Parasite

In dealing with popular genres, Parasite is more perfidious than the crime film Memories of Murder, the monster movie The Host and the postapocalyptic sci-fi flick Snowpiercer. Its narrative is not pieced together by conventions of a single genre that Bong would modify or refuse to comply with. Rather, it changes solely based on how the characters see and react to certain situations. Unlike in ordinary genre films, evil is not concentrated in a particular monster or villain, but manifests itself in the actions to which the protagonists resort in an effort to gain and maintain a certain social status. Predatory capitalism is the real antagonist. In the film, it is an invisible force that strengthens people’s desire to live someone else’s life. ___ The entire plot is derived from a particular social reality and the relationships between members of various classes of society, who are trying to game the system or defend the positions that they have achieved. Due to the rules that have been put in place, however, it is not possible to do either fairly. Reaching the top requires self-denial and crossing numerous boundaries. Disrespecting and breaching those boundaries comprise the dominant formal strategy and the film’s central metaphor. The rich live thanks to the hard work, blood and sweat of the poor, while the poor parasitise those who live in even deeper poverty in order to scratch out a living. They simultaneously need and hate each other. The space of clearly defined boundaries, the crossing of which will have unfortunate consequences, is an expansive modern house which from the outside represents a dream space for the protagonists. Its location on a hill contrasts with the central quartet’s modest home crouching below street level. Although the claustrophobically cramped interiors contribute to the fact that the destitute family sticks together more, they offer incomparably less comfort than the spacious rooms of the villa, whose inhabitants are spatially and emotionally more distant. ___ Though Parasite verges on farse through most of its runtime, in the end we perceive most of the characters rather as tragic victims of social stratification and economic injustice. The protagonists’ successes no longer bring comic catharsis, but vacillation as to whether the denial of one’s own individuality can be legitimised by the effort to maintain one’s position in the system. Amusement alternates with worries, compassion and a sense of injustice. Bong achieves this by altering the rhythm of the narrative and through skilful changes of perspective that redirect our sympathies. In the end, the tones of the individual characters’ stories are so incompatible that a reversal occurs and instead of a mere game of conquering the Wild West, there is a real and bloody breaking down of the boundaries between fiction and reality, civilisation and wilderness. The film involves not only a clash of different classes and ways of relating to the world, but also a blending of horror, black comedy and melodrama. The mastery with which Bong combines these seemingly incongruent elements into a consistently entertaining whole, in which every cut and movement of the camera is calculated with Hitchcockian precision, offers the most convincing argument against doubts as to whether a similarly “viewer-friendly” film deserved the Palme d’Or at Cannes. 90% (15.01.2021) (vähemmän) (lisää)