guilt making him believe it was actually Ben. As for the pink watch in Ben's home - Hae-mi's co-worker had the same watch. Is it possible Ben fills his seemingly empty life with one-night stands or short-lived relationships, and just puts the things they leave behind in a drawer? Likely all of that is far fetched. I like your analysis better lol

this movie is a masterpiece

I saw it as a korean 'taxi driver'. I dont think Ben killed hae-mi or any other women, i think the director shot the world in the way that jong-su sees it. It was obvious from the start that hae-mi was just using him to look after her apartment but he went with it, naturaly this led jong-su to be around more bad people; Ben. I think jong-sus misery is self induced and at the end of the day he was the only one in the the movie that actually kills anyone. Like Travis in 'taxi driver' jong-su lacks the strength to better himself and his relationship with the world and ends up commiting a perverse act of vigilantism. He is the villian

how do we know he sees the factory job as "beneath him"

nice

They weren't childhood friends. They were neighbors. The only thing he told her when they were kids was that she was ugly. And it wasn't an orange she was pantomiming, it was a tangerine. Some details matter.

"It's a Metaphor"

loved the movie as well

i think Hae-Mi represents the lower class people who instead of revolting and acknowledging reality in a pragmatic way, choose instead to learn to pretend that materialism isn’t important and they just feed themselves with spirituality, but eventually they surely fall victims to the system because that’s just a superficial and dangerous way to fool yourself. They also try to accomodate somehow to the system and fool themselves that they can somehow fit (she trying to have a relationship with Ben, the plastic surgery stuff) but these are also proofs that Hae-Mi is clearly a victim as well, but more of an innocent sheep that isn’t capable of penetrating the truth. Unfortunately, although they can sense something is fundamentally wrong around them (hence her wanting to disappear like she were never born), they end up being swallowed by the system (or burned if you wish) and disappearing like smoke, unable to change anything. On the other hand, Jong Su is I think the hero of the story, the responsible, no-bullshit character who asks the big questions, really wants a confrontation with the privileged and dissect the truth and seek some sort of justice Hae-Mi wants to think she has the great hunger but in fact her great hunger can’t lead to anything effective in reality, it’s just self-delusion. Jong Su is the true pursuer of Great Hunger in the story.

she is seen again after the dance when she and Ben leave the property

It's an excellent movie, although very sad and disturbing. Really good acting performances.

I wish I better understood the scene with the main character’s mother. Was it solely to establish the well?

So...eat the rich?

Great video essay! I wish Burning got half the attention Parasite got. I found Parasite's attempt to explore its themes to be very one note (I flat out disagree at some points.) It is certainly more succinct than Burning but consequently I feel I got everything out of Parasite my first viewing. the characters felt very one dimensional which left me ambivalent towards their fate. also the genre bending aspect didn't work for me. Burning on the other hand will always have me enthralled. Keep up the great work. I subscribed!

Where can I watch this “Burning” movie?

Burning was hot!

youtube

RU-vid

B. 7a,

I found this video very frustrating because I feel like it's a very shallow and literal take on the film. And you seem to be reading intention into Hae-Mi that has no supporting evidence, but is rather your own assumption, which I think is the result of you working backwards from your conclusion.

Turned off after 30 minutes, terrible

Specifically violence against women*. If you missed the glaring fact that this is about modern Korean women's oppression, you have no right to create an analysis...

please, this is just a horrible movie.