Burning is one of those movies where you realise the movie’s impact on you after a couple of days later. You really summed it up all well in this video essay, which is unarguably one of the best video essays I’d say.
One interesting thing of note is that Ben's cat is seen being quite comfortable sleeping in one of his friend's arms while his new girlfriend talks about the Chinese, despite us knowing that Boil has "severe autism" and is extremely shy of strangers. It's not a mistake by the director, which kinda pisses me off cause now I can't convince myself without a doubt that Ben did it.
Great point. I forgot by the end of the film that Hae-mi mentioned that her cat was shy of strangers. Very seemingly unimportant line until you get to the end where Boil coming to Jong-Su essentially gives him carte blanche to kill Ben. So much ambiguity in this film, I absolutely love it.
I have a defense for the movies runtime and pacing IMO. A lot of people said it was boring or a waste of time, but I think that aspect of it is a big part of what makes the themes of ambiguity and frustration so apparent. Spending time with Jong-Su in his everyday while he dwells on his circumstance puts us in his shoes. While he wanders and mulls, we cant help but pick apart every detail and ponder every little aspect of the environment and scenes, just like Jon-Su is. It encourages the sense of being stuck in your own head and forces the fervor of staying awake at night dwelling like Jong-Su likely had been doing. It makes every "aha" moment much much more poignant. Without so much dead space and dead ends, moments like finding the watch and "Boil" would be easier to dismiss as coincidence, we wouldnt be as swept up by a new clue without scarcity. Anyways this was an amazing review and added to the discussion pretty well. I've been making my rounds in reviews and analysis for this film and this one managed to stick out, still.
The metaphor of the greenhouse - an enclosed space that cultivates in an "unnatural" way, the growing of something outside of its normal/conditioned environment - as Ben's ambiguous victims was perfect.
Ben's metaphor with the Greenhouse wasn't a metaphor to represent his dark hobby his whole life. He only came up with it after seeing the greenhouses he lives near in representing the women he "burns" as in murder. And knowing that Hae-mi was his neighbor makes the line "burning greenhouses" a lot more sense.
Late to the party but this was my takeaway too. The part that convinced me is when talked about Hae-mi in the past tense saying how trusted the MC was. Once the main character was cut from her life she truly became abandoned and so burned. The other girl too was someone isolated and likely traveling alone. Ben says it best when he says people are lonelier than you think. Lastly, even when Hae-mi was a child she was alone. The well represents that loneliness in a way where the MC was the only person to find her despite her family being so close. Nobody even knew about the well except the mother who abandoned the MC
It’s crazy, that movie didn’t let me go even 5 years after seeing it for the first time. It touches me on so many different levels. I just love it! And your essay too. Captures the mood of the movie perfectly.
i am outraged your channel hasn't blown up, this was an absolutely stunning analysis of this film, one of my absolute favourites. in fact i think you have managed to encapsulate an understanding of this film few have. this was beautifully presented. please keep making videos
Kill her? I had assumed he sold women as sex slaves. Then the point of the movie where his friends talk about Chinese men treating their women well, I felt like that confirmed my susposion.
I thought he killed her too but this interpretation makes more sense. I like how it never gives you a clear answer. Also makes it much more tragic that Jong-Su's last words to Haemi were comparing her to a prostitute
What an amazing interpretation of this masterpiece of a movie. Burning moved me so much that I couldn‘t sleep for days thinking about the deeper meanings of this metaphor: burning. I eventually found my personal understanding of the movie but only after seeing this video, I finally felt like I could really understand what I so desperately tried to put in words in my mind. You managed to give my thoughts about this „great hunger“ the structure I searched and I am so thankful for that. You are amazing :)
I had to watch this film multiple times to truly grasp the full meaning. Plus its one of those films that give you deeper understanding about some of the concepts the more you rewatch.
Hi, I just discovered your channel by chance (because I re-watched Burning with my girlfriend yesterday and I was looking for an interesting review) and I want to congratulate you on the extreme quality of the video. I really liked both the graphic style and the division into 'thematic chapters'. I also agree with your interpretation which is similar to mine in many respects but you also gave me new insights such as the reference to Schrodinger's cat which I had not picked up on. Congratulations again and I wish you a bigger audience, which you deserve for the level of your content!
Hey man, your channel is so SO underrated, I'm so glad i chanced upon your gem of a channel. Really love the quality of your video essays, and the range of cinema you cover! Please keep up the good work, looking forward to seeing your growth :)
Love this movie for some reason. I always come back to it somehow every year or two. Very... I don't know. Feels very real and not contrived. Slow and meaningful? Leaves a deep impression for some reason.
I think the latter half of this movie is most interesting when viewed with the question what would you do? What would you do if you had nothing and the most important person in your life disappeared without a trace? All while one of the people closest to them expressed sociopathic traits, had overwhelming circumstantial evidence stacked in favor of their guilt and so many resources that even if you went to the cops with bulletproof evidence he would still get off? If Jong-su had more resources he would have had the opportunity to take a real crack at determining ben's guilt through proper channels. But with the chasm between their classes his choices were reduced to, take radical action or ignore the suspision and continue with a life devoid of meaning with a pit of shame for his inaction perpetually weighing him down. I can't honestly say i would have done anything different. Even if i would have, it wouldnt have been due to caution, it would have been due to cowardice.
I think a big question in the film is also if he's framing Ben's activity as sociopathic because he needs him to be a villain instead of just an entitled rich guy, to quell his own class envy.
Doesn't really matter since it's a fantasy. Everything after a certain point there is only part of the book’s fictional story. While in reality, Hae-mi just left, Jung-su tries to give her disappearance a reason in his book - Ben. While Ben is a cultured, wealthy guy, the novel presents a dark side by making him a serial killer. Everything from finding Hae-mi’s watch in Ben’s bathroom, to confirming the cat to be Boiler, to killing and burning Ben is part of the story in the novel.
@@OddGentleman what is with this elaborate stupid common view on this movie that the MC is just "writing the book", what's the point of all of this if it's all made up, and only reason people like you come up with this, is because the MC just happens to be a writer? Every story should avoid having an MC with a writer as occupation then.
I'm very confident in my theory that Ben knows the best tripe place in town, Greenhouses being made to grow food inside a structure and Hae-mi's mother referencing selling an organ talking about debts can't be a coincidence. Ben sees the poor and to him ugly or quant women as existences that life burns through. He sees this as nature. And him burning greenhouses is of course clearly depicted as destroying women. Then, there's his trophy box, and his desire to prep them before he kills them (Hae-me suddenly has a breast enlargement, she looks more kept and he even make-ups the other woman). In the end, Ben sees himself as a god, and he himself is what the world sacrifices towards. These women are his offerings.
He could also be a pimp as well. If you consider other reasons why Hea-mi had to be sexualized before dissapearing, as you pointed out, it could also point to sex slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution. He never mentioned how he became rich or maintains his lifestyle but he sure 'collects' women (and their trinklets) before they go missing. But that's the strength of the film anyways - ambiguity, done much more better than the short story it's based on (imo).
Yeah it's really hard to argue the film is ambiguous as people want to say. Especially since their points seem to start and stop at "well that's from a certain point of view" The guy is called a Great Gatsby and is never shown working. It's clear he's selling organs, both because of the money as well as his own sick enjoyment at killing people. His friends are likely in a similar vein considering the "potluck" line. I just struggle to see how this wasn't a rich psycho killing lonely girls and selling their organs
@@Malthizar Ambiguity as in we know he's doing something bad but don't know exactly what it is. Steven Yeun (the actor who played the role) said Lee Chang-dong (the director) told him to have his own internal interpretation of Ben's crimes or non- crimes and act that out. So yes, we don't really know, not even the director knows. Only Steven knows what outcome he chose because he never discloses it. There's also the fact that Jong-Su was writing a novel about the events so we are also seeing Ben through Jong-Su's perspective. How much of it is fiction and how much is real is also up to discussion. Only thing we know is that Jong-Su believes Ben a killer, and already casted him as an 'other' as soon as they met thanks to his wealth and status. He could be right, he could be wrong. These are some of the ambiguities and as I said, it makes the film more interesting and open to debate, not just one interpretation. The film was purposely created that way, to be an open ended metaphor not a precise narrative.
I drank almost an entire bottle of wine by myself during this film, and my mind is a little foggy but I just can't seem to understand. Maybe I shouldn't try to understand right now. But after this movie and this video essay, all I feel is sadness and emptiness.
This is great, and I agree. The point is not "did he" or "didn't he", it's in the irreducible gap between the two; it's in Jongsu making a decision about which it is with all of his limited and certain and anxious subjectivity, and needing to fill the gap (whether you think the end is real or Jongsu's solution as a writer) to relieve himself of the uncertainty. I think Chang Dong's handling of the Schroedinger's Cat metaphor is particularly apt; in binary logic, the cat is either the killer or not the killer, but there are also quantum states in between where the cat is partially the killer and partially not, and the viewer is left in a state of narrative superposition. My favorite conclusion is to precisely not collapse the narrative into one option or the other, but a lot of viewers insist on the binary logic.
I still see Jong Su as a hero and I think this is the way he should be seen. He embodies the honesty, the truth and justice seeking nature of the working class being humiliated by the display of nonchalance and arrogance of the rich. The killing of Ben is metaphorical, Jong Su did what he had to do, it was his way of taking action, Hae-Mi was just an innocent sheep, she couldn’t necessarily figure things out for herself but she fell as a victim to a society that gives you false promises just like many other non-privileged people. Ben and people like him eat out or burn (if you wanna see it this way) people like Hae-Mi and Jong Su and this is exactly how he and his class maintain its position. Idk most probably this is not a canonical or accurate interpretation but it is the one that I want and find useful to take from the film. In some elements it reminds me of Taxi Driver (traumatized protagonist driven by an honest sense of justice, not knowing exactly what to do and being overwhelmed by the corruption and absurdity of the reality around him) but with a clear anti-capitalist tone and a non-Hollywood ending.
You completely missed the point of this movie if you think Jong Su is the hero. The film revolves around his inconsistent viewpoint. Hae-Mi wasn’t a helpless woman. She took a week long trip to a foreign country in order to find herself. She has her own place, a job and confidently made her own decisions in life. Jong Su doesn’t actually care about Hae-Mi. He masturbates in her apartment multiple times. Practically has zero conversation with her after her trip. Watches her have an emotional breakthrough after watching her perform the dance she learned in Africa and the only thing he has to say is that she looks like a whore. The only time he thinks about her he’s imagining her jerking him off. She’s an object to be had in his mind and nothing else. The class disparity between him and Ben is clearly the driving force for the murder. Ben is absolutely nonchalant and arrogant, but Jong-Su just hides his flaws whereas Ben flaunts them. If this is a metaphor for anything, it’s how most working class people place the blame for the bad things in their lives on the wealthy and elite, when most of their problems (Like Jong-Su) lie within themselves.
I think the movie was far more simple. Its about a girl who doesnt know what she is doing mainly because she never wanted to know herself. Prefering to dramatize in some stories of people somewhere else. That explains all the acting she does. Focused on the external and never trully being aware/awake. Thats for most people of course. The main character is basically the same but he also tries to do "the right thing". Ben is another creature, he is calm and collected only because he is "rich".
Burning has maybe replaced Oldboy as my favorite Korean film of all time. And that is truly saying something, as Oldboy had also been my favorite movie overall.
and to Jong-su it could've felt like a provocation..at least it did to me. But it also made me question everything for a split second...even the way Ben looked at Jong-su before and after the final stab..hmm
I couldnt care less about Haemi, she was really cold, heartless and selfish for leading on Jongsu then just keeps driving into the sunset with Ben in front of him
Ben is a sociopath. It is clear from the beginning. He says that he doesn't feel pain or that he has never cried. He no have interes in others. He only want to Jong -Su write about him, to live in his books. He always chooses poor, frivolous girls who will not be missed by anyone...
Even though I can't know for a technical absolute fact, I am overwhelmingly convinced that he did it, for some good reasons and a seriously condemning one. The most overwhelming is that Ben himself said on multiple occasions that he did burn a green house down, and made multiple implications of the murder. He says "maybe you were too close to see it" if my memory is correct, and that he did it close to the house and two days after he visited the protagonists house. We know that there was no greenhouse that burnt down, and considering the watch, the stash of items he almost certainly takes away from every girl, the fact that he admitted to doing things like this habitually, the fact that the make up is next to the stash of stolen girls items and that makeup and cremation are so similar in Korean, the likelihood that he has self admitted characteristics of a psychopath, ( doesn't cry, doesn't appear to show empathy in any way), and his belief that he will never get caught, ( classic serial killer narcissism) all relative to his heavy implications around the burning of the "greenhouse", I would feel one hundred percent certain of killing him as well. That being said, I think the video misses the mark on the uncertainty around ben being the killer and the audience making a conclusion about it, though I do think it has a lot to do with uncertainty in general. The character is uncertain in general, he doesn't know what to say most of the time, he doesn't know how to comfort her, even though he clearly cares and has sympathy. There is a strong disconnect between the protagonist and the woman, a type of suffering born from his social confusion, I'm not sure what to make of the themes yet myself, but I thought this movie was incredible
I'd say it's more implied that he's a sex trafficker, than a murderer - the collection of jewellery, putting the makeup on another woman, the group of friends that take her out and groom her, almost like a clockwork routine. It's all classic trafficker behaviour. When he says he enjoys "burning greenhouses", I've interpreted it more that he enjoys destroying women so that they are a husk of themselves, and stripping them down to nothing - not killing them. But that's the genius - it's a mystery, and it's up for interpretation.
Toward the end of the film, Ben arrives expecting to see Hae-mi. Afterall, Jong-su told Ben that he (Jong-su) was with Hae-mi. If you've already made up your mind that Ben murdered her, then this won't matter. However, I don't think we are really supposed to know if Ben killed her or not. I haven't seen any film analysis that mentions this.
Ben said he burns once every 2 months, and at Jongsu house he said its almost time, then later confirms he did the burning a day or 2 after leaving the house. that was the last time Jongsu seen or talked to her so I would reckon Ben definitely either sells her or kills and sells body parts. He says there's lots of useless greenhouses which I reckon he just means 'girls' and he cant help but burn them down for fun. Fun and business is same to him. SO he definitely deserves being killed at the end because he certainly did something bad to Haemi. Haemi kinda also had it coming she was too naive and used Jongsu for her pleasures at the same time was so cold to keep driving away to the sunset in Ben's Porche right in front of Jongsu. I couldnt believe she asked Jongsu to come all the way to the airport just to leave with Ben, heartless and useless like Ben said so maybe I side with Ben lol
I somehow get it, on my personal thought i think that Ben burnt Hei-mie, so when Jong-su keep on checking abt the burned greenhouse he couldn't find a trace, not sure if Ben get jelous on Jong-su or Hei-mi as accdg to Hei-mi he always wants to see Jong-su, i just dont get the fact why did Hei-mi lied about having a cat and the well, can somebody pls. answer this?
It says a lot of things about hae-mi. She is unreliable. Like that time when she said she fell into a well when jung-soo saved her. But no remembers about the well at all
I think you mixed up the words proof and evidence. Evidence is the cat coming to the name boil. Proof would be undeniable evidence that the cat is boil
Tbh I didn't love it, I had to watch it in parts because I expected some action, not like great dinámica, just something to go somewhere, I couldn't put myself on the protagonist skin, he treated the girl so Bad, I love your review opened my eyes to what was going on.
I think Hae-mi was a negative character. Hae-mi was an adult girl and quite a disloyal one. She left Jong-su for the rich guy Ben. She didn't really cared for hurting Jong-su feelings. She was dumb enough to not even doubt for a moment that why would such a rich guy like Ben hang out with a girl like her, when he has so many options among the rich girls of his own class. If you think about it, Hae-mi was quite a negative character. Eventually, she paid the paid the price for her disloyalty and wrong decisions.
@@McFlashh It's not about going after a girl's wealth, it's about social class. Wealthy people have a specific high class standard of living. So when a rich guy, ignoring other girls of his own class, goes after a financially weak girl, this is in most cases a red flag. Because the rich guy may just be using her without any intention of marrying her.
@@rameeziqbal8711 This is false. I have met rich guys, and they don't necessarily care about a female's social class. They want two things in a woman: good looks and modesty. Now, upper class females generally are more modest, but it doesn't mean that lower class females aren't. At the end of the day, this is just a movie - it's not real.
@@McFlashh This will be a disastrous situation. You want rich guys to end up with middle class And lower class women. Then what of middle class and lower class men??? You wanna discriminate against them? You want them to spend frustrated lives without a partner??? How can they compete with wealthy men going after the women of their own class. No woman would choose them.
I think it's unfair to call her disloyal, as if she owed jongsu anything. They weren't a couple, and she even tells him that jongsu used to call her ugly when they were kids. They had sex one time. It was pretty boring and non-romantic sex. They were NOT boyfriend and girlfriend... but people think b/c jongsu was obsessed with her and b/c they had sex, that hae-mi belongs to him? No.
I've listened to a few analysis's and I seem to have a pretty different take than most people. I think Ben is clearly has feelings for Jong-su. Jong-su is confused and upset by the the strange way Ben is trying to pull him in. Jong-su understands nothing, is confused and adrift in his own returning desire for Ben. He feels this desire taints his own feelings to Hae-mi, making him angry and ashamed and puts all these negative feelings towards Ben. Jong-su looks for a sin, a reason to hate Ben. There are negative things there to see about Ben when he looks: he's wealthy and arrogant, he can possess things he doesn't even want, and he admits to callously doing harm in the world for no reason other than personal pleasure. Then Hae-mi disappears and Jong-su immediately assumes Ben took her from him. Finally, having solved the mystery of Ben, Jong-su expresses his obsession by murdering Ben. Ben is scared, but in the end accepts it as an expression of Jong-su's feelings for him and embraces Jong-su before dying. It's why the finale is so sexual, so angry and followed by a pretty clear shame.
your take is definitely interesting! i want to know more about it. do you mind explaining how jong-su and ben have feelings for one another? i understood ben to be someone who manipulates women into liking him, to build a sense of trust, before he sells them. since he said how business and pleasure are the same to him.
It's really not clear that she was. It's almost implied that she was trafficked, more than murdered - the clues suggest Ben's a sex trafficker. But the mystery was the point.
Wee bit pretentious but ok. Essentially, your argument is the story gives us a problem, gives us glaringly obvious clues to said problem, and then punishes us because we tried to solve it. That makes zero sense and seems more like something a random guy on RU-vid _wanted_ the creator's message to be but couldn't cite any counter points to make the question actually ambiguous.
Ultimately it's why I make the Coen brothers comparison right at the start. Their films are built around giving you 1+1 and letting you make 2. I think that as you say, it's glaringly obvious that Lee Chang Dong is doing the same, except unlike the Coen's, his 2 isn't answered. I think ultimately that raises the question, was it 1+1=2, or was it something else, and we like Jong'Su sought out a satisfying ending, and supported murder, when really the morale of the tale is the danger of assumption. I think that makes perfect sense, and again like I said, isn't the entire purpose of the film, but a building block which creates tension and drives the narrative forward. This video could easily be remade a few times, commenting on enviromentalism or his scathing commentary of classism in South Korea. I'm not particuarly arguing against anyone here, I'm just talking about my persepctive, there is no right or wrong in film, and so I don't feel the need to give a counter-argument, but I do mention other interpretations that can be taken. As for sounding a bit pretentious, I'm from Southern England, I've heard it all my life.
Yeah that's my biggest gripe. I see what it's trying to do, but it's just so dead, energy-wise. The whole movie is constantly flat-lining. Sure, it was meant to be open ended and expects the viewer to come up with their own answers, but at the cost of sitting through a 2.5 hour movie where nothing really happens until the most anemic climax I've seen in a while, the stabbing scene. Idk, it felt like one of those movies that was kind of up its own ass for the sake of being "meaningful" and artsy while being boring throughout the whole process.
@@Cristyface its so interesting how some people get that from this film but different things from others. ive had this reaction to a lot of artsy, slow burn, pretentious films and really resented how they had wasted my time after. and after watching burning i initially felt the exact same, irritated that it made me sit through 2 and a half hours of something pointless. i didnt even get what the film was about. so i decided to just move on and forget about it. but then some weeks later i realised it still wouldnt leave my mind, i couldnt stop thinking about it, it had left me in a funny trance like state, so i began to ponder on it further and the best way i can explain its meaning is through this video essay to be honest, it really encapsulates a lot of the depth in the film. i still understand why some people may get nothing out of this film, it's extremely unique, it's weird, you have to be in the right headspace to watch it. but it has the potential to surprise you to be honest
@@noms341 I respect that, definitely. It's just that for me, even with this video essay, it feels like a waste of time. To need to dissect this far and then have so many open questions without anything of true value or interest happening in this film means it was pretentious to begin with, at least in my opinion. The actors did great jobs and I appreciate they tried to do something different, but man, was it dull and moved along at a snail's pace.
@@noms341 Honestly I had the same experience, I try not to make videos about things unless it really connects with me, or someone hasn't really talked about it before, and Burning left me feeling extremely flat, like my time had been wasted, until a couple of days later when I realised all I'd done was think about it in my quiet moments!
So much reaching and projecting... The movie really wasn't about much... But I guess you were able to project your own personal issues and personal agenda then I guess it works for you. But nothing is more pretentious than to say the meaning of something is the lack of meaning hahaha ok fortune cookie master... Stick to your day job of writing for fortune cookies and Hallmark cards.
@@screen4646 your analysis is so amateur... It's like saying the taste of that $100 hamburger is that it has no taste.... It's like saying the point of banksys Art is that there is no art.... The beauty of a Van Gogh painting is that there is no beauty... It's complete nonsense and it's faux intellectual... It's not deep and it's utter stupidity.... Hey maybe your analysis is actually really deep.... Your whole analysis that you don't have any ANALYSIS.... Whoa am I as deep as you now?
